Unexamined, Unquestioned, Unchallenged: Jewish Power in Brave New Britain

Unexamined, Unquestioned, Unchallenged: Jewish Power in Brave New Britain

December 21, 2019/35 Comments/in British Politics, Featured Articles /by Tobias Langdon

 

 

Ehud Sheleg. Who is he? CFI. What is that? The vast majority of people in Brave New Britain still don’t have a clue, because the mainstream media completely ignored these very interesting and important questions during the just-ended general election.

The biggest lobbying group in British politics

But this is the Occidental Observer, the Home of Hate, and we think that interesting and important questions deserve answers. Sir Ehud Sheleg (born 1955) is the Israeli Jew and possible “binary options” fraudster who is currently Treasurer of the Conservative Party. He succeeded Sir Mick Davis, a Jew from South Africa, in 2019 and has openly admitted in the Jewish Chronicle that he puts Israel’s interests above those of any other country. And CFI? That’s Conservative Friends of Israel, described in the same Jewish Chronicle as “the biggest lobbying group in Westminster [i.e., British politics].”

The Goy Grovel: Sajid Javid, Priti Patel and Boris Johnson perform at CFI

 

CFI, under the control of another undeservedly obscure Jew called Lord Polak, was responsible for shepherding a female Hindu politician called Priti Patel to a series of secret and unminuted meetings with Israeli politicians in 2017 (and probably long before that too). Patel had to resign her post in Theresa May’s government because of her off-the-record pandering to a foreign government, but don’t worry: she bounced back to an even bigger and better post when Boris Johnson replaced May in 2019. Yes, the four most important people in British politics — part-Jewish Boris Johnson as Prime Minister, Pakistani Muslim Sajid Javid as Chancellor, Indian Hindu Priti Patel as Home Secretary, and Jewish Dominic Raab as Foreign Secretary — are all devout Friends of Israel.

A “special and precious” Judeo-Royal connection

 
Or rather, they are not the most four important people in British politics. Ehud Sheleg and Lord Polak are more important as Treasurer of the Conservative Party and head of CFI, respectively. But Sheleg and Polak have received no serious scrutiny from the mainstream media. If any journalists had dared to question the role played by Jews at the heart of Britain’s ruling party, they would have been denounced as antisemites and driven out of public life. The rules are simple: 1) Jews are saintly philanthropists who have no interests of their own, and especially not vis-à-vis Israel; 2) Israel’s interests are, in any case, identical to those of Britain, America, France, Germany et al.

The Unwatched Web: how Jewish organizations control British politics (BICOM = Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre)

 

Remember Judeo-Christian values, people! They’re the foundation of Western civilization, after all. In fact, they’re a contradiction in terms, but the idiotic phrase “Judeo-Christian” may well become popular here during the rest of Johnson’s premiership. If so, one of its cheerleaders will be the naïve and stupid heir to the English throne:

Prince Charles praises ‘special and precious’ connection between Jewish community and the Crown

The Prince of Wales delivered this speech at a reception celebrating the Jewish community at Buckingham Palace
It is a great delight to welcome you this evening to Buckingham Palace, as the festival of Chanukah approaches, and to celebrate with you the contribution of our Jewish community to the health, wealth and happiness of the United Kingdom.
In every walk of life, in every field of endeavor [why the American spelling?], our nation could have had no more generous citizens, and no more faithful friends. That is why I am so glad to have this opportunity to say thank you, albeit in a small way, for all that you do, and have done, across the country, in major national and international institutions, and in local communities the length and breadth of the land.
I often describe the United Kingdom as a “community of communities”, which is enriched by the diversity of its constituent groups, and whose whole is so much greater than its parts. …
And it is why this time of year, which is so special to Christians and Jews alike, offered an ideal opportunity to arrange this evening’s celebration — because the importance of Unity through Diversity sits at the very heart of our values as a society. It defines what — and who — we are as a country.
The connection between the Crown and our Jewish Community is something special and precious. I say this from a particular and personal perspective because I have grown up being deeply touched by the fact that British synagogues have, for centuries, remembered my Family in your weekly prayers. And as you remember my Family, so we too remember and celebrate you. …
In my own small way, I have sought to recognize the contribution of the Jewish community by various means, whether in attending or hosting receptions for the Kindertransport Association, or for Holocaust survivors, or attending events for the National Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, of which I am Patron, or helping to build a Jewish Community Centre in Krakow — where I was privileged to fix a mezuzah to the doorpost — or in agreeing without a moment’s hesitation to become Patron of World Jewish Relief.
If I may say so, Ladies and Gentlemen, I see this as the least I can do to try to repay, in some small way, the immense blessings the Jewish people have brought to this land and, indeed, to humanity. In the Hebrew Scriptures, which provide so much of the ethical underpinning of our society, we read in The Book of Deuteronomy, the inspiring exhortation: “Choose life!”
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Jewish community of the United Kingdom have fulfilled that divine command in countless ways, and our society has been immeasurably enriched as a result. Today, we have the opportunity to give thanks for the friendship we have forged, and the values we all share. (Prince Charles praises ‘special and precious’ connection between Jewish community and the Crown, The Jewish Chronicle, 6th December 2019 / 8th Kislev 5780)

Unity through Diversity: horrors from the Partition of India in 1947

 

Prince Charles is not only an idiot: he’s an ignorant or wilfully blind idiot. Is it any wonder that Jews have the mocking term goyishe kop — “gentile head” — when gentiles like Charles appear before them and talk such nonsense? The slogan “Unity through Diversity!” might have come straight from the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). 
Apparently Charles never had chance to ask his beloved uncle Lord Mountbatten about the “Unity through Diversity” that swept former British India in 1947 when Mountbatten was the last Viceroy. Hundreds of thousands of people died in “communal rioting” between Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. 
Huge numbers also died when Bangladesh won its independence from Pakistan in 1971. Both Bangladeshis and Pakistanis were Muslim, but their racial and cultural differences were enough to create “Unity through Diversity,” that is, war, massacres and organized rape. 
And even without the massacres and war (yet), organized rape is now a prominent feature of today’s Britain as a result of the blessings of diversity created by Pakistani migration.

