Politics > Politics-USA > The First Rule of Fascism, Keep 'Em Stupid Re: Oh, The Irony. Re: That Shitty Little Country ...
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"http://www.infowars.com/" |
| Date: |
16 Aug 2006 12:18:33 AM |
| Object: |
The First Rule of Fascism, Keep 'Em Stupid Re: Oh, The Irony. Re: That Shitty Little Country ... |
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:30:30 -0400, America the Beautiful
<LiBassbug@Yawho.com> wrote:
http://www.infowars.com/ wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:31:42 -0400, America the Beautiful
<LiBassbug@Yawho.com> wrote:
http://www.infowars.com/ wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:20:42 GMT, Larry in AZ
<usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, "http://www.infowars.com/" <truth@r.us>
said:
Well, I wouldn't exactly call it weaponry.
That's what you did, you douchebag...
you have an uncanny way to reducing everything to *****-think
have you realized this?
Maybe because he's trying to speak to you in a way you'd understand.
It only works for ***** heads.
Maybe he's trying to speak to you in a way you'd understand.
Ah, a product of American 'ingenuity'.
Good thing intelligence doesn't speak your language.
.
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: The First Rule of Fascism, Keep 'Em Stupid Re: Oh, The Irony. Re: That Shitty Little Country ... |
16 Aug 2006 02:14:01 PM |
|
|
Here are parts of a post about Mussolini written by a very
anti-Mussolini person. He has done his homework though and cites many
books which are also anti-Mussolini and anti-Fascist. These are some
things they admit:
"He had a profound contempt for those whose overriding ambition was to
be rich. It was a mania, he thought, a kind of disease, and he
comforted himself with the reflection that the rich were rarely happy"
Here Hibbert (1962, p. 47) is describing a lifelong attitude of
Mussolini that continued right into his time as Italy's Prime Minister
- when he refused to take his official salary.
"There was much truth in the comment of a Rome newspaper that the new
fasci did not aim at the defence of the ruling class or the existing
State but wanted to lead the revolutionary forces into the Nationalist
camp so as to prevent a victory of Bolshevism.
even after coming to power, to take drives in the country with his
wife and stop at various
farmhouses on the way for a chat with the family there. He would enjoy
discussing the crops, the weather and all the usual rural topics and
obviously just liked the feeling of being one of the people. His claim
to represent the people was not just theory but heartfelt. And he
never gave up his "anti-bourgeois" rhetoric.
His policies were basically protectionist. He controlled the
exchange-rate of the Italian currency and promoted that old favourite
of the economically illiterate - autarky - meaning that he tried to
get Italy to become wholly self-sufficient rather than rely on foreign
trade. He wanted to protect Italian products from competing foreign
products.
By 1939 he had doubled Italy's grain production from its traditional
level, enabling Italy to cut wheat imports by 75% (Smith, 1967, p.
92).
He made Capri a bird sanctuary (Smith, 1967, p. 84) and in 1926 he
issued a decree reducing the size of newspapers to save wood pulp.
And, believe it or not, he even mandated gasohol - i.e. mixing
industrial alcohol with petroleum products to make fuel for cars
(Smith, 1967, p. 87). Mussolini also disliked the population drift
from rural areas
into the big cities and in 1930 passed a law to put a stop to it
unless official permission was granted
he advocated private enterprise within a strict set of State controls
designed, among other things, to prevent abuse of monopoly power
(Gregor, 1979, Ch. 5).
....a big expansion of public works and a great improvement in social
insurance measures. He also set up the "Dopolavoro" (after work)
organization to give workers cheap recreations of various kinds (cf.
the Nazi Kraft durch Freude movement). His public health measures
(such as the attack on tuberculosis and the setting up of a huge
maternal and child welfare organization) were particularly notable for
their rationality and fficiency and, as such, were rewarded with great
success. For instance, the incidence of uberculosis
dropped dramatically and infant mortality declined by more than 20%
(Gregor, p. 259).
"instituted a programme of public works hitherto unrivalled in modern
Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools,
railway stations and orphanages, swamps were drained and land
reclaimed, forest were planted and universities were endowed."
In 1929 Mussolini and Pope Pius 12th signed the Lateran treaty -
which is still the legal basis for the existence of the Vatican State
to this day - and Pius in fact at one stage
called Mussolini "the man sent by Providence". The treaty recognized
Roman Catholicism as the Italian State religion as well as recognizing
the Vatican as a sovereign state. What Mussolini got in exchange was
acceptance by the church - something that was enormously important in
the Italy of that time.
the great hatred that existed in prewar Germany between the Nazis and
the "Reds". And the early Fascists battled the "Reds" too, of course.
The 1919 election manifesto, for instance, contained policies of
worker control of industry, confiscation of war profits, abolition of
the Stock exchange, land for the
peasants and abolition of the Monarchy and nobility. Further,
Mussolini never ceased to inveigh against "plutocrats".
He wanted a harmonious and united Italy for all Italians of all
classes and was sure that achieving just treatment for the workers
needed neither revolution nor any kind of
artificially enforced equality.
This made Italian Fascism a much more popular creed than Stalin's
Communism. This is perhaps most clearly seen by the always persuasive
"voting with your feet" criterion. Mussolini made no effort to prevent
Italians from emigrating and although some anti-Fascists did, net
emigration actually FELL under Mussolini. Compare this with Stalin and
the Berlin wall.
Mussolini gained power through political rather than revolutionary
means. His famous march on Rome was only superficially revolutionary.
The King of Italy and the army
approved of him because of his pragmatic policies so did not oppose
the march. So this collusion ensured that Mussolini's "revolution" was
essentially bloodless.
His considerable popularity for many years among a wide range of
Italians shows how effective his recipe for achieving that was.
In his "corporate state", Mussolini was the first to create ...a
system of capitalism under tight government control. And his corporate
state was one where the workers had (at least in theory) equal rights
with management.
REFERENCES Amis, M. (2002) Koba the Dread : laughter and the twenty
million.
N.Y.: Talk Miramax
Carsten, F.L. (1967) The rise of Fascism. London: Methuen.
Funk & Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1983) Funk & Wagnall's
Galbraith, J.K. (1969) The affluent society. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Gilmour, I.H.J.L. (1978) Inside right. London: Quartet.
Greene, N. (1968) Fascism: An anthology. N.Y.: Crowell.
Gregor, A.J. (1979) Italian Fascism and developmental dictatorship
Princeton, N.J.: Univ. Press.
Hagan, J. (1966) Modern History and its themes. Croydon, Victoria,
Australia: Longmans.
Hibbert, C. (1962) Benito Mussolini Geneva: Heron Books. Herzer, I.
(1989)
The Italian refuge: Rescue of Jews during the holocaust. Washington,
D.C.:
Catholic University of America Press
Horowitz, D. (1998) Up from multiculturalism. Heterodoxy, January.
See:
http://www.cspc.org/het/multicul.htm
Lenin, V.I. (1952) "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder. In:
Selected Works, Vol. II, Part 2. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House.
Martino, A. (1998) The modern mask of socialism. 15th John Bonython
lecture,
Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney. See
http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL98.htm
Muravchik, J. (2002) Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism
San
Francisco: Encounter Books.
Smith, D.M. (1967) The theory and practice of Fascism. In: Greene, N.
Fascism: An anthology N.Y.: Crowell.
Steinberg, J. (1990) All or nothing: The Axis and the holocaust
London:
Routledge.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "America the Beautiful" |
|
| Title: How the rest of the world views the great ol' US of A. |
19 Aug 2006 08:23:08 AM |
|
|
We rarely get a chance to see another country's editorial about the USA
Read this excerpt from a Romanian Newspaper. The article was written by
Mr. Cornel Nistorescu and published under the title "C"ntarea Americii,
meaning "Ode To America ") in the Romanian newspaper Evenimentulzilei
"The Daily Event" or "News of the Day."
