Friday, 31 January 2014

Not all conspiracies are false theories.

Cultural Marxism is often described as a 'conspiracy theory' by those who always attempt to muddy the path of truth on any issue that is being exposed. How many times have you heard the term 'conspiracy theory' in relation to a certain group of people with 'anti-semitism' thrown in for good measure? It is all too easy for those who control the media, and who dominate academia to label something as a conspiracy theory. As soon as the term is attached to anything, automatically the majority of people believe it to be false, just because they are told it is false by a media and academia that most already know is corrupt. Yet when it comes to certain issues they fall hook line and sinker for the propagandistic lies.

The term conspiracy theory is an ambiguous term, it is not exclusive to those who wish to ridicule people for talking about something they consider a conspiracy. For every 'conspiracy theory' there are two schools of thought, one which fully believes that the conspiracy exists; backed up with evidence, and the other which doesn't, and in a derogatory manner calls it a  'conspiracy theory' wanting to make it appear the theory of 'nutjobs.'

The definition of conspiracy is as follows:

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

2. A group of conspirators.

3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design.

5. A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. "A conspiracy to destroy the government" synonyms: plot,scheme, stratagem, plan,machination, cabal.

These definitions in relation to cultural marxism and the Frankfurt school, simply means that the 'conspiracy theory' is the belief that what is happening across the West is the result of such intent on behalf of the Frankfurt school and its members towards the West, and is the real meaning of the term conspiracy theory. Not a theory plucked from thin air, but a theory based on historical evidence along with the visual manifestation of the stated aims of the conspiracy.

Those who use the term as an accusation of insanity or myth, do so disingenuously. They use the term only for propaganda designed to deflect any real unbiased consideration of the theory, and not for it's real meaning which would be to give consideration to both viewpoints. Everybody has heard the term 'there are two sides to every story' and the same is true about 'conspiracy theories' there are two sides, and the side that uses the term as a form of mockery never use it in it's truest meaning. That is a reason to suspect the very people using it in such a way, of not being people of integrity. When you hear both sides of a story, you make up your own mind based on the evidence presented, you don't believe one side of the story just because a third party ridicules the other explanation.

A conspiracy theory does not mean that the theory is wrong, they never 'disprove' the theory, just ridicule it as the ideas of 'racists' 'anti-semites' or tin foil hat wearing lunatics. Regardless of what terms are used, they still don't disprove anything, they simply give their own opinion as to why they would like you to think it is a 'ridiculous' conspiracy theory, and by using the term, are actually engaging in a conspiracy theory themselves, by claiming 'racists' and 'anti-semites' have 'created' a false idea to demonise others.

The difference is that in many cases the evidence of a conspiracy against the West is plain for all to see, if only people understood why and how the term is applied to certain theories to discredit them. It becomes group conformity on the perception of truth, because truth is equated with 'hate' or 'lunacy' by the media and so called academics who have huge influence over the minds of the masses, that truth comes to be seen as myth and false, and subsequently the group conforms to this perception never considering the theory to based on fact, and never knowing enough if anything about the theory to make an informed decision on who is right and who is wrong.

Have a look at the following aims of the Frankfurt school of Jewish transformational marxists and ask yourself the question, which one of these has not happened?

• The creation of racism offences

• Continual change to create confusion

• The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children

• The undermining of schools' and teachers' authority

• Huge immigration to destroy identity

• The promotion of excessive drinking

• Emptying of churches

• An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime

• Dependency on the state or state benefits

• Control and dumbing down of media

• Encouraging the breakdown of the family

You need only look at your society today to see that the goals listed above have happened, and are actually being used to socially, morally, and demographically engineer Western civilisation. Of course you will hear people mockingly call it a conspiracy theory, people engaged in such subversive goals and activities are hardly going to admit it are they? Most don't even know that they are actually being used to achieve these goals, they don't recognise their mindset or worldview as cultural marxism because they have been manipulated through our occupied institutions such as education to believe that what they campaign for is 'tolerance' 'diversity' 'anti-racism' etc. They believe that it is 'righteous' to deconstruct Western civilisation and cultural norms because their tutors told them that Westerners ie whites, are guilty of racism, slavery, anti-semitism, 'homophobia' intolerance, patriotism and patriarchy.

They believe that the white race is a 'social construct' created simply to oppress and plunder the world and to enslave non-Europeans, is that not also a conspiracy theory? Have not all races engaged in slavery, oppression, conquest and brutality throughout history?

'Whiteness studies' you would think, would be about the unique achievements of people who are of white European origin, but no, whiteness studies are an anti-white academic brainwashing tool, 'teaching' whites to hate themselves, their history, culture and ancestors. Whiteness studies are part of what is known as Critical Theory, a cultural marxist method of demonsing the West and whites. Critical Theory basically speaks for itself, the theory is to criticise. And the main target of criticism is the West and white people. Only a liar would deny that academia is not riddled with this. It is no conspiracy theory, it is fact.

The main proponents of these anti-white conspiracy theories (in its truest meaning of course) are Noel Ignatiev a Jewish communist, and Tim Wise another Jew who likes to describe himself as 'white' but is in actual fact Jewish and Jews certainly don't identify as white, they identify as Jewish, unless of course like Tim Wise, he is purposefully misleading you to demonise you. He pushes the myth that whites have some kind of mystical privilege that their white skin gives them. I am yet to discover the super powers my white skin gives me. This is a true conspiracy theory, the idea that whites somehow created their ethnic and cultural identity out of thin air. Yes, apparently the white race is full of magicians.

Critical Theory is applied to anything that is viewed as an obstacle to the leftist agenda, it is applied  essentially to all the main elements of Western culture including: Christianity, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, race, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention, and conservatism.' Under Critical Theory, anything emanating from the West is to be libeled and attacked. This leads to Cultural Pessimism' which is when a person grows to loathe the society, it leads to ethnomasochism, which is self hatred on an ethnic basis.

People infected with these ideas (mostly students, leftists, homosexuals, feminists and non-whites) believe that what they have actually been indoctrinated with, is a conspiracy theory, and are the ones who you find on social media calling you a 'racist' 'anti-semite' 'homophobe' etc. These are the products of cultural marxism, these are the ones who have swallowed the Frankfurt school inspired anti-white anti-Western propaganda. They are the readers of Theodore Adorno's 'Authoritarian Personality' who described people as having a pathological mental illness for not supporting the subversion. Herbert Marcuse, a proponent of 'repressive tolerance' and his 'Ero's and civilisation' adored by the hippy generation of the 60's. Gramscis 'Prison notebooks' Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals' a tactical manual of the left, or any of the writings of Eric Fromm, Wilhelm Reich, Sigmund Freud, Max Horkheimer, Willi Munzenberg, Georg Lukacs etc. They could just as easily be called Gramscians, Marcusians etc, it wouldn't matter what label you give them and their ideas, they still have the same negative impact and most would still deny it and call you crackpot conspiracy theorist, again to deflect any real investigation into exactly what it is they are advocating.

All of the propaganda they digested came from members of the Frankfurt school institute of social research which had changed it's name from the Marxist institute to conceal it's true nature, in much the same way supporters of it's ideas call you a conspiracy theorist for speaking about it. And to a man, the most influential members of the Frankfurt school were communists, and they were Jewish, there is no denying this, yet to say this, is to be engaging in a tin foil hat 'conspiracy theory' apparently.

Lets have a look at some of their quotes:

"We will make the West so corrupt it stinks."
- Willi Munzenberg

“I see the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution. A worldwide overturning of values can not take place without the annihilation of the old values and a creation of the new ones by the Revolution.”
- Georg Luckacs

“The West is guilty of genocidal crimes against every civilization and culture it has encountered. American and Western Civilization are the world’s greatest repositories for racism, sexism, xenophobia, Antisemitism, Fascism, and Nazism. American society is oppressive, evil, and undeserving of loyalty.”
- Herbert Marcuse First Generation Jewish Cultural Marxist.

