Beullogeo's

The Anti Natsi League has a policy of not speaking to anyone who might not agree with them. It is with great pleasure that Satan's Satire is able to announce an historic interview with the esteemed gentlemen of ANaL, the text of which shall be reproduced below.

SS: Thank you for agreeing to this interview.
ANaL: Yeah, whatever

SS: The Anti Natsi League are known for having a policy of not sharing a platform with 'Natsis' - why the change of heart?
ANaL: Its a matter of principle.

SS: What principle exactly?
ANaL: Well, what it is right, is I got a load of ketamine on tick and some thieving junky nicked it before I could flog it.

SS: I don't understand. How is that a matter of principle?
ANaL: My dealer, Kweiziugug, said he'd shove some barbed wire up my arse if I didn't pay him. I don't like talking to fash, but at least this way I can shit straight.

SS: That's a joke, I take it?
ANal: Look mate, you don't live in my world. You clean-living freaks don't have to cope with the reality of life in the streets. It ain't no joke mate, Kweiziugug is one scary geezer.

SS: I thought you lived in Yeadon? Hardly the ghetto is it.
ANaL: I came here to talk politics. Just 'cos I live in a nice part of town don't make me any less working class, alright?

SS: Working-class? You do realise that these stereotypical labels are just Masonic tools to divide the people. How can you espouse unity if you reject an entire section of your people?
ANaL: Eh? Er, Smash the fash innit.

To be continued.....

Peak Oil is emotive propaganda designed to extort money from hard-pressed motorists. The theory is part of the pseudo-science being used to sell the 'Global Warming' lie. There is no proof whatsoever that oil is running out. Indeed,there is a wealth of research which suggests that rather than oil being a finite resource, it may be a naturally renewed and therefore almost limitless fuel source. The abiotic oil theory may be controversial but the science appears to be in its favour.

Why is Peak Oil being pushed? It is being pushed for a number of reasons: firstly, it allows the oil companies to increase the price of oil as a 'scarce' commodity; secondly, it gives the globalists a cover story for their military conquest of Central Asia by creating the red-herring that the wars are about oil; thirdly it neatly dove-tails with the phoney environmental movement which argues to force people to conserve energy, global environmental taxes must be used (all to protect the planet of course); fourthly, it provides a cover story for the financial meltdown the Zionist bankers are creating - people are to focus on oil, not usury, and natural unavoidable scarcity, not the deliberate actions of the Rothschilds and their ilk, for the ever-spiralling cost of living. If its oil, its no one's fault!; fifthly, the crisis is being portrayed as so far-reaching that only a global solution will do. Welcome to the One World State which will save us from the economic crisis caused by oil dependency!

In Great Britain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has used the Peak Oil fable as an excuse to gain political credit for his fake benevolence. He has made a much publicised statement that he will cut VAT from 17.5% to 15% for 13 months. What he has been less eager to broadcast is that he has increased tax on fuel by 2% - thus actually garnering more revenue for the Government, especially after the 13 month VAT reduction has ended. See here

For people in the UK there is a useful site on which one can find the cheapest petrol in one's area. It costs nothing to register and will save you the hassle and expense of scouring your area for cheaper fuel. The crisis is fake, but the price hikes are real. This site may only save you a few pennies, but as the economic death-grip gets harsher, every possible saving will matter. Take a look - its free! Click here

Peak Oil is all about creating a false crisis to enable the despots in Brussels, Washington and elsewhere to further centralise control and tighten the economic chains around our necks. It is a lie. The more we can expose these liars who control our lives, the more chance we have of regaining our freedom. Do your own research and using your own methods, spread it to everyone you can. Do not accept the climate tax and hiked cost of living. This battle is for the survival of ourselves, our children and generations yet unborn. If we let the masters of the lie get away with this, they will enslave our people forever.

Was Hitler a Zionist? Was Europe duped by the Zionist elite into fighting a war for her own destruction? Were we herded like cattle in a manner deserving the epithet 'Goyim'?

When one considers the result of the Nazi experience in Europe - the destruction of the entire continent, the subjugation of all Europeans (Slavic, Nordic, Celtic, etc) to Jewish control, the financial bleeding to support Israel, the communitarian EU soviet state, etc...is it not possible that Zionists manipulated the German Workers Party into the NSDAP war machine, forced a war which Europe lost by design, which enabled the enemies of Europe to take control of the entire continent and destroy any genuine indigenous resistance?

Would the Zionist elite take advantage of the natural hostility of Europeans to Usury and Jewish chauvinism in order to achieve their long sought after goal of the creation of Israel as a base to gain mastery of the world? Would the Ashkenazim use Europeans to destroy their Sephardi enemies?

Simon Smith has posted some very interesting research by Behind Blue Eyes on this issue. If the Nazi hierarchy were puppets of Zionism, we need to know. Have a look at the research which is breaking the old nationalist taboo hereand here.

National Socialism was the great hope for all Europeans. Under leaders such as the Strassers, the movement was a radical republican workers movement. After the 1934 murders of the Socialist leaders, the NSDAP moved from a movement for the social well-being of the people into a military formation. Was this a necessary development for the protection of Europe from Soviet and British-plutocratic aggression, or was it the result of the Zionist desire to plunge Europe into another World War to complete the liquidation of the best elements of the race?

