Source: http://worldpeace-phaedrus.blogspot.com/2008/05/jewish-debating-techniques-1.html
Oftentimes a lot of what we read enters the back of our minds at a subconscious level and it lies there, latent and gently percolating away until such time as an outside event prompts our conscious recollection of it. Such it was for Phaedrus with an old Patrick Grimm essay entitled 'The Taboo as Proof' (herewith today re-published below.)Taboos are very useful for putting sensitive subjects beyond debate, as Patrick himself pointed out. The one thing the Jews fear above all else is an even-handed and totally open investigation into their long and checkered history, for the ugliness thereby revealed would be simply beyond the belief of all bar the most heavily initiated of persons. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Jews have developed a series of techniques for stifling debate on such issues and avoiding having to address these sensitive matters AT ALL. This article is about one such technique and its most eloquent exponent, the 'British Jew' Alan Coren, who not-so-sadly died last year.
Those of us who espouse views which are generally taken to be outside the current spectrum of "acceptable opinion" by the popular media will - if we are lucky enough to get a platform in the first place - often find ourselves taken to task in the presence of a Jew by a hostile interviewer who falsely purports to be impartial. Many, many years ago, such encounters were the norm and indeed unfettered, free and open debate was quite properly regarded as the only viable route to establishing the real, underlying truth. But that was some decades ago when the Jewish stranglehold over 'permissible utterances' was very much weaker. I refer of course to those increasingly distant days prior to the advent of political-correctness.
Now, if one has something dreadful to hide for which one can offer no valid excuse, it doesn't benefit one to debate one's beliefs in the media spotlight, for fear of being caught short of an appropriate response to an unwelcome or unexpected question or accusation. The Jew, uniquely, has developed the perfect technique in such awkward situations: 'the disgusted walk-out.'
This 'storm of self-righteous indignation" method offers a number of benefits for any Jewish interviewee who's been caught off-guard on a sensitive issue. Namely:
1. It lends him elevated 'moral authority' - he appears to occupy the high moral ground by virtue of storming off in feigned disgust with his nose in the air, rather than 'lowering himself' to bandy words with those of seemingly fixed opinions hostile to Judaism.
2. It avoids him having to answer any awkward questions concerning his people and their 'interesting history' (such as the Holocaust period or the genocide in Palestine) that his interlocutor might confront him about from out of the blue with hard, indisputable evidence.
3. It creates in the audience a sense of sympathy and respect for the Jew, who though clearly so grievously insulted, exercised immense dignity and self-control by simply walking out, rather than punching his opponent on the nose.
4. Most importantly of course, it enables the Jew to yet again escape scott-free without ever having to address a single allegation made against him, his race, and/or their complex and deeply troubling history.
The Jewish Grand Master of the self-righteous storm-out was a 'British' radio and TV personality by the name of Alan Coren who enjoyed a long and active career in 'journalism' and broadcasting in the US and Britain before finally settling down at the BBC in London (at the license payers' expense, of course). Coren's parents came to Britain between the two World Wars and (like so many other Jewish immigrant families) changed their original name, COHEN, to something less obviously Jewish; in this case, "Coren" - not very imaginative but it nevertheless did the trick. Anyway, Coren's specialty was storming out in self-righteous indignation the moment anyone raised any uncomfortable facts concerning the Tribe of Satan.
Coren/Cohen had it down to a very fine art and really should have been a character actor. The moment anyone ventured into any area that was REMOTELY critical of the Jews or Israel, Coren would assume a deathly grave expression, solemnly gather his papers together, tear-off his microphone and earpiece with well-practiced theatricality, and simply walk out without a word, shaking his head in disgust. Seemingly no one ever worked out that the move was simply a ruse to avoid having to address the issue raised. The Jew Cohen would subsequently enjoy sympathy heaped upon him by empathetic viewers for his noble refusal to get down and dirty with 'racists and anti-Semites.'
So, gentile reader, please remember that Jews who walk out of interviews aren't really offended at all. They simply cannot justify themselves or their kind; they have no answers that the rest of us would deem acceptable. And they KNOW it!