"The civilised world has been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2000 years, any country grounded in Christian values cannot be overthrown therefore, until those roots are cut, but to cut the roots, to change culture, a long march through the institutions is necessary. Only then will power fall into our laps like ripened fruit."
- Antonio Gramsci

"Sexual morality is contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life. If only Americans knew we are bringing them the plague."
- Sigmund Freud

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical … The first Radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
-Saul Alinsky

Are these quotes a 'conspiracy theory' in the propagandistic sense, which attempts to prevent people from viewing them as an accurate point of reference to what has happened across the West? Is it a 'conspiracy theory' that all of these people had an influence on the direction the Frankfurt school took? Is it a 'conspiracy theory' that everything they strived to achieve has come true?

You can read any leftist blog and identify the cultural marxist nature of their ramblings, they don't see it as cultural marxism of course, they really do believe that they are occupying the moral high ground. Some of these blogs also openly refer to members of the Frankfurt school in relation to social and cultural change, therefore, seeing as the people who they refer to were Marxists who sought to change Western culture to achieve 'revolution', it is more than reasonable to call them Cultural Marxists, and their ideology which has infected the West as Cultural Marxism. They can give it whatever name they want, it is still the poison running through the veins of Western civilisation.

Your eyes do not lie, you see the sky and know it to be the sky, you see your child and know it to be your child, but for some reason when something as obvious as cultural marxism is right in front of people, they fail to see it for what it is believing it to be a 'whacky conspiracy theory' even if they know deep down that 'something isn't right.' And that is the power and real nature of the subversion.

To explain how this works, it is important to try and understand how group conformity works, ie when an individual sees something he knows to be true, but the group disagrees, rather than sticking to what he knows to be true, the individual conforms to the group consensus for fear of being the 'odd one out' or 'the crackpot conspiracy theorist.'

The Asch Experiment - Conformity, Media Smears and Nationalism:

Think back to when you were a child, did you not desire to fit in? Did you not follow popular trends, for example clothes and music? Even if later you rebelled against conformity, was it not just fashionable to do so amongst your peers, or your group of friends? The truth is, human beings are social animals, we are primates who have evolved over millions of years to hunt and live in groups and thus have developed an inherent desire to conform, as isolation could have proved deadly in the wild.

Solomon Asch - Conformity.

If you doubt the ability of human beings to conform, consider the following experiment by Solomom Asch:

Every day we try to fit in. We may like to think we're individual but most of the time we don't actually want to stand out too much. It's this idea of conformity that the social psychologist Solomon Asch studied in the 1950s, using nothing more complex than straight black lines drawn on pieces of card, it's one of the classic experiments in psychology.

Asch believed people wouldn't go along with the crowd; He set up his experiment to prove that people would stand up against group pressure. Unknown to his subjects, the rest of the group were stooges or plants, who'd been instructed to say line A was longer than line B, even though it patently wasn't. Contrary to his expectations Asch discovered that a third of people went along with the group, even when it contradicted the evidence of their own eyes.

Can you believe that? One third of people would say that line A is longer than line B, just because they believed everybody else thought that it was! This implies one third of people will do and say whatever they believe the overwhelming majority say and do, even if there's no real pressure to conform, no real disincentive for dissent.

The Power Of The Media

So if people will metaphorically say black is white in order to conform, when there is no real pressure to do so and will accept the opinions of, and obey, those they believe are more knowledgeable than them, even if they feel uncomfortable doing so, surely the influence of the all-pervasive media and eleven years' state indoctrination is far more potent?

The Portrayal of 'Racists'

Since the 1960s, the media have portrayed 'racists' as either stupid and socially inept, or vicious and evil (usually stupid, too). The former was usually portrayed in sitcoms such as Alf Garnett in Till Death Us Do Part and Rigsby in Rising Damp. Interestingly both programmes were successful in the 1970s, and the motive appears to have been to gently stigmatise 'racist' behaviour.

Another caricature, briefly mentioned above, was the evil, vicious thug. This is usually reserved for those that are politically opposed to multiculturalism ie. nationalists. Of course during the late seventies and throughout the eighties, nationalism embraced the skinhead scene or, more likely, vice versa. As mass-immigration became a real concern many working class skins were drawn to the nationalist movement, something the media were keen to sensationalise.

Essentially, the media will always portray Nationalists in the worst possible light, and that will always make things pretty hard for us. People are easily manipulated as the psychology experiments I highlighted illustrate, and unfortunately the media is a very powerful influence that will make it very hard to win back our countries.

For more on the Asch experiment see the following link:

I found this a very good and detailed explanation of what we commonly know to be sheeple or lemmings. The herd mentality is something which accounts for much of the apathy that we see among our people. Rather than speak out, they would rather just conform to the manipulated group concensus surrounding multiculturalism,  'diversity' and cultural marxism, even though it may be quite apparent to them that it is wrong and they are being deceived, anything for the easy life.

Also the power of the media in influencing public opinion, in regards to anything that they want to demonise or support. In this case demonising nationalism and supporting cultural marxist ideas. The media along with the film industry and education system, in their portrayal of nationalists and nationalism gives the public an image that they find unappealing, therefore they influence and encourage hostility towards one set of ideas whilst portraying a picture book fairy tale image of cultural marxist concepts. This works in exactly the same way as when they label something a conspiracy theory.

Group conformity and thought conformity are nurtured from the very earliest age, and is a form of evil genius. The psychological conditioning of populations can be achieved through this method and similar psychological methods of mind control.

Please take a look at this link too which shows a couple of video examples as to how this works.

Psychology + Brainwashing:

So as you can see, using the human instinct to conform, is what leads people to view something labeled as a conspiracy theory in the manner the media and academia wants them to. For those of us who are on the other side, we are swimming against a strong current that is almost impossible to overcome.

Lastly, those people in academia who are on the left, create unproven scientific theories and present them as scientific fact to further their agenda. And even though these theories are unproven, people accept them as scientific fact because it fits in with their worldview. These psudeo-scientific theories have been used and incorporated into academia to lead people down the cultural marxist path. Any genuine scientist who refutes these false theories and has evidence to back it up, is usually labeled a racist, or an anti-semite etc. The suppression of real scientific findings is done because the false theories of psudeo ideologically driven scientist's and academics, is needed to continue the subversion. To present the findings of real scientists that conflict with the agenda would be to expose the lies of the agenda in an instant, and they do everything to prevent that.

I hope you find this information useful, im not an academic or an intellectual and don't pretend to be, but I suppose that just means I am not intellectually or academically dishonest as most of them seem to be nowadays. I just present it as I see it, you don't need a degree in bullshit to be considered honest in your portrayl of how things really are. Believing the word of so called academics and intellectuals has led us to where we are today.

Bolshevism and the Jews

The unprecedented catastrophe of the Russian revolution required an explanation… For very many this lay in the coming to power of the Jews, and their hatred for the Russian people. For after the revolution of February, 1917 the Jews acquired full rights with the rest of the population, and the (already very porous) barriers set up by the Pale of Settlement were destroyed. Jews poured from the western regions into the major cities of European Russia and soon acquired prominent executive positions in all major sectors of government and the economy
As Alexander Solzhenitsyn has written, February brought only harm and destruction to the Russian population. However, “Jewish society in Russia received in full from the February revolution everything that it had fought for, and the October coup was really not needed by it, except by that cutthroat part of the Jewish secular youth that with its Russian brother-internationalists had stacked up a charge of hatred for the Russian state structure and was straining to ‘deepen’ the revolution.” It was they who through their control of the Executive Committee of the Soviet – over half of its members were Jewish socialists – assumed the real power after February, and propelled it on – contrary to the interests, not only of the Russian, but also of the majority of the Jewish population, - to the October revolution

Nevertheless, at the time of the October revolution only a minority of the Bolsheviks were Jews (in the early 1900s they constituted 19% of the party). “At the elections to the Constituent Assembly ‘more than 80% of the Jewish population of Russia voted’ for Zionist parties. Lenin wrote that 550,000 were for Jewish nationalists. ‘The majority of the Jewish parties formed a single national list, in accordance with which seven deputies were elected – six Zionists’ and Gruzenberg. ‘The success of the Zionists’ was also aided by the Declaration of the English Foreign Minister Balfour [on the creation of a ‘national centre’ of the Jews in Palestine], ‘which was met by the majority of the Russian Jewish population with enthusiasm [in Moscow, Petrograd, Odessa, Kiev and many other cities there were festive manifestations, meetings and religious services]’.”

