The Left – “Useful Idiots” of the Rich

The Left, including the communists have generally served as the useful idiots of international capital … The Left, whether in its Fabian, communist or New Left  varieties has been appropriated by the system it is supposedly exposing.

A self-appointed elite that Huxley called the ‘World Controllers’ and Caroll Quiqley described as ‘an international network’ has for generations been intent on establishing a ‘World State’ (Huxley) or what David Rockefeller calls a ‘World Order’ and and what President George W. Bush and others …call the ‘New World Order.’

In more common parlance it is called ‘globalization’ but it is seldom understood in its wider ramifications, as set forth here, especially by the Left, whose activists support  aspects of the same globalization process: multiculturalism, feminism, marijuana liberalization, abortion rights, open borders, and feel-good causes in the name of democracy and ‘human rights,’  the results of which are further control by the global plutocracy.

The Left, including the communists have generally served as the useful idiots of international capital … The Left, whether in its Fabian, communist or New Left  varieties has been appropriated by the system it is supposedly exposing. A post- New Left has emerged since the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc, and takes the form of the so-called ‘color revolutions’ under the patronage of the Soros network, and others.

The strategy  used by the international oligarchy is the same as that more generally recognized as being a major element in Marxist doctrine; namely dialectics, the conflict of opposing forces that generates a synthesis. This dialecto method is something that Sutton realized when he was trying to understand why the oligarchy so often seems to be backing opposing ideologies, governments, and policies.

The Marxist dialecticians stated that history is engaged in a process towards world communism that would arise out of the conflict of capitalism and socialism. The oligarchs, on the other hand, apparently operate on the dialectical premise that what will result from their “controlled conflict” will be a socialist-capitalist synthesis which we might call the “World Collectivist State;”  a world order that will be Communistic in organization but run by oligarchs rather than commissars. Aaron Russo, after talking with Nick Rockefeller, alluded to this as “selling socialism as capitalism.”

Over the past few generations, the “crises scenarios” used by the oligarchs to sell or impose their plan of a World Collectivist State have included the problems of war, famine, overpopulation, disparity between the wealth of the so-called “North” and “South” , and in our present time “the war on terrorism” (perpetual conflict) and the threat of “global warming.”

In general, it can be stated that many of these problems are the direct result of the debt-finance, trade and economic system that is operated by the oligarchs. Now the oligarchs present themselves as the solvers of the problems of their own making. A global “pincer movement” of agitation from “below” (the “Left”)  and manipulation from “above” (the “oligarchs”) dialectically operates to shift the center of mass political gravity towards an acceptance of, if not support for, a World State to end the crises that have been created by our self-appointed “world saviors.”

—
This is the conclusion of “Revolution From Above” by Kerry Bolton published by Arktos.

Source:  Kerry Bolton | (henrymakow.com)

Multiculturalism Around The Queens Sandringham Estate

The following info was read to me by a policeman from an internal report, for obvious reasons I cannot name the officer, but as far as I know all the info is correct:

Another body of a foreign national is found at Sandringham, young girls are brought into Britian by the lure of jobs and forced into prostitution, those that run away are often murdered when caught, Ex police chielf Julie Spence under Operation Radium closed 120 brothels in the Kings Lynn general area and the captive migrants released.

The town of Spalding in Lincolnshire is dominated totally by Polish incomers, they in the main were brought in by the lure of jobs and homes advertised in polish in their own country The town has seen huge building projects to house them all. They now have their own pubs, shops and clubs and by and large send their money home. There are all polish streets and shops where no English is spoken nor understood.

Weekends are often like a battlefield. Although there are Poles that are polite and law abiding, a number of Poles get drunk and fight the hated British, the Orientals and the Russians from Boston Lincolnshire, and even between themselves. The police station at Spalding has just 2 cells and at weekends with often 40 drunken brawling prisoners all screamimg for an interpreter and a solicitor, we cannot cope, so the police station is shut and they all have to be ferried to Grantham some considerable distance away, Grantham have their own problems and dont want ours but what esle can we do?

The locals stay indoors at weekends because of the loud intimidation by large groups of Poles. Many immigrant workers drink while driving and many have no legal documentation, but for good community relations we are told to go easy on them, manpower is a constant problem we never have enough men and they know it.

John Prescott has promised a million new houses in the London Corridor, this is the agricultural land between Norfolk and London. This is not needed for our people but for the expected incomers. The police have demanded the promise for more funding and more men for this huge new landmass, and this promise has not been given. The chief Constable Julie Spence would not be browbeaten by politicians and so was replaced by yes man Richard Crompton nice guy but more intrerested in promoting equality and gayness among staff than fighting crime.

Police moral is at rock bottom, these incomers just do as they please, and this is seen as the way to keep the peace. Julie Spences initiative was aimed at clearing out all the foreign run brothels, of the women and young lads who were forced into prostitution.

The politicians then had to deal with the problems and Julie was replaced. Hiding among the polish community on fake passports are many Russians. They allegedly spy for military economic and strategic purposes, and who allegedly like some Irish migrant workers on the Lump schemes, work all year and go home for 3 weeks then back claim all their tax payments, many of these returning home will borrow up to the maximum on their credit cards, go home then come back weeks later with new identification papers.

A Russian community leader told me, ” we have wupped the poles before and if it comes to it we will do it again.” Julie Spence also clamped down on the huge betting and gambling that went on at dogfights and bare knuckle bouts and where women were auctioned off as sex slaves. This is now blossoming again since she left office. Norfolk fares no better, Kings Lynn once described as the most unfreindly town in Britain feels they are under seige.

The recent showdown between the Soviet bloc and the chinese meant the chinese all moved out, but a secret report was commissioned by senior officers on the probabilty of a mass flare up with a turf war between the Lithuanians and the Latvians, but both settled their differences when the Huge portugese communities threatened to take away jobs through their own gangmasters.

In short Norfolk is a big a tinderbox as Lincolnshire, with local people very irritated that the very government who gave these people their jobs, harrasses them because there is no more work for them. The recent stabbing of a polish man at the Notting Hill carnival has brought tit-for-tat beatings between black gangs and polish gangs. This threatens to get much bigger and uglier with black street gangs saying they will come up from the cities to teach the poles a lesson. kings Lynn Norfolk police recently had a secret investigation into corruption and bribery charges.

Norwich and Lowestoft police found wealthy migarnt bosses had police and allegedly the ex MP George Turner in their pocket to turna blind eye to certain activities. When one Kings Lynn brothel was raided they caught several migrants a policeman with an exemplary record and an elderly Evangelical church leader with a young lad.

The local MP Henry Bellingham allegedly says his hands are tied by government policy to favour incomers for work and he cannot do any more than he does, but politicians worry that parties such as the National Front and BNP are a big draw and try to sidestep them at every turn using fair means and foul. The public have seen through the racist slurs and know its government policies which are racist not the people.

So next time you come across a short tempered policeman think about how hard it is for him. Government people trafficking under the guise of multicuturalism is a miserable failure. The British people have given up hard won homes and jobs to outsiders, but Lincolnshire Cambridgeshire and and Norfolk are counties under seige, the local people want jobs not homosexual preachings. Many policemen are so sick of political correctness, the job is affecting my marriage and I may go off sick.

Multicultural vs. Stereotypical

Srdja Trifkovic’s paper on Russia and the European Media, delivered at the conference “Russia and Europe: Issues of Contemporary Journalism,” Paris, November 24, 2011.

Most West European media professionals tend to subscribe, consciously or not, to a neoliberal world outlook in general and to the tenets of multiculturalism in particular. In other words, they tend to accept the principle that recognition and positive accommodation of demands and special political and moral claims of various ethno-racial, religious, or sexual minorities are obligatory through “group-differentiated rights.”

The result is an obsessive favoritism of allegedly disadvantaged groups, such as Third World societies in general, Third World immigrants in particular, and most notably Muslims in Western Europe. The BBC and other media outlets thus routinely described the rioters in French banlieus six years ago—who were overwhelmingly of Arab-Muslim origin—as “angry French youths.” The term was technically correct, of course, assuming that most of them were indeed French citizens, but it was journalistically misleading to the point of dishonesty.

These assumptions have become culturally, psychologically and institutionally internalized in the West European mainstream media. Behind the veneer of all-embracing diversity, however, we find a carefully calibrated scale of acceptance or rejection of “the Other” depending on the cultural and political preferences of the media professionals themselves. Their insistence that there are many self-validating, closed systems of perception, feeling, thought, and evaluation—each associated with a racially, ethnically, religiously or sexually defined group—effectively rejects the legacy of the Western civilization, and specifically its insistence on the standards of reason, evidence, and objectivity, and principles of justice and freedom that apply to human beings as such. The result is a moral and intellectual relativism, which enables the media elite to pick and choose which group or nation will be approved for the status of sanctified victimhood, and which will be denied the benefit of the doubt, let alone sympathy, in the reporting and analysis of its foreign and domestic policies or its cultural and social developments.

Any serious discussion of the image of Russia in the Western media in general, and in those of Western Europe in particular, has to start with the recognition that Russia has been firmly and decisively relegated to the latter category by the Western elite class in general and the European media elite in particular. “It sounds paradoxical,” said Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, referring to the Western attitude toward Russia, “but there was more mutual trust and respect during the Cold War.” His correct hint is that the regimes in Brussels and Washington detest a post-Soviet Russia—the state that no longer is subservient, as it had been in the 1990s, but reviving its patriotic and Christian roots—more than the Cod War leaders of the West hated the USSR.

Let me focus on a specific, well documented example which is seven years old. It is hardly possible to envisage an orgy of terrorist savagery more deprived than that staged by Chechen jihadists and their foreign cohorts in Beslan in September 2004—at the end of a week in which two Russian passenger planes were blown up in mid-air and a lethal bomb exploded outside a Moscow metro station. All these attacks were terrorist in character and, in the case of Beslan, Islamic in the method of execution; yet the reaction of the European media was characterized by (1) blaming the victim, (2) ridiculing Russia’s claim to be battling terrorism, and (3) advising “dialogue” with the Chechen terrorists and effective Russian capitulation to their demands.

The problem of such visceral bias, stereotypical quasi-reporting and quasi-analysis is by no means new. The collapse of Russia’s institutions and social infrastructure under Yeltsin was accompanied by hyperinflation that wiped out savings and reduced the middle class and pensioners to penury. Its leading lights—Anatoly Chubais, Yegor Gaidar, Boris Nemtsov and Vladimir Ryzhkov—were nevertheless hailed in the European media as “pro-Western reformers” sans peur et sans reproche. Their political factions, lionized by the Western media, were duly supported by the quasi-NGO network funded in part by the Western taxpayers.

The parallel wholesale robbery of Russian resources by the oligarchs and fire-sale of drilling concessions to their Western cohorts such as the BP, became a contentious issue in Russia’s relations with the West only a decade later, with the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Media allegations of “Putin’s revenge” against the Yukos boss may have been worthy of serious investigation (which was lacking) but they disregarded the fact that—quite apart from his political ambitions—Khodorkovsky was guilty of fraud and tax evasion on a massive scale.

The West European media commentary brought to mind the manner in which Brezhnev’s propaganda had built Rudi Dutschke and Angela Davis into political martyrs. And while last month’s court proceedings in Kiev against Yulia Tymoshenko may have left a lot to be desired, the Western media disregard for her proven record of corruption and venality was equally predictable. Her transgressions are irrelevant in the context of the ideological usefulness of her constructed victimhood with clear anti-Russian implications and connotations.

There is absolutely no evidence, by contrast, that Anna Politkovskaya was killed on Putin’s orders, as claimed or suggested in dozens of West European mainstream media outlets With no evidence whatsoever, that assumption was immediately made when she was shot in November 2006, and gravely presented as near-certainty by the usual “experts.” But when a leading opposition politician was shot in May 2007 in Georgia, the event was barely mentioned in Europe: just try a Google search for “Guram Sharadze.”