Jewish revenge on gentile monarchs

 
Lord Mountbatten himself became another example of “Unity through Diversity” when he was blown up by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in 1979. 
Yes, the relatively mild religious and racial diversity of the British Isles has been killing people for many centuries. For example, Oliver Cromwell strewed Ireland with Catholic corpses in the seventeenth century, but that isn’t surprising when you consider that Cromwell’s republican revolution was financed by Jewish bankers from Amsterdam. Jews hate the Catholic church and traditional Christian institutions like the monarchy (unless royals grovel before Jews as Charles does). 
For example, the execution of Charles I in 1649 may have been Jewish revenge for Edward I’s Edict of Expulsion in 1290.
Prince Charles should read M.R. James’ (1862–1936) fascinating short-story “The Uncommon Prayer-Book”, which discusses the overthrow of Charles, and learn something about British history and the harmful role played by Jews (see my discussion). He would also benefit from a look at the central Jewish role in the communist executions of his royal relatives, the Romanov family, in 1918. Jews do not like any kind of monarchy or aristocracy except subservient and stupid ones.
In fact, Jews have always made alliances with non-Jewish elites throughout history, continuing in the present age with figures like Boris Johnson and Prince Charles. This has repeatedly resulted in exploitation and betrayal of other segments of the population — most notably now the White working class.
Charles might realize the depths of his own stupidity by paying more attention to the Jewish Chronicle. His smarmy words about “this time of year, which is so special to Christians and Jews alike,” prove that he has been taken in by the Jewish pretence that Hanukkah is an important Jewish festival.

Dread in December

 
It isn’t: it’s a minor Jewish festival used to undermine Christmas, as the highly ethnocentric Jonathan Freedland admitted in the Jewish Chronicle in the same month as Charles’ sycophantic speech: “The timing of a pre-Christmas election shouldn’t bother too many JC readers. When it comes to preparing for the holidays, December is hardly Jews’ busiest month. Even so, the prospect of an election in the season of nativity plays and mince pies will, I suspect, be filling Jews with a special kind of dread.”

Freedland spoke of “dread” because he thought that either a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn or a “hard Brexit” under Boris Johnson would be bad for Jews. And what else matters in Brave New Britain but the welfare of Jews? However, Corbyn was clearly by far the bigger threat, as Freedland emphasized: “Witness the fact that Labour under Corbyn has become the first UK political party since the BNP to come under statutory investigation for racism by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (with its report expected in the spring).” 
The investigation into Labour by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is another example of how the mainstream media in Britain refuse to ask very interesting and important questions about Jewish power.

Controlled by Jews

 
After all, the EHRC is headed by two Jews: the lawyer Rebecca Hilsenrath and the homosexual-rights activist David Isaacs. Is it possible that their Jewishness could influence the investigation and its conclusions? Of course not: remember that Jews are saintly philanthropists who have no interests of their own (and especially not in demonizing the Labour party). 
But that question never even arose when the EHRC’s investigation was mentioned during the election campaign. 
The best that the Left could do was demand a similar enquiry into Islamophobia in the Conservative party. But Tories and their supporters express much scepticism about the validity of “Islamophobia.” As the supposed conservative Charles Moore wrote in the Spectator: “…the term ‘Islamophobia’ should be absolutely resisted. Unlike anti-Semitism, this is a concocted concept.”

The Bolshevik punim of Rebecca Hilsenrath

 

Moore is another Prince Charles who should pay more attention to the publication in which his own words appear. 
The Spectator staunchly defended the supposed philosopher Roger Scruton against accusations of bigotry early in 2019. Scruton was dishonestly accused both of Islamophobia and of antisemitism, and it was obvious that both terms are “concocted concepts.” 
A prominent Jewish MP called Luciana Berger accused Scruton of antisemitism without any criticism from other Jews, and the intervention of the Jewish Board of Deputies seems to have been decisive in Scruton’s dismissal from a government committee. 
Scruton was given his post back later, but neither he nor any of his defenders discussed the unjust accusations of antisemitism. After all, if they did that, they might have to admit the truth about Jews and they’re not prepared to do that.
 Instead, they perform the goy grovel, year in, year out, and Jewish power in Brave New Britain continues to be unexamined, unquestioned and unchallenged. Except here at the Occidental Observer, the Home of Hate.

Good reasons for optimism

 
Nevertheless, there are good reasons for optimism. If I’d been told at the beginning of 2019 that millions of Labour voters would finally abandon the party that long ago abandoned them, I wouldn’t have believed it. But that’s exactly what happened when solid Labour seats like Bolsover, Darlington, Sedgefield, Stockton South and Wrexham fell to the Tories in the general election. 
Of course, the Conservative party doesn’t care about its new supporters, but when they are inevitably disappointed, they will begin to understand how corrupt and undemocratic the politics of Brave New Britain truly are. 
And they may even begin to notice the central role of Jews there.
 
And if I’d been told at the beginning of 2019 that the term “Deep State” and the name Jeffrey Epstein would soon be all over the American media, I wouldn’t have believed it either. But again, all that happened. Things are moving in the right direction. The central role of Jews in anti-White activism and political corruption is slowly but surely becoming obvious to more and more people. And understanding will lead to action.
====================

Kevin MacDonald : Ideas on maintaining relationships with the less committed in a dark age

 

Ideas on maintaining relationships with the less committed in a dark age

December 31, 2019/62 Comments/in Featured Articles, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy /by Kevin MacDonald

 

 

Many of us are forced to deal with personal issues because of our political-cultural beliefs. A typical situation might be a wife or girlfriend—the great majority of activists on the dissident right are male—who is terrified of it becoming known that she is associated with someone who is shunned and socially ostracized. But of course, it may also be other family members or friends—a particularly painful experience.

Let’s assume that doxing would only result in social opprobrium, not loss of livelihood—admittedly a much easier case. 
And let’s also assume that your significant other is not a committed social justice warrior. Such people are completely intolerant of opinions that conflict with their dogmas and they are fueled by hatred toward people like you. Such people are impossible to reason with. They prefer spewing hatred, typically accompanied with ungrounded assertions of moral and intellectual superiority. They do this within their echo chambers of like-minded people, ignoring data they don’t like and never encountering a dissenting voice. Trust me, you can’t talk to them. Get them out of your life, whatever it takes. You’ll be happier.
Since we still have a functioning First Amendment, the establishment uses informal means of punishing dissenters, and pressure on employers is the first option. While Marxists rail at the evils of capitalism, the fact is that all the major corporations are completely on board with the official ideology on race and gender, and are all too willing to fire those who dissent. It is completely understandable for people threatened by loss of livelihood to maintain a low profile, especially if they have a family to support.

But there are many who risk only social opprobrium—retired people, the self-employed, or the financially secure. Of course, being ostracized from polite society doesn’t bother the activists personally. They may suffer psychologically, but they firmly believe they are right, and they often have like-minded friends, if only in cyberspace. The problem comes from trying to find simpatico mates and friends beyond activist conferences and online communities.