~An Ode to America ~
Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another even
if you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of the
world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious
beliefs. Still, the American tragedy turned three hundred million
people into a hand put on the heart.
Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the army, and the secret
services that they are only a bunch of losers. Nobody rushed to empty
their bank accounts. Nobody rushed out onto the streets nearby to gape
about. The Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping
hand.
After the first moments of panic, they raised their flag over the
smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the
national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every
place and on every car a government official or the president was passing.
On every occasion, they started singing their traditional song:
"God Bless America !" I watched the live broadcast and rerun after
rerun for hours listening to the story of the guy who went d own one
hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was,
or of the Californian hockey player, who gave his life fighting with the
terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that could have
killed other hundreds or thousands of people.
How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being?
Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some
turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call,
millions and millions of dollars were put in a collection aimed at
rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy.
What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way? Their land? Their
galloping history? Their economic Power? Money? I tried for hours to
find an answer, humming songs, and murmuring phrases with the risk of
sounding commonplace.
I thought things over, but I reached only one conclusion.
Only freedom can work such miracles.
Cornel Nistorescu
--
Chris Fleitman
Long Island
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: moronic propaganda... |
19 Aug 2006 09:14:40 AM |
|
|
America the Beautiful schrieb:
We rarely get a chance to see another country's editorial about the USA
Read this excerpt from a Romanian Newspaper. The article was written by
Mr. Cornel Nistorescu and published under the title "C"ntarea Americii,
meaning "Ode To America ") in the Romanian newspaper Evenimentulzilei
"The Daily Event" or "News of the Day."
~An Ode to America ~
Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another even
if you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of the
world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious
beliefs. Still, the American tragedy turned three hundred million
people into a hand put on the heart.
Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the army, and the secret
services that they are only a bunch of losers. Nobody rushed to empty
their bank accounts. Nobody rushed out onto the streets nearby to gape
about. The Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping
hand.
After the first moments of panic, they raised their flag over the
smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the
national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every
place and on every car a government official or the president was passing.
On every occasion, they started singing their traditional song:
"God Bless America !" I watched the live broadcast and rerun after
rerun for hours listening to the story of the guy who went d own one
hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was,
or of the Californian hockey player, who gave his life fighting with the
terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that could have
killed other hundreds or thousands of people.
How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being?
Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some
turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call,
millions and millions of dollars were put in a collection aimed at
rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy.
What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way? Their land? Their
galloping history? Their economic Power? Money? I tried for hours to
find an answer, humming songs, and murmuring phrases with the risk of
sounding commonplace.
I thought things over, but I reached only one conclusion.
Only freedom can work such miracles.
Cornel Nistorescu
When your only experience in life is living under Caucescu, no surprise
you come up with that nonsense. When your mere daily existence is a
challenge, even the worse slums of the USA seem attractive...
Why don't you come with editorials from, say, Germany, Canada, France,
England, Italy or Spain? You'd probably get a totally different
picture... yet more accurate.
--
Chris Fleitman
Long Island
.
|
|
|
| User: "http://www.infowars.com/" |
|
| Title: Re: moronic propaganda... |
19 Aug 2006 12:41:51 PM |
|
|
On 19 Aug 2006 07:14:40 -0700, "Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com>
wrote:
America the Beautiful schrieb:
We rarely get a chance to see another country's editorial about the USA
Read this excerpt from a Romanian Newspaper. The article was written by
Mr. Cornel Nistorescu and published under the title "C"ntarea Americii,
meaning "Ode To America ") in the Romanian newspaper Evenimentulzilei
"The Daily Event" or "News of the Day."
~An Ode to America ~
Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another even
if you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of the
world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious
beliefs. Still, the American tragedy turned three hundred million
people into a hand put on the heart.
Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the army, and the secret
services that they are only a bunch of losers. Nobody rushed to empty
their bank accounts. Nobody rushed out onto the streets nearby to gape
about. The Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping
hand.
After the first moments of panic, they raised their flag over the
smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the
national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every
place and on every car a government official or the president was passing.
On every occasion, they started singing their traditional song:
"God Bless America !" I watched the live broadcast and rerun after
rerun for hours listening to the story of the guy who went d own one
hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was,
or of the Californian hockey player, who gave his life fighting with the
terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that could have
killed other hundreds or thousands of people.
How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being?
Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some
turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call,
millions and millions of dollars were put in a collection aimed at
rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy.
What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way? Their land? Their
galloping history? Their economic Power? Money? I tried for hours to
find an answer, humming songs, and murmuring phrases with the risk of
sounding commonplace.
I thought things over, but I reached only one conclusion.
Only freedom can work such miracles.
Cornel Nistorescu
When your only experience in life is living under Caucescu, no surprise
you come up with that nonsense. When your mere daily existence is a
challenge, even the worse slums of the USA seem attractive...
Why don't you come with editorials from, say, Germany, Canada, France,
England, Italy or Spain? You'd probably get a totally different
picture... yet more accurate.
It seems the NSA doesn't get a clear picture of itself unless it asks.
And then when told they have a hissy fit.
--
Chris Fleitman
Long Island
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "http://www.infowars.com/" |
|
| Title: Rove: The Complete Moron Re: How the rest of the world views the great ol' US of A. |
19 Aug 2006 12:04:58 PM |
|
|
On 19 Aug 2006 15:00:30 -0000, (Hagar)
wrote:
In article <2hEFg.187$5k7.93@newsfe09.lga>
America the Beautiful <LiBassbug@Yawho.com> wrote:
We rarely get a chance to see another country's editorial
about the USA
Read this excerpt from a Romanian Newspaper. The article was
written by
Mr. Cornel Nistorescu and published under the title "C"ntarea
Americii,
meaning "Ode To America ") in the Romanian newspaper
Evenimentulzilei
"The Daily Event" or "News of the Day."
~An Ode to America ~
Why are Americans so united?
Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the army, and the
secret
services that they are only a bunch of losers.
What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way? Their
land? Their
galloping history? Their economic Power? Money? I tried for
hours to
find an answer, humming songs, and murmuring phrases with the
risk of
sounding commonplace.
I thought things over, but I reached only one conclusion.
Only freedom can work such miracles.
Cornel Nistorescu
This advertisement was paid for by the taxpayers of the USA,
courtesy of the Karl Rove propaganda office.
Well sure, it's not as if Rove et Rothschild give a ***** about human
survival. Rove is being paid to kill off as many people as possible, mucho
pronto. While waving the American flag and thumping a Bible for 8 bankers
in Europe who are so insane, they actually believe they can kill off the
world population and still be the Gods of Earth.
That's why Americans are hopelessly tied to a system which requires they
kill themselves for money, while being brainwashed into a stupor believing
that killing themselves for money is a miracle of freedom.
Rove is a complete imbecile while groveling at the feet of 8 idiots who want
to control a dead world, would happily sell his children into prostitution
for unconscious criminals who prey on anything living in order to keep their
monetary system afloat.
Now tell us all, is there anything more mind-numblingly-stupid than that?
No, of course not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: How the rest of the world views the great ol' US of A. |
19 Aug 2006 09:59:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 09:23:08 -0400, America the Beautiful
<LiBassbug@Yawho.com> wrote:
Why are Americans so united?
America is ruled by Jews who hate the White race, especially White
men. Any White man who supports the USA government is a traitor.
This is what this sick country stands for:
The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA
conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American
University
Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where
does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have
to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they
think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word
denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or
homophobic.
We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this
has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of
pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as
so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they
would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this
situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses,
but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come
from? What is it?
We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something
of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of
it as only half-serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great
disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of
people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world.
It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we
quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural
Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.
It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and
the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic
tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels
are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian
nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than
on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered
North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross
any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-
rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the
other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find
themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the
college, they face formal charges - some star-chamber proceeding - and
punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political
Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an
ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not
an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this
philosophy certain things must be true - such as the whole of the
history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women.
Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must
become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People
must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant
to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and
say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true," the
power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That
is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic
Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism
says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of
production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all
history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of
race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else
matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past
is about that one thing.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e.
workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the
bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of
Political Correctness certain groups are good - feminist women, (only
feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks,
Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims,"
and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do.
Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil,
thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic
Marxism.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When
the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like
Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their
property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university
campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions.
When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance
to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn't as well
qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative
action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation.
White owned companies don't get a contract because the contract is
reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So
expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism....
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role
of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates
Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has
created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about
because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by
the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to
spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he
sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings
Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week,
working on the differences of Marxism.
And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of
think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back
quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt
University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be
known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided
at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly
identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is
for people to figure out it's a form of Marxism. So instead they
decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.
Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay
the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the
Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he
said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to
its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first
director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist,
concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly
stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific
methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the
Institute, and that never changed...
The stuff we've been hearing about this morning - the radical
feminism, the women's studies departments, the gay studies
departments, the black studies departments - all these things are
branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially
does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory
called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you're tempted
to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory
is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order
is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that.
They say it can't be done, that we can't imagine what a free society
would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we're
living under repression - the repression of a capitalistic economic
order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the
conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression - we
can't even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply
criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in
every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of
course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is
just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a
derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not
the 1960s.
Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno,
and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and
Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political
Correctness, and that's the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse,
who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous
perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that
they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing
some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this
runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in
Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm's view,
masculinity and femininity were not reflections of `essential' sexual
differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead
from differences in life functions, which were in part socially
determined." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct...
How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our
universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the
Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933
the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut
down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They
fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in
1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the
Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained
writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German
society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to
Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another
very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work
for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure
in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including
Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.
These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too
much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the
student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by
resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels
needed theory of some sort. They couldn't just get out there and say,
"Hell no we won't go," they had to have some theoretical explanation
behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das
Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the
radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and
unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university,
Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School
relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in
Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there
- when the student rebels come into Adorno's classroom, he calls the
police and has them arrested - Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw
the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity
to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the
New Left in the United States.
One of Marcuse's books was the key book. It virtually became the bible
of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and
Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he
downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A
Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist),
repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person
Freud describes - the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses,
because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future,
if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we
liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of
"polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by
the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a
wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They're students,
they're baby-boomers, and they've grown up never having to worry about
anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy
writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn't require them to
read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to
hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do
it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also
the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to
the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating
tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and
tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the
Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes
back to the 1930s.
In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and
direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological
state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power
of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail
sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to
expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it.
The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on
campus is part of it. It's exactly what we have seen happen in Russia,
in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it's coming here. And we don't
recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it
off. My message today is that it's not funny, it's here, it's growing
and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything
that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.
<http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-PC-Origins-Tony.htm>
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "America the Beautiful" |
|
| Title: Re: How the rest of the world views the great ol' US of A. |
19 Aug 2006 02:19:26 PM |
|
|
Topaz wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 09:23:08 -0400, America the Beautiful
<LiBassbug@Yawho.com> wrote:
Why are Americans so united?
America is ruled by Jews who hate the White race,
You mean we are ruled by "Black" jews? Like Whoopi Goldberg? *****,
nobody told me!
especially White
men. Any White man who supports the USA government is a traitor.
This is what this sick country stands for:
Says the idiot that thinks the US is run by black jews...
The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA
conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American
University
Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where
does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have
to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they
think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word
denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or
homophobic.
YaWWWWn....
We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this
has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of
pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as
so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they
would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this
situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses,
but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come
from? What is it?
ZZzz...
We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something
of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of
it as only half-serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great
disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of
people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world.
It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
Zzzzzzz.........
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we
quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural
Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.
It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and
the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic
tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels
are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian
nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than
on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered
North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross
any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-
rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the
ZZZzzzzzz ZZZZZzzzz ZZZZzzzzz......
--
Chris Fleitman
Long Island
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: How the rest of the world views the great ol' US of A. |
20 Aug 2006 07:32:23 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:19:26 -0400, America the Beautiful
<LiBassbug@Yawho.com> wrote:
You mean we are ruled by "Black" jews? Like Whoopi Goldberg? *****,
nobody told me!
Jews are an ethnic group. They are not just a religion. If a Jew
becomes a Christian or an atheist he still says he is a Jew. Most of
the Jews in the Jew country are atheist. They say that a Jew is anyone
that has a Jewish mother. Therefore it is a hereditary thing.
We are for having a nation of White people. Jews would be White enough
to join us if it weren't for other important factors. One factor is
that they don't want our race to live. They want to be the only
Caucasians to survive on the earth.
The Jews have their own Jew country, but they demand multi-culture and
pluralism for us. Their leaders agree with something Hitler wrote:
"A State which, in an epoch of racial adulteration, devotes itself to
the duty of preserving the best elements of its racial stock must one
day become ruler of the Earth."
Jews are enemies of White civilization. Here are some quotes
from a very pro-Jewish book that was first published in 1925. The book
is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated
in the heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were
neither Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing
Jews at all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl
Marx, though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
throughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two
men who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went throughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."
"The Jews had become the money lenders of Europe for quite
evident reasons. The Church sternly forbade all Christians to engage
in the pursuit...
"So the Jews became the money lenders of Europe. They developed
a great shrewdness and cunning in the one and only field of
opportunity left open to them. And with their shrewdness and cunning
they developed a certain cruelty and greed. That was natural. The
world was cruel to them, so when the chance was theirs, they were
cruel in return..."
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry in AZ" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: How the rest of the world views the great ol' US of A. |
21 Aug 2006 03:50:26 PM |
|
|
Waiving the right to remain silent, Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> said:
We are for having a nation of White people. Jews would be White enough
to join us if it weren't for other important factors. One factor is
that they don't want our race to live. They want to be the only
Caucasians to survive on the earth.
Here... YOu desperately need one of these.
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
--
"And idiots begat fools, and fools begat morons, and morons
begat imbeciles, and imbeciles begat dufuses. And then
Yurpeons realized they could do this with people outside
their immediate families..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: How the rest of the world views the great ol' US of A. |
21 Aug 2006 07:27:46 PM |
|
|
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/review-AR.html
Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique
Reviewed by Stanley Hornbeck
In The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald advances a carefully
researched but extremely controversial thesis: that certain 20th
century intellectual movements -- largely established and led by Jews
-- have changed European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed
the confidence of Western man. He claims that these movements were
designed, consciously or unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests
even though they were presented to non-Jews as universalistic and even
utopian. He concludes that the increasing dominance of these ideas has
had profound political and social consequences that benefited Jews but
caused great harm to gentile societies. This analysis, which he makes
with considerable force, is an unusual indictment of a people
generally
thought to be more sinned against than sinning.
The Culture of Critique is the final title in Prof. MacDonald's
massive, three-volume study of Jews and their role in history. The two
previous volumes are A People That Shall Dwell Alone and Separation
and
its Discontents, published by Praeger in 1994 and 1998. The series is
written from a sociobiological perspective that views Judaism as a
unique survival strategy that helps Jews compete with other ethnic
groups. Prof. MacDonald, who is a psychologist at the University of
California at Long Beach, explains this perspective in the first
volume, which describes Jews as having a very powerful sense of
uniqueness that has kept them socially and genetically separate from
other peoples. The second volume traces the history of Jewish-gentile
relations, and finds the causes of anti-Semitism primarily in the
almost invariable commercial and intellectual dominance of gentile
societies by Jews and in their refusal to assimilate. The Culture of
Critique brings his analysis into the present century, with an account
of the Jewish role in the radical critique of traditional culture.