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad discusses Holocaust
COMMENT
Mahmoud is one of the handful of people I've seen which exhibits unmistakable signs of virtue: he is truthful, but he remains entirely composed before his ungodly enemies, who are non-stop spreading ridiculous hate propaganda behind his back to demoralize Iranian people, deprecate its elected leader and foster discontent from within. No doubt none of those who hate him have the moral backbone to stand up against him in a civilized debate: Jews are too much accustomed to have give orders to be able to debate any more. As a matter of fact, Mahmoud has asked the "Noble Negro" president Obama, operated by "advisors" David Axelrod and Emmanuel Rahm (both avowed enemies of America and ardent Jewish supporters of Israel), for an open honest debate on Middle Eastern problems. As for the Anglo-American interviewer, he should better investigate what has happened to his own ethnic group once Jews have seized power... Are White Americans better or worse than they were 60 years ago? Is the very survival of demoralized, demonized, prosecuted and despised builders of American society even feasible?
Ahmadinejad has always expressed admiration for our civilization and a genuine feeling of friendship, whereas Jews, who ave never expressed anything but hatred and a concerted drive to turn our societies into multicultural dumpsters...
Iran Elections Scandal: Who killed Neda Aqa-Soltan
Author: PRESS TV
Source: http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=99527§ionid=351020101
Source: http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=99527§ionid=351020101
Iran's Police Chief says the mysterious death of Neda Aqa-Soltan, who became a symbol of post-election street rallies in Iran, was a 'prearranged scenario'.
Neda, 26, was shot dead on June 20 in an alley away from the scene of clashes between security forces and demonstrators in Tehran.
She immediately became an international icon after graphic videos of her death grabbed the attention of world media outlets.
Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqadam, commander of the Iranian Police, said Wednesday that the unfortunate incident --which has been hyped and dramatized by Western media outlets--, was in fact a 'premeditated act of murder'.
The Iranian police chief said Arash Hejazi, a doctor who claims he tried to save Neda's life in her final moments, has fanned the flames of the western media hype.
Ahmadi-Moqadam said the Iranian Intelligence Ministry is making every effort to discover the whereabouts of Hejazi. "He has fled the country and is working against the Iranian government abroad."
Media outlets in the West have blamed Neda's death on Iranian security forces, but new revelations have found that she was murdered by a small caliber pistol--a weapon that is not used by Iranian security forces.
The man who drove Neda to hospital said in an interview that her death looked 'highly suspicious', as there were no security forces or Basij members nearby.
The Iranian government is making every effort to identify the culprit behind Neda's death with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demanding a thorough investigation into the incident.
"Amid vast propaganda by foreign media and many other evidence about the heartfelt event, it seems definite that opponents of the Iranian nation interfere (in Iran's internal affairs) for their political misuse," said Ahmadinejad in a letter to Iran's Judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi.
Neda, 26, was shot dead on June 20 in an alley away from the scene of clashes between security forces and demonstrators in Tehran.
She immediately became an international icon after graphic videos of her death grabbed the attention of world media outlets.
Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqadam, commander of the Iranian Police, said Wednesday that the unfortunate incident --which has been hyped and dramatized by Western media outlets--, was in fact a 'premeditated act of murder'.
The Iranian police chief said Arash Hejazi, a doctor who claims he tried to save Neda's life in her final moments, has fanned the flames of the western media hype.
Ahmadi-Moqadam said the Iranian Intelligence Ministry is making every effort to discover the whereabouts of Hejazi. "He has fled the country and is working against the Iranian government abroad."
Media outlets in the West have blamed Neda's death on Iranian security forces, but new revelations have found that she was murdered by a small caliber pistol--a weapon that is not used by Iranian security forces.
The man who drove Neda to hospital said in an interview that her death looked 'highly suspicious', as there were no security forces or Basij members nearby.
The Iranian government is making every effort to identify the culprit behind Neda's death with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demanding a thorough investigation into the incident.
"Amid vast propaganda by foreign media and many other evidence about the heartfelt event, it seems definite that opponents of the Iranian nation interfere (in Iran's internal affairs) for their political misuse," said Ahmadinejad in a letter to Iran's Judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi.
Israeli Minister Ariel Attias: Arabs shouldn't live with Jews
Author: Jerusalem Post
Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443708151&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443708151&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
Jews and Israeli-Arabs should not live next to one another, Construction and Housing Minister Ariel Attias said on Thursday.