Talking of Georgia, the anti-Russian stereotypes most notably prevailed over common sense and journalistic integrity at the time of Saakashvili’s attack on South Ossetia in August 2008, with the British media leading the pack in their attacks on Russia’s “aggression” and Western “passivity.” I am not going to bore you any longer with detailed quotes, we all remember it well.

While never missing an opportunity to hector Russia on democracy and criticize her human rights record, the West European media have been notably silent on the discriminatory treatment of large Russian minorities in the former Soviet republics. In Latvia and Estonia the Russians are subjected to arguably the worst treatment of any minority group by any member of the European Union, or (with the exception of Turkey) of NATO. Latvia and Estonia have been allowed by the West flagrantly to break promises made before independence.

All along, the mainstream media verdict on both sides of the Atlantic depends on an actors’ status on the ideological pecking order of the media elite itself, not on his words and actions as such—in line with the Leninist dictum that the moral value of any act by anyone is determined by that act’s contribution to the march of history. Putin’s current approval rating of 60 percent is thus cited as further evidence of his manipulative populist demagoguery and yet another “proof” that democracy remains underdeveloped in Russia.

Parallel with the denial of legitimate Russian interests in the “near abroad,” the Western media elite views Russia as a state with limited sovereignty even within her post-Soviet borders. No aspect of its domestic policies, from education (“ethnocentric”), immigration (“restrictive”), or religion (“discriminatory to the non-Orthodox”) to corruption (“rampant”), homosexual rights (“appalling”) and the legal system (“inefficient and corrupt”) has escaped scathing media criticism. That a “truly democratic” Russia can be only the one that is subservient both domestically and externally to the demands and ideas of the Western media elite is accepted on both sides of the European political spectrum as an axiomatic fact.

The notion of Russia’s fundamental illegitimacy and limited sovereignty was explicit in April 2007, when Moscow rejected Great Britain’s demand for the extradition of Andrei Lugovoi, suspected by British officials of murdering his fellow ex-KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko. “Time for a row with Russia,” pontificated The Guardian: “Russia has to learn that it cannot act with impunity. We need to make our condemnation of Russia’s appalling human rights record clear… We need to complain vigorously about… the mayor of Moscow’s banning of this weekend’s gay pride march… [W]e should not be afraid of ruffling Putin’s feathers.” A similar article was published in most major dailies all over Europe. Hardly any had mentioned that the issue of extradition between Britain and Russia was in some way linked to London’s point-blank refusal to extradite to Russia Boris Berezovsky, a corrupt arch-oligarch, or Akhmed Zakayev, accused of a host of horrendous terrorist crimes in Russia. That a British court blithely accepted Zakayev’s claim that he would not get a fair trial, and could even face torture in Russia, went unreported. If Russia, on the other hand, dares reject a Western extradition order for a Russian citizen, then it’s time for another paroxysm of rage that transcends the political divide.

In recent weeks, and particularly following the September 23 announcement that V.V. Putin would again run for presidency next March, we have witnessed yet another campaign of facile media stereotyping. The tone was set as early as September 25 by The Daily Telegraph, which expressed “fears that Vladimir Putin was railroading Russia into an outright dictatorship … as he set course to be the country’s longest-serving leader since Josef Stalin.” Boris Nemtsov’s absurd claim that “Putin will provoke a mutiny among the Russian people” was widely circulated as a serious prediction, reflecting a hint of wishful thinking.

The similarity of reactions to Russia on the right and left ends of Europe’s media spectrum reflects the perception that Russia belongs to a tradition that is both alien and unworthy of multiculturalist tolerance. This is an unreasoning phobia that goes beyond mere rhetoric. Its cause is not in a misunderstanding of the Russian mindset and tradition but, quite the contrary, it is due to the accurate assessment by the media class that Russia as suchis an obstacle to the realization of their political, economic, and ideological preferences in the modern world.

The assorted editorialists and talking heads are following in the footsteps over 800 years old, of the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The Franks did not understand, or care, that the New Rome on the Bosphorus was the guardian and protector of the West against the same enemy we all face today. Their insistence on Byzantium’s submission to the Western political and cultural model opened the way for the Jihadist onslaught against Europe that did not stop until it reached Vienna in 1683. Replicating the same Western folly with Russia today brings to mind Talleyrand’s comment on Napoleon’s execution of the Duc d’Enghien: “It is worse than a crime; it is a mistake.”

The mistake will be very hard to rectify. The unforgivable sin of the Russians, in the eyes of the Western media elite, is that they are still defined by their ethnic, cultural and religious identity. In spite of almost a century of horrendous ordeals and tribulations, Russia is still a recognizable nation, rooted in the continuity of its culture, faith, and collective memories—perhaps the last major European nation which is still recognizably itself.

By contrast the Western postmodern multiculturalism has numerous secondary manifestations (one-worldism, inclusivism, antidiscriminationism) that demand engagement abroad and wide-open immigration doors at home. In either case the impulse is neurotic and its justification is gnostic. It reflects the collective loss of nerve, faith, and identity. It produces cultural and demographic consequences unprecedented in history. It is built on the arrogant conviction that neoliberal ideology contains the blueprint for the solution to the dilemmas and challenges of human existence, that certain enlightened abstractions—democracy, human rights, secular humanism etc.—can and should be spread across the world, and are capable of transforming it.

Both these forms of insanity have a “left,” variant (one-world, post-national, compassionate, multilateralist, Gramscian, therapeutic, Euro-integralist) and a “right,” neoconservative one (democracy-exporting, interventionist, self-aggrandizing). While often differing in their practical manifestations, both paradigms are utopian. Their roots are in the legacy of the Enlightenment. Both maintain that Man is inherently virtuous and capable of betterment. These are two sects of the same Western heresy. Its fruits are in the Christophobic “liberal democracy” of our own time.

The cultural roots of the Western media elite are no longer discernible in what they cherish but in what they reject: they hate European societies founded on national and cultural commonalities, with stable elites and constitutions and independent economies. They regard all permanent values and institutions with open animosity, which is why they support the amorphous fluidity of the European Union. They oppose democracy in post-communist Eastern Europe because it may produce governments that will base the recovery of those ravaged societies on the revival of the family, sovereign nationhood, and the Christian faith. They therefore support political parties and NGOs all over Eastern Europe that promote the entire spectrum of postmodern ismsthat have atomized the West for the past four decades: the embrace of deviancy, perversion, and morbidity as the litmus test of “Western” credentials. At the same time, “democracy” in America and Western Europe alike is a corrupt process run by an elite class that conspires to make secondary issues important and to treat important issues as either irrelevant or a priori illegitimate.

It is futile to expect the Western media elite to stop treating Russia as “the Other,” and to stop wishing for its disintegration, all by itself. As Russia’s ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin has wondered, “The NATO gamekeepers invite the Russian bear to go hunting rabbits together. The bear doesn’t understand: why do they have bear-hunting rifles?” Well, because they’d like to kill the bear and carve him up, or else make him pliant and obedient to their whims, a tame dancer in the global circus.

There are some who might dismiss my concerns, saying “ah, but Russia is a powerful country, the dogs bark but the caravan moves on.” This is extremely short-sighted. The overall tenor of Western media reporting on Russia helps lock policy into concrete undesirable forms, notably on the issue of visas (in the case of Europe) and WTO (in the case of the U.S.). This is a phenomenon Russia ignores at its peril. The fact that both the European Union and the U.S. are bankrupt and their global power is objectively declining, is not cause for immediate comfort. The circumstances, where the authors of policy maintain ambitions far beyond the resources objectively available to them are those that can give rise to miscalculation, with disastrous results.   It is all the more reason that Russia cannot afford to be complacent about policy formation in either Brussels or Washington and why, for its own self-interest, Moscow should actively seek to affect it with lobbying and soft influence.

TO CONCLUDE: For the past two decades Russia has been trying to rearticulate her goals and define her policies in terms of traditional national interests. The old Soviet dual-track policy of having “normal” relations with the West, on the one hand, while seeking to subvert it, on the other, gave way to naïve attempts in the 1990’s to forge a “partnership.” By contrast, the early 1990’s witnessed the blossoming of America’s attempt to assert her global hegemony. This ambition created an ironic role-reversal; it precluded any suggestion that Russia has legitimate interests, externally or internally. The justification for the project was as ideological, and the implications as revolutionary, as anything concocted by Zinoviev or Trotsky in their heyday.

That a “truly democratic” Russia must be subservient to the propositional matrix is still axiomatic on both sides of the Atlantic. “Democracy” is thus defined in the spirit of Lenin: it depends on one’s status in the ideological pecking order and on one’s contribution to the march of history. In this progression the reshaping of Russia’s soul is the final stop. In that respect any gap between the Sorosite “Left” and neo-Cold-War “Right” is a matter of degree rather than kind. In this context, Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, stated something remarkable three years ago, in an interview with Russia Today (November 18, 2008): “There is a new civilization emerging in the Third World that thinks that the white, northern hemisphere has always oppressed it and must therefore fall at its feet now… If the northern civilization wants to protect itself, it must be united: America, the European Union, and Russia. If they are not together, they will be defeated one by one.” Rogozin’s statement reflects an understanding of the commonalities shared by Europeans and their overseas descendants—an understanding as accurate as it is odious to the Western elite class. It indicates that, in some important ways, Russia is freer than the West: No American or EU diplomat of his rank would dare make such a statement (even if he shared the sentiment), or hope to remain in his post after making it.

Western multiculturalists in the media and academia oppose any notion of “our” physical or cultural space that does not belong to everyone. They deny that we should have a special affinity for any particular country, nation, or culture, but demand the imposition of their preferences upon the whole world. They celebrate any random mélange of mutually disconnected multitudes as somehow uniquely “diverse” and therefore virtuous.

Ideologues will deny it, but in the decades to come Europe, Russia, and America will be in similar mortal peril. In the end there will be no grand synthesis, no cross-fertilization, and certainly no peaceful coexistence, between the North and the Third World. There will be kto kogo. The short-term prospects for fostering a sense of unity among Europeans—Eastern, Western, and American—are dim and will remain so for as long as the regimes of all the major states of the West are controlled by an elite class hostile to its own roots and cultural fruits.

We need a paradigm shift in the West that would pave the way for a genuine Northern Alliance of Russia, Western Europe and North America, as all three face similar existential geopolitical and demographic threats in the decades ahead. I don’t know if this alliance will materialize. I do know that, if it doesn’t, our civilization will be in peril. To prevent that outcome, it is essential to (re)affirm the principle of “preserve and augment,” to be inspired by the constant creative renewal of society without stagnation or revolution, and to rely on the commonalities of the spiritual traditions, history and culture of the extended European family, from Anchorage via Berlin to Vladivostok.

The Olympic Games And The New World Order 2012

In 2005 the International Olympic Committee in Singapore gave the 2012 games to London, accusations of bribery and corruption began immediately and it looks suspiciously as if the games were won with dirty tricks, this meant that the staged celebratory pictures were cut short, and costs so far are over 3 times than estimated by the Tony Blair regime and still mounting.

By 2007 infrastructure costs alone were re-evalued up to £9.37 billion, Londoners generally still remember “Tonies Dome,” the Peter Mandelson Millennium Dome event which lost £790 million, London mayor Boris Johnson said semi jokingly, “we could have had another war for this.”

The Millenium Dome was designed to usher in changes to the way people see things, to distort mental images and re programme them for the NWO Multiculturalism and homosexuality.

Whole long established communities had to be removed from East London, family business’s destroyed and homes demolished for an unwanted white elephant project with a shelf life of a couple of weeks, and while British construction workers sat on unemployment lists, our own government brought in foreign workers to build the monstrosity in an open exhibition of hatred and racism against its own people
that were fighting illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for it.