An obvious strategy is to use a pseudonym and this is necessary and desirable for many. Lots of people do, including a clear majority of the writers at TOO. However, pseudonyms don’t completely solve the problem because the people who are terrified of doxing can’t know for sure that it won’t happen some at point in the future. This hangs over them like the sword of Damocles. It’s just a matter of time before it drops, or so the thinking goes. And when it does, she would have to deal with the cold stares, the terminated friendships, and perhaps antifa protesting (or worse) in front of her home.

Perhaps the main point in my recent book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition is that Western peoples are far more prone to valuing their moral reputation, especially in their face-to-face world. Westerners create societies made up of close family, friends and associates, as well as strangers where moral reputation is critical for fitting in. This contrasts with societies in the rest of the world, where moral status is filtered through kinship connections. The Western culture of moral reputation worked well over long stretches of historical time, but in the contemporary West, a hostile elite has achieved control of the media and educational system, and they have managed to corrupt mainstream Christian religious sects. This hostile elite has used its power to create a moral community in which White identity and interests have been demonized. Standing up to that places one outside this moral community and has major psychological effects.
A famous example is Anne Morrow Lindbergh when her husband, Charles Lindbergh, stated that Jews were one of the forces attempting to get the United States to enter World War II. Shortly after his speech, she wrote:

The storm is beginning to blow up hard. …I sense that this is the beginning of a fight and consequent loneliness and isolation that we have not known before. … For I am really much more attached to the worldly things than he is, mind more giving up friends, popularity, etc., mind much more criticism and coldness and loneliness. … Will I be able to shop in New York at all now? I am always stared at—but now to be stared at with hate, to walk through aisles of hate![1]

What is striking and perhaps counterintuitive, is that the guilt and shame remain even when she is completely satisfied at an intellectual (explicit) level that her beliefs are based on good evidence and reasonable inferences and that they are morally justifiable.

I cannot explain my revulsion of feeling by logic. Is it my lack of courage to face the problem? Is it my lack of vision and seeing the thing through? Or is my intuition founded on something profound and valid? I do not know and am only very disturbed, which is upsetting for him. I have the greatest faith in him as a person—in his integrity, his courage, and his essential goodness, fairness, and kindness—his nobility really…How then explain my profound feeling of grief about what he is doing? If what he said is the truth (and I am inclined to think it is), why was it wrong to state it? (From Chapter 8 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition.)

Her reaction is involuntary and irrational—beyond the reach of logical analysis. Charles Lindbergh was exactly right in what he said, but a rational understanding of the correctness of his analysis cannot lessen the psychological trauma to his wife, who must face the hostile stares of others because her husband’s beliefs place him outside the moral community she values.
Women are more connected to the social world. They care more about having friends and being respected in the community. Men want to feel connected too, but they are also more willing to take risks. And men’s reproductive prospects are far more linked to being part of a dominant group, so men are far more concerned about politics and the distribution of power. Men tend to suffer more when there is an alien takeover: history is replete with men being slaughtered and women taken as wives and concubines by the winners (as happened with the Indo-European invaders of Europe and elsewhere, Genghis Khan and the Mongols, etc.).
And in the contemporary world, any non-brain-dead White male has to be aware that the current hegemony of our new elite has meant that White heterosexual males are the most demonized class in all Western societies. White males are regarded as historical oppressors and the basic reason for the failures of certain (low IQ) non-White groups. Their statues are being removed, their culture ridiculed and hated. Most importantly, their political representation is steadily declining.

So how should one talk to a significant other about the very real dangers of being on the dissident right? I think a good tactic is to point out that many people are being attacked these days, not just people linked to full-blown race realism, opposition to immigration and multiculturalism, and assertions of Jewish power and influence. Individuals associated with the Trump administration have been harassed on the street and barred from or insulted in restaurants. MAGA hat-wearing people have been physically attacked in broad daylight in public places. With impunity. Mainstream conservatives have been greeted with mass protests, riots, and moral panics at college campuses.

Your significant other may relate to the fact that the censorious left is shutting down many ideas that were entirely mainstream and respectable just a few years ago. If we are not to become something like the society imagined in Orwell’s 1984 (we’re already quite close given the wall-to-wall propaganda and ubiquitous surveillance by government and left-leaning big tech), we have to stand up to this. 
Again assuming one’s significant other is not a dyed-in-the-wool social justice warrior, she should relate to that as threatening all that she valued in the society she grew up in, including especially her own children. (It’s well known that women get more conservative when married and as they get older.) 
This should make her able to buck up and withstand the hostility, so that she’ll join you in firmly believing “We’re the good guys, and they’re evil.”

Having a demonstration outside one’s house is terrifying to many of our weaker brethren. It’s probably number one on their list of fears since it’s very public and it strikes very close to home. 
But that’s what happened to Tucker Carlson who was harassed by a mob of antifa outside his house. One can imagine the fear his wife, alone in the house, felt as one of the masked cowards pounded on the front door. 
Despite repeated attempts to get Carlson fired and quite successful campaigns to get advertisers to boycott his show, Carlson continues with his edgy views and still draws a huge audience. And as far as I know, his marriage is fine—even though he likely can’t show his face in public in the deep blue urban areas of America.

What are some things that would affect how his wife felt about all this? One thing would be whether she believes that her husband is honest and sincere in his beliefs. Because they are sharing their lives, she has a long experience with him in a wide range of areas besides political opinions. She knows if he is trustworthy or duplicitous, whether he has strong moral convictions or is prone to manipulating others for personal gain. If she thinks of him as basically a good guy who is doing his best to have well-grounded opinions, it would make her stronger, more willing to deal with the haters who are doing their best to make their lives miserable.

Assuming that he has honestly held, morally defensible ideas, this increased willingness to simply reject the haters is likely even if she doesn’t fully agree with his opinions or even understand them completely (e.g., understanding Jewish issues is difficult without doing a lot of reading and all too easily results in oversimplified assertions by those without some background in the area).

And, again assuming that there is trust in the relationship, a greater willingness to put up with the haters is likely even if, like many Americans, politics is not at the center of her world—even if she doesn’t dwell on the future of Whites as a minority in a hostile world but is far more involved with family, church, or hobbies like music, cooking or gardening. Again, in general, women are not as politically focused as men.
As with Anne Morrow Lindbergh, simply believing that her husband is honest and correct in his opinions may not remove the psychological distress. But it likely makes it easier to put up with the “aisles of hate.”

If your significant other is not an enthusiastic believer in the ideas of the dissident right, I would also suggest not being obsessed with politics in day-to-day conversation with her. Again, she may be more interested in family, friends, and hobbies than the latest example of how the Israel Lobby has manipulated U.S. foreign policy. That’s fine. Showing an interest in what she is interested in is always good advice.
So that’s all I can think of for now. This is a really tough area for those on the dissident right. Control by our hostile elite has made it psychologically difficult to have dissident opinions, and we all live under the specter of formal legal punishments—as has already happened in much of Europe—if the left manages to abrogate the First Amendment (as they so ardently desire).