The simultaneous triumph of the Jews in Russia and Palestine was indeed an extraordinary “coincidence”: Divine Providence drew the attention of all those with eyes to see this sign of the times when, in one column of newsprint in the London Times for November 9, 1917, there appeared two articles, the one announcing the outbreak of revolution in Petrograd, and the other – the promise of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine (the Balfour declaration). 

This coincidence was reinforced by the fact that the theist Jews who triumphed in Israel in 1917, and especially in 1948 after the foundation of the State of Israel, came from the same region and social background – the Pale of Settlement in Western Russia – as the atheist Jews who triumphed in Moscow in 1917. Sometimes they even came from the same families. Thus Chaim Weitzmann, the first president of Israel, points out in his Autobiography that his brothers and sisters were all either Zionists or Bolsheviks. M. Heifetz also points to the coincidence in time between the October revolution and the Balfour declaration. “A part of the Jewish generation goes along the path of Herzl and Zhabotinsky. The other part, unable to withstand the temptation, fills up the band of Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin.” “The path of Herzl and Bagritsky allowed the Jews to stand tall and immediately become not simply an equal nation with Russia, but a privileged one.”

Indeed, the Russian revolution may be regarded as one branch of that general triumph of Jewish power which we observe in the twentieth century in both East and West, in both Russia and America and Israel. The mainly Jewish nature of the Bolshevik leadership – and of the world revolution in general – cannot be doubted. Such a view was not confined to “anti-Semites”. 

Thus Winston Churchill wrote: “It would almost seem as if the Gospel of Christ and the gospel of anti-Christ were designed to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the Divine and the diabolical… From the days of ‘Spartacus’ Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.

It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.”

Douglas Reed writes: “The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians (including Lenin) and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprised 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People’s Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Che-ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919 were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly ‘Socialist’ or other non-Communist parties… were 55 Jews and 6 others.

Richard Pipes admits: “Jews undeniably played in the Bolshevik Party and the early Soviet apparatus a role disproportionate to their share of the population. The number of Jews active in Communism in Russia and abroad was striking: in Hungary, for example, they furnished 95 percent of the leading figures in Bela Kun’s dictatorship. They also were disproportionately represented among Communists in Germany and Austria during the revolutionary upheavals there in 1918-23, and in the apparatus of the Communist International.”

According to Donald Rayfield, in 1922, the Jews “reached their maximum representation in the party (not that they formed a coherent group) when, at 15 per cent, they were second only to ethnic Russians with 65 per cent.”

The London Times correspondent in Russia, Robert Wilton, reported: ”Taken according to numbers of population, the Jews represented one in ten; among the commissars that rule Bolshevik Russia they are nine in ten; if anything the proportion of Jews is still greater.”

On June 9, 1919 Captain Montgomery Shuyler of the American Expeditionary Forces telegrammed from Vladivostok on the makeup of the presiding Soviet government: “… (T)here were 384 ‘commissars’ including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians, and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number, 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government.”

The Jews were especially dominant in the most feared and blood-thirsty part of the Bolshevik State apparatus, the Cheka, which, writes Brendon, “consisted of 250,000 officers (including 100,000 border guards), a remarkable adjunct to a State which was supposed to be withering away. In the first 6 years of Bolshevik rule it had executed at least 200,000. Moreover, the Cheka was empowered to act as ‘policeman, gaoler, investigator, prosecutor, judge and executioner’. It also employed barbaric forms of torture.”

So complete was the Jewish domination of Russia as a result of the revolution that it is a misnomer to speak about the “Russian” revolution; it should more accurately be called the Russian-Jewish revolution. 

That the Russian revolution was actually a Jewish revolution, but at the same time part of an international revolution of Jewry against the Christian and Muslim worlds, is indicated by an article by Jacob de Haas entitled “The Jewish Revolution” and published in the London Zionist journal Maccabee in November, 1905: “The Revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution, for it is a turning point in Jewish history. This situation flows from the fact that Russia is the fatherland of approximately half of the general number of Jews inhabiting the world… The overthrow of the despotic government must exert a huge influence on the destinies of millions of Jews (both in Russia and abroad). Besides, the revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution also because the Jews are the most active revolutionaries in the tsarist Empire.”

But why were the Jews the most active revolutionaries? What was it in their upbringing and history that led them to adopt the atheist revolutionary teachings and actions of Russia’s “superfluous young men” more ardently than the Russians themselves? Hatred of Christ and the Christians was, of course, deeply imbedded in the Talmud and Jewish ritual – but the angry young men that began killing thousands of the Tsar’s servants even before the revolution of 1905 had rejected the Talmud as well as the Gospel, and even all religion in general. 

Donald Rayfield writes: “The motivation of those Jews who worked for the Cheka was not Zionist or ethnic. The war between the Cheka and the Russian bourgeoisie was not even purely a war of classes or political factions. It can be seen as being between Jewish internationalism and the remnants of a Russian national culture…

“…What was Jewish except lineage about Bolsheviks like Zinoviev, Trotsky, Kamenev or Sverdlov? Some were second- or even third-generation renegades; few even spoke Yiddish, let alone knew Hebrew. They were by upbringing Russians accustomed to a European way of life and values, Jewish only in the superficial sense that, say, Karl Marx was. Jews in anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia had few ways out of the ghetto except emigration, education or revolution, and the latter two courses meant denying their Judaism by joining often anti-Jewish institutions and groups.”

This can be illustrated from the deathbed confession of Yurovsky, the murderer of the Tsar: “Our family suffered less from the constant hunger than from my father’s religious fanaticism… On holidays and regular days the children were forced to pray, and it is not surprising that my first active protest was against religious and nationalistic traditions. I came to hate God and prayer as I hated poverty and the bosses.”

At the same time, the Bolshevik Jews did appear to sympathize with Talmudism more than with any other religion. Thus in 1905 the Jewish revolutionaries in Kiev boasted that they would turn St. Sophia cathedral into a synagogue. Again, in 1918 they erected a monument to Judas Iscariot in Sviazhsk, and in 1919 - in Tambov! Perhaps the strongest evidence of the continued religiosity of the Bolshevik Jews was the fact that when the Whites re-conquered Perm in 1918 they found many Jewish religious inscriptions in the former Bolshevik headquarters – as well as on the walls of the basement of the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg where the Tsar and his family were shot. 

While officially rejecting the Talmud and all religion in general, the revolutionaries did not reject the unconscious emotional energy of Talmudic Judaism. This energy was concentrated in a fiercely proud nationalism, a nationalism older and more passionately felt by virtue of the fact that the Jews had once truly been the chosen people of God. Having fallen away from that chosen status, and been scattered all over the world by the wrath of God, they resented their replacement by the Christian peoples with an especially intense resentment. Roma delenda est – Christian Rome had to be destroyed, and Russia as “The Third Rome”, the Rome that now reigned, had to be destroyed first of all. The atheist revolutionaries of the younger generation took over this resentment and hatred even while rejecting its religious-nationalist-historical basis.

L.A. Tikhomirov wrote: “It is now already for nineteen centuries that we have been hearing from Jewish thinkers that the religious essence of Israel consists not in a concept about God, but in the fulfilment of the Law. Above were cited such witnesses from Judas Galevy. The very authoritative Ilya del Medigo (15th century) in his notable Test of Faith says that ‘Judaism is founded not on religious dogma, but on religious acts’.