I know this area well as i have walked my dogs here for many years, and i know 20% of the adults in the Thames Gateway area have no qualifications, and 50% of children have no one in their homes at work, the apprenticeship system was done away with solely as an excuse to bring in more foreign workers.

National figures show 180 British old people die of hyperthermia and starvation each day through the average winter, this winter is expected to be harsher and longer than in recent years and projected figures are now expected to top 200 per day, yet the government would rather spend money on an event steeped in corruption, racism and jingoism.

Those in the public eye who refused to support the games were targetted by the Murdoch press for telphone and mail intercepts in dirt gathering exercises, the Murdoch press and the BBC push sport especially football on the main news in large dumbing down exercises, and the public are like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed on sh*t runs the saying.

All voting papers are secretly numbered and the authorities know who you vote for, and before the games begin, provision exists to arrest without charge anyone who has voted for non central controlled parties under the prevention of terrorism act, similar to what was done in W W II.

London transport has said it will not cope as the underground is said  to find it difficult already with work commuters and tourists, the extra people expected for the games has already brought in many changes at great expense, Police numbers have been heavily reduced in recent times and many crimes are going unreported or shuffled into lesser categories, and the Metropolitan police are already complaining of funding and manpower shortages in the lead up to the games.

Crime in the olympic area is 20% higher than other London Areas ( 2007 figures from British Crime Survey) and large numbers of foreign pickpockets and prostitutes are expected to mingle with Olympic staff and in the crowds. The 2,800 new apartments are expected to be a hot target for thieves and mugging gangs, biggest problem is said to be the travel arrangements for those coming in and out of the capital, this presents a nightmare scenario for security, and many of the people who live in the area will make sure they are away during the Olympic event. The Glastonbury festival has been cancelled for 2012 where many were expected to go and hide out.

MI5 have long been arranging for any terror alerts, and some home grown activist may well be primed for some false flag attack which will of course be found out just in time.

Ticket allocations have been a farce, people wanting to see certain events were refused and were told send in your money and we will decide what you can see, because ticket sales have been so poor, Lakshmi Mittal and other celebrities have been sent handfuls of freebies, so they can be seen and photographed as taking part.

A huge PR exercise has been underway to welcome in the foreign workers, and a big campagn claiming that the British are a bastard race of all different peoples going back to the Roman times, but this is not true, if you ask any geneologist who traces back families they will tell you that very few people prior to W W I, have foreign input into their families, its only since WWII that this has occurred. The government tells us crap like this to encourage multiculturalism, and this is the real meaning of the games, to get the British people to roll over and allow others to take over what remains of Britian. The New World Order is here and it has sold you out and means to destroy you.

Living with David Duke and Louis Farrakhan

A discussion about race is one of those subjects that frighten most people. Yet, the facts of social and ethnic differences are a major cause of our idiotic public policy in a society that is rooted in denial. Of course, ethnic groups are different, but it does not follow that they cannot have common ground. A comparison of David Duke and Louis Farrakhan might seem to the casual observer to be a study in dissimilarities, but for the scholarly practitioner of the “real world”, the commonalities of – Just What’s in those Genes? – illustrates a universal nature.

The reason why both Duke and Farrakhan are vilified in the popular culture stems from their shared pattern of taking on the establishment sacred cow of multiculturalism. Add to this dangerous trait of defending your own people, targeting the Zionist cult that seeks global superiority, is the ultimate transgression.

If people of color view themselves as victims of discrimination, how is that any different from European descendants being singled out as bigots for resisting social integration? The power struggle for supremacy fails to understand that separatism is achievable and preferable. Both Duke and Farrakhan exemplify the validity of this principle.

Carving out a multiculturalism society has been a miserable failure by any objective standard. Examine their respective reports on housing and the mortgage debacle.

David Duke quotes Ian Mosley about the experience in the US and lesson from Ireland,

“While people may surrender their homes to the new agencies, they will still owe any shortfall between the current value and their mortgage to their lender. This will remain the case until the introduction of personal insolvency legislation which is to be fast-tracked by the Department of Justice. The report stressed that reform of the bankruptcy and personal insolvency law was fundamental and stated that without it the mortgage problem would not be resolved.”

Renting out foreclosed homes is a logical next step to limit further financial losses. Banks can do this in Ireland since they’ll be renting to White people, who will take good care of the homes. In the US however, banks haven’t been renting out their foreclosed homes because the federal government will force them to rent out a large percentage to blacks and Latinos, who will likely destroy the homes. Considering that there are more than 19 million foreclosed homes in the US, political correctness and federal interference is costing society hundreds of billions of dollars in losses —again.”

Minister Farrakhan draws from – Foreclosures mount, mediation fails, wealthiest Black suburb suffers.

“For communities of color around the country, a “lagging collapse” may be ahead, said Alan Mallach, a nationally known housing expert who has done extensive on-the-ground research into the foreclosure crisis. Prince George’s county is a case in point. The nation’s wealthiest majority-Black county, it has been devastated by the foreclosure crisis. Heavily targeted by subprime lenders in the boom years, the county is now staggering under the weight of abandoned homes and plummeting prices. The county received more than 7,100 notices of intent to foreclose in March.”

Housing foreclosures have devastated everyone who overbought and leveraged their purchase. Targeting blacks for subprime loans or reluctance to rent out foreclosed homes to blacks and Latinos are understandable statements coming from the respective viewpoints of their own ethnic identity. Clearly, the banking laws that drove the irrational notion that anyone is responsible enough to own a home has caused much pain and loss of capital. However, the theme that different groups naturally gravitate to reside in neighborhoods of their own kind is apparent. So why not respect that inherent trait and abolish the social engineering experiments that force unnatural behavior?

When it comes to the international arena, both Farrakhan and Duke are not shy in voicing their shared disgust for the global integration into a perverse New World Order.

Now that the mendacious media message is rejoicing over the demise of Gaddafi the Farrakhan video is even more relevant. Watch Minister Farrakhan’s message in “” and you will see a much different person than the one the media manipulators wants you to believe.

Farrakhan’s support for Colonel Gaddafi is well known. But, his warnings went unnoticed by most readers in the press and globalists in the government. Back in March of this year, he stated:

“Well, today our dear brother (Obama) has to be very, very careful in this decision that he and his Secretary of State, and [French President Nicolas] Sarkozy and [British] Prime Minister [David] Cameron and others are planning. They would love to go into Libya and kill Brother Gadhafi, and kill his children as they did with Saddam Hussein and his sons, Qusay and Uday. You must remember, dear people of America, that whenever government wants you to think and act in a certain way that would bring justification to an action that they are already planning to make, they must make the person that they hate a ‘boogey man,’ ” he said.

Note the sharp contrast between the way Minister Farrakhan addresses President Obama and the way he calls him out in the video. Now that the war against Libya is shifting into a new stage of regime change, the path to the next target comes into the cross hairs.

David Duke is most vocal about the coming strike upon Iran. In his 2010 video –  he points the finger at Zionism. The NeoCons drive the foreign policy of the US Empire, bent on expanding a greater Israel, is a basic part of the New World Order arrangement. Obama is just a continuation of the Bush foreign policy.

Farrakhan knows the wrath from the Jewish Lobby. Nevertheless, at the recent 16th anniversary and commemoration of the historic Million Man March, he said:

“I would respectfully submit to you that we all should conscientiously object to the wars going on in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan Somalia, Yemen and Libya and we must not let our government send our babies to die on the basis of a lie!” Minister Farrakhan stated emphatically. “The media is stoking the fire for war with Pakistan and war with Iran. As a Muslim, never will we fight against our Muslim brothers for the Zionists of America that have locked down the government of America. Never will we die for the state of Israel!”

Duke and Farrakhan may differ in the particular emphasis of exploration endured by their respected identity groups, but both are unequivocal in their understanding that there is a pervasive link, to a different tribe, that adversely affects their mutual interests. This linkage traverses both foreign and domestic policy. Moreover, when it comes to the institutions that benefited from the housing and mortgage fiasco, they are in total agreement.

The significance of this mutual awareness is that both racial populations are casualties of the same manipulation. The dense middle class, of any race, has a hard time accepting that the real cause of the disintegration of society is a designed process, intended to play one group against another. The solution is not a homogenous forfeiture of your cultural legacy, but a restoration of a separation from the absurdity of the multicultural model that destroys individual identity.

Appreciate the offense from the Chutzpah that claims a false legitimacy for a Chosen People, when the practice of racial suicide is fostered at every turn upon the gentile and Islamic communities. Exempting the perpetrators of global Totalitarian Collectivism from scrutiny, much less accountability is irrational. All along, the race baiters continue their promotion of intermingling, which is a guaranteed formula for cultural demise.

Both Farrakhan and Duke are champions of the human race, because they know the natural boundaries required for every ethnic group to maintain their own unique identity.

Libya destroyed and Iran is on deck. The similarity with the predictable collapse of the mortgage scam and the methodical elimination of dissenting political regimes is not a stretch. It is part of the plan to impoverish humanity in confined prisons of beggary and dependency. Living in the same locality with David Duke and Louis Farrakhan is a step up in personal integrity and self-fulfillment from being neighbors with NeoCon, Christian-Zionists or NeoLib multiculturalists.

Isn’t it time to grown up as a society and have the guts to converse in a serious discussion about the true causes that are destroying America? Let people live their own lives in the way and manner that strengthen their own heritage and aspirations. Lines between and among cultures is entirely natural. Globalists want to deceive you into thinking that everyone should be accepting of the New World Order.

Those who challenge and combat the decaying and decadent system are the real heroes. Those who parrot the politically correct jargon facilitate the race divide by playing into the myth that compatibility is the noble goal. Finally, those who continue to pour out the poison of regime change are the same elites who set up the walls and barriers that protect them and keep the rest of us in a slum of government design. The choice is yours. Whom do you want for a neighbor?

A Look At Europe’s New Right

“Belonging To A People Makes A Man Human,” writes Guillaume Faye in his best selling book, “Why We Fight.”

Faye has emerged as the leading voice of Europe’s ‘New Right’ (Nouvelle Droite) as he departs further afield from his mentor Alain de Benoist as well as from Dieter Stein, publisher of Junge Freiheit (Young Freedom).

Guillame Faye’s Why We Fight indeed moves beyond the theories of de Benoist’s ground breaking year-2000 Manifesto For The New Right. For while Faye gives credit to his mentor’s philosophy his main concern is with on-the-ground strategic activism in finding a solution to Europe’s multiracial immigration problem.

Faye’s geopolitical outlook in some ways mirrors the “Eurasianist” idea advanced by Russian nationalist Alexander Dugin and the anti-Immigrationists of the “Euronationalists” such as Front National’s Marine Le Pen and British National Party’s Nick Griffin.

This puts the “ethno-visionary” Faye at odds with de Benoist who seeks an alliance between Europe and the Islamic Third World in opposing Zionism and Americanism. Faye has also debated against his former guide’s claim that immigration is an incontestable facet of European existence and can only be dealt with as such:

“The right to be different in de Benoist’s strategy in reality is reserved for everyone butEuropeans who in the name of multiculturalism are summoned to discard their own biological and cultural identity.

For in the Europe it envisages, communities of foreigners, particularly Muslim ones, will, for obvious demographic reasons, play an ever-greater role in our lives. This affront to our identity is accompanied by sophistic arguments that ridicule the ‘fantasy’ of a possible White reconquista. In this spirit, we are told that we will have to make do with a multiracial Europe.

But I, for one, refuse to make do. Nor am I prepared to retreat before an alleged historical determinism which aims at making Europe a Third World colony.” View Entire Debate Here.

Although Faye does view America (which he calls “the monstrous offshoot of Judaism”) as an “adversary,” he identifies the “real enemy” threatening the European White Homeland as Islamic Third World immigration.