The intellectual movements Prof. MacDonald discusses in this volume
are
Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt school of sociology,
and Boasian anthropology. Perhaps most relevant from a racial
perspective, he also traces the role of Jews in promoting
multi-culturalism and Third World immigration. Throughout his analysis
Prof. MacDonald reiterates his view that Jews have promoted these
movements as Jews and in the interests of Jews, though they have often
tried to give the impression that they had no distinctive interests of
their own. Therefore Prof. MacDonald's most profound charge against
Jews is not ethnocentrism but dishonesty -- that while claiming to be
working for the good of mankind they have often worked for their own
good and to the detriment of others. While attempting to promote the
brotherhood of man by dissolving the ethnic identification of
gentiles,
Jews have maintained precisely the kind of intense group solidarity
they decry as immoral in others.
Celebrating Diversity
Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which
Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and
diversity -- but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they
have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations
of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis
for
morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time,
within their own communities, and with regard to the state of Israel,
they have often supported the very institutions they attack in gentile
society.
Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group
loyalty characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a
society
that does not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The Jewish
determination not to assimilate fully, which accounts for their
survival as a people for thousands for years -- even without a country
-- has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in
nations with well -defined national identities. In Prof. MacDonald's
view it is therefore in the interest of Jews to dilute and weaken the
identity of any people among whom they live. Jewish identity can
flower
in safety only when gentile identity is weak.
Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silberman:
"American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their
belief -- one firmly rooted in history -- that Jews are safe only in a
society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well
as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for
example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming
majority of American Jews to endorse 'gay rights' and to take a
liberal
stance on most other so-called 'social' issues."
He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the
diversity-is-our-strength argument it is in support of their real goal
of diluting a society's homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They
are couching a Jewish agenda in terms they think gentiles will accept.
Likewise, as the second part of the Silberman quotation suggests, Jews
may support deviant movements, not because they think it is good for
the country but because it is good for the Jews.
Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish
economist who thought that republicans had more sensible economic
policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate
anyway. His reason? "I'd rather live in a country governed by the
faces
I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the Republican
convention." This man apparently distrusts white gentiles and voted
for
a racially mixed party even if its economic policies were wrong. What
is good for Jews appears to come before what is good for the country.
Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University
makes
the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing his
satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next
century
whites will become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped beyond the
point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this
country." He is apparently prepared to displace the people and culture
of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise of an
anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as
potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and
national
continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews. This passage
takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews as a distinct
community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and influence.
In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, "[w]e [Jews]
have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for
about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the
heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it
irreversible..." -- just as it tends to make the ultimate displacement
of European culture also irreversible.
Prof. MacDonald traces the development of this diversity strategy to
several sources. It is widely recognized that the German-Jewish
immigrant Franz Boas (1858-1942) almost single-handedly established
the
current contours of anthropology, ridding it of all biological
explanations for differences in human culture or behavior. Prof.
MacDonald reports that he and his followers -- with the notable
exceptions of Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict -- were all Jews with
strong Jewish identities: "Jewish identification and the pursuit of
perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of
cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the
'invisible subject' of American anthropology."
By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological
Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university
anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted
the idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that
environment counts for everything. They completely recast anthropology
so as to provide intellectual support for open immigration,
integration, and miscegenation. They also laid the foundation for the
idea that because all races have the same potential, the failures of
non-whites must be blamed exclusively on white oppression. The
ultimate
conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that since environment accounts
for all human differences, every inequality in achievement can be
eliminated by changing the environment. This has been the
justification
for enormous and wasteful government intervention programs.
The entire "civil rights" movement can be seen as a natural
consequence
of the triumph of Boasian thinking. Since all races were equivalent,
separation was immoral. The color line also sharpened white
self-consciousness in ways that might make whites more aware of Jewish
parochialism. Thus it was, according to Prof. MacDonald, that Jews
almost single-handedly launched the desegregation movement. Without
the
leadership of Jews, the NAACP might never have been established, and
until 1975 every one of its presidents was a Jew. Prof. MacDonald
reports that in 1917, when the black separatist Marcus Garvey visited
NAACP headquarters, he saw so many white faces that he stormed out,
complaining that it was a white organization.
Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the
"civil rights" transformation of America. He quotes a lawyer for the
American Jewish Congress who claims that "many of these [civil rights]
laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish
staff people, introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into
being
by Jewish voters."
While the Boas school was promoting integration and racial
equivalence,
it was also critical of, in Prof. MacDonald's words, "American culture
as overly homogeneous, hypocritical, emotionally and aesthetically
repressive (especially with regard to sexuality). Central to this
program was creating ethnographies of idyllic [Third-World] cultures
that were free of the negatively perceived traits that were attributed
to Western culture."
The Role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything
about Western society while glorifying everything primitive. Prof.
MacDonald notes that Boasian portrayals of non-Western peoples
deliberately ignored barbarism and cruelty or simply attributed it to
contamination from the West. He sees this as a deliberate attempt to
undermine the confidence of Western societies and to make them
permeable to Third World influences and people. Today, this view is
enshrined in the dogma that America must remain open to immigration
because immigrants bring spirit and energy that natives somehow lack.
Authoritarian Personalities
In order to open European-derived societies to the immigration that
would transform them, it was necessary to discredit racial solidarity
and commitment to tradition. Prof. MacDonald argues that this was the
basic purpose of a group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt
School. What is properly known as the Institute of Social Research was
founded in Frankfurt, Germany, during the Weimar period by a Jewish
millionaire but was closed down by the Nazis shortly after they took
power. Most of its staff emigrated to the United States and the
institute reconstituted itself at UC Berkeley. The organization was
headed by Max Horkheimer, and its most influential members were T.W.
Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse, all of whom had strong
Jewish
identities. Horkheimer made no secret of the partisan nature of the
institute's activities: "Research would be able here to transform
itself directly into propaganda," he wrote. (Italics in the original)
Prof. MacDonald devotes many pages to an analysis of The Authoritarian
Personality, which was written by Adorno and appeared in 1950. It was
part of a series called Studies in Prejudice, produced by the
Frankfurt
school, which included titles like Anti-Semitism and Emotional
Disorder. The Authoritarian Personality, which was particularly
influential because, according to Prof. MacDonald, the American Jewish
Committee heavily funded its promotion and because Jewish academics
took up its message so enthusiastically.
The book's purpose is to make every group affiliation sound as if it
were a sign of mental disorder. Everything from patriotism to religion
to family -- and race -- loyalty are sign of a dangerous and defective
"authoritarian personality." Because drawing distinctions between
different groups is illegitimate, all group loyalties -- even close
family ties! -- are "prejudice." As Christopher Lasch has written, the
book leads to the conclusion that prejudice "could be eradicated only
by subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective
psychotherapy -- by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum."
But according to Prof. MacDonald it is precisely the kind of group
loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences
central to Jewish identity that Horkheimer and Adorno described as
mental illness in gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually
became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: Anyone whose
political views were different from theirs was insane. As Prof.
MacDonald explains, the Frankfurt school never criticized or even
described Jewish group identity -- only that of gentiles: "behavior
that is critical to Judaism as a successful group evolutionary
strategy
is conceptualized as pathological in gentiles."
For these Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of
mental
illness: They concluded that Christian self-denial and especially
sexual repression caused hatred of Jews. The Frankfurt school was
enthusiastic about psycho-analysis, according to which "Oedipal
ambivalence toward the father and anal-sadistic relations in early
childhood are the anti-Semite's irrevocable inheritance."
In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the
Frankfurt
school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty. Prof. MacDonald
sees
the school as a seminal influence: "Certainly many of the central
attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural revolution
find expression in The Authoritarian Personality, including idealizing
rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and
scorn for upward social mobility, social status, family pride, the
Christian religion, and patriotism."