He warned of the "expansion of a population that doesn't love the State of Israel, to say the least."
Speaking at the Israel Bar Association headquarters in Tel Aviv, the Shas legislator said Israel was in danger of "losing the Galilee" if the Israeli-Arab population continued to "spread" in the North, and mentioned in particular the Wadi Ara area, where he asserted that Harish, a haredi community planned to be built there, was a "mission of national importance" that could help "stop the expansion."
"Arabs don't have where to live, so they buy apartments in places with a Jewish nature, which causes unwanted friction," Attias said.
"We can all be bleeding-hearts," said the minister, "but I think it is unsuitable [for Jews and Arabs] to live together."
Attias used the Jewish-Arab clashes last year in Acre to explain his argument. "The mayor of Acre [Shimon Lankry] met with me yesterday for three hours, and asked how to save the city. He told me to bring a whole lot of haredim to save it," Attias said.
The minister quoted Lankry as saying, "I will even lose my political power."
"He told me that Arabs living in Jews' buildings chase them away," Attias added.
Mayors in the North "are asking me to salvage the Galilee, because this mixture is not feasible for coexistence over time," Attias said.
He said that he would push forward the long-planned Harish project in order to "save" the Wadi Ara area - which has seen "illegal Arab expansion" - by populating the region with haredim, "who are the only ones willing to live there."
MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List-Ta'al) lashed out at Attias, saying that "relating to Israel's Arab citizens as something threatening and foreign, coming from a minister in a government that should be distributing resources [equally], borders on violating the law against incitement to racism."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Any demand to resettle refugees within Israel undermines Israel as a state for the Jewish people
Author: BBC
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8099757.stm
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8099757.stm
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced he will back a Palestinian state - but only if it is completely demilitarised. He said a Palestinian state must have no army, no control of its air space and no way of smuggling in weapons. In a landmark speech, weeks after the US president urged him to agree a two-state plan, he said the Palestinians must accept Israel as a Jewish state. Palestinian leaders reacted angrily, accusing him of sabotaging peace plans.Settlers 'not enemies'The White House said President Barack Obama welcomed Mr Netanyahu's "endorsement" of a two-state solution as an "important step forward". The BBC's Paul Wood says Mr Netanyahu broke ground by accepting the principle of a demilitarised Palestinian state, albeit with conditions. But our correspondent says the question is whether the White House regards this as sufficient to make up for the lack of movement on the issue of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. In his keynote Mid-East speech in Cairo on 4 June Mr Obama stressed that he wanted all settlement activity to stop. But in his speech at Bar-Ilan university Mr Netanyahu said settlers were not "enemies of peace" and did not move from his position of backing "natural growth" in existing settlements.Thorny issuesThe Israeli leader offered to talk to the Palestinians immediately and with "no preconditions". "We want to live with you in peace as good neighbours," he said. Mr Netanyahu also said he was willing to go to Damascus, Riyadh and Beirut in pursuit of a Middle East peace deal. He went on to tackle the major stumbling blocks in negotiations with Palestinians over the years.Not least was the issue of Palestinian refugees who fled or were forced from their homes in what is now Israel in 1948 and 1949. The Palestinians say they and their millions of descendants have the right to return to Israel - which would mean an end to its Jewish majority - but Israel has consistently rebuffed that demand. Mr Netanyahu stuck to a similar line, saying: "The Palestinian refugee problem must be resolved outside the borders of the state of Israel. "Any demand to resettle refugees within Israel undermines Israel as a state for the Jewish people."Another key issue the two sides have failed to agree on is the status of Jerusalem. Mr Netanyahu insisted the city must be the "united capital of Israel", although Palestinians want it divided to allow them to locate the capital of a future state there.Racist and extremistAgreeing the principle of a Palestinian state, he said Israel would "be prepared for a true peace agreement [and] to reach a solution of a demilitarised Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state". But only if "we receive this guarantee for demilitarisation and the security arrangements required by Israel, and if the Palestinians recognise Israel as the nation of the Jewish people". Correspondents say even with the provisos Mr Netanyahu has added, his comments on a Palestinian state are sure to anger many in his own coalition. Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, said the Israeli leader's speech "torpedoes all peace initiatives in the region". Another Abbas aide, Yasser Abed Rabbo, told the AFP news agency that recognition of Israel's Jewish character was a demand for Palestinians "to become part of the global Zionist movement". The militant Hamas movement, which controls the Gaza Strip, said the speech reflected Mr Netanyahu's "racist and extremist ideology".Sunday, June 14, 2009
Aherne: Modern Art and Jews
Modern art is the product of an old trend in fine arts that began in mid 19th century as a rejection of realist paintings by self-described "revolutionaries" who claimed they were able to give art more "inner sense". Impressionism, expressionism and finally modern art form an unbreakable continuum where one may easily see how by each generation art started to look like the products of a demented mind, all in the name of "imaginative originality" reacting against "realistic convention". Being devoid of aesthetic value (thus not an art), modern art cannot breathe alone and needs publicity, coverage in order to attain ephemeral glory. Before this development, nobody had any difficulty pointing out what art is: pictorial, sculptural or musical illustration driven by aesthetic principles of beauty, order, simplicity and insight. Today, however, art is used to designate its very negation, hence the need to summon an army of critics rationalizing its lack of value as a sign of transcendental sense available only to a chosen few such as themselves.