And while acknowledging that the Judeo liberal class has been the  of Third World immigration and the demonizing of European White culture, he sees European Jewry as nothing more (albeit serious) than a “corrupting” and “intimidating” force.

“An enemy,” Faye contends, “does more than corrupt and intimidate, it threatens one’s biological existence. Our life and death struggle is with an inassimilable Islam, growing in numbers throughout the continent.”  , Here & Here.

RACIAL WARS & RACIAL SOLUTIONS

“EUROPE’S PLIGHT IS PROVOKING A WORLD CATASTROPHE,” warns Guillaume Faye in a recent interview with the Occidental Observer.

In his latest book, Avant-Guerre (Before the War), Faye develops his thesis of “the colonization of Europe” while going beyond the New Right context by predicting “a terrifying crisis.”

A coming crisis, (surprisingly), he actually welcomes—”a third world war”—which he believes will be the means to awaken Europeans to their need for a homogeneous White society.

In a concurrent interview with the Flemish magazine Menzo, Faye brings up the riots that lasted for twenty-one days in November 2005. He views the anarchy that ensued as a prelude to a coming catastrophe:

“The riots were an ethnic revolt and not what the liberal class made of it, a ’socio-economic’ backlash. Because of unbridled immigration of sub-Saharan Africans, we have massive numbers of foreigners with hidden arsenals whose culture is totally different from ours.”

In sub-Saharan countries, social structures that we take for granted are non-existent. Mothers have children with different fathers and children are raised by the village. When such structures are exported it inevitably causes problems.

Paris is not a village and the rearing of children is not its responsibility. The offspring of these Africans frequently turn to crime. They don’t know who their father is and no one takes responsibility for them. Their presence here is like a time bomb.” View Entire Story Here & Here.

And this “time bomb,” (so Guillaume Faye warns of and even welcomes), as he views the storm clouds on the horizon, will soon, (he predicts), usher in world-altering tempests descending on the White race—determining once and for all—if it is to have a future or not.

http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=653

Humanism: The Scourge of Humanity

It has never been popular to publically condemn evil actions.    When Jesus called the Pharisees whitewashed hypocrites he planted a seed that contributed to His own demise.  Today is the same. Writing truthful essays results in unexplained silences, quietly broken relationships, hate mail, and problems with publication.  Continuing to construct essays in the same vein is redundant, and though necessary to produce even tiny public change, it, too, is often condemned.

Truth gets occluded when donations are essential.  Ministries that depend on donations tend to defer to their major donors. Internet sites that hold to particular ideologies restrict truth.  One popular site will not publish anti-Zionist material, several others are dubious of any questions regarding the Constitution, some sites prefer erudition, credentials are preferred by others, elsewhere goring the Evangelical dog is forbidden, critical articles are never as popular as those that affirm, and good political writing will command a large but usually mislead audience.  Religious writing that titillates the intellect is still well received but confrontations involving the arrogance of ignoring orthodox Christianity and failure of popular Christian theologies to fulfill the Will of God are as poorly received as they were when Christ overthrew the money changers.

Like many Americans (The vast majority in my time.) I married, had children, and spent my middle years working to pay for the house, the car, and food for the family.  I voted Republican (a family tradition) and as a result felt I had done my patriotic duty.  Church attendance was fairly regular and though at the beginning the Gospel was not a personal matter, I did consider the church a “good” and socially beneficial institution.  This is the plight of most middle aged individuals in Western society.  Heavily influenced by massive amounts of propaganda and neither politically nor religiously astute decisions are made by rote and tradition.  Populations that are not educated in maintaining righteousness and are denied accurate information cannot remain free.

When God saved and converted me He kindled an interest in the relationship of my new Faith to society. Most American preachers agreed with God that He had created the world and everything in it but they seemed more concerned with building their church by attraction, conversion, manipulation, and exploitation than in bringing His creation under His control. “Love” was often quoted as a Christian objective.  But loving behavior was never accurately defined.  “Doing God’s Will” is a popular objective but in Pietistic circles God’s Will is the accumulation of myriads of esoteric personal impressions that are frequently idiotic and always anarchic.  Without the yardstick of God’s Law Christians become lost in a humanistic sea of competing and confusing personal opinion. There is no clear map to obedience and most congregations quickly find themselves lost in a chaotic quagmire of individuality that consumes time and energy in questionable behavior, renders the Gospel useless, and creates unnecessary derision.

It is the duty of the Christian Church to teach its members to behave in ways that please God and to support and correct the State so that Family, Church, and Government function righteously.  America has devolved into its present state because the church has utterly failed.

The vacuum created by the Church’s failure has been successfully filled by a cadre of humanistic power elite who sincerely believe they can govern better.  These are men and women with an unshakeable faith in their own beneficial hegemony. They have acquired wealth and power, are unencumbered by an overarching legal system, and are sincere in their belief that they can bring peace and prosperity to the world by imposing the product of their reasoning.

It is difficult for Americans to understand the extent to which pervasive propaganda has manipulated their behavior.  They are often unaware that seeing racial diversity day after day on television is a propaganda tool.  They fail to recognize that movies about war heroes promote illegal wars.  The constant barrage of Holocaust movies has distorted the reality that the murder of innocent Christians was much more pervasive than the murder of Jews.  Social chaos is created by pervasive immorality which is promoted by the media.  Wars are couched in false terms of necessity.  Hate is engendered by casting the target as evil and cruel.  Righteousness is pilloried, slandered, and made to seem foolish.  Evil propaganda is destroying the culture, distorting truth, creating strife, and debilitating our nation.

The idea that powerful forces would deliberately set the stage for poverty, riots, and irreconcilable conflict is unthinkable. Strife purposely fomented by setting up two controlled, contending forces is beyond the imagination.  We are a people nurtured on right and wrong.  It is hard for us to believe our fellow human beings would deliberately cultivate evil social behavior.  We are helpless in the flood of humanistic nihilism; unable to believe that the America we have known and loved is being intentionally destroyed by the government we have elected.

War, false flag operations, bankruptcy, illegal immigration, rampant public mendacity,  wealth destruction, family disintegration, homelessness, controlled violent weather, impure food sources, impediments to travel, arbitrary law enforcement, leakage of national sovereignty, aberrant sexuality, immoral and violent motion pictures and TV shows, multiculturalism, legal diarrhea, loss of lucrative middle class jobs, concentration of wealth and power, callus and impersonal corporations, hopeless unemployment, and galloping inflation are but a few of the hundreds of disintegrating forces tearing at our nation.  Very few Americans can comprehend that all this is being done on purpose.

It is time for Americans to understand that the political system cannot produce a solution.  It is part of the problem. Christians are wasting time in the political arena.  There will be no political solution!  Championing fringes of righteousness in Washington is like hoping the drowning man might save himself after he surfaces the third time.  United States has been under the thumb of controlled politicians for decades.  The problem is religious, not political.  Christians have allowed aberrant theology to neuter the Gospel thereby bringing God’s judgment on both themselves and the nation.  Striving to solve moral problems in a humanistic political system is foolishness.

Islam is more dangerous to the new world order then Christianity.  The invasion of Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the vilification of Iran and Pakistan are all efforts to bring Islam to heel.  Islam has a legal system feared by the majority of Americans but practiced by Muslims and by their governments.  The humanist new world order prefers to dictate laws that are convenient for them and is intent on wiping out Islam.  Since Christians have nullified God’s Law they are without a legal system and are only able to create minor resistance to the Devil’s legal juggernaut.  Muslims with legal reverence to a higher authority present a more serious problem; they actually resist the evil laws of the new world order, Christians cannot.

What is left of Western Christianity is abysmally weak and those who participate in it are astonishingly intractable.  As the rotten social fruit of Christian ministries is reaped year after year one wonders if their leaders are sentient.

Western Christians fail to recognize the dichotomy of claiming to support a Christian God while offering as a solution a humanistic Constitution that bans Christian oaths and encodes religious plurality in direct violation of the Commandments of the God they claim to worship.  Christians have allowed this humanistic document to supersede and replace the Laws of the Creator.  Foolish Christian ministers actually laud “rich religious diversity”.   It is a sin that must be corrected for God cannot forgive such willfulness.

Christians have no authority to override the Constitution and impose God’s Laws but it is their duty to preach the superiority of the legal system God in His infinite Wisdom gave first to ancient Israel then to Christians.  As society comes to understand the superiority of Biblical Law and seeks to live in personal freedom under its mandates, then, and only then, would Christian dominion become viable.  It is impossible to impose a righteous legal system on an evil people.

Evangelical Christianity is a heresy.   Omitting God’s legal standards is tantamount to worshiping a false God.  It is impossible to understand the character and the Will of our God without understanding and obeying His Law.  Evil is disobedience to God’s Law.  When Pietism eschews the Law they make the definition of evil esoteric.  When we fail to carry out God’s punishments for evil behavior we fertilize and compound social sin.  When we fail to execute the murderer we bring God’s judgment on ourselves and burden society with our disobedience.  When we allow rebellious children to grow into adulthood we create civil unrest which contends with the peace God intends for His people.  When we wink at adultery and fornication we destroy the family and eliminate the order God set forth for His creation.  Homosexuality is a grievous sin; a precursor to the death of a nation.  But far more serious than specific disobedience is the pervasive fear of God’s Law and the punishment it requires.

The majority of American Christians prefer the Devil’s mandates to the perfect Law of God; many fail to support the death penalty.  In direct rebellion against the character and Will of the God they profess to worship they condemn stoning and support the use of sedatives.  They are so utterly ignorant of their God that they live in mortal fear of Shiria law which is in some ways similar to the Law of the Bible.  Fear of God’s Law is the essence of humanism.  Christianity without Law is a faith that puts man and his culture before God and His Word.

Humanism has infected the majority of contemporary Christian leadership.  Rare is the pulpit that respects the orthodox theology that was willed us by our forefathers.  Dispensationalism and other heretical humanistic theologies have infected the church creating an effete institution.  God’s sovereignty is attacked when pastors disregard His authority and emphasize human decisions for Christ.  If He is sovereign and you are a Christian you were chosen by God.  Even more dangerous is the massive human intervention into God’s Word.  Judaism’s Torah heretically truncates the Gospel.  Dispensationalism adds an order that God did not impose and dissects the Bible in human terms.  American Christians delight in prophecies and other errant ministries of fallen creatures – they prefer humanism to the God of the Bible.  Evangelical Christians claim to be Bible based but they ignore the legal standards that are the subject of the narrative of three quarters of the Book they claim to support.  Three fourths of the Bible describes the blessings of obedience and the curses of disobedience and a quarter of God’s Word describes His merciful solution to the sins of His created beings.  Since God has provided mercy for our disobedience should we then sin by ignoring His Law – God forbid!

When the Christian Church lost its Biblical foundation our courts followed.  American courts function under Admiralty Law.   Judges not bound by immutable standards become lord in their court rooms.  The Constitution is usually ignored. When the perfect law of God is absent the error filled laws of men replace it, freedom is lost and imperialism soon follows.  Man was not created to govern himself.  American courts send innocent men to jail and free the guilty.  It is a fearful thing to fall under the jurisdiction of our courts for they are neither fair nor just; justice and equity were long ago replaced by power and victory.

Few Americans act as if God is sovereign and Jesus is King.  Instead we continue to put our faith in human solutions bringing God’s continuous judgment.

We may be living in the End Times but when we become consumed with that prospect we fail to perform the task God has assigned to us.  Our business is to bring the ineffable message of salvation to the hearts God has chosen and righteousness to the world He has created for as long as His Grace allows us to live.

Many would contend that my essays overemphasize God’s Law.  That accusation is correct.  However, my overemphasis is but a drop in the dearth of legal information that afflicts the Christian Church.  Social righteousness is diminished to the extent that God’s Law is ignored and in America it is not only ignored but widely condemned.  When we ignore God’s Law we ignore righteousness.  Since sin has been covered by the Blood of Jesus we are forgiven but unfortunately Christians can be forgiven and eligible for Heaven from earthly societies that are sinful, chaotic, and Fascistic.  Sin, chaos, and Fascism result from disobedience and will remain and worsen until God’s people return to righteousness under His mandates.