But for many of us, we don’t feel that we have any other choice than to soldier on. And while we are soldiering on, we should do everything we can to make life livable by having good, rewarding relationships. Like Anne Morrow Lindbergh was forced to do, we have to be willing to put up with “aisles of hate” should we be outed, and we should do all we can to keep our relationships intact if that were to occur.
Living well is the best revenge.

---

[1] Anne Morrow Lindbergh, War Within and Without: Diaries and Letters of Anne Morrow Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980), 220–239.

The Irish Savant : Celebrating diversity at Minneapolis South High

Celebrating diversity at Minneapolis South High

Stan Alleyne, the Minneapolis Public Schools chief of communications says that Minneapolis South High is a school that continually makes the district proud. “South is a very diverse high school. It is a microcosm of the city. Students function together at a high level every day. That is the strength of this school. Our students live diversity every day.”

Well the last bit is true, whatever about the rest. Part of this 'living diversity every day' seems to involve regular police storming the dining areas, blazing away with rubber bullets and mace while flailing with truncheons as they try to break up vicious inter-ethnic inter-religious fighting.

One student, Abdi Sheikh, (yes) said he saw hundreds of students fighting in what appeared to be a racial incident. “A big riot,” he said. “It was all types of races.”  Well it wasn't actually.  A close perusal of the comments and reports in other media outlets makes clear that the fighting was primarily between African Muslims (most likely Somalis, with which Minnesota is infested) and local African-Americans.

Isn't that amazing?  I thought they'd all be model students. You see, I read that somewhere......

Here's another student, Symone Glasker, demonstrating an uncanny insight into the ethnic nuances involved: “I know it’s a pride thing between Muslims and black people. They want their pride back or something. I don’t know.” She also said “boys were hitting girls” (what, Muslims doing that????)  and that some people were lying on the floor, with their hands over their heads, in surrender.

Sounds like good multicultural fun to me. Maybe that's the 'vibrancy' they always speak about? I never understood what they meant by that.  Until now.

I wonder will there be calls to ban food that fits the definition of an assault food?

In conclusion I give you the thoughts of one commentator.

You wanted diversity.
Now you got it.

You were tricked into wanting multiculturalism to show you aren't some supremacist racist.
Now you got it.

You wanted to feed the poor and help the sick.
Now you got millions of them.

Home school, if you're not doing it already.

The Irish Savant : What could possibly go wrong?

What could possibly go wrong?

'Come and watch this' Lady Savant instructed. It was a TV programme called Paradise Lost (no silly, not Milton, we're talking TV here). Featured a girl from Norwich name, I  think, Nikki Roberts.  She was flush with cash somehow and knew exactly what she wanted to do. Set up a nightclub in that glorious beach in Kenya that she had loved so much when vacationing there. All that money and all those lovely friendly local people to help her.

What could possibly go wrong?

Well, just about everything, and then some.

The modus operandi for making progress consisted of handing large wads of cash to a friendly local, wise in the way of Kenyan officialdom.....who'd then promptly disappear with it.  Another local would then emerge to put things right. For another wad of cash.  And he or she would vanish as well.  And so it went. On and on. But she's a persistent girl and eventually established a highly successful club. Which attracted the attention of the local 'courts of law'.  She was arrested and brought before a magistrate, who said the whole problem could be quickly solved. If she paid over another large wedge of cash, of course.

By this point Nikki was running out of readies, sinking most of her money back into the club. So off to a jail she went.  And boy, what a jail!  Indescribable.  When she eventually got out she found that she had lost the club, which was now owned by............the very same magistrate who sent her to jail!

Needless to say, from the very beginning she was sized up by the local Lotharios, one of whom joined her as lover and 'business partner' although he had neither money nor business knowledge. But he had a big dong and that seemed to matter to Nikki.  Soon she became pregnant and happily set off for the local hospital, which, based on the certainty that all cultures are equal, would look after her like a Western one would.  Well it did not.  And I'll spare you the grisly details of the birth...just to say that she's now disfigured for life.

So she was now out of money and had a little picanninny to look after.  And here's the amazing thing. Are you sitting down?  You see the relationship broke up. White woman who's out of money, black lover, half caste kid, he doesn't stand by her, relationship breaks up.  Who could have imagined?  She's now back in Norwich, picanninny in tow.

Now Lady S. was not very sympathetic. 'Stupid naive airhead'. Maybe she was. But don't forget that since birth, by way of her 'education', religion, TV, films, newspapers, advertisements...the only blacks she'd have ever seen were wonderful, clever, cool and successful, who differed from us only through the colour of their skin.   Don't get me wrong, I don't buy the victimhood excuse, and we're all responsible for our own actions.  But truly, this unfortunate woman was, and remains, a victim of her indoctrination, and the people who organised that indoctrination.

The one surprising and positive thing was the way the programme depicted the locals. Ugly, sinister looking, incorrigibly corrupt and untrustworthy. The truth, in other words.

Now that is surprising.

The Irish Savant : Confidence? Or fear?

Confidence? Or fear?

The propaganda for destroying the White race becomes increasingly grotesque and surreal by the day. My question, does this represent 'their' belief that they've won and it's just a matter of putting the last nails in the coffin? Or are they getting desperate as more and more people appear to awaken? The latest advert from the Halifax Building Society is so divorced from reality that it makes Lord Of The Rings seem prosaic. It borders on self-parody.

Here we have a (to me) villainous-looking black man who 'works hard all day as a teacher' (sic) who then devotes his spare time to voluntarily coaching and minding school kids, who ruefully laughs off being deliberately hit on the head by the ball, and who finally, after a long long day teaching and looking after mainly white kids, arrives home to be greeted by his smiling and pregnant White wife/sperm bucket.

Now as anyone who has experience them knows, blacks don't like working very much, especially 'working hard', are most unlikely to work as teachers, and certainly would never volunteer for unpaid additional duties.  He'd have been more likely to be rifling through the kids' pockets in the changing room while a White teacher did the unpaid coaching. And had he deliberately been dissed by having the ball kicked at him, well the offending kid would probably have been lacerated by knife on the spot.  As for the pregnant White woman...........enough said.

So which is it? Confidence or fear?