This is an area of research which many Nationalists will not feel comfortable with. I am not attacking National Socialism. I am merely asking the question - was the revolution of Europe captured by our enemies and turned into a tool to beat us down with? Or is the idea that the Nazi hierarchy were tools of Zionism yet more Zionist propaganda to keep us divided from those who came to save us?

This area of study matters. We need to know our true history so we may learn from mistakes that were made and use the knowledge gained to help us overcome the vipers in our midst who would lead us down false alleys into oblivion. This is a call for debate - for a truer understanding of the good and the bad of our political ancestors. The gauntlet is laid down. Will you pick it up?

Pop singer Jamelia is fronting a campaign to get British school-children to give 10 pence from their dinner money to help children in Africa and Asia. How nice is that? How could anyone possibly object to this lovely warm-hearted encouragement of over-privileged children in rich Great Britain, helping poor under-privileged children in Kenya, Cambodia and other lands? It will encourage social responsibility and international compassion. How could anyone be so mean-spirited to not want British children to do their bit for their counterparts in the developing world?

Well, at the risk of being labelled politically incorrect, I object! Jamelia is a stooge of the New World Order. I very much doubt that she is aware that she is being used, or that she has any evil intent, however she is fronting a campaign which is politically motivated and psychologically damaging to the children it targets.

School children in the West are being told that they are over-privileged. This nonsense is a communitarian ploy to instill the lie that just because they are not starving (yet), children in the West are responsible for children everywhere that are starving. The terms under and over privileged are politically correct buzzwords which like all NewSpeak words, mean whatever the political commissars see fit at any given time. The terms are designed to enforce a sense of guilt.

What is sickening is that many school-children in Great Britain live on or below the poverty line. Death through malnutrition is a fact in Britain. Poverty is gripping more people daily. The idea that Britain is a rich nation is a lie. Britain is economically bankrupt. The only rich people in the country are the bankers and financial elite who have reduced the ordinary people of the nation to the position slavery. Slavery is an accurate word. Everyone in the country must work to pay taxes to the government - taxes which the government have granted themselves to pay their Zionist banking masters. Those who do not work survive on benefits - certainly some people manage to play the system, but generally most people just eke out an existence. To use the Marxist phrase, the workers of this nation, regardless of occupation, are wage-slaves. Through taxation and over-bearing legislation, aside from the Zionist paymasters, no-one in this country is free. Telling our children they are over-privileged and must part with their dinner money is a sick and twisted lie.

If for just one moment we accept the lie that the people of Britain are rich, the idea that those who work hard and save to look after their families must pay for those who won't, is nonsense. Why should people who have money give to those who haven't? The campaign Jamelia is fronting is simply an endorsement of global scrounging. How many of us have had someone come up to them in a pub and demand a pint, using the excuse 'I haven't any money and you work!' to justify this sponging mentality? Would you buy this scrounger a beer, or tell him/her to buy his/her own? As an adult, the choice is yours. The equivalent blackmailing in the schools is different, because it is children who are being pressured by Teachers, pop-stars, charities and a whole industry of scroungers to give up their parents' money. It is officially sanctioned school-bullying and child abuse, pure and simple.

To the parents out there, I say to you, do not let your children give your money to international scroungers. The money won't benefit the poor in foreign nations anyway. Whatever money gets through will only encourage them to demand more. The money you earn is yours. You do not have to give a penny to anyone. Those who live in poverty through a failure to deal with the despots in their own countries, must rise up and deal with the parasites who rule their lands - as indeed must we. Charity only helps prop up the financial elite who oppress the people they rule over. Worse still, it encourages those who get hand-outs from Britain to come here and leach even more money from the put upon workers.

They are after your children's' dinner money! They want to take the food from the mouths of your children. They are instilling false guilt into the minds of the impressionable youth. This is child abuse. This is Politically Correct pædophilia. Defend your nation, defend your children. Say no to international charity. They will call you mean-spirited for refusing to give your money to unworthy scroungers. Let them! Take pride that you are looking after your own. Educate your children. Make them strong enough to resist the state-sanctioned bullies!

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. This begins by saying no to our enemies who would starve our children and psychologically damage them. No, Jamelia, you are not getting a penny from my family! You are the one who should feel shame for endorsing such a sick and harmful cause. If you care anything about children you will condemn this child abuse!

In Auster vs. Sailer Dennis Mangan and guests discuss Sailer's view that "WhiterPeople" compete for status and Auster's criticism of that idea.

Auster writes (my emphasis):

The West's suicide process could not have happened as a result of just one "bad" element in our society, say, the liberal elites. No, all the leading elements of our society, all the significant factions of the West, including elements normally thought of as very conservative, such as the Catholic Church and evangelicals, have signed on to an idea, the belief in non-discrimination, that spells the doom of the West, since it leads people to support, or to refuse to oppose, policies leading to the Third-Worldization and Islamization of the West.

In today's Britain, as I realized to my shock after the July 2005 bombing, tolerance--unconditioned tolerance--is the guiding principle of society, the touchstone that is constantly appealed to on every issue. It was tolerance that led the British to allow millions of Third-World people including Muslims into Britain, and it was tolerance that has led the Brits to allow the Muslims including terror supporters free rein of their Island, and it's tolerance that keeps the British from reacting against the enemies in their midst. The main reason for the surrender of Britain to Islamization is tolerance.

I did not say that Sailer is a bigot against Jews. I said that he is a bigot against Israel and Jewish neocons.