Canadian Immigration: Racism, Multiculturalism and Cultural Relativism

The Truth Comes Out About the Infamous ‘Racist’ Poster in Calgary…

This week, Canadian Environmentalist Tim Murray asked penetrating questions as to what constitutes a hate crime or hate speech.  In Canada’s accelerating immigration crisis, more and more Canadians want to know why their country is being flooded with relentless immigration.  Citizens are forced to “shut up” for fear of being locked up.   This is the latest report:

“Police said none of the statements on the posters constitute a hate crime.”

“So there you have it!” said Murray.  “The so-called ‘racist’ poster that sent self-proclaimed ‘anti-racists’ into a panic was not so racist or hateful. The poster that Immigration Minister Jason Kenny thought was “crude and menacing” but not so crude and menacing as to be illegal. According to a press report by CBC news,  the police said that none of the statements on the poster constitute a crime. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2011/08/02/calgary-anti-immigration.html

“What counts then, in Canada, is not what is said, but by whom it is said. If it is said by people that some other people don’t like, then the statements must be removed from public view.  Therefore a group that the Multicult Thought Police designates as a “hate group” is not to be allowed to even make statements that are not “hateful”. So what were these statements?
“Did you know Immigration costs Canadian taxpayers $23 billion annually? 265,000 new immigrants enter Canada every year. The official unemployment rate is 7.7%. Does this seem right to you?”http://www.cireport.ca/2011/08/the-poster-campaign-by-blood-and-honour-canada-deemed-to-be-racist.html

“How crude! How menacing! And how correct! Except that the figure “265,000”  understates the number of immigrants who enter Canada every year by 395,000—if you add the 380,000  entrants admitted on so-called “temporary” visas  to the 280,000 “immigrants” who came in 2010. That is right folks. As Sun TV’s  Brian Lilley put it, each year they plop another Mississauga into the country. Is there any other nation on earth this mad? If not, we could certainly give Australia a run for its money in the derby to see who will populate and perish first.

“What is “crude” here is the belief held by all federal political parties that immigration-driven population growth is necessary to stimulate economic growth. And according to the poll conducted by David Colette last year, fully half of Canadians feel menaced by this growth and the policy of hyper-immigration for which Jason Kenny is a front-line booster. Meanwhile another 34% of those polled indicated that theydon’t want immigration levels increased. But who cares what ordinary Canadians want? Only the political class and their oracles in the CBC know best.

“Canada is indeed as Mark Steyn would describe it. A conformist culture that celebrates diversity in everything but thought. I can only reiterate what I said over three years ago:

The only way freedom is going to be restored, be it in the office, the warehouse or the college campus is for people to exercise it. Courageously and in defiance of speech codes and harassment guidelines.

“The totalitarian impulse to control has thrived in past decades from our complacency and fear.”

“So challenge… multicultural thought control first in its university lair, then at work and in the media…….Freedom is a muscle that atrophies from disuse. Canadians appear to be of such a nature as to expect institutions, particularly government institutions, to take care of their needs in perpetuity. We have asked government to protect us from illiteracy and ill-health and the vagaries of the market place, but it has not stopped there, it has endeavored to protect us from ourselves. From our thoughts and words.

“Now we have but one option. To cut the noose or stop breathing. In an authentic democracy, the people have a right not to be “educated” by their government. They have a right to read “hate” literature and make their own judgments.”
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2758

Analysis of Breivik’s Ideas – Part 2

Breivik hated Reds even more than Muslims. The Pakis should be deported, but the Commies ­ shot as traitors, he wrote in his 2083. He fumed against communism like Hitler in Mein Kampf, but Hitler had better reasons. Hitler competed against the Communists for the hearts of German workers, AND Hitler competed against the softies within the national-socialist movement in Germany, who (notably the brothers Strasser) were prepared to deal with communists.

A long time has passed since then. Communism won in the titanic struggle of 1945, but suffered a huge setback in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Consequently, anticommunism has lost its meaning since at least 1991, but probably even earlier. Today, it could possibly mobilise a few old-timers in Washington DC, but maybe not even them.

It is with great astonishment we witnesses of Communism’s defeat read in 2083 that Communism was victorious:

“The US but especially W. Europe lost the Cold War due to the fact that we didn’t persecute the Marxists after WW2. If we had executed each and every Marxist and banned Marxist doctrines (not only the economical aspects but the cultural as well ­ internationalism, extreme feminism, extreme egalitarianism, anti-elitism, anti-nationalism) we would not be in the current situation. Instead, our traitorous and weak minded post-WW2 leaders allowed the Marxists to gradually infiltrate many aspects of society after WW2, especially our universities and the media (see the beginning of book 1 for a complete overview of how this happened). The first ML pioneers (Marxist-Leninists) were allowed to indoctrinate the ’68 generation, those who run things today.”

Breivik arrives at the unexpected conclusion that both the EU and the US are, in our present age, “socialist” or even “communist” states, “EUSSR and USSR” organised in accordance with Marx’s teachings. I did not know that Karl Marx envisaged a society with hundreds of billionaires and millions of paupers. One would have to be mad to describe the contemporary US and EU as “communist dictatorships” ­ these societies are extremely inegalitarian — workers are on the bottom, while the super-wealthy have an ostentatious lifestyle unheard of even in Medici’s Florence.

The reason for this unexpected conclusion is that Breivik intentionally confuses Marxism-Leninism as the ruling ideology of the Soviet Union and Maoist China, with the neo-Marxist western ideology of Fromm and Adorno, Marcuse and Lukacs. With all due respect, the Cold War was NOT a war with them, but a war against the USSR and its allies, a war with its geopolitical as well as ideological components. Western neo-Marxists were rather the allies of the Capitalist West in that war, and their contribution to the fall of the Eastern citadel of Communism was enormous, as they successfully undermined the Russian elites’ belief in their own ideology.

Though Breivik quarrels with the Western Marxists, he finds it convenient to connect them with the Gulag and with alleged mass murders in the USSR. This is dishonest: the Western neo-Marxists were against Stalin, and they called their Eastern brethren “Stalinists”, at least since the short-sighted Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin in 1956.

Khrushchev, a crypto-Trotskyite, frogmarched the Communists through an unnecessary and unpopular de-Stalinisation instead of letting bygones be bygones. Nowadays President Medvedev is talking again about de-Stalinisation; probably this talk will prevent his re-election. The people of Russia have differing views about Stalin, but the vast majority were and are against de-Stalinisation, for to them it symbolises the breakdown of the national masculine heroic paradigm.

Breivik accuses the Communists of supporting “extreme feminism”. This is odd. Joseph Stalin was the ultimate symbol of masculinity: the great Yugoslav director Dushan Makkaveev depicted him in his Mysteries of the Organism in priapic form. De-Stalinisation can be viewed as an attempt to unman the Father-figure of the Communist world. Again, Breivik’s ridiculous claim can be explained by his desire to gather all the Reds into one big heap: from grim NKVD commissars to California sociologists to the Norwegian teenagers he shot. He learned this nasty trick from his Neocon teachers: they paint every nationalist by the same brush as Adolf Hitler.

We reject it out of hand: not every traditionalist and nationalist is a Breivik or a Hitler; the Communists take differing positions on tradition, with Eastern Stalinists being quite conservative, traditional and mildly nationalist, while Western neo-Marxists rejected the bourgeois nationalism which caused two world wars.

Breivik stresses the Communist origins of the Frankfurt school’s founders, of Theodor Adorno and Georg Lukács ­ but the neocons, too, were red-diaper babies or even active Trots before switching sides. Gramsci indeed dreamed of cultural hegemony as the means of arriving at socialism. He thought that a new “Communist man” might be created before any political revolution. However, Gramsci was mistaken. This theory of Gramsci was used to preach a reformist, non-revolutionary way, avoiding a violent takeover of banks and factories. The idea was played up by the Euro-Communists and, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, disappeared with the Euro-Communist parties.

Lenin was right, and Gramsci was wrong: you have to take away from the capitalists both their chequebooks and their factories, their weapons and their newspapers, their parliament and their government, otherwise they will turn every agenda of yours to their benefit. The Frankfurt school and other Western neo-Marxists stood by the West in the Cold War.

The Western neo-Marxists behaved like the proverbial man who searched for a lost coin under the lamppost. Though he knew he had lost the coin elsewhere, there was more light under the lamppost. They did not know how to interact with workers, and so preferred to work with minorities, students, feminists. It was easier, but led nowhere, as we now see. The workers of Spain and Greece rose up last month, but the neo-Marxists were nowhere to be found. They did not lead this real popular revolt, as they were only used to their toy revolutions in the field of semantics.

The neo-Marxists gave up on revolution, gave up on socialism, gave up on the workers, and instead preferred to work “so no future Holocaust would be possible”. Kevin McDonald, from California State University, wrote that they choose to follow their Jewish agenda rather than the Communist one. Breivik had not read McDonald the Terrible, or at least never referred to him, being such a good pupil of Jewish pundits. KMD’s explanation was forbidden to him. He just intoned that what these men did IS communism. Actually, many texts in 2083 are old anti-Jewish screeds with find/replace Jews by Marxists.

Regretfully Breivik was wrong: the communists did not win. We did not move even one step closer to communism by promoting gay marriages and multiculturalism. Fighting against Christianity and family does not help, either. All these steps were appropriated and used by Capital and against workers. Actually, the objectives of socialist revolution and “no more Holocausts at any cost” are mutually exclusive. For the first objective, we need brave and daring men, for the second, all men must be unmanned, for real men are unpredictable.

The proof that Breivik speaks nonsense (even in his own terms) can be found in his 2083, where he rates European states according to their acceptance of what he calls “cultural Marxism”. Not surprisingly, Russia and other countries of the Communist block are the freest from this dogma, while Germany, Sweden and Norway are the most subservient. Indeed, destructive western neo-Marxist theories were never popular in the East, where capitalism was dismantled in the real sense and there was no need for a make-believe pseudo-communist ideology to paper over a capitalist economy.

As for the West, 1968 was not, as Breivik says, V-day for Marxism, but the beginning of a turn towards the Iron Heel. Our freedoms peaked just after the long-gone year of 1968. 1968 was a turning point in America. In 1968, the richest Americans contributed 90% of their income to the state, while now they pay less than 30% (never mind that they do not pay even that much by cleverly exploiting tax shelters, exempt funds and other tricks). It was in 1968 that the American worker’s minimum pay peaked in real terms. Looking back, 1968 was the moment in history when mankind was nearest to the stars.

As children of the defeated ’68 revolution, we were free to love, smoke, think and act. We could travel and fly without being stripped at the airport, and our booze was not confiscated. We could make love and smoke in cafés. Since then, it has been downhill all the way: smoking has been banned, free thought has been incarcerated by Political Correctness, and political action has been reduced to joining a Facebook group.

In the US, as Noam Chomsky has told me, the U-turn coincided with the teachers’ strike in New York which reminded the Jews that their narrow interests are not necessarily best served by progressive and revolutionary tactics. Accordingly, the revolutionary ideologists of ’68 acquiesced in pacifying the masses, and the chances for a new holocaust or even loss of influence were indeed minimised.

The masculinity of the Left receded, too. Support of dubious gender politics and retreat from the class struggle changed the Left. While the Left had always pushed for equality between the sexes, this equality leaned rather towards the masculine pole: whether it was a worker building the barricade, sailors storming the Winter Palace, cigar-smoking barbudos of Castro, they were all manly symbols of the Left. During the epic confrontation of the first half of 20th century, the Red Guards were not more feminine than the Stormtroopers, and Ernst Thaelmann was not less masculine than Ernst Roehm.