To be able to please critics, the ultimate figures given the sole right to discriminate art from fraud, modern artists have to fashionable and sport political messages. Artists in the past also had to pay tribute to such considerations, but what makes the difference is that a modern artist’s “work” is just an empty canvas painted by critics’ words: it holds no objective existence outside the closed realm of latter’s specious word games. A literal example was an "artwork" I've seen personally, which consisted of nothing more than a wooden frame, with a "deep" title underneath (something like "existence and being" sorts of). One only has to wonder how the “artist” who produced this garbage obtained his place in this exhibition…
This symbiosis between art and critics casts a beautiful light upon their similarity in character, which is centered upon a lack of scruples inherent of living by deceit.
Modern artists, talentless by definition, belong to two genders: those who achieved fame thanks to positive critics and those who were less fortunate, certain of how their superior artistic innovations weren't fairly understood. They are an unusually decrepit folk, excelling in all vices and even taking pride in their total lack of virtue (which in their mind is inherent of being an “artist”). Their greatest concern is running out of “luck”, which in their case means being forgotten by critics. To be able to keep critics singing, an aspiring modern artist must be able to have “fuel”: money, sex, influence or whatever he/she requires.
Critics are just as dependent on modern artists, without whom they would be out of business. True art is in no need of critics to exist: Van Eyck, Bach or Michelangelo were artists long before a guild of critics was to appear. Although critics’ situation might appear privileged, they are subjected to same rules of survival as artists: they must always be ready to lie, bribe and push others away to advance on the social ladder. But above all, critics need to be “politically correct”, sporting the right “progressive” political persuasion which justifies the “art” they praise.
The fame of modern art and the undeserving attention it receives are a direct product of its counter-cultural nature as well as its socialist tendencies. Modern art, even when performed by gentiles, breathes through the lungs of Jewish critics, Jewish curators and Jewish financers. Jewish involvement in modern art is primarily political, as means to uproot our culture without keeping themselves in the spotlight. As creatures devoid of higher qualities (such as love of beauty), Jews feel right at home with its chaos and hideousness, which is why they are preeminent as "artists", but even more preeminent as curators, critics and propagandists. Modern art, while not Jewish in origin, rests entirely on Jewish shoulders...
More on Jewish sponsorship of modern art here:
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/26art.htm
Examples of modern art
"It depicts a small plastic crucifix supporting the body of Jesus Christ submerged in a glass of the artist's urine." Very well received among New York critics. "It is referred to in many popular publications including Bill Maher's (JEW) book When You Ride Alone You Ride With Bin Laden."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
To be able to please critics, the ultimate figures given the sole right to discriminate art from fraud, modern artists have to fashionable and sport political messages. Artists in the past also had to pay tribute to such considerations, but what makes the difference is that a modern artist’s “work” is just an empty canvas painted by critics’ words: it holds no objective existence outside the closed realm of latter’s specious word games. A literal example was an "artwork" I've seen personally, which consisted of nothing more than a wooden frame, with a "deep" title underneath (something like "existence and being" sorts of). One only has to wonder how the “artist” who produced this garbage obtained his place in this exhibition…
This symbiosis between art and critics casts a beautiful light upon their similarity in character, which is centered upon a lack of scruples inherent of living by deceit.