Of the interest here, however, is the movement's success in branding
ancient loyalties to nation and race as mental illnesses. Although he
came later, the French-Jewish "deconstructionist" Jacques Derrida was
in the same tradition when he wrote:
"The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of
strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to
deconstruct
the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of
native land and native tongue... The idea is to disarm the bombs... of
identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the
stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants... "
As Prof. MacDonald puts it, "Viewed at its most abstract level, a
fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples
of
the United States to view concern about their own demographic and
cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of
psychopathology." Needless to say, this project has been successful;
anyone opposed to the displacement of whites is routinely treated as a
mentally unhinged "hate-monger," and whenever whites defend their
group
interests they are described as psychologically inadequate. The irony
has not escaped Prof. MacDonald: "The ideology that ethnocentrism was
a
form of psychopathology was promulgated by a group that over its long
history had arguably been the most ethnocentric group among all the
cultures of the world."
Immigration
Prof. MacDonald argues that it is entirely natural for Jews to promote
open immigration. It brings about the "diversity" Jews find comforting
and it keeps America open to persecuted co-religionists throughout the
world. He says Jews are the only group that has always fought for mass
immigration; a few European ethnic organizations have made sporadic
efforts to make it easier for their own people to come, but only Jews
have consistently promoted open borders for all comers. Moreover,
whatever disagreements they may have had on other issues, Jews of
every
political persuasion have favored high immigration.
This, too, goes back many years, and Prof. MacDonald traces in
considerable detail the sustained Jewish pro-immigration effort.
Israel
Zangwill, author of the eponymous 1908 play The Melting Pot, was of
the
view that "there is only one way to World Peace, and that is the
absolute abolition of passports, visas, frontiers, custom houses... "
He was nevertheless an ardent Zionist and disapproved of Jewish
intermarriage.
Although the statue of liberty, properly known as Liberty Enlightening
the World, was a gift to the United States from France as a tribute to
American political traditions, the sonnet by the Jewish Emma Lazarus
helped change it into a symbol of immigration. Affixed to the base of
the statue several decades after its construction, the poem welcomes
to
America "huddled masses yearning to breath free/The wretched refuse of
your teeming shore."
Prof. MacDonald has discovered that implausible arguments about
diversity being a quintessentially American strength have been made by
Jews for a long time. He reports that in 1948 the American Jewish
Committee was urging Congress to believe that "Americanism is the
spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to
people of all races, all religions, all nationalities." Of course,
there had never been such a tradition. In 1952, the American Jewish
Congress argued in hearings on immigration that "our national
experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in
the diversity of our peoples." This, too, was at a time when U.S.
immigration law was still explicitly designed to maintain a white
majority.
It is often said that when the old immigration policy was scrapped in
1965, scarcely anyone knew, and no one predicted, that the new law
would change the racial makeup of the country. Prof. MacDonald
disputes
this, arguing that this had been the objective of Jewish groups from
the beginning.
Prof. MacDonald finds that Jews have been the foremost advocates of
immigration in England, France, and Canada, and that Jewish groups
were
the most vocal opponents of independence for Quebec. Australian Jews
led the effort to dismantle the "white Australia" policy, one reason
for which was cited in an editorial in the Australian Jewish Democrat:
"The strengthening of multi-cultural or diverse Australia is also our
most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day
Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would feel more
confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian." Like Earl
Raab
writing about the United States, this Australian Jew is prepared to
sacrifice the traditional culture, people, and identity of Australia
to
specifically Jewish interests. It would not be surprising if such an
openly expressed objective did not have the opposite effect from the
intended, and increase anti-Jewish sentiment.
Jews and the Left
It is well known that Jews have been traditionally associated with the
left, and Prof. MacDonald investigates this connection in some detail.
Historically it was understandable that Jews should support movements
that advocated overthrowing the existing order. After emancipation,
Jews met resistance from gentile elites who did not want to lose
ground
to competitors, and outsiders easily become revolutionaries. However,
in Prof. MacDonald's view, Jewish commitment to leftist causes has
often been motivated by the hope that communism, especially, would be
a
tool for combating anti-Semitism, and by expectation that universalist
social solutions would be yet another way to dissolve gentile
loyalties
that might exclude Jews. The appeal of univeralist ideologies is tied
to the implicit understanding that Jewish particularism will be
exempt:
"At the extreme, acceptance of a universalist ideology by gentiles
would result in gentiles not perceiving Jews as in a different social
category at all, while nonetheless Jews would be able to maintain a
strong personal identity as Jews."
Prof. MacDonald argues that Jews had specifically Jewish reasons for
supporting the Bolshevik revolution. Czarist Russia was notorious for
its anti-Semitic policies and, during its early years, the Soviet
Union
seemed to be the promised land for Jews: it ended state anti-Semitism,
tried to eradicate Christianity, opened opportunities to individual
Jews, and preached a "classless" society in which Jewishness would
presumably attract no negative attention. Moreover, since Marxism
taught that all conflict was economic rather than ethnic, many Jews
believed it heralded the end of anti-Semitism.
Prof. MacDonald emphasizes that although Jewish Communists preached
both atheism and the solidarity of the world's working people, they
took pains to preserve a distinct, secular Jewish identity. He reports
that Lenin himself (who had one Jewish grandparent) approved the
continuation of an explicitly Jewish identity under Communism, and in
1946 the Communist Party of the United States voted a resolution also
supporting Jewish peoplehood in Communist countries. Thus, although
Communism was supposed to be without borders or religion, Jews were
confident that it would make a place for their own group identity. He
writes that despite the official view that all men were to be
brothers,
"very few Jews lost their Jewish identity during the entire soviet
era."
Jewish Communists sometimes betrayed remarkable particularism. Prof.
MacDonald quotes Charles Pappoport, the French Communist leader: "The
Jewish people [are] the bearer of all the great ideas of unity and
human community in history... The disappearance of the Jewish people
would signify the death of humankind, the final transformation of man
into a wild beast." This seems to attribute to Jews an elite position
incompatible with "unity and human community."
Prof. MacDonald argues that many Jews began to fall away from
Communism
only after Stalin showed himself to be anti-Semitic. And just as Jews
had been the leading revolutionaries in anti-Semitic pre-Revolutionary
Russia, Jews became the leading dissidents in an anti-Semitic Soviet
Union. A similar pattern can be found in the imposed Communist
governments of Eastern Europe, which were largely dominated by Jews.
The majority of the leaders of the Polish Communist Party, for
example,
spoke better Yiddish than Polish, and they too maintained a strong
Jewish identity. After the fall of Communism many stopped being Polish
and emigrated to Israel.
Prof. MacDonald writes that in Bela Kun's short-lived 1919 Communist
government of Hungary, 95 percent of the leaders were Jews, and that
at
the time of the 1956 uprising Communism was so closely associated with
Jews that the rioting had almost the flavor of a pogrom. He argues
that
in the United States as well, the hard core among Communists and
members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was mainly Jewish.
Here, too, a revolutionary, atheist, and universalist world-view was
fully compatible with strong identification as Jews. Prof. MacDonald
quotes from a study of American leftists:
"Many Communists, for example, state that they could never have
married
a spouse who was not a leftist. When Jews were asked if they could
have
married Gentiles, many hesitated, surprised by the question, and found
it difficult to answer. Upon reflection, many concluded that they had
always taken marriage to someone Jewish for granted." Their commitment
as Jews was even more fundamental and unexamined than their commitment
to the left.
Prof. MacDonald reports that many American Jews also abandoned
Communism as it became increasingly anti-Semitic. For a large number,
the Soviet Union's severing of diplomatic ties with Israel during the
1967 war was the last straw. A former SDS activist no doubt spoke for
many when he explained, "If I must choose between the Jewish cause and
a 'progressive' anti-Israel SDS, I shall choose the Jewish cause. If
barricades are erected, I will fight as a Jew." According to Prof.
MacDonald, American neoconservatism can also be described as a surface
shift in external politics that leaves the more fundamental commitment
to Jewish identity unchanged. Thus, former leftists abandoned an
ideology that had turned against Israel and refashioned American
conservatism into a different movement, the one unshakable theme of
which was support for Israel. Neoconservatives also support high
levels
of immigration and were active in excluding white racial
identification
from the "respectable" right.