The present misbalance of male/female factors in the developed world was caused by technological developments (man’s physical strength is less needed), by ideological shift and by capitalists’ desire to maximise profit by employing women. As a result, men are frustrated. Their old traditional role of providers is over; their jobs went away to China, fighting is done by drones. Breivik’s massacre bears the mark of a frustrated and marginalized Norwegian man.

Breivik felt his manhood threatened by “television, where nearly every major offering has a female ‘power figure’ and the plots and characters emphasize the inferiority of the male and superiority of the female by government-mandated employment preferences and practices that benefit women and use ‘sexual harassment’ charges to keep men in line, [by] colleges where women’s gender studies proliferate and ‘affirmative action’ is applied in admissions and employment.”

Yes, the killer is a psychotic man whose vision is hardly adequate, but his point should be considered. Even his hatred towards Muslim immigrants could be traced to the threat to his manhood presented by virile, unencumbered-by-fear-of-harassment-charges Southerners successfully competing for the charms of the Nordic girls. This massacre and its possible follow-ups might well have been averted if this European man did not feel his manhood threatened in so many ways.

The massacre is a sign that the Yin/Yang balance of Europe is severely biased; it should be restored and this urgent task can’t be delayed ­ this is an important lesson of the Friday 22 massacre.

Analysis of Breivik’s Ideas – Part I

Breivik’s “2083” The Mass Murderer’s Manifesto

Analysis of Breivik’s Ideas: The massacre was essentially a publicity stunt…

After the tears have dried and the cries of outrage fallen silent, we may begin to recognise that the cinematic qualities of the Utoya Massacre were drawn from trashy horror flicks. It is a recurring theme within the Friday the 13th Screams at Elm Street genre that a serial killer must stalk a peaceful summer camp and murder innocent youths. Friday the 22^nd’s killer effectively brought the celluloid violence to life, further crystallizing the phenomenon of Man’s nightmares intruding onto reality. This trend towards violence began innocently enough with grim dime novels and gore spattered cinema, but it then began to deaden the minds of our children with “first-person shooter” video games of increasing realism. Nowadays those same children have grown into soldiers directing unmanned drone attacks upon far-away lands, and at least one of them has visited a nightmare upon this peaceful island summer camp.

Shooting people who can’t shoot back is a vile act, the mark of a mass murderer, a paid executioner, or a NATO soldier. For two hours the killer professionally, confidently, and coolly stalked the unarmed youths, executing them one by one in absolute safety; for one hundred days the killer’s ex-classmates, now in NATO Air Force, professionally, confidently, and coolly stalked unarmed Libyans from the absolute safety of distant compounds. Breivik hated Muslims, hated Socialists, no doubt he hated Qaddafi, a Muslim Socialist; but his deed better than a thousand Qaddafi-dispatched terrorists should remind the people of Europe that wars abroad will bring war home, too. There are too many licences to kill being produced.

Why did he do it? We can answer the question: the massacre was essentially a publicity stunt to attract worldwide attention to the killer’s opus magnum, a 1500-page compendium entitled “2083”. Breivik’s screed is no great work of human spirit; it is rather a copy-paste hodgepodge of Neocon ravings against Islam and Communism. In any case it does merit a look, if only because so many people were killed in order to make us read it. If this Breivik was a Herostratus, let us see why he burned down the temples of so many lives. Moreover, we must pinpoint where he went wrong.

2083 reveals that a new, vicious strain of political virus has emerged from the genetic engineering labs within the think tanks of the Neocons. The Masters of Discourse have long referred to traditional conservatives as “Nazis” because they oppose unrestricted immigration. They have made much hay of the fact that Nazis once considered Jews to be corrupt, once opposed the weaknesses of homosexuality, and once admired spirituality of the Muslims. The bad guy was supposed to be racist, love Adolf Hitler, hate Jews and gays. He did not have to hate  Commies because Communism was a similar totalitarian ideology according to Karl Popper and George Bush. The new strain passed through these filters.

The long labours of Jewish ideologists within the Neocon movement have borne fruit, and now it is the Jews who are considered to be above suspicion, the homosexuals who are considered strong, and conservative Muslims who are held to be alien to the new conservatism. Today we are witnessing the rapid spread of many well-financed political parties and activist groups that connect far-right ideas with sympathy to Jews, tolerance of gays, and a rabid hate of Islam. The writer of 2083, too, is pro-Jew, pro-gay, violently anti-Muslim and anti-Communist. His nearest analogue is Pim Fortuyn, the assassinated Dutch far-right Judeophile and gay politician. Breivik marched with the English Defence League (EDL), a British group set apart by its strongly pro-Jewish, anti-Muslim militancy.

Breivik’s 2083 is heavily influenced by far-right Neocon Jewish writing. As is often the case with copy-paste compilations, it is difficult to assign an accurate lineage to the conglomeration of words and those of compiled authors. However, if 2083 is ever published, the copyrights of David Horowitz and Bat Yeor, Daniel Pipes and Andrew Bostom should be given pride of place.  These are the writers who inspired Breivik to commit mass murder.

Gilad Atzmon reports that just a few hours before the attack Joseph Klein published an article entitled “The Quislings of Norway” (here) with additional incitement to murder. Klein wrote: “The infamous Norwegian Vidkun Quisling, who assisted Nazi Germany as it conquered his own country, must be applauding in his grave… Norway is effectively under the occupation of anti-Semitic leftists and radical Muslims, and appears willing to help enable the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel.”

These are fighting words, and Breitvik heeded them as he loaded his guns. The content of 2083 reflects his admiration of his Neocon sources. Quotes from David Horowitz’s Frontpage articles contaminate hundreds of pages with his vitriol. Bernard Lewis has his own place of honour. The notorious Bat Yeor, an Egyptian Jewish woman living in Switzerland who coined the term “Eurabia” (an alleged conspiracy to subjugate Europe to Arabs) and did much to promote and grew rich off the fear of Islam, corresponded with the killer. She “kindly” advised him and sent him her unpublished texts. She is the only person named in his Declaration of European Independence, and her advice the newly independent Europeans should follow, according to Breivik. Bat Yeor provided “inestimable service” to his project, and is quoted extensively throughout.

Robert Spencer, a sidekick of Jihad Watch’s David Horowitz, is another great love of the killer, and so is American Zionist Andrew Bostom, self-proclaimed expert on “Islamic anti-Semitism”. Daniel Pipes is presented with his thesis that “The Palestinian phenomenon was created with the intention to justify Jihad.” Serge Trifkovic, an anti-Muslim Serb, Melanie Phillips, the British far-right Zionist who is friendly with the BNP leader Griffits, and Stephen Schwartz are all quoted, along with numerous other activists and scholars who earn their bread by demonizing Islam. (Funnily, these guys repeatedly condemned me for my “anti-Semitism”).

Politically, the killer’s sympathies lie squarely with the United States and Israel: “The creators of Eurabia have conducted a successful propaganda campaign against these two countries in the European media. This fabrication was made easier by pre-existing currents of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in parts of Europe.” Economically, he likes Milton Friedman and Hayek; he would get rid of taxes and welfare state.

Breivik hates the Palestinian people, and rails against the “Palestinian terrorist jihad”.  Like every good Zionist he brings up the Mufti and the Holocaust whenever possible: “Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Arab nationalist leader, a leading force behind the establishment of the Arab League and a spiritual father of the PLO, was a close collaborator with Nazi Germany and personally met with Adolf Hitler. In a radio broadcast from Berlin he called upon Muslims to kill Jews wherever they could find them… he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz.” Among the first things the newly independent Europeans should do, Breivik declares, is to stop all support of the Palestinians.

For Breivik, as for all his Jewish teachers, Adolf Hitler represents ultimate evil. For this reason, he recommends that his readers avoid historically ominous words like “race”.  2083 is largely an attempt to categorize the other reasons to hate Muslims besides “race”. In the end, he did demonstrate to the world that he is not racist: he killed with an even hand, blue-eyed Norwegians as easily as brown-eyed guests. Breivik even hates David Duke – for being anti-Jewish. His hatred of Islam is not limited to the borders of Norway, or even of Europe – like all proper Neocons he hates Muslims wherever they are to be found.

Breivik spends many pages describing the evils committed by Turkey, including the massacres of the Armenians, Greeks and Kurds. There is a long chapter on the modern history of Lebanon where Israeli hand has been excised, and the wars are presented as a struggle between Christians and Muslims. His favourite historical hero is Vlad the Impaler, the Romanian prince better known as Count Dracula.

His logic is as primitive as it is faulty: “If all ethnical groups and all cultures are equal, why is it black Africans, Afro-Caribbean blacks, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, and Eastern Europeans want to abandon their own lands en masse to live in the lands of the West?”

The most obvious explanation: “because the West has robbed them blind,” does not occur to Breivik.

He continues his fallacious dialog: “If we’re all truly equal, why does the rest of the world want to live the Western lifestyle, a lifestyle created in the main by white people? Just why exactly, do they want to be part of capitalism, run businesses, work for the white man’s industries, claim the white man’s welfare and buy and use goods created by the creativity and ingenuity of Western – white – people?”

The fallacies are opaque to Breivik. His Neocon informers have not equipped him to understand that the hated immigrants had once worked in their own successful industries in their own countries. He has forgotten the colour revolutions, the actions of the IMF, and all the other signs of busy Neocon activism.

By no means can Breivik be characterised as a Christian fundamentalist; nor is he a Christian Zionist. His feelings towards Christianity are lukewarm at best, little more than a cultural solidarity. He hasn’t decided whether to call himself Christian. He is still “struggling with this myself. Some of the criticism of Christianity…is legitimate.” Like many Jewish activists, he approves of “the Second Vatican Council from the 1960s …for reaching out to Jews”, an interpretation that at one time was universally resisted by conservatives everywhere.

Breivik’s theological liberalism, however, evaporates when he considers Islam. Though his arguments are valid for immigration policies around the world, he will only speak out against Muslim immigrants. He does not call upon his country to stop tormenting the Muslim states even though this is the main reason for Muslim immigration. He cannot even consider the connection.

In any case, the immigration dispute is practically over in Europe. The understanding that immigration carries huge social costs slowly percolated through every strata of European society, and the tide has turned. Just a few years ago immigration was often viewed as a magic wand that would save the citizens from repetitive, boring chores; people do not see it this way anymore. These immigrants were not slaves, nor were they robots; they quickly became enfranchised, though not integrated. If they work they push the natives into the ranks of the unemployed or working poor; if they do not work, they overload the welfare budgets. The realization dawned slowly, but the about-face is final. Today, a Norwegian does not have to shoot his fellow citizens in order to express disagreement with immigration: this has become the mainstream attitude.

Counterpunch writer Vijay Prashad wrote: “the [murdered] Labour youth had among them children of migrants from Sri Lanka and North Africa. Their Norway was not Breivik’s Norway.” Exactly. That is why Breivik hated them: he did not want their new, international Norway to displace the Norway of his youth. Prashad condemns European conservatives who “cannot fathom that human beings are able to live convivial lives with those who are different”, but the history of Sri Lanka is not the best example of peaceful conviviality. If the people of Sri Lanka want to “live convivial lives with those who are different” they might have tried that back home – no need for the long flight to Norway. Prashad may call Merkel and Sarkozy “Nazis” for refusing to let in more immigration, and yet even he must sense that the Utoya Massacre is a strong signal that many people have had enough immigration and want it stopped.

In point of fact, immigration into Norway has slowed to a trickle. In a wild swing away from its own liberal policies, the government of Norway – like many West European governments – has changed the rules to make immigration almost impossible. In a famous case, a young girl from the Caucasus lived for some ten years in Norway, completed her university studies, wrote a novel in Norwegian – and ended up being deported as an illegal alien. Multiculturalism is a failed slogan of the past, and Breivik is as out-of-date as Prashad.