“But religious acts are, in essence, those that are prescribed by the Law. That means: if you want to be moral, carry out the Law. M. Mendelsohn formulates the idea of Jewry in the same way: ‘Judaism is not a revealed religion, but a revealed Law. It does not say ‘you must believe’, but ‘you must act’. In this constitution given by God the State and religion are one. 

The relationships of man to God and society are merged. It is not lack of faith or heresy that attracts punishment, but the violation of the civil order. Judaism gives no obligatory dogmas and recognizes the freedom of inner conviction.’

“Christianity says: you must believe in such-and-such a truth and on the basis of that you must do such-and-such. New Judaism says: you can believe as you like, but you have to do such-and-such. But this is a point of view that annihilates man as a moral personality…”

Thus Talmudism creates a personality that subjects faith and truth to the imperative of action. That is, it is the action that is first proclaimed as necessary – the reasons for doing it can be thought up later. And this corresponds exactly both to the philosophy of Marx, for whom “the truth, i.e. the reality and power, of thought must be demonstrated in action”, and to the psychological type of the Marxist revolutionary, who first proclaims that Rome (i.e. Russia) must be destroyed, and then looks for an ideology that will justify destruction. Talmudic Law is useful, indeed necessary, not because it proclaims God’s truth, but in order to secure the solidarity of the Jewish people and their subjection to their rabbinic leaders. In the same way, Marxist theory is necessary in order to unite adherents, expel dissidents and in general justify the violent overthrow of the old system.

So the Russian revolution was Jewish not so much because of the ethnic composition of its leaders as because the Satanic hatred of God, Christ and all Christians that is characteristic of the Talmudic religion throughout its history was transferred – by spiritual rather than genetic heredity – from the nationalist Talmudic fathers to their internationalist atheist sons.


The Jewish High Commissaries


The High Commissaries of the People in 1919, two years after the Bolshevik Revolution:

ALIAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . REAL NAME. . . . . . . . ETHNICITY

Lenin ………………………..Oulianoff ……………….Partly Jewish
Trotsky……………………….Bronstein …………….. Jew
Stekloff ………………………Xachamress …………. Jew
Gottsief ………………………Prapkine……………… Jew
Bogdanoff ……………………Silberstein ……………Jew
Sverdloff ……………………..Sverdloff……………….Jew
Kamkoff ……………………..Katz ……………………..Jew
Parvus……………………… Gelphanat……………….Jew
Adromovitch ………………….Rein…………………..Jew
Macklakowsky………………. Rosenblum…………..Jew
Lapinsky……………………… Levenson………………Jew
Glasounoff…………………… Schulze…………………Jew
Larine…………………………… Lourie…………………..Jew

Soviet Government (1919): Summary

Bureaucracy……………..Total number………….Jews

Peoples Commissaries……………22……………………….17

Provincial Commissaries……… 23……………………….21

Commissariat of War………… 43……………………….33

Foreign Affairs………………………16……………………….13


Justice…………………………………. 21……………………….20

Public Instruction…………………..53………………………42

Social Assistance……………………..6………………………..6


Total number of Bolshevist Government officials in 1919 : 545

Total number of JEWS in Bolshevist Government in 1919: 447

SOURCE (scroll down):


Tuesday, 28 January 2014

The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime

Recent research and investigation by Radzinsky and others also corroborates the account provided years earlier by Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times in Russia for 17 years. His account, The Last Days of the Romanovs -- originally published in 1920, and recently reissued by the Institute for Historical Review -- is based in large part on the findings of a detailed investigation carried out in 1919 by Nikolai Sokolov under the authority of "White" (anti-Communist) leader Alexander Kolchak. Wilton's book remains one of the most accurate and complete accounts of the murder of Russia's imperial family.

A solid understanding of history has long been the best guide to comprehending the present and anticipating the future. Accordingly, people are most interested in historical questions during times of crisis, when the future seems most uncertain. With the collapse of Communist rule in the Soviet Union, 1989-1991, and as Russians struggle to build a new order on the ruins of the old, historical issues have become very topical. For example, many ask: How did the Bolsheviks, a small movement guided by the teachings of German-Jewish social philosopher Karl Marx, succeed in taking control of Russia and imposing a cruel and despotic regime on its people?

In recent years, Jews around the world have been voicing anxious concern over the specter of anti-Semitism in the lands of the former Soviet Union. In this new and uncertain era, we are told, suppressed feelings of hatred and rage against Jews are once again being expressed. According to one public opinion survey conducted in 1991, for example, most Russians wanted all Jews to leave the country.

But precisely why is anti-Jewish sentiment so widespread among the peoples of the former Soviet Union? Why do so many Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and others blame "the Jews" for so much misfortune?

A Taboo Subject

Although officially Jews have never made up more than five percent of the country's total population, they played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years. Soviet historians, along with most of their colleagues in the West, for decades preferred to ignore this subject. The facts, though, cannot be denied. With the notable exception of Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs.

Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party's executive secretary and -- as chairman of the Central Executive Committee -- head of the Soviet government. Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky. Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one-quarter Jewish. His maternal grandfather, Israel (Alexander) Blank, was a Ukrainian Jew who was later baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church. 
A thorough-going internationalist, Lenin viewed ethnic or cultural loyalties with contempt. He had little regard for his own countrymen. "An intelligent Russian," he once remarked, "is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood in his veins."

Critical Meetings

In the Communist seizure of power in Russia, the Jewish role was probably critical. Two weeks prior to the Bolshevik "October Revolution" of 1917, Lenin convened a top secret meeting in St. Petersburg (Petrograd) at which the key leaders of the Bolshevik party's Central Committee made the fateful decision to seize power in a violent takeover. Of the twelve persons who took part in this decisive gathering, there were four Russians (including Lenin), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and six Jews. To direct the takeover, a seven-man "Political Bureau" was chosen. It consisted of two Russians (Lenin and Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), and four Jews (Trotsky, Sokolnikov, Zinoviev, and Kamenev).

Meanwhile, the Petersburg (Petrograd) Soviet -- whose chairman was Trotsky -- established an 18-member "Military Revolutionary Committee" to actually carry out the seizure of power. It included eight (or nine) Russians, one Ukrainian, one Pole, one Caucasian, and six Jews. Finally, to supervise the organization of the uprising, the Bolshevik Central Committee established a five-man "Revolutionary Military Center" as the Party's operations command. It consisted of one Russian (Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and two Jews (Sverdlov and Uritsky).

Contemporary Voices of Warning

Well-informed observers, both inside and outside of Russia, took note at the time of the crucial Jewish role in Bolshevism. Winston Churchill, for one, warned in an article published in the February 8, 1920, issue of the London Illustrated Sunday Herald that Bolshevism is a "worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality." The eminent British political leader and historian went on to write:

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people.
David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution." The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, made much the same point a few months later: "Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things." "The Bolshevik Revolution," declared a leading American Jewish community paper in 1920, "was largely the product of Jewish thinking, Jewish discontent, Jewish effort to reconstruct."

As an expression of its radically anti-nationalist character, the fledgling Soviet government issued a decree a few months after taking power that made anti-Semitism a crime in Russia. The new Communist regime thus became the first in the world to severely punish all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment. Soviet officials apparently regarded such measures as indispensable. Based on careful observation during a lengthy stay in Russia, American-Jewish scholar Frank Golder reported in 1925 that "because so many of the Soviet leaders are Jews anti-Semitism is gaining [in Russia], particularly in the army [and] among the old and new intelligentsia who are being crowded for positions by the sons of Israel."