Now, many people today consider someone who is a bigot against Israel to be an anti-Semite by definition. I've argued at length why I think that's incorrect. Namely, anti-Semitism is such a damning word that I don't think a person should be called that unless he has specifically expressed bigotry toward the Jewish people as the Jewish people. For example, though I've condemned Patrick Buchanan for his bigotry against Israel. I've never called him an anti-Semite, for the simple reason that in my view he has never attacked Jews as Jews. Now I think it's entirely possible that in his inner thoughts Buchanan really is driven by an animus against Jews as Jews. But the fact is that he has never expressed such an animus outwardly. He has never attacked Jews as Jews. Never. And I insist that when it comes to such a damning word as anti-Semitism, there must be an actual expression, not a merely likelihood about what a person may be thinking.

Auster often characterizes challenges to his ideas as attacks, so his hairsplitting about what he thinks does or doesn't constitute anti-jewish racism or what precisely he has said about Buchanan or Sailer is pathetic. The important point is that Auster attacked these men for what he perceives to be their attacks on jewish interests. He uses "anti-semite" and phrases like "bigot against israel" for the same reason that so many of his supposedly non-discriminatory "liberal elites" do. Because they can and do discriminate jews as jews, as they do in unabashedly placing jews as jews on a pedestal above everyone else.

In discussing his idea that non-discrimination spells the doom of the West Auster is willing to discriminate Whites, Christians, third worlders, and muslims as Whites, Christians, third worlders, and muslims - and even to attack them. He is not interested in delving into where the multi-culti politically correct "liberalism" pushing "non-discrimination" comes from, how this ideology came to dominate in the West, or whose interests it serves. Good thing. It involves lots of jews.

The "non-discrimination" and "unconditioned tolerance" Auster claims to see is the opposite of reality. Non-discrimination is the sales pitch. It serves to mislead many good-hearted fair-minded people into misunderstanding what is happening. Even in Mangan's thread everyone seems to accept it as the explanation. But as Auster well knows, "liberal" "non-discrimination" never ends up that way. For many liberals, and especially the non-Whites, anti-White and pro-non-White discrimination is what it's all about.

The West's media, academy, and laws are discriminatory. It is easy enough to see. What has changed in the last 150 years and especially over the last 60 is that the discrimination has been inverted. A healthy and normal preference for everything White and Christian has been transformed into a preference for everything non-White and non-Christian. This is so abnormal and unhealthy that in a single human lifetime Whites are being reduced from the dominant majority to a despised minority in every country we previously controlled. The kicker is, according to Auster, that it's all our fault. We're "suiciding" because conservatives "support, or refuse to oppose" their enemies.

Unlike Auster I do not characterize the inversion of discrimination as "suicide". Nor do I pillory those who "refuse to oppose". Nobody wants to lose their job, be shunned by their community, or be sent to prison, but this is what is in store for anyone who opposes anti-White discrimination in any substantial way. Men like Henry Cabot Lodge, Madison Grant, Henry Ford, William Dudley Pelley, Charles Lindbergh, Francis Parker Yockey, Gerald L.K. Smith, and Carleton Putnam (to name just a few) saw where things were heading. They described and opposed this future more clearly than the media permits to be said out loud now that we are here and living with it.

The inversion began in earnest with the emancipation of jews in the wake of the French revolution. This is when the idea that White Christian Europeans shouldn't discriminate themselves from jews took root and when dissent from this position came to be pathologized as "anti-semitism". Thereafter the attack against healthy and normal European racial discrimination was generalized into a pathologization of "racism" and eventually mutated into a variety of "anti-discrimination" movements opposing "sexism", "xenophobism", "homophobism", and "islamophobism". What began as an ostensibly well-intentioned assertion of equality always ended as naked aggression against what Auster euphemizes as "the majority" (White, male, heterosexual Christians) coupled with the defense and celebration of all that is alien and deviant. This phenomena, this racial-culture war, has been fueled financially and intellectually by a preposterous disproportion of jews, to achieve goals that have been in their collective self-interest and against the interests of "the majority".

The reality, contrary to Auster, is that the "unconditioned tolerance" of the "leading elements of our society" defines thoughts like mine as "hate" which is not tolerated at all. Yes, the rationale is claimed to be "non-discrimination". No, that is not the real motivation. This is trivially demonstrated by the behavior of both Auster and "leading elements of our society" in discriminating jews as jews, distinguishing them and exempting them from criticism while at the same time discriminating, criticizing, and even subordinating Whites as Whites in myriad ways.

It seems to me that Auster opposes liberalism because he sees it is driving Whites to extinction, and he judges the continued existence of a generally pro-jew White majority to be in the interest of jews. This explains his race-realist, tribe-denying obtuseness as well as his hypocrisy, smearing, and thought-criminalizing whenever he's challenged on it. In pursuing his interests he feels free to reason about anything, including calling on others to ignore or stifle their own interests, and discriminates anyone he pleases, as demonstrated by his blog full of musings about "the majority" as "the majority", black savages as black savages, and muslims as muslims. He opposes the "Third-Worldization and Islamization of the West". He wants "the majority" to do this and do that, but especially to save ourselves so we can continue to protect jews from blacks and muslims. He calls for pro-Whites like myself who discriminate our interests from those of jews, criticize jews, and oppose the judaization of the West to be shunned and silenced. He does not call for such treatment for even the most anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-Western "liberals".