De-Zionification Now

“It (immigration) was a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country (Britain). It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.”

(Melanie Phillips, as quoted by mass murderer, Anders Breivik, in his manifesto)

Melanie Philips, a rabid Zionist and the author of “Londonistan: How Britain is Creating a Terror State Within” is not happy to be singled out by Andres Breivik in his 1500 pages manuscript.   Are they suggesting that “my writing provoked the mass murder of some 93 Norwegians?” she wonders righteously on her blog. I guess that Phillips knows the answer, as much as she knows how to play with words. But I will use this opportunity to reiterate it for her, and for the rest of us — there certainly is a clear and strong resemblance between Breivik’s views and Philips’ writing. The most obvious and immediate comparison is that both oppose Islamic immigration and multiculturalism of course, but it goes much further in that both identify the enemy within the ‘left political circuit’.

Breivik cites Philips’ take  on Labour’s immigration policy: “It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another ‘multicultural’ identity in its place.”

I should clearly state here that I do not think that Philips provoked Breivik’s murderous inclination. I also believe that Phillips is fully entitled to express her thoughts and ideas. Yet, it is surely reasonable to suspect that Phillips , amongst others, might have contributed to inspiring Breivik,  ideologically and spiritually.

Though Phillips writes on her blog  that the “the forces of spite, malice and venom (within liberal media) have been unleashed in a terrifying display of irrationality,” it is obvious that it is completely rational to elaborate on the significant resemblance between Phillips’ and Breivik’s ideas.

Jewish media outlets in Israel and around the world are already aware of the deeply worrying fact that Breivik wasinspired by right wing ideologies associated with Israel and Zionism. The JTA (The Global News Service Of The Jewish People) was quick to admit that numerous online postings, including Breivik’s, attack a “mishmash of anti-modern principles” that call for “the deportation of all Muslims from Europe as well as from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.” Whether we like it or not, this ‘mishmash’ of ‘global Islamophobia’ and Israeli expansionism is the true face of contemporary Zionism and Israeli ideology.

And yet, there is a further central question that no one in the media has addressed yet: how is it that Melanie Philips is getting away with openly promoting vile Islamophobia in our midst ? How is it that she and other Zionists prevail ,exactly where the EDL and the BNP fail? Why is Melanie Phillips a celebrity, whilst the BNP’s Nick Griffin is regarded as a vile racist, and a social outcast?  Similarly, I find myself wondering what on earth the board of ‘progressive’ Guardian editors had in mind when they nominated the Zionist, pro-war and openly  Islamohopbic Harry’s  Place as one of their favourite political blogs  in 2005 —  bear in mind that The Guardian’s nomination was made  at more or less the same time that the very same Harry’s Place blog won the  ‘Annual Islamophobia Awards 2006,’ within the UK section of the Islamic Human Rights Commission’s ‘Annual Islamophobia Awards.’

I believe that the answer is devastating: within our so called, liberal democratic, allegedly ‘tolerant’ discourse — it is only right wing Jews who are entitled and allowed to spread  xenophobia and hatred.

This is hardly surprising, because unlike contemporary Westerners, who seem to be more than confused by their colonial heritage  and notions such as nationalism, racism, expansionism, biological determinism, religion, and self-loving, Israel and Zionism actually celebrate all of these  symptoms, in the open.  It is far from surprising then, to see Israeli flags and Jewish symbols popping up in many far right gatherings in the UK and in other European countries, because Israel, it seems, makes racism look kosher.

The shocking ideological resemblance of the thoughts and ideals of the fearsome mass murderer Breivik and mainstream Zionist advocates  such Melanie Phillips, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, and Harry’s Place  should surely be a bright red alert for any sensible humanist. If we want to save our society from being dragged into a violence with no end, we must de-Zionise every possible aspect of our culture, media and political institutions.

The Craziness of Humans Worldwide

Over the weekend, a Norwegian gunman slaughtered 82 men, women and children.  He bombed several places and shot up a kids’ summer camp.  He didn’t approve of the Muslim invasion of his country and the incongruent confusion of multiculturalism.  In the past 20 years, Norway’s ruling elite imported 500,000 Muslim immigrants into that once mono-ethnic society.  That action created a growing separation and balkanization of that country.

He may have reacted to a recent report that 85 percent of all rapes and crime in Oslo, Bergen and Trondheim stem from Muslim immigrants.  While the Norwegian Islamic imams screamed, “racism, xenophobia, nativism,” the police reports validated the figures.

Is all that crazy or what?  Of course, the next question pops up, “Why did he kill regular Norwegian citizens?”  The scope of the insanity cannot be comprehended.

In Somali, as reported by the United Nations, 800,000 children will starve to death because Islamic militants promise to kill any aid workers attempting to distribute food to adults and children alike.

Abdi Guled of the Associated Press said, “Mogadishu , the capital, is a war zone.”

If you watched the weekend reports on ABC, NBC or CBS, you saw endless lines of wretched humans fleeing into Kenya and Ethiopia.

“If we are to save lives, we need to act now, to bring in massive quantities of medicines, vaccines, nutritional supplies and other aid into the region as quickly as possible,” said Shanelle Hall, director of UNICEF.

Ironically, AIDS has killed 42, 597, 559 Africans in the past 30 years.  It has currently infected 62,672, 209 that are slated to die.  One more African contracts HIV every nine seconds. (Source: http://www.kwanzaakeepers.com/africa-aids-death-count/africa-aids-death-count.htm)

But the Pope dictated that no one could or should use condoms in Africa because it was against God’s law.

Is that crazy or what?  It makes you wonder what century the Pope maintains his mindset or if he possesses a mind at all.

Going back to the situation where 800,000 African children will die of starvation, the United Nations also released its latest population projections that Africa will grow from its current 1 billion people to a mind-numbing 3.1 billion within this century.  That means that AIDS hasn’t  and won’t slow down the fecundity of the Africans.  But it also begs the question, “Does anyone have a brain in Africa?”  Or, I might add, any third world country?

Today, in countries like Africa, over 1 to 2 billion people cannot procure a clean glass of water.  Why?  Somewhere in excess of 3 billion humans do not have access to a toilet.    That’s why water systems suffer incredible pollution.  Does anyone possess an inkling of the ramifications of Africa’s adding another 2.1 billion to its current population?

This stuff just boggles my mind.  Why am I one of the few addressing it?

Try this one on for size.  India suffers 1,000 children under age 12 dying daily from dysentery, diarrhea and other water borne disease.  That’s 24/7 throughout the year folks! (Source: www.populationmedia.com )  Some estimates show that 10, 20 even 30 million Indians do not have access to a toilet.  The Ganges and all their other rivers are open sewer pipes.  I know because I saw it for myself.  Yet they grow by a net gain of 11 million annually on their way to becoming the most populated country in the world at 1.6 billion in 39 years.

Yet, on an NPR interview with Terri Gross of “Fresh Air”, an Indian transplant and editor of Time Magazine, Fareed Zakaria told Ms. Gross that immigration will make America a “vibrant” 400 million in several decades.  He fled India because of its demographic nightmare only to applaud another “American India” being formed in our country. By the way, Terri Gross didn’t ask Zakaria a single question on what another 100 million people might do to our rivers, lakes, water sources, energy, quality of life and standard of living.

Am I off base here folks?  Is it me?  Am I out of touch?  Should I be writing into Time Magazine and NPR congratulating people like Zakaria and Gross that are so out of touch with reality that they might as well live on Mars?

Who is thinking and who refuses to think?

Going back to Somalia’s nightmare:  if you go to the World Health Organization at www.worldhealthorganization.com , you will see that 18 million human beings die of starvation or starvation related diseases annually. That’s eight million adults and 10 million children that die because they cannot cultivate enough food to eat.

According to NewsVine.com , a whopping 26 million refugees are expected to be searching for a new country in order to survive within the next two to three years.  By the way, they are pouring into America at a rate of 3.1 million annually in 2011.

And yet, you won’t hear a peep from the major media networks about what America faces when Fareed Zakaria’ prediction of a “vibrant” added 100 million refugees immigrate to our shores in the next 24 years.

Why am I one of the miniscule few Americans addressing our demographic nightmare?   Why isn’t everyone screaming from the rooftops?  Why are we allowing our civilization to continue on this path?    I have attempted to interview on ABC, CBS, NBC, Today Show, Good Morning America, CNN, FOX, Charlie Rose, Bill Moyers, 60 Minutes and the top 100 radio talk shows.  They won’t touch the subject.

Are we collectively losing our minds and will we sit by quietly while we collectively lose our civilization?  That’s what it looks like from my window on the future.  Our country is growing just as crazy as the ones we read about in the news.

Here’s where we’re headed fellow Americans:

Tomorrow’s Americaproject on .

Producer: Dr. GEORGE A. COLBURNwww.tomorrowsamerica.com

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

www.starbrightmediacorp.com

www.tomorrowsamerica.com

Norway Massacre And The Jewish Right Wing Connection

Thanks to respected anti-Zionist Jeff Blankfort (who provided me with a crucial link) I have now learned that, just one day before last Friday’s Massacre in Norway, former Trotsky-ite turned neo-con David Horowitz carried an article by Joseph Klein in his Front Page magazine, entitled “The Quislings of Norway,” which might as well have provided mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik with all the motivation he needed to commit his crime.

You are advised to read the article in full here

Here are some of the ‘pearls’ produced by the pro-war Jewish rightwing magazine, just a few hours before Behring Breivik picked up his guns and launched into his lethal journey:

“The infamous Norwegian Vidkun Quisling, who assisted Nazi Germany as it conquered his own country, must be applauding in his grave…In the latest example of Norwegian collaboration with the enemies of the Jews, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere declared during a press conference this week, alongside Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, that “Norway believes it is perfectly legitimate for the Palestinian president to turn to the United Nations” to seek recognition of an independent Palestinian state.”

“During the Nazi occupation of Norway, nearly all Jews were either deported to death camps or fled to Sweden and beyond. Today, Norway is effectively under the occupation of anti-Semitic leftists and radical Muslims, and appears willing to help enable the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel.”

“Norway’s Labor Party lawmaker Anders Mathisen has gone even further and publicly denied the Holocaust. He said that Jews “exaggerated their stories” and “there is no evidence the gas chambers and or mass graves existed.” While the Norwegian political establishment and opinion-maker elite may not have reached that point of lunacy just yet, they do tend to treat Muslims as the victims of Israeli oppression – as if today’s Muslims are filling the shoes of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and today’s Nazis are the Israelis.”

“Socialist leader Kristin Halvorsen has been leading the boycott Israel campaign. While serving as Norway’s finance minister, she was amongst the demonstrators at an anti-Israel protest, in which a poster read (translated): “The greatest axis of evil: USA and Israel.” Among the slogans repeatedly shouted at the demonstration was (as translated) “Death to the Jews!”

“Last year, the Norwegian government decided to divest from two Israeli entities working in the West Bank. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund divested from the Israeli company Elbit, because it has worked on the Israeli security fence that keeps out Palestinian suicide bombers. Israel has also been blocked from bidding for Norwegian defense contracts.”

“Part of the motivation for this anti-Semitism is the influx into Norway in recent decades of masses of Muslims from Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere. Multiculturalism has taught Norway’s cultural elite to take an uncritical, even obsequious, posture toward every aspect of Muslim culture and belief. When Muslim leaders rant against Israel and the Jews, the reflexive response of the multiculturalist elite is to join them in their rantings. This is called solidarity.”

The truth of the matter is surely clear by now : it is Jewish right wing pro-war platforms such as FrontPage Magazine, Daniel Pipes,Harry’s Place and others  following their example, that consciously, openly , deviously and divisively cultivate a prevalent culture of hate and Islamophobia.