The Name of the Game is Lie

The Name of the Game is Lie

Created on 21 February 2013 Written by Braveheart

It is pure infantilism to imagine that political disagreements are honest disagreements of opinion. They are not. Political disagreements are about using self-serving lies to get what one wants.
Let us illustrate by using "sex discrimination" as an example. Women know perfectly that they were never victims of "sex discrimination". They were not victims of discrimination when getting everything their husband's money paid for in divorce court, or in getting automatic custody of the kids or in picking up their child support or alimony checks. They weren't victims of discrimination while climbing on the life boats first or in sitting on their privileged female ass while the opposite sex did the fighting and dying. Discrimination only became a problem when they figured out they could grab all the jobs too.
Now it is pointless to tell women that they are lying about discrimination. They know they are lying the same way that the Jews know they are lying about the "six million" who did not die. Therefore, why point out the obvious?
"Snivel rights" for blacks is another example of the principle that truth has nothing to do with it. Blacks know perfectly that their own behavior, not white racism, is the cause of their problems. But if they can make white racism a bogey, then they can use it to extort whatever they want.
So, too, with the Jews and their beloved state of Israel. The Jews know perfectly that they are the cause of the problem because they stole Palestine from the Arabs. But if they can convince the ignorant, brainwashed Americans that the Arabs are the cause of the problems by misleading them "terrorists", then Israel can continue its odious policies with the blessings of the American treasury
The name of the game children is lie. Lie, lie, lie. Never tolerate the truth. Shout it down; suppress it; turn facts upside down; shout epithets and nonsense at the top of your lungs. Make the truth whatever supports your interests. That is the real world. Anyone who wants the objective truth had best search for it in the archives and rare literature. It will not be found in the real world of self-serving liars.

IMPORTANT - Fjordman - What is Wrong With Western Elites?

What is Wrong With Western Elites?

Libya’s autocratic ruler Muammar Qaddafi was brutally tortured and killed on 20 October 2011 after France, Britain, the USA and NATO had actively given military support to rebel troops that were known to include groups with ties to terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda.

As writer Diana West said, “Qaddafi was not killed in retaliation for his attacks on American servicemen in Berlin in 1986, or the downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1989. He was not killed for his central role in the USSR’s terror networks going back to the 1960s and 1970s. He was killed after coming over to our side of George Bush’s ‘war on terror’ in the final phase of a civil war in Libya in which his regime fought al Qaeda affiliates. Horrific as it sounds, Qaddafi was killed because we and our NATO allies joined the other side.”

In February 2011, a day before he quit as Egypt’s president after popular uprisings, Hosni Mubarak had harsh words for his former allies in the United States and their misguided quest for democracy in the Middle East. “They may be talking about democracy but they don’t know what they’re talking about and the result will be extremism and radical Islam.”

Mubarak during his three decades in power kept stability in Egypt, peace with its neighbors including Israel and promoted decent economic progress in his country without being cruel. Despite this, the USA quickly turned its back on him when protests began. The Muslim Brotherhood has since gained in strength, and attacks on Coptic Christians have escalated.

Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was with his writings among the inspirations for the Jihadists terrorists from al-Qaeda who killed three thousand Americans on September 11th 2001. A decade later, President Obama and his Administration are actively aiding the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere to gain more influence.

Many ordinary citizens, when witnessing our so-called leaders supporting our enemies, wonder whether Western political elites have lost their grip on reality. What are they trying to achieve with such stupid and suicidal policies? Why do they want to export democracy to Islamic countries, even if this brings radical organizations with hostile agendas to power, at the same time as the democratic system is being de facto abolished in Europe by the European Union?

My personal view is that the cultural, economic and especially immigration policies currently promoted by the ruling elites throughout virtually the entire Western world are harmful to the long-term interests of the European peoples who created this civilization. One fundamental question that has been hotly debated on the Internet by dissident writers is whether this trend is entirely accidental, and exclusively reflects the purely impersonal forces of technological globalization, or whether there is also a purpose and a plan behind some of these changes.

I believe that there is also an intentional plan of breaking down Western nation-states behind this trend. This is demonstrated by the statements of some key actors, by the all-pervasive (in the Western world at least) indoctrination with non-European “diversity” as well as by the systematic demonization and ridicule of all traditional practices, cultural symbols and national flags. The arguments, or rather lies, presented in favor of continued mass immigration and Multiculturalism are remarkably similar in all Western countries, too similar to be entirely coincidental.

The question is: Why? And what do those promoting such policies hope to achieve?

It is important to realize that this does not necessarily rule out other possible explanations, which may supplement rather than contradict the previous claim. It is undoubtedly true that modern Western technology has created a far more integrated world than existed in the past.

One could also successfully argue that there are deep underlying structures and ideas in Western culture and mentality at work here, too, for instance the concept of “universal egalitarianism” that could be found already in Greco-Roman Antiquity, and especially in Christianity. This was secularized after the Enlightenment in the form of human rights. Present-day Globalists, regardless of whether they come in a Socialist or a capitalist shape, can exploit these ideals.

Finally, there is no doubt that many people vote for open-border Globalists of their own free will. For example, I have been severely critical of the British government of Tony Blair, but we should remember that Blair with his Labour Party won no less than three elections in a row. Some of this can be attributed to media censorship and decades of indoctrination plus the mass importation of a new electorate in the form of immigrants who tend to vote for Socialist parties which give them access to more welfare payments. Some of it, maybe, but not all of it.

No matter how we twist this, the fact remains that tens of millions of Westerners have more or less freely voted for parties that insult and dispossess them and rob them of their heritage. We have become decadent, indifferent consumers who live only for the here and now, cut off from our historical roots and with little regard for the future of our nation. Far too often, we care little for what will happen 50-100 years from now as long as we can still personally enjoy a steady supply of material comforts and new electronic toys plus football and sex on TV.

My good friend Ohmyrus, an Asian essayist, has convincingly argued that one of the factors behind the booming budget deficits we can now observe in many Western countries plus Japan may be the short-term focus inherent to the democratic system, where people prefer short-term gain now at the price of long-term pain later and vote themselves into possession of other people’s money. Not enough of them think longer than a couple of election cycles — maybe ten years — ahead. History-conscious peoples who come from non-democratic cultures, for instance the Chinese, seem to find it easier to plan in terms of generations and centuries.

On top of this, the good components that a democracy may contain have ironically also been undermined by hollowing out this system from above through international organizations, which in many cases promote harmful policies even when the majority does not want this.

In 2009 it was revealed that the ruling Labour Party had purposefully flooded Britain with millions of immigrants without consulting its citizens, in order to socially engineer a “truly Multicultural” country. The huge increases in migrants over the previous twelve years were due in part to a politically motivated attempt to radically change the country and to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity,” if you believe Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair. He said that mass immigration was the result of a deliberate plan, but ministers were reluctant to discuss this openly for fear of alienating the party’s “core working class vote.”

Lord Glasman — a personal friend of the Labour Party leader — in 2011 stated that “Labour lied to people about the extent of immigration… and there’s been a massive rupture of trust.” He admitted that the Labour Party had sometimes been actively hostile to the white natives. In particular, they tended to view white working-class voters as “an obstacle to progress.”