Even if there is a discussion of a legitimate topic, the low-lifes and anti-Semites will show up and ruin it.

Besides imagining himself as the arbiter of legitimacy Auster sounds just like Ian "Urge to Purge" Jobling. Again my reality differs. Just about every news item or blog thread I read is incomplete or dishonest, written and guarded by pro-jews whose goal in life seems to be suppressing any mention of jewish influence, even when that influence is plain to see and the bullying pro-jew bouncers only make it plainer.

The notion that I go around calling people racists is an off-the-wall lie.

An off the wall lie? He did this in the very thread in which he denies it. Of course it wouldn't suit Auster's interests to admit that in common "liberal" usage, including his own, "anti-semite" is just a more specific form of the "racist" smear. Thinking about that special phrase and the special damning power Auster is well aware it carries only calls attention to how perfectly acceptable it is to discriminate jews as jews in placing their concerns above everyone else's. Contrasting this with the ineffectiveness and even negative reaction to "anti-White" ("you racist!") is also telling. The prevailing regime is definitely not "non-discrimination", and Auster definitely does not hesitate to smear.

Recognizing that jews and Whites have separate interests and speaking openly about it drives Auster to distraction more than any other subject. It puts the lie to his "non-discrimination" and "suicide" rhetoric and contradicts his pro-"white", pro-Christian, pro-West pose. It reveals him for the pro-jew pro-israel ruthless commissar he is. He cannot tolerate any recognition of the White-jewish fault line, and a discussion of "WhiterPeople" status competition comes dangerously close. Such talk might lead more Whites to recognize the race-based jewish aggression against us. So instead Auster tries to distract and deflect, selling a combination of guilt-tripping, lies, and threats: "Bad majority, so stupid you're suiciding yourself by not discriminating and remaining silent - oh and the low-lifes who discriminate jews and say they have something to do with this must be silenced".

I see through Auster's nonsense, but some of the semi-aware people at Mangan's seem willing to buy it. This includes Mangan himself, who closed his comments with effusive praise for Auster, and Hesperado, who made many incisive points before attributing Auster's belligerence, obfuscation, and logical inconsistencies to his being thick-skulled and thin-skinned. He sure is. The path to suicide-competition enlightenment is to try and understand why.

Original image.

UPDATE 21 Nov 2008: Today in Why I fight (other conservatives) Auster reiterates his belief that "non-discrimination is the crux of liberalism and its destructiveness, and thus opposing non-discrimination is the only effective way to oppose liberalism." He quotes a reader quoting himself getting "right down into the marrow of the problem" (my emphasis):

But WHY do they want to destroy it? What is BAD about reality that makes them want to destroy it? For my answer I return to the traditionalist analysis that I have advanced in various formulations: the rejection of God, the transcendent, the higher, the notion of an inherent structure in existence. Once the higher or the sense of being part of a larger whole is rejected, then the world is reduced to selves and their desires, with nothing above them, no "holarchy" (to use Arthur Koestler's term) of which they are a part. Therefore all selves and their respective desires are equal, therefore any distinction between selves is a horrible attack on the worth of the "less equal" or excluded self and must be banned.

However, as I'm thinking about this, I don't know that the non-discrimination and the destruction can be separated. Since the structure of the world consists of distinct things, each of which has its internal order or structure (even an alternative hair salon has its internal order), to ban discrimination is to destroy each individual thing and its order. Non-discrimination is destruction, perhaps the most efficient and thorough-going destruction ever known to man.

This to the applause of a fastidiously manicured peanut gallery who just love his clarity and directness.

I realize I repeat myself, but doesn't it get more to the crux and marrow of the WHY of "liberalism" to acknowledge that when Europeans first began to reject God during the Enlightenment that jews were the particular minority group who really got them thinking along the lines that eventually became "anti-racism" and "non-discrimination", that jews themselves are openly proud to have since done so much in this regard to help other groups benefit as they themselves have, and that jews also happen to be the only particular group that even anti-"liberals" like Auster dictate we absolutely must not discriminate from ourselves?

Doesn't that question, however distasteful jews and philo-semitic gentiles might find it, get closer to the WHY Auster will only dance around? For a more clear and direct view of "liberalism" I suggest Whites consult Kevin MacDonald. Why We Write would be a good place to start.

The Daily Express has reported that the Communist-Zionist rulers of the European Union are to complete the destruction of Europe they began with the defeat of the defenders of European identity in 1945. The great enemy ensconced in Brussels and Strasburg are to flood the EU with 50 million Africans. This they openly admit. They have set up a tax-funded job centre in Mali to bring Africans to the EU. That's right, Europeans are to have their own taxes used against them to flood the EU with non-Europeans who will fight against them for employment, and destroy their culture! This goes hand-in-hand with the EU's plan to bring Turkey and other non-European nations into the EU. It means nothing less than the cultural genocide of Europe. The time for revolution is overdue. This evil monstrosity must be destroyed - and it must be destroyed NOW.

Full article here

Etymology is a fascinating subject. Languages are natural living entities which change and adapt as the culture in which they are based develops. The exception is dead languages, which through lack of usage become frozen in time. Looking at how words gradually alter their meanings is am interesting way of understanding the fluidity of the national culture they reflect.