Historians' Views

Summing up the situation at that time, Israeli historian Louis Rapoport writes:
Immediately after the [Bolshevik] Revolution, many Jews were euphoric over their high representation in the new government. Lenin's first Politburo was dominated by men of Jewish origins. Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the Communists' vows to eradicate anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution -- partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed. Historian Salo Baron has noted that an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka. And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators. The collective leadership that emerged in Lenin's dying days was headed by the Jew Zinoviev, a loquacious, mean-spirited, curly-haired Adonis whose vanity knew no bounds.
"Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka," wrote Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro, "stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator."
In Ukraine, "Jews made up nearly 80 percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents," reports W. Bruce Lincoln, an American professor of Russian history. (Beginning as the Cheka, or Vecheka the Soviet secret police was later known as the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD and KGB.) In light of all this, it should not be surprising that Yakov M. Yurovksy, the leader of the Bolshevik squad that carried out the murder of the Tsar and his family, was Jewish, as was Sverdlov, the Soviet chief who co-signed Lenin's execution order.

Igor Shafarevich, a Russian mathematician of world stature, has sharply criticized the Jewish role in bringing down the Romanov monarchy and establishing Communist rule in his country. Shafarevich was a leading dissident during the final decades of Soviet rule. A prominent human rights activist, he was a founding member of the Committee on the Defense of Human Rights in the USSR.
In Russophobia, a book written ten years before the collapse of Communist rule, he noted that Jews were "amazingly" numerous among the personnel of the Bolshevik secret police. The characteristic Jewishness of the Bolshevik executioners, Shafarevich went on, is most conspicuous in the execution of Nicholas II:
This ritual action symbolized the end of centuries of Russian history, so that it can be compared only to the execution of Charles I in England or Louis XVI in France. It would seem that representatives of an insignificant ethnic minority should keep as far as possible from this painful action, which would reverberate in all history. Yet what names do we meet? The execution was personally overseen by Yakov Yurovsky who shot the Tsar; the president of the local Soviet was Beloborodov (Vaisbart); the person responsible for the general administration in Ekaterinburg was Shaya Goloshchekin. To round out the picture, on the wall of the room where the execution took place was a distich from a poem by Heine (written in German) about King Balthazar, who offended Jehovah and was killed for the offense.
In his 1920 book, British veteran journalist Robert Wilton offered a similarly harsh assessment:
The whole record of Bolshevism in Russia is indelibly impressed with the stamp of alien invasion. The murder of the Tsar, deliberately planned by the Jew Sverdlov (who came to Russia as a paid agent of Germany) and carried out by the Jews Goloshchekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov and Yurovsky, is the act not of the Russian people, but of this hostile invader.
In the struggle for power that followed Lenin's death in 1924, Stalin emerged victorious over his rivals, eventually succeeding in putting to death nearly every one of the most prominent early Bolshevik leaders -- including Trotsky, Zinoviev, Radek, and Kamenev. With the passage of time, and particularly after 1928, the Jewish role in the top leadership of the Soviet state and its Communist party diminished markedly.


Monday, 27 January 2014

The Religion of Anti-racism: A field manual for subversion.

Beyond Heroes and Holidays: A Practical Guide to K-12 Anti-Racist, Multicultural Education and Staff

A book review by Thomas Jackson

Most people know that teachers and professors are well to the left of most Americans — their loonier antics sometimes make it into the press — but few outsiders any idea of the real designs “anti-racists” have on American children. Beyond Heroes and Holidays is a collection of 80-odd essays by “progressive” school teachers and education professors about how to use the classroom to fight “racism.” It is supposed to be a guide for training teachers and instructing students — but is nothing less than a field manual for the subversion of American society.

This is a characterization many of the authors would not dispute. Anyone who can drag himself through the more than 450 large- format pages of this book soon learns that everything in America — including the economic system — will have to be revamped in order to eradicate “racism.” The authors, who include education professors at well-regarded universities, have a mentality exactly like that of doctrinaire Marxists. Although they never mention Marx or Communism, and they write about “transformation” rather than “revolution,” they have the same totalitarian compulsion to control and reform every detail of our lives. They even have the equivalent of dialectical materialism. Just as Marxists used the dialectic to interpret reality, they use “critical thinking” to interpret everything — and I mean everything — in terms of “racism,” “sexism,” and a batch of other “isms.” What the “crits” have established is a militant, secular religion, with schools as churches and children as compulsory congregations.

The central message of this religion is that every group difference is proof of exploitation, and every form of exploitation has been perfected by whites. The history of whites is an unending chronicle of rapine and despoliation, and only when these sins have been atoned for and all group differences eradicated will there be justice.

The “crits” do not yet control society but they control what they teach: “All aspects of the curriculum [must] integrate multicultural, critical thinking and justice concepts and practice.” “Diversity and equity issues are integrated into all aspects of the teacher-training curriculum.” This is necessary because, as one of the editors of the book puts it with breath-taking finality, “The purpose of education in an unjust society is to bring about equality and justice.” Thus, “schools should be the place where students can analyze the forces which maintain injustice and develop the knowledge, hope and strategies needed to create a more just society for us all.”

In short, education is indoctrination and its purpose is political: “Every student whom we help to read and write is being provided with tools to defend herself or himself. We are helping prepare them for the onslaught of antihuman practices that this nation and other nations are facing today: racism, sexism, and the greed for money and human labor that disguises itself as “globalization.”

Success is measured by how many students can be turned into anti- racist fanatics, and properly managed students can be made to un- bosom grateful testimonials like: “I also learned that all the institutions in this country are inherently racist and exist for the purpose of maintaining the power and wealth of the dominant group.” (Emphasis added)

Curing Whites

Because whites are the world’s biggest problem, the fight against “racism” begins with them. This book emphasizes over and over that “racism” is not just a matter of thoughts and acts. It is an entire way of being that permeates society, institutions, and whites as a group. We know most whites are openly, hopelessly “racist,” but what about the ones who think they are not? They must be made to under- stand that “racism” is not something practiced by other whites but is in the very marrow of their bones. As one anti-racist expert explains, his job is to take well-meaning white naïfs and give them “a new recognition of themselves as race-privileged, capable of racist thoughts and behaviors.” All whites are “racist” whatever their intentions, whereas no non-whites are “racist.”

This goes without saying for most of the authors, but one or two try to explain it. As Peggy McIntosh of Wellesley, a celebrated proponent of this goofiness explains, inherent “racism” is all about something called “unearned privilege:”

“I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.” “I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.” “I can easily buy posters, postcards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children’s magazines featuring people of my race.” “I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having coworkers on the job suspect that I got it because of race.” “I can choose blemish cover or bandages in “flesh’ color and have them more or less match my skin.”

As Miss McIntosh explains, for non-whites these privileges are experienced as oppression. “Whiteness protected me from many kinds of hostility, distress, and violence, which I was being subtly trained to visit in turn upon people of color,” she explains. Not recognizing and renouncing “privilege” is the same as oppressing non-whites.

Of course, nearly all the “privileges” Miss McIntosh describes are found just about everywhere. Japanese and Nigerians see people of their own race on television, too. A Frenchman living in Japan presumably suffers just like a black in America. There is the further implication that American whites gain some kind of stupendous advantage simply because non-whites live here. Having millions of poor, crime-prone, violent people among us gives us a great advantage over Norwegians, for example, who presumably don’t experience “white skin privilege” ten times a day the way we do. It beggars the imagination how anyone could have thought of anything so stupid but, as Miss McIntosh explains, it is vital to open whites’ eyes to how awful their country really is: “To redesign social systems we need first to acknowledge their colossal unseen dimensions.”

This doctrine of inherent racism is so weird and implausible it takes a lifetime to master it: “Because the ideology of White racial superiority is so deeply embedded in our culture, the process of “unlearning racism’ is a journey we [whites] need to continue throughout our lives.” “Keep in mind that learning about racial identity and racism is a lifelong process.” “Racism is learned, and it can be unlearned, but it takes a commitment to stay aware, to keep working and to accept the unlearning as a lifelong journey.”

Start Early

The authors all agree that anti-racist education has to start just as soon as teachers get their hands on children. Even for preschoolers, we are to “integrate anti-bias issues into every theme,” and put toddlers through “activism activities” that will teach them that “injustice is not overcome by magic or by wishes, but that people make it happen and that each one of them can make it happen.”