To my knowledge, these shocking revelations of a government launching a full-front attack on its own people — in what could be seen as a policy of ethnic cleansing of a specific national group — did not cause a single word of protest from the political leaders or mass media in any other Western country back then. I have since come to suspect that the reason for this shameful silence is that the authorities in many other Western countries themselves follow roughly similar policies and therefore see nothing wrong in what the British government did.

In 2009, the former left-wing US President Bill Clinton stated publicly that Americans should be mindful of their nation’s rapidly changing demographics, which led to the 2008 election of Obama as president. He told an Arab-American audience that before 2050 the USA will no longer have a majority of people of mainly European descent and claimed that “this is a very positive thing.” This was just a few years after a group of Arab Muslim terrorists had staged the deadliest attack against the US mainland in peacetime, killing thousands of US citizens.

Bill Clinton is himself of European extraction. I have never heard representatives of, say, the Chinese Communist Party brag about the fact that they support displacing their own ethnic group from their own country. Only leaders from the supposedly democratic West do this.

The English philosopher Roger Scruton notes that “buying and selling of citizenship, often to people who think of it purely as a right and never as a duty, is common throughout Europe. The political élite sees nothing wrong in people collecting passports as they might collect memberships of clubs.” He thinks that the Western élite are immune to xenophobia, or fear of foreigners, but instead suffer from a severe case of what he terms oikophobia, the repudiation of home, the urge to denigrate the customs and culture of your own people. “The oikophobe is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism.”

Ibn Khaldun is somewhat overrated compared to other non-European historiographers such as Sima Qian, but the most useful aspect of his writings is the concept of asabiyya, which could be translated as group consciousness. Judged by the above cited examples of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton (numerous others might unfortunately be mentioned here), the ongoing decline of Western civilization can partly be explained as a decline of asabiyya among Western elites, who no longer feel attached to their own peoples but see them as obstacles to be overcome, or silenced through widespread anti-racism campaigns and doctrinal guilt imposed from above.

This does not mean that there is no grassroots support at all for Multiculturalism. Yet support for mass immigration is lukewarm at best among the population as a whole, whereas the ruling elites in politics, media and academia promote it enthusiastically. If anything, this pan-Western disconnect and deficit of trust between rulers and the ruled is growing larger. If unchecked, this widening political chasm threatens to seriously undermine stability in the Western world.




In June 2007, then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair, along with Chancellor (and PM-in-waiting) Gordon Brown and Conservative Party leader (also future PM) David Cameron, met Muslim leaders at a conference organized by the Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme. Blair opened by defending Islam as a religion of “moderation and modernity,” announced a government fund to aid teaching of Islam and to train imams and designated Islamic studies as “strategically important” to the British national interest. Timothy Winter, a lecturer in Islamic Studies at the University of Cambridge, said that “The question facing British society, and society as a whole, is not how we encourage minorities to engage with western countries, but how those countries define themselves as a collage of different religious cultures.”

In other words: Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Ireland, Spain and other Western countries with white majorities are no longer nations with a distinct heritage, only random spaces on the map just waiting to be filled with a “collage of different cultures.”

I could add that North American authorities and mass media are little better than European ones, and sometimes worse. The USA was the first Western country, in 1965, to open its borders to mass immigration from the entire world as a matter of ideological principle. US authorities have been promoting similar policies elsewhere in the Western world ever since.
The concepts of “white privilege” and hostile “Whiteness Studies” were also developed in and spread from the USA. In conflicts between native Europeans and non-native colonizers, US authorities have repeatedly demonstrated that they will go against the interests of the natives.

Former PM Tony Blair showed no regrets when he stated in the fall of 2011 that it is “right” that the country should made up of different cultures and faiths mixed together. That is not to say you don’t encounter problems at certain points, but these “are to be overcome.” Blair added that the anti-immigration debate was now a thing of the past. Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch responded that: “This is completely shameless from the Prime Minister who brought more than three million immigrants into Britain in the teeth of public opposition.”

In The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature, Byron M. Roth, a Professor Emeritus of Psychology from the USA, argues that the debate over immigration policy in the Western world is critically uninformed by the sciences of evolutionary biology and psychology. A primary thesis of his book is that societies are mainly the product of the genetic nature of the human beings who make them up, not geography, as Jared Diamond claims. He mentions that rising crime has become a serious problem, often committed by ethnic minorities. Low IQ correlates highly with rates of criminality and antisocial behavior.

What consequences will the mass importation of low-IQ peoples to the West have? Is a certain minimum average IQ necessary to maintain a complex society? Roth speculates whether what may emerge from these demographic patterns is that the USA will move in the direction of countries like Mexico, corrupt and dysfunctional states with oligarchic politics.

Do some Western elites actively desire such a result? Do they hope to turn the Western world into a giant version of Mexico with a weak middle class incapable of challenging a tiny ruling elite (themselves) entrenched virtually as a caste? Perhaps the authoritarian key to crushing the white man’s traditional desire for self-determination is to paralyze it by flooding his lands with alien ethnic groups who themselves often come from repressive and authoritarian cultures. In parts of Europe, Christianity was in medieval times used to consolidate the embryos of nation-states. Perhaps those who seek to break down these nation-states today view a different and more repressive religion, Islam, as a useful tool for achieving this goal.
The phrase “Political Correctness” first came into use under Communism and meant that all ideas had to conform to and support the agenda of the Marxist movement. History and philosophy were the first to be forced into line, but as is clear from the career of Trofim Lysenko, science was made to conform, too. Those who dissented from the official doctrine were judged to be psychologically imbalanced or evil. Today the ruling ideology is an absolute egalitarianism that if you analyze it closely actually amounts to saying that all cultures have an equal right to exist, except the European one which is evil. As Roth says:

Whether Western elites really believe these things is less important than the benefit they gain from its promulgation. The primary benefit is that it paralyzes the popular preferences for national preservation by characterizing opposition to elite doctrines as immoral, indecent, and inhumane. It allows unelected elites to aggrandize their own power by obliterating national sovereignty and nullifying democratic accountability. Many are, without exaggeration, true totalitarians that have no regard for the well-being of those they control, since the only way they can consolidate their dystopian plans is through brute state power. While there is no doubt that many well-meaning individuals join their efforts, they are the sort of ‘useful idiots’ who excused and covered up Communist atrocities during most of the 20th century.

--------------------------------
A comment
There are basically four different types of immigration policy being implemented in the developed world today. This fundamental policy choice will ultimately decide any given nation's future, or lack thereof.

1) Large-scale negative immigration: The United States, Canada and Australia.