Modern artists, talentless by definition, belong to two genders: those who achieved fame thanks to positive critics and those who were less fortunate, certain of how their superior artistic innovations weren't fairly understood. They are an unusually decrepit folk, excelling in all vices and even taking pride in their total lack of virtue (which in their mind is inherent of being an “artist”). Their greatest concern is running out of “luck”, which in their case means being forgotten by critics. To be able to keep critics singing, an aspiring modern artist must be able to have “fuel”: money, sex, influence or whatever he/she requires.
Critics are just as dependent on modern artists, without whom they would be out of business. True art is in no need of critics to exist: Van Eyck, Bach or Michelangelo were artists long before a guild of critics was to appear. Although critics’ situation might appear privileged, they are subjected to same rules of survival as artists: they must always be ready to lie, bribe and push others away to advance on the social ladder. But above all, critics need to be “politically correct”, sporting the right “progressive” political persuasion which justifies the “art” they praise.
The fame of modern art and the undeserving attention it receives are a direct product of its counter-cultural nature as well as its socialist tendencies. Modern art, even when performed by gentiles, breathes through the lungs of Jewish critics, Jewish curators and Jewish financers. Jewish involvement in modern art is primarily political, as means to uproot our culture without keeping themselves in the spotlight. As creatures devoid of higher qualities (such as love of beauty), Jews feel right at home with its chaos and hideousness, which is why they are preeminent as "artists", but even more preeminent as curators, critics and propagandists. Modern art, while not Jewish in origin, rests entirely on Jewish shoulders...
More on Jewish sponsorship of modern art here:
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/26art.htm
Examples of modern art
"It depicts a small plastic crucifix supporting the body of Jesus Christ submerged in a glass of the artist's urine." Very well received among New York critics. "It is referred to in many popular publications including Bill Maher's (JEW) book When You Ride Alone You Ride With Bin Laden."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
Friday, June 12, 2009
Jew condemning whites for all the evils of the world
Author: Ben Cohen
I remember hearing a story from a friend (who is Jewish) about his German boss complaining to him that the German government was giving too much to the Jews. "It's those damn reparations for the Jews that is hurting Germany," he moaned. "Haven't they taken enough?"
When you consider the 6 million people the Germans managed to wipe out, there's not much the Jews couldn't take from Germany to make things right.
White Europeans committed perhaps the biggest genocide in history when they came to the Americas. The native population was literally wiped off the land to make way for white settlers, and for those who managed to survive, a few crumbs were passed off to them decades later for their troubles.
White people transported millions of African slaves to the United States, subjected them to horrific treatment, murder and cultural annihilation. Blacks have only been treated as equal citizens in America since the 1960's, and the notion that centuries of enslavement, degradation and economic disenfranchisement could be reversed in a few decades is just laughable.
Every minority in America has suffered at the hands of white people. It is a country founded by white people, built by white people and controlled by white people. To pretend otherwise is akin to holocaust denial. It is a fact.
For Pat Buchanan to suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best, and down right racist at worst. And the latter is probably the most likely.
Buchanan is part of a vocal minority that prey on white people's fear. In economically tumultuous times, people like him a particularly dangerous, as they lay the crimes of the wealthy on the backs of minorities. It's a dangerous game, and history tells us the consequence are often none too pretty.
There is a climate of fear gripping America as it comes to terms with its new self. There is a black man in the Oval office, an economic crisis unparalleled in magnitude for 80 years, foreign wars that are not being won, and a massive intellectual vacuum created by the corporate press (or lack thereof).
After years in power, the Right is unused to playing the role of the minority. They are coming out to bat, and they are pulling out every trick in the book. Buchanan is a cheerleader for the cause, flanked by Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. The embattled white man is angry, and he's not going to go down without a fight.