Only last night, whilst playing chess with friend and comrade, Eddy Morrison, the question arose as to the reason why the chess-piece known as the 'Rook' is so named. Although Chess experts frown upon the use of the word 'Castle', insisting the word 'Rook' be used, 'Castle' is the word which the vast majority of ordinary Britons use. Why is this? Quite simply, in English, a Rook is a bird, whereas the chess-piece looks like one of the many castles we have in our country. It is odd that the 'Castle' is a piece which can (if able) move right across the board in a single move. Apart from maybe hippies at Glastonbury who've eaten too many magic mushrooms, I can't think of anyone who has actually seen a castle move!

Why then is the piece we call the castle able to make such manœuvres? The reason lies squarely with the etymology of the word 'Rook'. Rook, when used in chess, has absolutely nothing to do with the bird which shares the same name. It has nothing to do with rooks being birds which are often seen in castles. The word when seen in the context of its original meaning makes a great deal of sense. Chess is a game which has existed for many years. In modern times, it can be dated back to the seventh century Gupta empire in India, and to Persia, although its origins probably go back further. The Persian word for the piece we call the castle, was رخ (rokh). This is the Persian word for a chariot. The Chariots of Persia were high speed vehicles, made to resemble small buildings. In Italy, the word rokh became rocca, which means a siege tower - again a castellated vehicle. This morphed into the English word Rook. Thus it can be seen that the high speed long range chariot of old, which resembled a small castle (and not a bird), is indeed a Rook.

As I say, I find the origins, meanings and natural development of words fascinating.

Since the middle of the twentieth century, the healthy gradual change of the English language has been hijacked for political motives. It is true that this has occured before, notably in the time of Shakespeare, when a group based around Francis Bacon created a wealth of new words, which simultaneously enriched the English language and united the regional variations. The new manipulation of English is, however, not beneficial to national cohesion, and certainly does not enrich the language. The modern engineering of our language is destructive, detrimental to its users and dangerous to society. George Orwell called it NewSpeak. We have come to know it as Political Correctness.

The destruction of the English language is so fast paced that anyone born after the Second World War who has grown up immersed in the impostor which calls itself 'English' will have difficulty in understanding the language spoken by the previous generation. For example, who would dare say he or she had enjoyed a gay day out, or that during the night out, he or she had felt a little queer?

Political Correctness is also making English grammatically nonsensical. It is practically forbidden to describe an individual as male or female. A basic sentence such as 'he asked her to dance' has become 'they asked them to dance'. This makes no sense! Describing someone by physical characteristics is now classed as discrimination and can result in imprisonment. Indeed the word 'discriminate' has been corrupted into meaning to treat in a detrimental manner. Personally I discriminate everyday. If I was offered a raw chicken or a cooked chicken to eat, failing to discriminate could result in hospital treatment!

The defenders of Political Correctness would have us believe that the manipulation of the language and the legal punishment of transgressors, is for the benefit of all - is to help the underprivileged(!) and protect disadvantaged minorities(!) They have a dishonest lexicon to 'spin' the destruction of our culture through the control of our language, into something positive. Don't be fooled. Political Correctness is NewSpeak. The self-appointed Language and Thought Police, through front groups such as Common Purpose, are destroying our beautiful and poetic language. Humans think using words and symbols. By reducing the number of words and symbols we have, they reduce the potential for thought, and in turn curtail our freedom. They could not care less for minorities or any particular group. They use political correctness to pit Male against Female, Rich against Poor, Northerner against Southerner etc. They use foreigners and deviants to confuse the issue by implying these outsiders belong in the national culture. In effect, they turn each of us into a Political Policeman to do their dirty work for them.

What is the solution to this despicable attack on all we hold dear? For once, the solution is simple: educate yourself! Study your language, refuse to use pc terms, refuse to get drawn into the Thought-crime apparatus. The PC/CP (or is that CCCP?) commissars are few. We are many. Without our co-operation, they cannot destroy our language. With a vibrant flourishing language at our disposal, we can enjoy absolute freedom of thought and make their attempts at mind control impossible. A technique they use is to instill a belief that those who use a variety of words are 'snobs', 'poofs' etc. This discourages many people from increasing their vocabularies and enjoying the enhanced freedom of expression this brings. Don't fall into their traps! Don't become an unwitting agent of the enemy.

Our language is the key to our freedom. Defend it. Use it in its organic sense. Refuse to surrender a single word to the linguistic oppressors. Take pride in the roots of your language - for therein you will find the foundations of your self. This is a battle we can win. This is a battle we must win.

Tomorrow, the 14th November 2008, Prince Charles will be Sixty years old. British Monarchists will be celebrating this mile-stone, however to Republicans, the heir to the Throne is more of a mill-stone, whose birthday does not merit celebration.

Am I being mean-spirited in refusing to wish Charles Saxe-Coburg-Goethe (SCG) many happy returns? Well, as I do not know the man, it would be remiss if I was to go out of my way to give him my best wishes. So should I just ignore him? If only! Sadly this man has been given a status which affords him attention.

Charles SCG will, unless his mother outlives him, be the next King of Great Britain and the Commonwealth. It is argued that his position is merely ceremonial, with real power resting in Parliament. This is simply not true. The British Monarchy are a part of the Global elite - an elite linked by blood. They have massive financial power and have influence which cannot be underestimated.