Objections
There are many possible objections to Prof. MacDonald's thesis. The
first is that it is largely built on the assumption that Jews are
dishonest. It is always risky to assume one understands the motives of
others better than they do themselves. Jews have traditionally thought
of themselves as a benevolent presence, even as a "light unto the
nations" or a "chosen people." This is echoed today in the Jewish self
image as champions of the excluded and the oppressed. Most of the time
what passes for "social justice" has the effect of undermining the
traditions and loyalties of gentile society, but are Jews deliberately
undermining these things rather than righting what they perceive to be
wrongs?
Prof. MacDonald concedes that many Jews are sincere in their support
for liberal causes, but then escalates his indictment by arguing that
"the best deceivers are those who deceive themselves." In other words,
many Jews who are actually working for Jewish interests have first
convinced themselves otherwise. A Jew who mainly wants America to
become less white may also have convinced himself that America
benefits
from a multitude of cultures. Having convinced himself he can more
effectively convince others.
Many Jews, Prof. MacDonald argues, are not even conscious of the
extent
to which their Jewishness is central to their identities or their
political views. He quotes Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel on his
surprise
at how passionately he embraced the Israeli side during the 1967 war:
"I had not known how Jewish I was." This is an arresting statement
from
a man who was thought to be perhaps the greatest Jewish spiritual
leader of his time. And whether or not it affects their politics, Jews
certainly appear to have a very vivid sense of peoplehood. Prof.
MacDonald quotes theologian Eugene Borowitz as saying,"most Jews claim
to be equipped with an interpersonal friend-or-foe sensing device that
enables them to detect the presence of another Jew, despite heavy
camouflage." Always to think in terms of "friends or foe" is no
insignificant matter.
Prof. MacDonald is therefore skeptical of Jewish disavowals: "Surface
declarations of a lack of Jewish identity may be highly misleading."
He
notes that Jewish publications write about the power and influence of
American Jews in language Jews would immediately denounce as
"anti-Semitic" if used by gentiles. He agrees with Joseph Sobran, who
has said "they want to be Jews among themselves but resent being seen
as Jews by Gentiles. They want to pursue their own distinct interests
while pretending that they have no such interests ... "
Prof. MacDonald argues that the success of Jewish-led intellectual
movements has been possible only because their Jewish character was
hidden. If multi-culturalism or mass immigration or The Authoritarian
Personality had been promoted by Orthodox Jews in black coats the
Jewish element would have been clear. Prof. MacDonald writes that in
fact, "the Jewish political agenda was not an aspect of the theory and
the theories themselves had no overt Jewish content. Gentile
intellectuals approaching these theories were therefore unlikely to
view them as aspects of Jewish-gentile cultural competition or as an
aspect of a specifically Jewish political agenda." Prof. MacDonald
also
claims that Jews have often tried to conceal the Jewish character of
an
intellectual movement by recruiting token gentiles for visible
positions as spokesmen. He writes that this tactic was so common in
the
American Communist Party that gentiles often saw through it and
resigned.
But how can motives ever be completely known? Prof. MacDonald sets a
difficult test: "The best evidence that individuals have really ceased
to have a Jewish identity is if they choose a political option that
they perceive as clearly not in the interest of Jews as a group. In
the
absence of a clearly perceived conflict with Jewish interests, it
remains possible that different political choices among ethnic Jews
are
only differences in tactics for how best to achieve Jewish interests."
This standard may seem unduly harsh -- until it is applied to white
gentiles. Third-World immigration, affirmative action,
anti-discrimination laws, and forced integration are clearly not in
the
interests of whites, yet many whites embrace them, thus demonstrating
how completely they have abandoned their racial identity.
Finally, Prof. MacDonald raises the disturbing possibility that some
Jews, because of centuries of conflict with gentiles, actively hate
gentile society and consciously wish to destroy it: "a fundamental
motivation of Jewish intellectuals involved in social criticism has
simply been hatred of the gentile-dominated power structure perceived
as anti-Semitic." He describes the 19th century German-Jewish poet
Heinrich Heine as "using his skill, reputation and popularity to
undermine the intellectual confidence of the established order."
In defense of this highly provocative view, Prof. MacDonald quotes
Benjamin Disraeli on the effects of centuries of Jewish-gentile
relations on Jews: "They may have become so odious and so hostile to
mankind as to merit for their present conduct, no matter how
occasioned, the obloquy and ill-treatment of the communities in which
they dwell and with which they are scarcely permitted to mingle."
Apart from any questions of motives, however, is the question of
numbers. Jews are a tiny minority in the United States and within that
minority there is disagreement even on matters that clearly affect
Jews. How can Jews possibly be responsible for dramatic changes in the
intellectual landscape? In Prof. MacDonald's view, the explanation
lies
in the intelligence, energy, dedication, and cohesiveness of Jews. He
attributes a great deal to the average IQ of Jews -- at 115, a full
standard deviation above the white gentile average -- and to "their
hard work and dedication, their desire to make a mark on the world,
and
their desire to rise in the world, engage in personal promotion, and
achieve public acclaim... " He also believes Jews have worked together
unfailingly on any question they consider necessary for survival:
"Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor: Cohesive
groups outcompete individual strategies." He notes that there has
never
been a time when large numbers of white Americans favored non-white
immigration; it was a cohesive, determined minority that beat down the
disorganized resistance of the majority.
Prof. MacDonald believes that because of the effectiveness of some
Jews, it was not even necessary that most Jews actively support
anti-majoritarian movements, but that Jewish activity was still
decisive. As he puts it, "Jewish-dominated intellectual movements were
a critical factor (necessary condition) for the triumph of the
intellectual left in late twentieth-century Western societies." This,
of course, can never be tested, but there can be no doubt that
American
Jews have had a disproportionate effect on the American intellect.
Prof. MacDonald quotes Walter Kerr, writing in 1968, to the effect
that
"what has happened since World War II is that the American sensibility
has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish as it is anything
else... The literate American mind has come in some measure to think
Jewishly."
Aside from the question of whether Prof. MacDonald is right is the
further question of what difference it makes if he is right. If
correct, his thesis certainly sheds light on the rapidity with which
whites lost their will. Just a few decades ago whites were a confident
race, proud of their achievements, convinced of their fitness to
dominate the globe. Today they are a declining, apologetic people,
ashamed of their history and not sure even of their claim to lands
they
have occupied for centuries. It is very rare for fundamental concepts
to be stood on their heads in the course of just a generation or two,
as has happened with thinking about race. Such speed suggests there
has
been something more than natural change.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jobless Outsourced RADIOLOGIST" |
|
| Title: Francine's Detroit Bat Mitzvah, or, How the rest of the world views European Arrogance |
26 Aug 2006 02:37:35 PM |
|
|
My dear Twibbles,
RE: 'YOUR ESSAY, FRANCINE, ON EUROPEANS WHO INSULT AMERICANS'
I still think the Europeans are condescending and undemocratic, nothing
like our human rights record shows proudly to the world, even as we sit
and eat our Boston baked beans.
kisses and lickies,
francine
=================================
FRANCINE,
Don't fear the europeans rejecting you so much, or any body else of
class or distinction or refinement or education, be they a daughter of
a sheik or the grandson of a CEO in Japan, you have to earn their
respect, it is never a given. All men are NOT developed and born into
this life with equal advantages, just look at Mortimer Bush 4th, he was
blessed more than most people i know, of whom most of them earned their
college degrees without help from their parents or the government even,
and look what Mortimer Bush 4th did, with his advantages handed down
from Mortimer Bush, 3rd. Senseless decapitation[s] (The young woman he
killed in her own bathtub, nearly headless in the end, and her guinea
pig was still in her apartment but had been mercilessly trampled to
death at the time of her murder, the head just a dash of hair left, the
police discovered later).