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-cohen/msnbc-pull-the-plug-on-pa_b_214903.html
COMMENT
There is nothing that could illustrate Jewish mindset better than this article. For once, the golden rule: Jews never debate, they defame. The point of this article was to smear Pat Buchannan, an American politician blamed by Jews groundlessly of speaking up in favor of Whites, but this particular Jew couldn't have enough and proceeded going for the "great trophy", the White race. The fact that neither the individual nor the race who are being defamed are given the right to retaliate in the "free press" gives a measure of how utterly voided the concept of "free press" is and also of author's complete lack of character by picking a fight with someone that can't defend itself. Although they are not incapable of reason, Jews refrain using it when it's against their agenda. It is like a black whole in their minds, where reality is sucked into the point of no return and what comes out are things totally alien to this world.
The arguments used to defame Whites are the "tried and tested" output of Semitic propasphere, repeated ad nauseam using all means of information available:
1. The Holocaust, which even if true, doesn't prove anything in terms of Jewish victimhood unless one is allowed to investigate whether the act was motivated or not. If unmotivated, it would lay blame on Hitler but it would NOT lay blame on the German people because killing Jews was never part of NSDAP platform when Hitler got elected. The logical inconsistency continues when the acts of a few Germans in 1940s are blamed on all Germans, including those living today, who, according to Jews (including the author) have an obligation to serve Jews for eternity. However, collective bondage that gets passed from generation lies in the fundament of slavery, regardless of its motivations. Therefore, when saying "there's not much the Jews couldn't take from Germany to make things right", the Jew makes a statement where he excludes the possibility of slaves ever getting free, not even buying their freedom. Typical of evil slavemasters, however, Jews flaunt the prospect of freedom to encourage their slaves pay ransom money, but those money are sucked into the vacuum of Jewish conscience, with nothing but Jewish wealth coming out of it.
2. The Native Americans, who were "wiped off the land to make way for white settlers". This is yet another Jewish stratagem, using the German model to lay blame for the PRESUMED acts of some on ALL Whites in the Western hemisphere. The only way OUT for the latter is once again to quench Jewish money and Jewish interests, but this never results into anything more than MORE accusations and more ransom money being asked. The vast exaggerations, the callous way history is only parallelled by the Holocaust: the acts claimed of having happened remain to be proven and their extension to whole ethnic groups, living or deceased, make absolutely no sense. Even Judaized historians of today admit that the vast majority of Indians were killed by European diseases and those that remained more often than not opted for Whites, who even at their worst had the rule of law, instead of their own Indians, who only obeyed the rule of force and were therefore far more brutal. In addition, the act of White conquest is no break from the long history of indian conquering other indians: there is nothing moral or immoral about it. The only way conquest must be judged is through the consequences. The consequence of White conquest was America being teleported from Stone Ages to civilization. Whites have, as this Jew strangely admits, built countries with little to no native involvement and have remained, before societies were controlled by Jews, an example of moral valor for natives to emulate. To be able to see that, it is enough to compare the way North American Indians treated their defeated kin (killing off males and turning their women into concubines) to the way British Americans have built up reservations ("a few crumbs" according to Jews, but immensely more than what this criminal enterprise of organized Jewry has given to this world) to help Indians survive without White interference and, of course, to help Whites prosper without having to fear Indian lawlessness.
3. The Blacks, whom Whites "subjected to horrific treatment, murder and cultural annihilation". Yet another Jewish-manufactured guilt-extortion scheme! Examples for horrific treatment are in very short supply, at least in regions controlled by British Americans. The Blacks of that age had more justice than Whites of our age. Murder of Blacks, even murder of slaves, unless properly motivated, was condemned and very uncommon. In a year in US, Blacks murder more Whites than Whites have murdered Blacks in their whole history. Jews have tried hard to find some examples of brutality and murder and the very fact such examples are few proves my point. Cultural annihilation was indeed a consequence of slavery, but it was never an intended purpose: masters were totally indifferent to their slaves' ethnic background and only required them to speak English to make themselves understood. It must be remembered that slavery is a natural condition of mankind, a consequence of the very unequal distribution of power and luck. Some are quite literally lured into slavery, such as the Whites of today who offer themselves to the Jew, who craves for their destruction. Others were sold by their racial kin rather than being killed for being useless, which is what happened to African slaves, whose society mirrored the Indian by the practice of killing male captives and turning women into concubines. Sold to Sephardic Jewish merchants, who mastered the slave trade (!), many died in the long perilous journey across the Atlantic, but once on American soil they enjoyed quite a decent rate of survival. Only only has to imagine what would have happened if races were reversed: would Whites have got ANY leniency from Blacks, or would they have been subjected to what Blacks routinely do in their homelands (torture, wanton killings, serial rape)? In the end, Whites' good spirit has backfired into a tolerance of Jewry, a fateful action which signaled the death of America long before Blacks were allowed to "express themselves" or doing what they're naturally inclined towards, product of their innate stupidity.