Teachers must be ready to pounce whenever a child utters an act of oppression, and the book offers such improbable examples as: “People in wheelchairs can’t be mommies and daddies,” or (to a child with lesbian parents) “you can’t have two mommies,” or “she dresses like a Puerto Rican.”

One recommended exercise is to get a box of bandages, put them on black children, and jeer at any company that would claim they are “flesh colored.” Advanced subjects can be made to scratch out letters of protest to the company. Other lessons can be learned by getting children to designate parking spaces for handicapped people and having the children issue “tickets” to violators. Classroom walls should be covered with pictures that refute stereotypes: black doctors, white janitors, people in wheelchairs at the beach, etc.

Day care staff should rewrite children’s books. The story of the three pigs, for example, implies that European-style brick buildings are superior to Third-World straw and stick houses. The wolf should be changed into an elephant that blasts water from its trunk. The Third- World house of sticks survives because it is on stilts while the brick house floods.

Another “teaching tool” is to get parents of toddlers to come to class and “share” experiences of “racism.” But it is best to get children themselves on the march. Trot them down to greeting card stores to yell because there aren’t “cards or decorations for non dominant holidays.” Or, says one author, preschoolers can be made to protest non-union fruit [!]. Better still, children can be put to work for the staff’s own selfish interests. The book actually recommends that little ones be taught “why better wages are necessary for child care center staff,” and be recruited to help teachers “working in their union to get smaller classroom sizes.”

Once children are older, there are countless techniques for attacking “the dominant culture,” and the book suggests particularly lively ways to take the stuffing out of whites. Children can pretend to be Congressmen debating the Indian Removal Act of 1830, or can try to think of all the evil motives for the Chinese Exclusion Acts of the 19th century. They should put on a mock trial of “the profit system” as the cause of the drug trade, as they consider “drugs as a weapon against the Black community.” Students can draw cartoons about the “racism” they experience, or can collect tourist brochures about Hawaii and note that they fail to mention that whites seized the islands and raped the culture. They can discuss why Thanksgiving Day can be thought of as a day of mourning, or take turns answering the question: “What is your earliest recollection of being excluded because of your race or culture?” Whites can keep diaries of the unearned privileges they enjoy each day. Children can pretend to be Congressmen at the 1870s hearings on KKK violence. To learn about today’s Klan, they should get anti-Klan activists — not Klan members — to speak to the class. Students should be trained in “critical literacy,” which is the ability to detect oppressive messages in books, newspapers, and advertising. A very common theme is to get students to devise “action plans” for combating “racism” in their schools.

Clearly, the object is to rear up fanatical little busy-bodies who will be a kind of anti-racist Red Guard. It is important constantly to remind children of oppression, and never to let the favored groups forget they are victims. One workshop “to explore and celebrate what it is like to be a girl,” was a success because participants later said things like, “I learned that too many young women are being disrespected by young men.”

In one school, “activist” teachers got students to start a Let’s-Stop- Racism-in-Our School campaign. (One complaint had been that a girl said a teacher told her to “prove others wrong and not get pregnant by the age of sixteen like all the other Puerto Rican girls.”) At their first session, how did they prepare for the campaign? “Students reenacted the forced migration of over fifty million Africans brought to the Americas and sold into slavery, and the slaughtering of Native Americans for land and gold.”

How’s it selling?

The publisher of this manual of subversion initially printed 15,000 copies — a very respectable first print run — and reports having sold 6,500. No fewer than 80 colleges and universities use the text in their education programs. Philadelphia and Long Beach, California, use it for teacher training, and Washington, DC, is seriously considering it. Readers might check to see if children in day care centers in their area have started marching to protest non-union fruit.

Heroes and Holidays

The title of this book makes the point that tacking a few non-white heroes onto the curriculum or eating tacos on Cinco de Mayo is not good enough. Every lesson in every subject must be propaganda. Besides, whooping up the occasional distinguished Negro may give the false impression that talented non-whites can get ahead in America. Nevertheless, to supplement the usual study of King and Harriet Tubman, the authors recommend that students look into 150 or so lesser-known “activists for social change.” On the list are Angela Davis, Malcolm X, Che Guevara, Morris Dees, Marcus Garvey, and the two slave insurrectionists Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey. Chief Crazy Horse is identified as a “Native American rights activist.” Still, the book warns that we should be careful with the idea of heroes because it gives the impression that individuals actually count for something, whereas we all know that it is groups that “empower.”

“Heritage celebrations” also must be handled carefully. Making much of national costumes and unfamiliar food is wrong because it suggests foreigners are exotic and Americans are normal. Also, when food and pageantry are taken by themselves “they mask the obstacles that people of color have faced, [and] how they have confronted those obstacles …” Lots of oppression must therefore be worked into all exercises of this kind, and they cannot be called “international” because that suggests things can be foreign to America.

Language is an important part of the multiculti cult: “In our racist, sexist, classist and hetereosexist society, our decisions about word usage are political decisions.” For example, Irish peasants live in “cottages” but we have been trained to say Africans live in mere “huts.” Likewise, to speak of “slaves” and “masters” implies that status is inherent. It is better to speak of “enslaved Africans,” and really “transformative” people say “African people stolen from their families and societies.”

One author notes that whites are only ten percent of the world population. In an American context, “use of the word “minority,’ therefore, obscures this global reality and reinforces racist assumptions.” We are always to say “people of color,” a term which “was borne out of an explicitly political statement that signaled a solidarity among progressive African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, Native Americans and Pacific Islanders.”

Anti-racists agonize over black English. They would never say it is bad English, and instead complain about “the arbitrariness of designating one variety [of English] over another as “standard.’ ” “On the other hand, it is equally important to understand that students who do not have access to the politically popular dialect form in this country … are less likely to succeed economically … How can both realities be embraced?” The trick is to call black English a dialect and try to help blacks become “bi-dialectical.” When a student asks “Who do dat?” you do not “correct” him; you encourage him to translate into the politically popular dialect.

We must have bilingual education for immigrants, because expecting them to learn English is “racist.” One author writes that “in a moment of generosity” one could imagine that English-only advocates just want newcomers to assimilate and get ahead, but that would be wrong. As he points out, white women speak English as well as white men, but don’t earn as much money. Therefore, since speaking English doesn’t lead to equality, the English-only people can be shown to be the racist frauds they really are. Thus, “language policy in the United States continues to be used as an effective tool to control access to social, economic and political resources.”

Math classes must be indoctrination, too. Inequities in income, the number of blacks in jail, unemployment rates by race — studying these makes math “a tool to interpret and challenge inequities in our society.” In the right hands, math can “uncover stereotypes, understand history, and examine issues of inequality.” Pure science is harder to turn into propaganda but instruction can be “transformed to consider how science itself is conceptualized, valued and practiced by those who have traditionally been outside the scientific mainstream” — whatever that may mean.

The anti-racists hate free markets and world trade. The profit motive is a gruesome thing that “values property over people,” but is beaten into all Americans: “Where do people learn the values of this system? Just think back to elementary school. Columbus, who killed hundreds of Native Americans in his search for gold, is touted as a hero.” Here are some basic economic concepts:

“Wealthy countries became wealthy by exploiting the resources of the Southern countries.”

“The colonial and capitalist systems, which grew up together, were also inherently and inescapably racist.”

“The world financial system is a greater cause of hunger in Africa than is bad weather.”

If teachers do their jobs they will be rewarded with student comments like:

“I had not previously understood that capitalism requires keeping a large group of people in extreme poverty, and is deliberately and purposefully racist, promoting divisions among people in order for the dominant group to maintain political, economic, and social power and control …”

Oddly, none of this leads to outright advocacy of Communism, and neither Marx nor Mao is on the list of sainted “social activists.” It is unclear what will replace capitalism in the anti-racist paradise.

Hating White People

Ultimately this brand of “anti-racism” shows its true colors as a religion — the religion of hating white people. It has a few other doctrines but they all derive from racism: “we must ask how sexism, classism, and linguicism [?] are part of this oppression called racism.” (emphasis in the original) It is a religion that calls for total devotion. As one author explains, “We must grapple with both [individual and institutional “racism”] at every moment of our lives.”