I thoroughly enjoyed nearly all of the acceptances and the rejections
in my travels, although i handled the acceptances somewhat better, but
it was the rejections that jolted me out of my brainwashing and
uncultivated/untested beliefs, and out of my patriotism based on
complaceny, and it made me a better man and someone that could come
back to USA and enrich our nation further through my own metamorphosis
and finely calibrated reevaluations of just what is an American, rather
than just getting in formation with the lemmings doing their own thing,
on cue, from the puppet master, for good or evil, those lemmings often
repeating their mistakes over and over out of habit, and their
inability to lift their perceptions or cognitions up higher than their
foodplates they were busy grubbing on, was both shocking and
disillusioning.
It is the Americans-Israelis, and their mutual and symbiotic axis of
imperialistic delusions of empire, parasitic on the rest of humanity,
that now has nearly 1 million Lebanese civilians in refugee status now,
the infrastructure of most towns and cities there reduced to rubble
[all over two nerdy, pimply, nearly cuspline-adolescent Israeli
soldiers, right on their enemies border --- the sort of lads that Woody
Allen has himself ridiculed throughout his movie career] those two
summer camp soldiers do not equal the hardships and devastation and
destruction and death we created in our complicity in wanton and
dehumanizing acts of desecration holding hands with the Zionist
zealots-- we ourselves likewise bombed Lebanon along with those
Israelis, intoxicated and rabid with the maniacal mycoplasma of decay
that led us to conquer Iraq, and all those weapons of mass destruction
----- not even an anthrax laced lollipop yet to be found there!
There were no Europeans during this time of crimes against humanity,
Jolo, in the middle east -- the current cancer of manslaughter has
been conducted under our flag, or by proxy under the Mogen David flag
-- our flag had been long ago purchased by Halliburton and Carlyle
Group and defense and federal contractors, ad nauseum. It was us and
our masters, Mighty Quinn Israel, doing the exterminating and
destruction and death and disease, and it was not the Europeans this
time as you say; we have to think of today--- and not a hundred years
ago my saintly one, the annointed, holy Lama Lomas.
Otherwise, leave politics to the professionals or to zombies, if one
is not prepared to act in the dynamics of their own in real time and
not wallow in virtual time and nostalgic falsehoods ---of propriety
based on cherry tree fables and men in white wigs and stockings, like
Ben Franklin panty hose.
Amnesty International in London and Geneva just released a world press
release charging Israel with WAR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, and it is
going to the ICC, the International Criminal Court, on express rails
now, and on schedule.
Meanwhile, the global FBI and MI5 scouring agents cannot yet find proof
of anything on the 11 alleged baby bottle bombers, quite a few of them
mothers of infant children --they framed them up on the flight from
London to Boston-- and i am so relieved that it is conducive for
justice spelled with a capital J, that the time alloted for 'holding
without charging' in English/UK courts and prisons is not as plagued by
dementia as here, and there they have a short holding time of less than
three weeks, even with an extension by terror hunting gung ho enforcers
and their judges.
This media event was manufactured just to invigorate more
anti-terrorism ***** in our populace and in London, and to distract
the Americans from the holocaust taking place in Lebanon and Palestine
---with our funding and arms/weapons backing, money that should be for
Homelanders in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast still awaiting the faint
hope of help from FEMA, and for all the children left behind here
--that is the true terror---this fraud against Americans commited by
corporate welfare and tax and no bid contract gouging, and our further
despised global military bases of underpaid troops are now in even
greater jeopardy.
When many of them return home they will be jobless and uninsured.
FACT: A laptop battery can conceal much more deadly bombs than all the
containers of baby formula milk and purified water and soft drinks and
aftershave on one river of inflight container fluids. Why no fuss
about that, my man!? If it is fear of terrorists which is their
crusader's motive, let's not monkey around and allow laptops onboard,
and quit fucking around with baby bottles, for christ's sake. Not many
Arab mommies will be sitting on the plane with laptops rather than
formula bottles, either, dig it, see the writing on the wall now?
I have to stop typing and lie down and cry, Francine, it is just too
horrible to think that my country is the bad guy and i have to justify
their horrors, or, try to redeem us in the eyes of the world and try to
talk sense into the hearts and minds of our demonically possessed
leaders. I am glad i never was a pawn or exponent of the mentally
diseased agencies of our nation that are totally out of control now.
May the US agencies that are not yet infected, somehow innoculated by
deep divine human and American goodness, please please please rescue us
and the rest of the planet, heavenly father, may we all live in health
and peace, brother, and swab the spores of military madness off of the
body of man with a few quick swipes of an alcohol drenched Q-tip, held
symbolically by the unified HAND of man!
Twibbles
WANNA READ SOME TREASURES OF THE SIERRA MADRE? go to.....
http://www.angelfire.com/de/Boiishaft/B-Traven-Circle.html
francine <francine@operamail.com> wrote:
TWIBBLES,
Instead of sitting around and coaxing your Spanish and German
co-workers to accept you, and trying to prove that you are not
inferior, why didn't they just accept you automatically as an American
when you were traveling. After all, our culture does this with many
foringners such as Canadians, Australians, and EUROPEANS.
Didn't the fact that you had to beg them for acceptance, say something
to you about Europeans. Darling, why not learn from that insulting
circumstances or does it fit into your need to feel inferior. The
Spanish workers you drank with thought you were almost a Spanard? I
love it, you simpleton.
I had more than that from the six primitive tribes I was with in
Africa. The spear carrying people loved me more than any of my
comrades. The simple reason was that I was extremely interested in
them while most Euopeans couldn't give a damn about primitives who they
held completely inferior. I use Euopeans to include the very very few
Americans in Africa, because the USA is only an extension of Europe.
The Europeans started two of the most devestating wars in history.
Plus they tried to erase a whole race of people, not to mention Poles
and homosexuals. Plus they physically invaded countries and colonised
a good part of the World. Plus, if you include Stalin, they produced
the second and third most infamous and proficient mass murderers the
Earth has ever seen.
And they have the gall to look down on other cultures. Aren't you not
just misstaking the European habit of looking down on all earthly
cultures other than there own various small tribal culture (i.e.,
Belgiums and Hollanders) as completely inferior. After all there is no
single country in Europe as large as California.
Buttercup, the Europeans have not learned what we know and that is that
"all men are created equal under God". True our culture doesn't fully
practice this concept either but we try hard and much more so than the
Europeans.
A good example is the Kikuyu tribe in Kenya. The cultural rule is that
everyone is completely equal and that it is very polite to call them M
ze, which means a good father type person. Naturally the Europeans
would talk down to waiters and shoe shine boys, etc. in Nairobi and the
Kikuyu would not get mad, they would be embarrassed for the Europeans,
who they felt were acting so insultingly stupid. When in Nairobi I
quickly learned to call all waiters, etc. M ze and to treat them equal
on all levels.
By the way, this was so for all East African tribes that I met such as
Luo, Masai, Turkana, Samburo, Pikot, etc. In the European cultures they
seem to just naturally talk down to all they consider inferior, even
though they come from Christian countries. They even look down on each
other based on class, home town, education differances, etc.
Europe currently is facing "pay back time" with the influx of Islamic
people, in addition to there overblown expensive socialism. Currently
they are taking the brunt of world terrorist activity and are afraid to
pitch in on the war on terrorism because they are afraid of there
immigrants.
About ten years ago Collette, a French woman who came here at twelve,
came back from visiting her mother in France for a few months and she
said, that the French had a high crime rate, due to the influx of
Algerians, but they called it "delinquency" to pose it as a small
matter.
Europeans are extremely racist against all cultures other than there
own.
Our country bends over backwards not to be racist. Fifty years after
integration a good portion of our intellectuals are still worried about
predjudice against blacks. and the blacks still claim massive
predjudice.