Monarchists revere the Royals as being superior to ordinary mortals. Indeed the Royals themselves hold this view, as can be seen in the King James Bible, which states the 'Divine Right of Kings' to rule over the masses. The Monarchy used to rule openly as despots with literally the power of life and death over their 'subjects'. This overt control has been replaced by a more cunning and secretive authority based on their positions as titular heads of the Anglican Church, and Heads of State. By allowing their minions to take the visible positions in Government and the Church, the Royal Family ensure their power continues in a manner which does not provoke outrage. They perpetuate the myth that they are merely figureheads, in order to direct rebellion against puppets who are dispensable.

So, back to Charles SCG. Is this man a fellow who demands respect? That depends upon whether one considers noble and honourable, his support of Multi-racialism, Homosexuality, Immigration, One-World Religion, Humanism, Marxism, anti-White racism, the destruction of Britain, the European Superstate, the New World Order, Israel, the (man-made) Global Warming lie, the Luciferian Doctrine, Freemasonry, Zionism, and many other issues. If you share his Satanic dogma, then, yes he is a man to respect. If you abhor the destruction of morality, family and all that is decent, then you cannot give this evil man any support at all.

Is that a bit harsh? Isn't Mr SCG just a cuddly little man with big ears who likes to talk to plants? No! He is not. His environmentalism is fake. He presents himself as a tree-hugger who cares for the planet, whilst pushing the Global Warming lie which is taxing people into poverty for the benefit of industrialists who are concreting over every bit of the Earth they can get their blood-stained hands on. SCG is a Bilderberger who has actively promoted the occult agenda of reducing the global population to around 500,000,000 people - necessitating the deaths of 7 billion people!

His proclamation that he intends to be 'Defender of all Faiths' is open confirmation that he is an agent of the One-World Religion cult which will eliminate all nations, cultures and religions - replacing them with a bland,easily controlled,mass of mindless consumers.

Charles SCG hides behind an image of being a lovable clown, much as George Bush likes to present himself as an affable Texan simpleton. Bush is a New Englander who is definitely not the simpleton he purports to be. Charles may act the clown, but he is in reality a very sinister figure.

On the eve of Prince (of darkness) Charles' birthday, the only wish I can reasonably make is that tomorrow is his last birthday as a member of the Royal Family. I do not wish him ill, not even his blood-stained Mummy, which contrasts greatly with the evil his family has presided over. I wish his birthday to be his last as a Royal, as a desire for an end to the power of the family of Globalist-Satanist, enemies of all life on Earth. The demise of this despicable family would benefit all who have a sense of decency and a genuine love for the world we live in.

If wishes were horses...

Yesterday marked the 90th anniversary of the end of the Great War. Services were held across the World to commemorate the men and women who died in conflicts throughout the twentieth and twenty first centuries. I listened intently to radio reports describing the various conflicts. The propaganda of the Holocaust was mentioned repeatedly, despite having absolutely no relevance to the genuine suffering of servicemen and civilians from all nations. To add to the insult of repeating the Zionist lie which has been used to persecute anyone who fails to grovel to Organised Jewry (including many decent anti-Zionist Jews), the Zionist War against the British presence in Palestine was not mentioned once.

The Zionist crimes in Palestine came to prominence in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration. The British Empire had lost the Great War. Germany had offered to declare the War over and to return the European continent to the situation before the War, with no-one benefiting form the conflict. The British Government refused to take this magnanimous offer, which would have saved the lives of many men and women from both sides. Instead, British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, wrote a begging letter, known subsequently as the Balfour Declaration, to Jewish leader Lord Rothschild, committing the British Empire to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. In return, the Rothschild banking dynasty funded the British war against Europe and the ongoing carnage which ensued.

The full text of the letter as published in The Times of London follows here:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild:

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's
Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge
of the Zionist Federation.

Yours,
Arthur James Balfour
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This sycophantic letter committed the slaughter of Gentiles in return for geld produced by Usury, all for the benefit of Zionist money power and territorial conquest. It paved the way for the destruction of Europe, for the slandering of the entire German nation, for the backlash against the Zionist Weimar Republic which was imposed on Germany, for the establishment of the barbaric Kabbalistic Soviet Union (headed by Zionist terrorists, Bronstein, Ulyanov, and Djugashvili to name but three, and ultimately for the Second World War. This one short letter condemned millions to death and torment.

Following the Second World War, Zionist atrocities in Palestine were increased in ferocity and frequency, culminating in the 1945-48 War. During that war, over 1,000 British men and women were butchered. Atrocities of note include the King David Hotel bombing in which Irgun and Stern Gang terrorists dressed as Arabs murdered 91 and maimed 45, and the Deir Yassin massacre in which over 100 Palestinians were murdered in cold blood. The terrorist responsible for these outrages, Menachem Begin, went on to become Israel's Prime minister in 1977.

The British Mandate ended 14th May 1948, with the British surrendering to the Jewish terrorists. The following day the Zionist state was declared by Ben Gurion. The systematic destruction of Palestine has continued with tacit British and American support ever since. The grip of the Zionist banking cartel has grown stronger, ensuring the nations of the west dare not criticise the crimes committed by the Zionist State. Indeed these murderers are rewarded by the sick British Monarchy.