By "large-scale", I mean immigration rates consistently exceeding 0.5% of the host nation's population annually. By "negative", I mean that the vast majority of immigrants to the host nations are of a different race, ethnicity, religion, language or culture. Often these immigrants have a considerably lower average IQ than the natives of the host nations as well.

The US, Canada and Australia not only meet these nation-wrecking standards, but are where the "nation of immigrants" propaganda is most virulent, and are undoubtedly the three easiest countries in which to obtain citizenship. Canada and Australia have higher rates of immigration, but the US has a less selective and more concentrated source of immigrants, i.e. Latin America, so they are more susceptible to having the immigrants successfully impose their language and culture on the host nation. The US is also more vulnerable because their existing ethnic core is smaller: they are only about 60%-65% white, compared to 75%-80% white Canada and 80%-90% white Australia.

2) Smaller-scale negative immigration: Western Europe.

Notwithstanding the Labour Party's flooding Britain with non-white immigrants from 1997 to 2010, immigration levels to European nations have been, historically and presently, much lower than those to the US, Canada and Australia. But the source of the bulk of those immigrants has been the Muslim world, making it far more dangerous than the immigration to the New World nations. Muslims bring higher levels of terrorism, crime, welfare dependency and civil strife, and are turning once-enlightened and Christian Europe into an increasingly Islamic, and therefore backward, continent. However, one advantage that the Europeans have is that it's much more difficult to obtain citizenship there: in Germany for example, only about 45% of resident Muslims hold German citizenship. This holds out the (small) hope that eventually many of them can be made to leave.

3) Positive immigration: Israel and Singapore.

"Positive" meaning that immigration policy is used to either bolster the majority (Israel), or weaken the minority (Singapore), or a combination of both. In Israel, any Jew from anywhere, or any non-Jew with at least one Jewish grandparent, plus their spouses, can make aliyah and become Israeli citizens. This policy boosts both the total number of Jews in Israel and their percentage of the overall population, while weakening the hostile Arab minority. In Singapore, immigration policy is used to keep the Muslim Malay minority (who have a much higher birthrate than the dominant Chinese, and surround Singapore in neighbouring Indonesia and Malaysia) relatively small at about 15%. Singapore welcomes not just Chinese immigrants, but Indians, Filipinos, Europeans, etc., to ensure that Malays are never allowed to dominate their country.

4) No immigration: Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

This policy ensures that these nations will remain, repectively, Japanese, Korean and Chinese far into the future, hopefully forever. These nations are already automating industry, agriculture and services rather than relying on cheap immigrant labour, and are dealing with their aging populations today rather than importing masses of Third Worlders in a vain attempt to prop up ponzi scheme pension systems that likely won't exist in the future. Their united, homogenous and monocultural societies will increasingly become the envy of our divided, heterogenous and multicultural ones, contrary to our reigning diversity-uber-alles ideology.
------------------------

Bella Dodd's Exposure of Communism

August 3, 2010

By Henry Makow Ph.D

Bella Dodd was a leader of the Communist Party of America (CPUSA) in the 1930' s and 1940's. Her book, "School of Darkness" (1954) reveals that Communism was a hoax perpetrated by financiers "to control the common man" and to advance world tyranny. Naturally this important book is out-of-print and not in any used bookstores. (I found it through interlibrary loan.)