The Europeans have a lot to learn from our Country. We spearhead the
war on terroism while they sit back and ***** and faint. We should
pull out of fighting completely, except for our own shores, and watch
Europe wallow in their fight against the onslaught of Islam.
Twibbles, the Europeans wouldn't even help with that bull ***** war that
President Clinton got us into in Yugoslavia and Balkans environs. Even
though it was a European problem they let the Americans come over and
solve it for them.
The Euopeans seem to be a people on the eclipse.
My cupcake, if it turns you on to be amongst people that automatically
look down on you and whom you have to beg for a modicum of acceptance,
then go for it and fly over there and join your fellow Americans
abroad, the New Expatriates, who say [falsely i might add] that they
have lost their freedoms here and can no longer stand the breathing of
NSA surveillance agents down their backs any longer.
your world traveler,
---FRANCINE
P.S.: Twibbles, i must admit big guy, you remind me of a woman I met
at a party once. I had just returned from the UK and was bitching
aloud to others about how the Englanders looked down on me, and I
couldn't figure out what they based it upon. The woman said 'Oh she
just loved England and Englanders'. She followed up by saying that an
Englander had told her that she was really a nice person for an
American.
I was floored that they insulted her so drasstically and she thought
that it was all wonderful to be insulted.
I was at the Timberlakes Bar talking to a married Swedish Engineer and
he was commenting on how cheap the Lobster Dinner was compared to
Sweden. etc., while his wife was looking over the menu.
I ordered a hamburger with fries and I started to eat the fries,
drenching them in ketchup as I always do. I happened to look up at
his wife when i ran out of ketchup on my plate and she was sticking her
finger down her throat showing her husband my disgusting way of eating,
in her mind. Sorry to say, I didn't continue that conversation with
any of them.
But I couldn't help but wonder that an American visiting Sweden who saw
some of their disgusting eating combinations, she would never let on to
the Swedes her feelings in the middle of their eating activity.
WANNA READ SOME TREASURES OF THE SIERRA MADRE? go to.....
http://www.angelfire.com/de/Boiishaft/B-Traven-Circle.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Debbie Smythe" |
|
| Title: Booz Allen is basically an arm of the CIA.They are in the $30 billion dollar chip implant deal with CACI. |
29 Aug 2006 10:20:19 AM |
|
|
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/blacklisting_central/implanted-troops.html
Booz Allen is basically an arm of the CIA.
They are in the $30 billion dollar chip implant deal with CACI.
SAIC--screwed over Greek government in raw deal --- contract dispute
over promises made by SAIC to install security software at Olympics in
2004. They do nearly all the software for NSA.
Bioweapons in Iraq? Hell, just get some GAO inspectors on the SAIC
premises!
DO WE HAVE ANY FRIENDS LEFT GLOBALLY SPEAKING, BESIDES ISRAEL? I don't
have any more feelings about Israel than i do for Lesotho, and should
I? Why should I?
I like the little country of Slovenia. Let us open our PAC and lobby
doors and Treasury to them, that is hip! Give another small country
some largesse, not just a military empire like Israel.
Deb
My dear Twibbles,
RE: 'YOUR ESSAY, FRANCINE, ON EUROPEANS WHO INSULT AMERICANS'
I still think the Europeans are condescending and undemocratic, nothing
like our human rights record shows proudly to the world, even as we sit
and eat our Boston baked beans.
kisses and lickies,
francine
=================================
FRANCINE,
Don't fear the europeans rejecting you so much, or any body else of
class or distinction or refinement or education, be they a daughter of
a sheik or the grandson of a CEO in Japan, you have to earn their
respect, it is never a given. All men are NOT developed and born into
this life with equal advantages, just look at Mortimer Bush 4th, he was
blessed more than most people i know, of whom most of them earned their
college degrees without help from their parents or the government even,
and look what Mortimer Bush 4th did, with his advantages handed down
from Mortimer Bush, 3rd. Senseless decapitation[s] (The young woman he
killed in her own bathtub, nearly headless in the end, and her guinea
pig was still in her apartment but had been mercilessly trampled to
death at the time of her murder, the head just a dash of hair left, the
police discovered later).
I thoroughly enjoyed nearly all of the acceptances and the rejections
in my travels, although i handled the acceptances somewhat better, but
it was the rejections that jolted me out of my brainwashing and
uncultivated/untested beliefs, and out of my patriotism based on
complaceny, and it made me a better man and someone that could come
back to USA and enrich our nation further through my own metamorphosis
and finely calibrated reevaluations of just what is an American, rather
than just getting in formation with the lemmings doing their own thing,
on cue, from the puppet master, for good or evil, those lemmings often
repeating their mistakes over and over out of habit, and their
inability to lift their perceptions or cognitions up higher than their
foodplates they were busy grubbing on, was both shocking and
disillusioning.
It is the Americans-Israelis, and their mutual and symbiotic axis of
imperialistic delusions of empire, parasitic on the rest of humanity,
that now has nearly 1 million Lebanese civilians in refugee status now,
the infrastructure of most towns and cities there reduced to rubble
[all over two nerdy, pimply, nearly cuspline-adolescent Israeli
soldiers, right on their enemies border --- the sort of lads that Woody
Allen has himself ridiculed throughout his movie career] those two
summer camp soldiers do not equal the hardships and devastation and
destruction and death we created in our complicity in wanton and
dehumanizing acts of desecration holding hands with the Zionist
zealots-- we ourselves likewise bombed Lebanon along with those
Israelis, intoxicated and rabid with the maniacal mycoplasma of decay
that led us to conquer Iraq, and all those weapons of mass destruction
----- not even an anthrax laced lollipop yet to be found there!
There were no Europeans during this time of crimes against humanity,
Jolo, in the middle east -- the current cancer of manslaughter has
been conducted under our flag, or by proxy under the Mogen David flag
-- our flag had been long ago purchased by Halliburton and Carlyle
Group and defense and federal contractors, ad nauseum. It was us and
our masters, Mighty Quinn Israel, doing the exterminating and
destruction and death and disease, and it was not the Europeans this
time as you say; we have to think of today--- and not a hundred years
ago my saintly one, the annointed, holy Lama Lomas.
Otherwise, leave politics to the professionals or to zombies, if one
is not prepared to act in the dynamics of their own in real time and
not wallow in virtual time and nostalgic falsehoods ---of propriety
based on cherry tree fables and men in white wigs and stockings, like
Ben Franklin panty hose.
Amnesty International in London and Geneva just released a world press
release charging Israel with WAR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, and it is
going to the ICC, the International Criminal Court, on express rails
now, and on schedule.
Meanwhile, the global FBI and MI5 scouring agents cannot yet find proof
of anything on the 11 alleged baby bottle bombers, quite a few of them
mothers of infant children --they framed them up on the flight from
London to Boston-- and i am so relieved that it is conducive for
justice spelled with a capital J, that the time alloted for 'holding
without charging' in English/UK courts and prisons is not as plagued by
dementia as here, and there they have a short holding time of less than
three weeks, even with an extension by terror hunting gung ho enforcers
and their judges.
This media event was manufactured just to invigorate more
anti-terrorism ***** in our populace and in London, and to distract
the Americans from the holocaust taking place in Lebanon and Palestine
---with our funding and arms/weapons backing, money that should be for
Homelanders in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast still awaiting the faint
hope of help from FEMA, and for all the children left behind here
--that is the true terror---this fraud against Americans commited by
corporate welfare and tax and no bid contract gouging, and our further
despised global military bases of underpaid troops are now in even
greater jeopardy.
When many of them return home they will be jobless and uninsured.
FACT: A laptop battery can conceal much more deadly bombs than all the
containers of baby formula milk and purified water and soft drinks and
aftershave on one river of inflight container fluids. Why no fuss
about that, my man!? If it is fear of terrorists which is their
crusader's motive, let's not monkey around and allow laptops onboard,
and quit fucking around with baby bottles, for christ's sake. Not many
| | | | | | | | |