4. White fear, seen as "racist" (the very word coined by a Jew, Magnus Hirshfeld), which is a divine evil that transcends "mere" issues of consistency and reality. To be a racist means to be an anti-human, a White male that dares not smile before his humiliation and ultimate destruction. Since "racism" is as alien to reality as green penguins and since "truth is no defence", one cannot answer to this accusation except by accepting its false reality. That white fear is motivated can easily be justified the concluding statement: "the embattled white man is angry, and he's not going to go down without a fight". Here the Jew inserts a statement of intent!
I remember hearing a story from a friend (who is Jewish) about his German boss complaining to him that the German government was giving too much to the Jews. "It's those damn reparations for the Jews that is hurting Germany," he moaned. "Haven't they taken enough?"
When you consider the 6 million people the Germans managed to wipe out, there's not much the Jews couldn't take from Germany to make things right.
White Europeans committed perhaps the biggest genocide in history when they came to the Americas. The native population was literally wiped off the land to make way for white settlers, and for those who managed to survive, a few crumbs were passed off to them decades later for their troubles.
White people transported millions of African slaves to the United States, subjected them to horrific treatment, murder and cultural annihilation. Blacks have only been treated as equal citizens in America since the 1960's, and the notion that centuries of enslavement, degradation and economic disenfranchisement could be reversed in a few decades is just laughable.
Every minority in America has suffered at the hands of white people. It is a country founded by white people, built by white people and controlled by white people. To pretend otherwise is akin to holocaust denial. It is a fact.
For Pat Buchanan to suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best, and down right racist at worst. And the latter is probably the most likely.
Buchanan is part of a vocal minority that prey on white people's fear. In economically tumultuous times, people like him a particularly dangerous, as they lay the crimes of the wealthy on the backs of minorities. It's a dangerous game, and history tells us the consequence are often none too pretty.
There is a climate of fear gripping America as it comes to terms with its new self. There is a black man in the Oval office, an economic crisis unparalleled in magnitude for 80 years, foreign wars that are not being won, and a massive intellectual vacuum created by the corporate press (or lack thereof).
After years in power, the Right is unused to playing the role of the minority. They are coming out to bat, and they are pulling out every trick in the book. Buchanan is a cheerleader for the cause, flanked by Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. The embattled white man is angry, and he's not going to go down without a fight.
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-cohen/msnbc-pull-the-plug-on-pa_b_214903.html
COMMENT
There is nothing that could illustrate Jewish mindset better than this article. For once, the golden rule: Jews never debate, they defame. The point of this article was to smear Pat Buchannan, an American politician blamed by Jews groundlessly of speaking up in favor of Whites, but this particular Jew couldn't have enough and proceeded going for the "great trophy", the White race. The fact that neither the individual nor the race who are being defamed are given the right to retaliate in the "free press" gives a measure of how utterly voided the concept of "free press" is and also of author's complete lack of character by picking a fight with someone that can't defend itself. Although they are not incapable of reason, Jews refrain using it when it's against their agenda. It is like a black whole in their minds, where reality is sucked into the point of no return and what comes out are things totally alien to this world.