Bella Dodd was born Maria Asunta Isabella Visono in Italy about 1904. A brilliant and dedicated woman, she graduated from Hunter College and NYU Law School. She became head of the New York State Teachers Union and was a member of the CPUSA's National Council until 1949.
Dodd describes Communism as "a strange secret cult" whose goal is the destruction of Western (i.e. Christian) Civilization. Millions of naïve idealists ("innocents") are tricked by its talk of helping the poor, but it cares only for power. For example, Dodd found there was no social research at party headquarters. "We are a revolutionary party, not a reform party," she was told. (163)
CREATING "HUMAN BEINGS THAT WOULD CONFORM"
The Communist Party operates by infiltrating and subverting social institutions like the churches, schools, mass media and government. Its aim was "to create new types of human beings who would conform to the blueprint of the world they confidently expected to control." (162)
For example, Dodd reveals that the CPUSA had 1100 members become Catholic priests in the 1930's. It also subverted the American education system by taking over the teacher's unions and learned societies. Only people who accepted the "materialistic, collectivist international class struggle approach" advanced. (98)
Involving women in the war effort fitted the long-range program:
"The party did all it could to induce women to go into industry. Its fashion designers created special styles for them and its songwriters wrote special songs to spur them.... War-period conditions, they planned, were to become a permanent part of the future educational program. The bourgeois family as a social unit was to be made obsolete." (153)
There was to be no family but the party and the state. Dodd helped organize the Congress of American Women, a forerunner of the feminist movement.
"Since it was supposedly a movement for peace, it attracted many women. But it was really only a renewed offensive to control American women... Like youth and minority groups, they are regarded as a reserve force of the revolution because they are more easily moved by emotional appeals." (194-195)
SUBVERSION OF U.S. COMPLETED IN THE 1930's
When FDR recognized Russia in 1933, he deliberately turned a blind eye to the CPUSA's massive program of espionage and subversion. Liberals denied that this took place and complained about a "witch hunt." Guess what? The "loony right" was correct. A new book (The Secret World of American Communism, based on newly opened Kremlin archives, confirms that CPUSA was a puppet of Moscow and the Roosevelt and Truman administrations were practically run by Soviet agents, Alger Hiss, Harry Hopkins and Harry Dexter White to name a few.
The war years saw the CPUSA actually renounce the class struggle and join the so-called "Roosevelt camp of progress" which included "progressive capitalists."
"The Communist Party now assumed the responsibility of establishing a rigid discipline over the working class. No employer was more effective or more relentless in checking strikes among the workers, or minimizing complaints...while wages rose a little during those years, they did not compare with the rise in profits and in monopoly control of basic necessities...war production was chiefly in the hands of ten large corporations...the Communists carefully muted such information." (153)
The war years saw amazing coordination between the Communist Party and America's financial elite. The elite financed a sophisticated propaganda agency called the Russian Institute located on Park Ave. across 68^th Street from Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations. Here "famous names like Vanderbilt, Lamont, Whitney and Morgan mingled with those of Communist leaders. "(153)
At Roosevelt's insistence, Stalin "dissolved" the Comintern in order to make the CPUSA look like an American party. The CPUSA leader Earl Browder achieved national prominence and consulted with senior Roosevelt cabinet ministers.
The joint US-Russian war effort was to be the basis of the new world order. But, inexplicably, the policy changed and Browder instantly became a non-person. Apparently the financial elite had decided the time wasn't right for world government. A cold war would be much more lucrative. Dodd was told that in the future, the party would often find itself opposed not only to the government, but also to U.S. workers.
"I now saw that with the best motives and a desire to serve the working people... I and thousands like me, had been led to a betrayal of these very people.... I had been on the side of those who sought the destruction of my own country." (229)
Like frightened mice, the CPUSA membership scurried to adopt the new party line. Dodd tried to quit but was told: "No one gets out of the party. You die or you are thrown out." (197)
Eventually Dodd was expelled and smeared as "anti-Negro, anti-Puerto Rican, anti-Semitic, anti-labor and a defender of the landlord." (220). Sound familiar? After more than 20 year of tireless sacrifice, she was without family or friends. The party had been her family. Its "hates had become my hates."
"This is the key to the mental enslavement of mankind. The individual is made into nothing ... he operates as the physical part of [a] higher group intelligence... he has no awareness of the plans the higher group intelligence has for utilizing him." (158)
"A SECRET WELL-ORGANIZED WORLD POWER"
Bella Dodd was circumspect about the people behind the Communist Party. She once was told to phone two multi-millionaires who live in the Waldorf Towers if she lost contact with Moscow. Elsewhere, she refers to "a secret well organized world power." She is obviously afraid to be candid. She suspects that one CPUSA leader's "suicide" was in fact murder. (172)
But she does drop a possible clue. She says that each of the nine floors of the party-owned headquarters at 35 E. 12^th St. was devoted to CPUSA business. The Sixth Floor held "the publication offices of the Yiddish newspaper, the Freiheit, and the "Jewish Commission." (162) Indeed Jews were prominent among Communist dupes.
"What now became clear to me was the collusion of these two forces: the Communists with their timetable for world control, and certain mercenary forces in the free world bent on making profits from blood." (229)
As "one piece of the puzzle that finally became a picture," Dodd tells the story of the ship "Erica Reed" typical of "hundreds of other stories." During the Spanish Civil War, Americans donated money to load the ship with medical supplies and food for Spain. The Communists diverted the ship to Russia instead. (89)
Censorship is crucial to Communists, Dodd says. "I have often seen leaders pull books from shelves in homes and warn members to destroy them."(223)
Communism is essentially a deceitful system of international elite control. It was not suppressed during the McCarthy era. Rather it morphed into the New Left, Counter Culture, Civil Rights, Anti War and Woman's Liberation Movements, and later into a plethora of elite-sponsored NGO's, and media, Democratic and Republican party factions, Liberal, Zionist, Labor, and Gay Rights groups. Like the CPUSA itself, these groups are controlled from the top so their memberships are unaware of being used.
To the objection that some of the above mentioned groups oppose globalization, Dodd refers to examples where the CPUSA ostensibly supported causes they wished to sabotage. (205)
In conclusion, Communism was/is a plot designed to substitute a cabal of the rich for the rule of God. It is a utopian fraud hatched by the rich to thwart the dreams of ordinary people and stunt human progress. The same cabal is behind most wars including the impending attack on Iraq.
A precursor to the new world order, Communism espouses brotherhood, peace and equality in order to deceive us. It has taken over society's eyes, ears, mind and spirit. Much of what passes for truth in the media and schools is part of this monstrous con job. The expression "politically correct" in widespread use in America is an old Communist Party term. Our politicians are mostly traitors.
Feminism is Communist both in origin and spirit. It pretends to champion women but in fact neuters both sexes and destroys the basic social unit, the family. The promotion of homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice" for heterosexuals is also part of this brazen elitist fraud designed to "create new types of human beings who would conform..."
Western Civilization is like a ship floundering in a sea of evil, yet the passengers are too duped and distracted to realize it. Bella Dodd had the courage to sound the alarm 50 years ago. It is never too late to begin to resist tyranny.
There are no lifeboats.

---

Tony B said (August 4, 2010):
One of Dodd's statements you quote stands out for me now:
"Since it was supposedly a movement for peace, it attracted many women. But it was really only a renewed offensive to control American women... Like youth and minority groups, they are regarded as a reserve force of the revolution because they are more easily moved by emotional appeals." (194-195)"
I have been trying to get this truth through to people for years. The brainwashing is that women and men are equal and should share equally in everything. Huge lie. Was it "Venus & Mars" that women titled her book about the DIFFERENCES?
Women are NOT suited to compete in the world outside the home. Their emotions are so easily manipulated by the pros (even by amateurs) it is a no brainer to see why the elitists want women in positions of decision making and other powers. "Easily moved by emotional appeals" translates into easily controlled. You see it everywhere. Remember that lesbian bitch, Reno? How about Hillary and Pelosi? Bunch of self-loving robots, doing as ordered. Ever had any dealings with a woman cop? Totally out of her orbit and usually a total bitch to boot. When not manipulated one way or another a woman's decision will ALWAYS be for her usually petty self interest, and to hell with any other issue apparent. That often means her kids given any and every advantage. It's still for HER. She doesn't give an honest damn about someone else's kids. No sense of fairness in business dealings, or marriage dealings, for that matter. Self-destructive self-interest in steroids. Always and forever. Without the totally biased law on their side even their material lives would be miserable indeed.
Unless, of course, held in check by the no nonsense care of a real man. This is why nature wants women and men to work together as one person. But NOT as equals. Women have their personal sphere at home which they can handle and men have the spheres that run the world, which THEY only can handle. Otherwise you have the horrible chaos we are in today. Even women who fight these words tooth and nail will usually admit (to someone - probably another woman) that what they really need is a strong man who will "take care" of them. But usually the higher their intelligence the more their brainwashing makes it impossible for them to be satisfied with the type man they desperately need.

---

Patrick said (August 4, 2010):
To illustrate the false Cold War"
Here is an example given by my Cajun sailor (MMarines) friend. His ship was delivering grain to England in the 1950's. As they unloaded the grain unto the English ship the grain at the very exact moment was sucked up and piped into the USSR ship. My Cajun friend is still alive and tests to this. (he once told me how at a Venice restaurant 50 years ago, he walked to the bathroom, opened the door and walked right into the Venice water- true story- he was one maaad Cajun).
Bishop Fulton Sheen seemed to have a hand in her conversion. Her book, incidentally is still sold at the SSPX bookstore.
This book compliments AA 1025-
AA-1025
Memoirs of the Communist Infiltration Into the Church
By: Marie Carre
AA-1025. Memoirs of a Communist injured in an auto accident in France; he died in the hospital a few hours later. The nurse who attended him kept his journals, read them and published them as AA-1025. He had become a Catholic priest to subvert the Church from within. Describes his methods & plans. Says there were many more like him. Very enlightening! 156 pgs, Tan Books.