Like all fanatics, these people cannot see obvious contradictions. Over and over we hear that all children must have positive self-images and yet even science lessons must be stuffed with anti-white propaganda. There is incessant talk of fighting stereotypes — except for one: the wicked white man. America is a cesspool of “racism,” but non-white immigrants are quite right to want to come. This book purports to promote multiculturalism, but its myriad “celebrations” leave no room for Western Civilization. In fact, Western Civilization is just another name for evil “isms.” As the authors say repeatedly, their goal is to transform every institution in the country. This is nothing less than an open declaration of war on Western Civilization — and a veiled declaration of war on the people who built it.

There are a few worthy whites — John Brown, Morris Dees, Andrew Goodman, Fidel Castro, Gloria Steinem — but every one is a radical critic of his own society and people. In the minds of these authors the only role left to whites as a group is that of demons to be routed by heroic non-whites. This book is full of photographs, but of the hundreds of faces in them, perhaps three percent are white.

It would be a mistake to think that this hostile, warped cult is of interest only because its practitioners are poisoning the minds of your children. White-hatred is the inevitable consequence of the doctrine of racial egalitarianism. So long as the “mainstream” denies racial differences, and agrees that “racism” is the blackest of all sins, there will always be anti-racist fanatics who will stop at nothing to eradicate this evil. The anti-racists do not have to transform all our institutions. They already have.


Friday, 24 January 2014

Stalin's Jews

We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish - Sever Plocker

Here's a particularly forlorn historical date: Almost 90 years ago, between the 19th and 20th of December 1917, in the midst of the Bolshevik revolution and civil war, Lenin signed a decree calling for the establishment of The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, also known as Cheka.

Within a short period of time, Cheka became the largest and cruelest state security organization. Its organizational structure was changed every few years, as were its names: From Cheka to GPU, later to NKVD, and later to KGB.

We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.

Whole population strata were eliminated: Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, "opposition members" who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of the Communist party itself.

In his new, highly praised book "The War of the World, "Historian Niall Ferguson writes that no revolution in the history of mankind devoured its children with the same unrestrained appetite as did the Soviet revolution. In his book on the Stalinist purges, Tel Aviv University's Dr. Igal Halfin writes that Stalinist violence was unique in that it was directed internally.

Lenin, Stalin, and their successors could not have carried out their deeds without wide-scale cooperation of disciplined "terror officials," cruel interrogators, snitches, executioners, guards, judges, perverts, and many bleeding hearts who were members of the progressive Western Left and were deceived by the Soviet regime of horror and even provided it with a kosher certificate.

All these things are well-known to some extent or another, even though the former Soviet Union's archives have not yet been fully opened to the public. But who knows about this? Within Russia itself, very few people have been brought to justice for their crimes in the NKVD's and KGB's service. The Russian public discourse today completely ignores the question of "How could it have happened to us?" As opposed to Eastern European nations, the Russians did not settle the score with their Stalinist past.

And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the "bloodthirsty dwarf."

Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife. In his Book "Stalin: Court of the Red Star", Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.

Stalin's close associates and loyalists included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich. Montefiore characterizes him as the "first Stalinist" and adds that those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao's terror in China, did not move Kaganovich.

Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We'll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD's special department and the organization's chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.

In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a "carnival of mass murder," "fantasy of purges", and "essianism of evil." Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.

The Jews active in official communist terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and "Soviet people." Therefore, we find it easy to ignore their origin and "play dumb": What do we have to do with them? But let's not forget them. My own view is different. I find it unacceptable that a person will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable things.

Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of "our hangmen," who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin.

Thursday, 23 January 2014

The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous

The dirty little secret about gay marriage: Most gay couples are not monogamous. We have come to accept lately, partly thanks to Liza Mundy’s excellent recent cover story in the Atlantic and partly because we desperately need something to make the drooping institution of heterosexual marriage seem vibrant again, that gay marriage has something to teach us, that gay couples provide a model for marriages that are more egalitarian and less burdened by the old gender roles that are weighing marriage down these days. 

But the thorny part of the gay marriage experiment is sex, and more precisely, monogamous sex. Mundy writes about an old study from the '80s that found that gay couples were extremely likely to have had sex outside their relationship—82 percent did. That was before AIDS and the great matrimony craze in the gay community.

She also tells the story of Dan Savage, who started out wanting to be monogamous until he and his partner had kids, and then they loosened up on that in order to make their union last. “Monogamish” is what he calls his new model. But as Mundy asks, can anyone out there imagine a husband proposing that same deal to his pregnant wife?

A long Gawker story last week explored this problem in greater detail. In the fight for marriage equality, the gay rights movement has put forth couples that look like straight ones, together forever, loyal, sharing assets. But what no one wants to talk about is that they don’t necessarily represent the norm:
The Gay Couples Study out of San Francisco State University—which, in following over 500 gay couples over many years is the largest on-going study of its kind—has found that about half of all couples have sex with someone other than their partner, with their partner knowing.
In writing about the subject, gay people emphasize the aspects of their relationships that sound most wholesome and straight-like, Steven Thrasher writes. They neglect to mention that, say, in Thrasher’s case, he met his partner for sex only once, and they ended up falling in love. The larger point being that gay couples are very different when it comes to sex, even if this is not the convenient moment to discuss that. And in legalizing gay marriage, we are accepting a form of sanctioned marriage that is not by habit monogamous and that is inventing all kinds of new models of how to accommodate lust and desire in long-term relationships.

In his interviews with married gay couples, Thrasher gets them to open up about the arrangements they invent. Most are some version of Dan Savage's “monogamish.” They are monogamous when they are in the same city, they can have sex with other people but not fall in love, or they can have sex with other people for some period of time. In some far-off, ideal world, this kind of openness may infect the straight world, and heterosexual couples may actually start to tackle the age-old problem of boring monogamous sex. But do any of us really believe that?

* * * * * *
So, if they don't want to stay faithful to one single person for the resto of their earthly existence, why do they want to "marry"?

Answer: They don't. Most homosexuals frown at the ideia of monogamy (sex with only one person for life) and marriage is *all* about monogamy.

Gay "marriage" is about redefining marriage and not about helping gays. Like I said before, if you resist gay "marriage", you will have some gays helping you out because they - like you - know that marriage is an heterosexual institution.

Working Definition of Anti-Europeanism

The following is an edited version of the 'working definition of anti-semitism' created by the European forum. Which shows the complete and sickening hypocrisy of Jewish extremists who demand at every turn that any criticism of Jews or Israel be clamped down on through the judiciary that they manipulate and control to suit themselves. View the link to see the 'original' and try not to wretch at the clear attempts to criminalise speaking about the historical guilt of Jews in relation to many events covered up by the media they openly ADMIT to controlling.


The purpose of this document is to provide a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with anti-Europeanism.

Working definition: 

“Anti-Europeanism is a certain perception of white Europeans, which may be expressed as hatred toward white Europeans. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Europeanism are directed towards white Europeans and/or their property and homelands, towards white European community institutions and religious facilities.”

In addition, such manifestations could also target the continent of Europe, conceived as a white European collectivity. Anti-Europeanism frequently charges white Europeans with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame white Europeans for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of anti-Europeanism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the political sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of white Europeans in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about white Europeans as such or the power of white Europeans as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth that white Europeans are a social construct and are guilty of all the worlds probmems.

Accusing white Europeans as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single white European person or group, or even for acts committed by non-whites Europeans. 

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. mass non-white immigration) or intentionality of the genocide of the white European people at the hands of corrupt globalist governments, Jewish supremacists and radical left wing communistic groups.   

Accusing the white Europeans as a people, of inventing or exaggerating the ongoing white genocide. 

Accusing white European citizens of being racist for wanting to preserve their own people culture and heritage.  