Was Behring Breivik a follower of FrontPage Magazine or the equally inciting and hateful Harry’s Place?  We cannot know for sure yet — but hopefully we will find out soon.

However, the message should be urgent and clear to all of us: police, intelligence and home security services around the world must surely investigate, and clampdown on these hate inspiring outlets, immediately. Their motivations, aims and activities must be brought under scrutiny and questioned. For the sake of peace and our general safety, law makers in Europe and America had better quickly put into place the necessary measures to restrain the activity of these Zionist warmongers in our midst.

Norway’s Mass Killer Copied the Unabomber Word for Word

Anders Behring Breivik was thought to have worked nine years of his so-calledmanifesto. Now it turns out that large parts of the script is plagiarism – copied verbatim from a known American terrorist.

The site Document.no as Sunday reveals that some of Anders Behring Breivik’s book, called “2083 – A European Declaration of Independence,” is straight out of the so-called Unabomber manifesto.

While Breivik several places in the text is careful to cite external sources, Theodore Kaczynski – known as the Unabomber – is not mentioned once.

Kaczynski is an American terrorist who was sentenced to life in prison for a series of letter bombs he sent to universities and airlines from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s.

Previous Stories:

* Anders Behring Breivik’s “Manifesto Video”: Knights Templar 2083

* A 32 Year Old Freemason, Christian, Conservative and Nationalist Arrested for Oslo Bombing and Shootings

Exchanged a few words

Some online newspapers have already compared Kaczynskis manifest with the 1,511-page document Breivik posted on the Internet shortly before the terrorist attack.

Now it turns out that the Northern man simply copied large parts of the text.

But where Kaczynski reviews the enemy as “leftism” and “leftist,” Breivik use the words “Multiculturalism” and “Cultural Communism.”

– This must be a way of version 2.0 of the Unabomber Manifesto, says Aage Borchgrevink, advisor to the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, to NRK.no

Kaczynski writes:

“When we speak of leftist in this article we garden in mind Mainly Socialists, Collectivist, ’politically correct’ types, feminists, gay and disability Activists, Animal Rights Activists and the like.”

With a few changes in wording, type Breivik the same:

“When we speak of cultural Marxists in this article we garden in mind Mainly Individuals WHO support Multiculturalism; Socialists, Collectivist, ’politically correct’ types, feminists, gay and disability Activists, Animal Rights Activists, Environmentalist, etc.”

Breivik has especially been inspired by the Kaczynskis theory that the left is suffering from a crippling inferiority complex.

“The two psychological Tendencies That underlie modern leftism we call” feelings of inferiority ’and’ oversocialization, ’”writes Kaczynski.

“The two psychological Tendencies That underlie cultural Marxists we call ’feelings of inferiority’ and ’over-socialisation,” repeats Breivik – without quoting.

Again, he has replaced “leftism” with “cultural Marxists”. Apart from paraphrasing from American to British English is the wording is identical.

Cultural chauvinism

According to a source Document.no talked with Breivik has in several places replaced Kaczynskis use of “black” with the word “Muslim”.

In a explanation about affirmative action, for example, Kaczynski writes:

“Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. More over, much leftist behavior is not Rationally Calculated to Be of benefit to the people WHOM the leftist claim to Be Trying to help. For example, if one believe That Affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense two demand Affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms?”

Here Breivik not only replace “leftist” with “cultural Marxist”, but also “black people” with “Muslim”:

“Hostility is too prominent a component of cultural Marxist Behaviour, so is the drive for power. More over, much cultural Marxist Behaviour is not Rationally Calculated to Be of benefit to the people WHOM They claim to Be Trying to help. For example, if one believe That Affirmative action is good for Muslims, does it make sense two demand Affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? ”

Aage Borchgrevink is not surprised that Breivik wrote Muslim rather than black or dark-skinned.

Source: 

Anders Behring Breivik’s “Manifesto Video”: Knights Templar 2083

TV2 Norway have reported that a video has been uploaded to YouTube on July 22, containing a “manifesto” by the Norwegian suspect Anders Behring Breivik who is accused of being behind the explosion in Oslo who killed 7 people, and the shootings in Utøya that killed about 90 youth.

The video is calling for conservatives to “embrace martyrdom.”

It’s not confirmed yet, but the video is allegedly made by Anders Behring Breivi. The YouTube user “BerwickAndrew” appears to have posted the video originally, it’s believed the name is an anglicized version of Anders Breivik.

This video is called “Knights Templar 2083″.

Here it is:

Update: YouTube keeps deleting the video.  if it’s taken down again.

Well, well, well …this is getting more and more interesting as more details are being revealed about the motives of the accused.

Yesterday we detailed that Anders Behring Breivik is a freemason.

He is a member of the John lodge St. Olaus TD Three pillars of the Norwegian Masonic Order. He has 3 degree status, where the peak is ten degrees.

“We have no way to express an opinion on individuals or incidents related to any members”, a spokesman of the Norwegian Freemasons order Helge Qvigstad told Dagbladet.

It’s also been reported that on what appears to be Breivik’s Facebook profile page he has mentioned his favorite books: George Orwell’s “1984″ and Kafka’s “process”.

How convenient!

Anders is fascinated by the Knights Templar and martyrs like Jacques De Molay. According to the video, he is a supporter of what only can be called a “new crusade” against Islam.

Even if Anders really is behind the video. It’s obvious that this is an attempt to further polarize and stir up “cultural” tensions in a Europe that is struggling with multiculturalism and immigration.

These are concerns that have been made recently by ,  and .

What are they up to?

How is this tragedy going to be used by the powers?

If Anders Behring Breivik truly is “anti-Islam”, behind these acts and is calling for a new crusade – why would he kill over 90 young Norwegians?

It just doesn’t make sense.

If he believes in nationalism and European ideals – why would he bomb his own country’s capital?

How is killing “fellow Europeans” helping to bring serious consideration to his ideas about European heritage and what he calls “destruction of Europe”?

It just doesn’t make sense.

Understandably, he has been targeting the “left government” and aspiring young politicians in his own country – which he probably feels is a big part of the problem – but still, how is terrorism on his own soil going to help his cause?

Can “frustration” alone explain someone slaughtering over 90 young people?

I’m not suggesting that we can’t appeal to rationality in this case, but it seems more plausible that he’s been mind controlled or brain washed by someone who has a different agenda.

Anders has also allegedly authored a document manifesto. The “long version” of the video. It’s over 1,500 pages. It can be downloaded here.

Source: Henrik Palmgren | redicecreations.com

Devolving America Into Parallel Societies

Nobody really wants to speak about it, let alone write about our pending ordeal: we are turning America into parallel societies.  That condition stampedes toward us faster than anyone understands or comprehends. Once it is completed, we will all become victims.

T. R. Kelly said, “I still believe that the radical transformation of the U.S. through our immigration policy is the primary driving force behind this chaos, conflict, and division that probably will continue for the rest of this century.   The 1965 Immigration policy is an assault, conquest, and destruction of the founding nation and the Republic—meant to turn us into this multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-cultural, and multi-nation country.”

In other words, the United States of America finds itself being turned into a polyglot of societies with no national allegiance or identity. It’s moving at breakneck speed as the U.S. Congress imports 3.1 million legal and illegal immigrants annually along with their 900,000 births each year—on course to add 72-75 million immigrants by 2035—a scant 24 years from now. (Source: www.cis.org)

You may remember the famous speech that Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm gave at the Federation for American Immigration Reform in October 2003:

“Here is how they destroyed their countries,” Lamm said. “First, turn America into a bilingual or multi lingual and bicultural country.  History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures.  It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.  The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way, “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy.  Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon—all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons and Corsicans.”

Today, France can no longer claim to be French.  Great Britain can no longer enjoy being British.  The same goes for Norway, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Austria, Canada and Australia.

Via their massive immigration policies, they have created parallel societies.  No Frenchman dares or chooses to venture into the 70 “no go” zones dominated by Muslim immigrants around Paris.

London, England also features the Muslim Zone and the British Zone.  Again, the British will not go into the “no go” Muslim Zone in London.  It’s not safe.

None will write or speak about it, but 95 percent of the rapes in Norway and Sweden are committed by Muslim immigrants.  My brother Rex has lived in Bergen, Norway for the past 25 years and he sent me those figures from a recent news report.  Of course, the Muslim imams immediately called the reports “racist and bigoted.”   Anyone who has watched honor killings to the tune of 5,000 Muslim women per year are killed by their husbands or brothers—understands the ordeal women suffer in Muslim lands.  Women possess few basic rights within Islam.  Where Sharia law dominates, women do not have any rights to education, free speech, voting, driving, walking outside or wearing clothing of their choice.  Muslim men prove brutally abusive.

Each year, America breaks down its basic cohesive fabric by importing millions of immigrants that cannot inculcate nor adapt to Western free-thought, education and loyalty to the American way of life.

We face, as a civilization, four competing tribes that struggle for dominance in this agitated “salad bowl” called multiculturalism.   The black-white issue has plagued America from the beginning.  Racism has never been conquered by education, the Great Society or any programs to erase it.  America lives with un-ease and separation wherever possible.  Yes, blacks and whites play professional sports together, but everybody goes home to separate communities—for the most part.

As the demonstrations in Georgia over the weekend showed, 10,000 illegal immigrants showed their muscle in Atlanta by demonstrating that they will not tolerate law and order or legal citizenship. While they are illegal, their numbers are so great, they intend to take a stand against the U.S. Constitution and all American citizens.   The Mexican/Hispanic separation will grow as their numbers will grow. Mexicans will become the dominate tribe by 2050. (Source: David Muir ABC News, June 26, 2011)  You can already witness the parallel societies developed in places like Los Angeles, Miami, New York and Chicago.  If you’re a Caucasian American, try to walk down those streets and feel welcomed.

Examples of parallel societies show themselves in America from our being forced to; “Press ‘1’ for Spanish and ‘2’ for English” on all commercial telephone answering services.  Expect Arabic next.

The growing Muslim tribe may prove the most destructive of America’s loss of itself.   No country in Europe has maintained itself or its culture and language in the face of the Islamic onslaught.  Muslims don’t assimilate, learn the language or move seamlessly into the host country.  They separate as well as force their customs and language onto the host country.  Ironically, they out-birth host countries and begin to dominate by population numbers.

In America today, we see honor killings of wives and daughters. (Source: Ann Curry, NBC News, “Honor killings in America”) We see “no go” zones in Detroit, Michigan.  We see female genital mutilation of immigrant girls.  We see arranged marriages.  We see 1,208 new mosques built within 20 years in America.

Finally, we see parallel societies developing as to illiteracy within the immigrant ranks.  For example, Detroit, Michigan features a 76 percent dropout/flunkout rate from its immigrant dominated high schools. (Source: Brian Williams, NBC News, June 2009) Welfare dominates that 83 percent minority dominated city as to assisted housing, food stamps, free breakfasts and lunches, and free medical care paid for by you.  Such situations show that 42 million people in America suffer functional illiteracy—they cannot read, write or perform simple math equations.  America tolerates a growing parallel society of literates versus illiterates.  Illiterates depend on welfare and our growing socialistic government.

Lamm continued on how to destroy America, “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences!  I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.”

Fellow Americans, are we as a civilization in trouble or what?  Do you think we will survive this onslaught?  What are you doing to stop it?  Why haven’t 100 million Americans joined www.NumbersUSA.org to stop relentless immigration?

The following two videos should scare the hell out of you:

In a five minute astoundingly simple yet brilliant video, “Immigration, Poverty, and Gum Balls”, Roy Beck, director ofwww.numbersusa.ORG, graphically illustrates the impact of overpopulation.  Take five minutes to see for yourself:

“Immigration by the numbers—off the chart” by Roy Beck

This 10 minute demonstration shows Americans the results of unending mass immigration on the quality of life and sustainability for future generations: in a word “Mind boggling!”

« Previous Page — Next Page »