On Remembrance Day, the victims of the 1945-48 war were ignored for fear of upsetting the Rothschild-Zionist rulers of Great Britain. This highlights the absolute control the Zionists have over this once sovereign nation. The refusal to address the Jewish slaughter of Britons between 1945 and 1948 is no oversight. On the 12th October 2007, Queen Elizabeth II unveiled the National Armed Forces Memorial to commemorate the British servicemen who have been killed in wars or as the result of terrorism since the end of the Second World War. This memorial has its start date as 1948, even though the Second World War ended in 1945.

It is our duty to remember the victims of Zionism and to oppose its Satanic goals, whether it be standing by Palestine or opposing the New World Order.

For information of the British servicemen murdered by Jewish terrorists in the 1945-48 War for the establishment of the criminal state of Israel, visit:
http://www.roll-of-honour.com/cgi-bin/palestine.cgi

I haven't the time or energy for a cohesive post-election essay, but I do have a collection of links and some comments to share.

First, the title. The Obama shills are inordinately fond of this refrain. I think we can expect it to morph into many new and snottier forms even as the election itself recedes from memory. The Obamen seem to believe that they and their man are now beyond all criticism.

Back in September Obaman Jack Cafferty wrote:

Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it's one that nobody's talking about.

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn't be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn't make sense…unless it's race.

Cafferty then cites Michael Grunwald, speaking in code about the evils of speaking in code. Decoded, this is what Cafferty and Grunwald are saying: hordes of unthinking, racist Whites stand between them and Utopia.

Race is the elephant in the room of the 2008 campaign. In West Virginia's primary, one out of every four Hillary Clinton voters actually admitted to pollsters that race was a factor in their vote; that may be an Appalachian outlier, but even in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio the figure was a troubling 1 in 10.

Ooooo scary. Except we can see clearly now in retrospect that this was all alot of guilt-tripping nonsense.

Nobody was talking about race? Lots of people were talking about race, even in the mainstream media. What was most notable was that most of them were trying to lay the same race-based guilt-trip on Whites as McCafferty and Grunwald. Harold Meyerson and Ron Rosenbaum are two particularly ham-handed examples I've cited previously. It's easy to find others.

In the wake of the election we're hearing a new variation: yes Whites are racist, but not enough to make a difference. John Judis writes that "many white Americans still harbor degrees of conscious or unconscious resentment against blacks" but "it didn't matter enough to decide the election". In Judis' opinion Obama should have done better than Kerry did in 2004, but since he didn't (in some places) Whites therefore deserve to be taken to task in yet another guilt-tripping editorial.

The fact is that race really did matter to many voters, in fact we can see now looking back that it mattered much more to non-white voters than it did to Whites. Sailer provides the numbers in Exit Polls:

	Obama	McCain	Other
White (75%)	43%	55%	2%
African-American (13%)	96%	4%	N/A
Latino (8%)	67%	31%	2%
Asian (2%)	63%	33%	4%
Other (3%)	66%	31%	3%

The Jerusalem Post reports on the jewish bias:

Jews voted for Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers, refuting speculation that Republican John McCain would peel away Jewish support due to concerns about the Democrat's stance on the Middle East and other issues.

Obama picked up 78 percent of the Jewish vote in comparison to McCain's 21% haul, according to exit polls. That rate is about two points higher than what former Democratic candidate John Kerry received in 2004 and similar to the numbers Al Gore and Bill Clinton garnered in previous elections.

This narrative that you have to worry about Barack Obama just didn't fly when they saw Barack Obama up close and they saw his relations with the Jewish community," he said, pointing to the extensive Jewish outreach campaign in states like this key swing state, where Jews make up a statistically significant slice of the electorate.

He noted that it was the first time a campaign had Jewish vote coordinators in all of the key battleground states, with Florida particularly notable for the size of the outreach, surrogate events and third-party efforts.

"There are nagging doubts in the Jewish community about Barack Obama and where he stands on important issues," he asserted.

Green, though, assessed that such concerns were outweighed by those on the Republican ticket, namely regarding the vice presidential nominee.

"There was contrary tendency," he said. "There were Jews who expressed skepticism about Obama but even more about Sarah Palin."

Note that what is called "nagging doubts" in jews is called "racism" in Whites.

What kind of guilt-tripping would Whites get if we voted in a bloc of 96%, 78%, 67%, or 63%? Our vote is objectively the least attributable to racial bias, and yet we get all the critcism for being biased. The most reasonable explanation for this is that our critics simply hate us.

As an aside, the JPost article also contains a handy "almost-complete list of the new Jewish congressional caucus: An all-time record of Jewish reps in Congress." The senate is 13% jewish, the house about 7.3% (32/435).

Jews may have had their doubts about Obama, but that was washed away by their fear and loathing for Sarah Palin and the unconsciously White Christian voters who flocked to support her. I'm not aware of anyone in the mainstream press making an attempt to guilt-trip jews about this. Quite the opposite. Here's Jacques Berlinerblau, associate professor of Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University and author of "Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics". He thinks Palin just needs to try harder:

The Palin Effect: Two of the speakers observed that John McCain's selection of a running mate may have turned away Jewish voters who were once supportive of him. On Wednesday, I pointed out that this apparent "Palin Effect" has occurred despite the fact that the Governor of Alaska has made no egregious errors in her dealings with the Jewish community and has, in many cases, said the right things and cultivated the right relationships.