Examples of the ways in which anti-Europeanism manifests itself with regard to the continent of Europe taking into account the overall context could include:

Denying the white European people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a  continent of white Europeans is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other continent. 

Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Europeanism (e.g, the intentional promotion of miscegenation.) 

Holding white Europeans collectively responsible for real or perceived wrong doings of their ancestors. 

Anti-Europeanism acts are criminal when they lead to the genocidal displacement of white Europeans in their own homelands.

Criminal acts are anti-Europeanism when the targets of attacks, whether they are people, nation or property are selected because they are white European or linked to white Europeans. 

Anti-European discrimination is the denial to white Europeans of a homeland that reflects their unique and wonderous cultural and ethnic heritage.  

The above edited version is wholly applicable to the current situation all white European nations find themselves in. Through control of all our cultural institutions by radical cultural marxists, white Europeans, their history and heritage, has been attacked incessantly by an agenda dominated by Jewish supremacists which aims at the complete deconstruction of white European history and heritage through creative history and falsehoods and in favour of a total dispossession of historical white homelands replacing them with a majority non-white population. 

Now lets look at a definition of 'Semitism' and see how when in relation to white European nations, semitism becomes anti-Europeanism.


• A policy or predisposition in favor of Jews.

• Semitic characteristics, esp. the ways, *ideas*, *influence*, etc of the Jewish people.

• Anything typical or characteristic of Judaism, as customs, *beliefs*, *influence*, etc.

Key words in these definitions are 'predisposition in favour of Jews' 'ideas' 'beliefs' and 'influence.'

Read the following quotes, and see if you can spot policies in favour of Jews, influence of Jews, ideas of Jews and beliefs of Jews.

"American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief, one firmly rooted in history, that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse “gay rights” and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called “social issues.” 

- Charles Silberman

"It was only after World War II that immigration law was drastically changed to eliminate such discrimination. In one of the first pieces of evidence of its political coming-of-age, the Jewish community has a leadership role in effecting those changes." 

- Earl Raab

"The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country."

"We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to ethnic bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever." 

- Earl Rabb

"I think there’s a resurgence of antisemitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and I think we’re gonne be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural.. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive."

- Barbara Spectre

"The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendent quality."

- Ben Wattenberg, writer and journalist. Jew.

"Some time in the distant future, brown people are probably going to — and I say this without judgment — breed their way to power in both Europe and America. Arab populations are growing in countries like France and Holland, and I think we all see where this Mexican thing is going in America. That’s right, because they fuck more, the darker skinned people are going to rule the world, and white people, for their own self-preservation, should get a start on being nice to them now! Nice."

- Bill Maher, author, TV host, “comedian”. Jew.

"Historically, Jews had always thrived in nations and empires with multicultural, pluralistic and tolerant environments, while they fared badly in strong ethnic or nationalistic societies. European Jews have always been the emblematic stranger or ‘other’. Therefore, by definition, a society where the stranger is welcome is good for the Jews, although they have not always appreciated this link. … The future of European Jewry is dependant on our ability to shape a multicultural, pluralistic and diverse society."

- Göran Rosenberg, author and journalist. Jew.

"Well, it’s a trick, we always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are anti-Semitic. And the [Jewish] organization is strong, and has a lot of money, and the ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are very strong and they are strong in this country, as you know. And they have power, which is OK. They are talented people and they have power and money, and the media and other things, and their attitude is ‘Israel, my country right or wrong,’ identification. And they are not ready to hear criticism. And it’s very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as anti-Semitic, and to bring up the Holocaust, and the suffering of the Jewish people, and that is justify everything we do to the Palestinians."

- Shulamit Aloni, former Israeli minister, Democracy Now, August 14, 2002

"The Jew … Judaizes … he provokes religious indifference, but he also imposes on those whose faith he destroys, his own concept of the world, of morality, and of human life.The Jews detests the spirit of the nation in the midst of which they live."

- Bernard Lazare, in Antisemitism

"We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own."

- Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles (1924)

"Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel. Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created."

- Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Jerusalem Post, october 10, 2010. Yosef is the former Sephardi Chief Rabbi in the Jewish state, and currently the spiritual leader of the Knesset party Shas. He is known to be an important authority on Jewish law.

"If every simple cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, is a part of God, then every strand of DNA is a part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA.

If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value. There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life."

- Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, Jewish Week, april 26, 1996

"Any trial based on the assumption that Jews and goyim are equal is a total travesty of justice."

- Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, June 6, 1989

"The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews–all of them in all different levels–is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle."

- Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Kook, once Chief Rabbi in Palestine, cited in Shahak, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel.

"Kill [even] the good among the Gentiles."

- Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, quoted in Mechilta Midrash

"The white race is the cancer of human history."

- Susan Sontag (Rosenblatt), Partisan Review, Winter 1967

"Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.

The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.

We intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed, not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed."

- Noel Ignatiev, Harvard Magazine, Sep-Oct 2002

"Even if reason tells us, even shouts with all its force the very absurdity of this confrontation between the small and insignificant people of Israel [i.e, all Jewry worldwide, not just “the State of Israel”] and the rest of humanity… as absurd, as incoherent and as monstrous as it may seem, we are engaged in close combat between Israel and the Nations – and it can only be genocidal and total because it is about our and their identities."

- Yitzhak Attia, Israel Magazine, april 2003

"Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. Just about every movie or TV show, whether it be “Tropic Thunder” or “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is rife with actors, directors, and writers who are Jewish. Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews? But that’s not all. We also control the ads that go on those TV shows.

The time has come, though. We no longer have to change our names. We no longer have to blend in like chameleons. We own a whole freaking country."

- Manny Friedman, Times of Israel, july 1, 2012

"Jews totally run Hollywood.

The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish. As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood, but I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them."

- Joel Stein, Los Angeles Times, december 19, 2008

And that is merely a selection of many quotes.

Therefore, anti-semitism, is to be against these policies, beliefs, ideas and influence of Jews within our countries. The terms in response to these stated Jewish ideas, beliefs, policies and influences in ethnically European nations should be that they are anti-Europeanism and anti-gentileism.

The term anti-semitism is used against everybody opposed to these Jewish policies, beliefs, ideas and influences. It is also used against people who expose Jewish wrong doing and historical criminality and nation destroying aswel as a vast distortion of history. Like 'racism' it is designed to be a silencing tactic, a term that instills trepidation in people, a fear of speaking the truth. 

If Europeans had a term that meant a predisposition in favour of Europeans, everything possible would be done to show how 'racist' it was for Europeans to have group interests. 

Could you imagine the outrage at the following definitions of a term that represented Europeans:

• European characteristics, esp. the ways, ideas, influence, etc of the European people.

• Anything typical or characteristic of Europeans, as customs, beliefs, influence, etc.

The so called 'working definition of anti-semitism' is a work of evil genius, they have somehow managed to turn themselves into the eternal victims and anybody who dares to question that is likely to be labeled and dealt with by the 'law.' 

Why, if they are not guilty of what they are accused of, would they seek to use the law and threat of imprisonment to shut people up? If you had nothing to hide then surely it would be just as easy to show any misguided accusations as being false, you would not fear accusations of something you are not guilty of, and you certainly wouldn't feel it necessary to have the whole world adhere to your instructions to silence people. There are people languishing in prison for merely questioning percieved historical events, no threats to kill, no incitement to kill, nothing, except having the audacity to ask a question or to give an opinion. What opinion or question needs to be suppressed by law?

A criminal guilty of a crime, 9 times out of 10, will do anything to steer clear of the law. He will deny any participation in the crime, he will lie, he will blame somebody else, he will project the crimes of somebody else to make himself appear less guilty, he will say that he was the victim, he will use intimidation and threats to silence a witness. So what is the difference? There is none. However somebody accused of a crime but who in fact is innocent, does not fear a full investigation into the crime to ensure his or her name is cleared. They have nothing to cover up and have no need to deviously attempt to deceive and mislead the investigation. They also have no need to silence or threaten a witness because there would be no witness or if there were, they would be lying.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...