The arguments used to defame Whites are the "tried and tested" output of Semitic propasphere, repeated ad nauseam using all means of information available:
1. The Holocaust, which even if true, doesn't prove anything in terms of Jewish victimhood unless one is allowed to investigate whether the act was motivated or not. If unmotivated, it would lay blame on Hitler but it would NOT lay blame on the German people because killing Jews was never part of NSDAP platform when Hitler got elected. The logical inconsistency continues when the acts of a few Germans in 1940s are blamed on all Germans, including those living today, who, according to Jews (including the author) have an obligation to serve Jews for eternity. However, collective bondage that gets passed from generation lies in the fundament of slavery, regardless of its motivations. Therefore, when saying "there's not much the Jews couldn't take from Germany to make things right", the Jew makes a statement where he excludes the possibility of slaves ever getting free, not even buying their freedom. Typical of evil slavemasters, however, Jews flaunt the prospect of freedom to encourage their slaves pay ransom money, but those money are sucked into the vacuum of Jewish conscience, with nothing but Jewish wealth coming out of it.
2. The Native Americans, who were "wiped off the land to make way for white settlers". This is yet another Jewish stratagem, using the German model to lay blame for the PRESUMED acts of some on ALL Whites in the Western hemisphere. The only way OUT for the latter is once again to quench Jewish money and Jewish interests, but this never results into anything more than MORE accusations and more ransom money being asked. The vast exaggerations, the callous way history is only parallelled by the Holocaust: the acts claimed of having happened remain to be proven and their extension to whole ethnic groups, living or deceased, make absolutely no sense. Even Judaized historians of today admit that the vast majority of Indians were killed by European diseases and those that remained more often than not opted for Whites, who even at their worst had the rule of law, instead of their own Indians, who only obeyed the rule of force and were therefore far more brutal. In addition, the act of White conquest is no break from the long history of indian conquering other indians: there is nothing moral or immoral about it. The only way conquest must be judged is through the consequences. The consequence of White conquest was America being teleported from Stone Ages to civilization. Whites have, as this Jew strangely admits, built countries with little to no native involvement and have remained, before societies were controlled by Jews, an example of moral valor for natives to emulate. To be able to see that, it is enough to compare the way North American Indians treated their defeated kin (killing off males and turning their women into concubines) to the way British Americans have built up reservations ("a few crumbs" according to Jews, but immensely more than what this criminal enterprise of organized Jewry has given to this world) to help Indians survive without White interference and, of course, to help Whites prosper without having to fear Indian lawlessness.
3. The Blacks, whom Whites "subjected to horrific treatment, murder and cultural annihilation". Yet another Jewish-manufactured guilt-extortion scheme! Examples for horrific treatment are in very short supply, at least in regions controlled by British Americans. The Blacks of that age had more justice than Whites of our age. Murder of Blacks, even murder of slaves, unless properly motivated, was condemned and very uncommon. In a year in US, Blacks murder more Whites than Whites have murdered Blacks in their whole history. Jews have tried hard to find some examples of brutality and murder and the very fact such examples are few proves my point. Cultural annihilation was indeed a consequence of slavery, but it was never an intended purpose: masters were totally indifferent to their slaves' ethnic background and only required them to speak English to make themselves understood. It must be remembered that slavery is a natural condition of mankind, a consequence of the very unequal distribution of power and luck. Some are quite literally lured into slavery, such as the Whites of today who offer themselves to the Jew, who craves for their destruction. Others were sold by their racial kin rather than being killed for being useless, which is what happened to African slaves, whose society mirrored the Indian by the practice of killing male captives and turning women into concubines. Sold to Sephardic Jewish merchants, who mastered the slave trade (!), many died in the long perilous journey across the Atlantic, but once on American soil they enjoyed quite a decent rate of survival. Only only has to imagine what would have happened if races were reversed: would Whites have got ANY leniency from Blacks, or would they have been subjected to what Blacks routinely do in their homelands (torture, wanton killings, serial rape)? In the end, Whites' good spirit has backfired into a tolerance of Jewry, a fateful action which signaled the death of America long before Blacks were allowed to "express themselves" or doing what they're naturally inclined towards, product of their innate stupidity.
4. White fear, seen as "racist" (the very word coined by a Jew, Magnus Hirshfeld), which is a divine evil that transcends "mere" issues of consistency and reality. To be a racist means to be an anti-human, a White male that dares not smile before his humiliation and ultimate destruction. Since "racism" is as alien to reality as green penguins and since "truth is no defence", one cannot answer to this accusation except by accepting its false reality. That white fear is motivated can easily be justified the concluding statement: "the embattled white man is angry, and he's not going to go down without a fight". Here the Jew inserts a statement of intent!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)