In short, 2008 has demonstrated the strategic importance of having skilled advisers and operatives in the domain of faith-based politicking. Accordingly, nothing precludes Palin from someday reversing negative perceptions among Jewish voters. And while she's at it she might find a receptive audience because . . .

Jews are going Republican?: Speaker Ira Forman of the National Jewish Democratic Council pointed out that rumors about Jews defecting from the Democrats to head over to the GOP have been around since the time of McGovern. He views this as a "man bites dog story," of great interest to the media if only because it is so counter-intuitive. The truth of the matter is that Jews are solid, true-blue Democrats who have given the party more than 75% of their ballot in the last 4 elections.

That's right. The truth, which negates Berlinerblau's blame-Palin argument, is that most jews just won't support someone Whites find appealing even if only unconsciously for racial reasons. It doesn't matter if that hapless White pol promises to nuke iran and send Whites to die to protect israel. That's not good enough now that jews have Bushes, Obamas, Bidens, and McCains who will do all that and more.

Berlinerblau concludes with a little disinformation:

Is the Jewish vote really that important?: Professor Yossi Shain of Georgetown's Government department made the provocative argument that polling data on Jewish voters is highly problematic and misleading. Drawing a distinction between Jewish citizens of the United States and eligible Jewish voters, Professor Shain cited the number of 2.8 million in the latter category--a number that decreases their already minor electoral significance.

Shain's observation corresponds with one that I have been making here: we should study and contemplate American Jewish voting behavior in all of its glory. But we should not overestimate its electoral import. At less than 2% of the American population (and only 3.6% of the population of Florida) Jewish-Americans do not stand to dramatically affect the outcome on November 4th.

Tsk tsk. They're neglecting the effect of money and media on modern campaigns. Now why would they do that? They must know that Jewish campaign contributions and media influence have an impact far larger than a measly 2% of the votes. Every politician knows this, which is why they all have special outreach programs for jews, make promises to AIPAC, and make pilgrimages to israel.

JPost: "Sarah Palin may be hurting McCain among Jewish voters":

"Palin is totally out of step with public opinion in the Jewish community" on domestic issues and has "zero foreign policy experience," the organization wrote in a fund-raising letter sent out last week. It also started an on-line petition asking: "McCain: What were you thinking when you selected Palin?"

Earth to Berlinerblau. For some strange reason plenty of jews expect politicians to think of jews first and not the far more numerous Whites.

In the days before the election I gathered many links that revealed a race-based hatred directed towards Sarah Palin. Whether or not Whites supported or opposed her on principle it was obvious by contrast that the animosity of "the left", and especially jews, came from a fear and loathing not so much for anything Palin herself had said or done, but for the White Christians instinctively drawn to her. Palin was treated like a blank sheet of paper on which non-whites (and self-loathing Whites) could finger paint whatever dim visions they pleased. Then they hated her for being whatever boogeyman they imagined her to represent.

Florida Congressman: Palin 'Don't Care Too Much What They Do With Jews and Blacks':

Florida Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings pointed to Sarah Palin on Wednesday to rally Jews to Obama.

"If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention," said Hastings. "Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."

Hastings, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, made his comments in Washington, D.C., while participating in a panel discussion sponsored by the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Black Florida congressman apologizes for Palin comments:

"The point I made, and will continue to make, is that the policies and priorities of a McCain-Palin administration would be anathema to most African Americans and Jews," he said in his statement.

The point I will make, and continue to make, it that the current regime, before and after this election, is anathema to Whites. I can quote example after example of pro-black, pro-jew, pro-latino, pro-anything-non-white government officials and media pundits bashing Whites and suffering no substantial consequences. Whites on the other hand mustn't say they care for themselves or are fearful of or distrust other groups, in spite of self-interested members of those groups telling us repeatedly how much they fear and distrust us.

Comic's Appeal to Jewish Voters for Obama Is Careful:

The reason Obama may yet still get 60% of the Jewish vote and at least one reason why Florida is so close now is because the Jews like Biden and are scared by Palin.

Jewish voters may be wary of Palin:

“There is almost always an inverse proportion between a candidate's popularity among conservative Christians and secular Jews,” said Jeff Ballabon, a Republican lobbyist long active in Jewish politics who supports McCain.

An illustration of that gap came just two weeks ago, when Palin’s church, the Wasilla Bible Church, gave its pulpit over to a figure viewed with deep hostility by many Jewish organizations: David Brickner, the executive director of Jews for Jesus.

Secular jews plus jews hostile to Jews for Jesus equals a pretty broad range of jews.

“I find her offensive”:

“I was leaning towards McCain,” growled Marvin Weinstein, 74, as he strode to an appointment in a doctor’s office. “But I think his choice of her has turned me off.”

“What I hear is she’s an awful anti-Semite,” George Friedberg said as he sat curbside in his Escalade. “She won’t be getting my vote.” Friedberg’s wife, Florence, appeared at the passenger-side door, shopping bags in hand. “I was leaning towards McCain, but after he selected her I’ve ruled him out completely. I find her offensive.”

Koch: Obama is my guy — Palin is scary:

One foreign policy issue that particularly concerned me in 2004 was the security of Israel. I thought in 2004 that issue was better left to President George W. Bush, and I believe I was right. President Bush understood the need to support the security of Israel and did so. I did not feel that way about Senator John Kerry.

That is not an issue in this election. Both parties and their candidates have made clear, before and during this election campaign their understanding of the need to support Israel and oppose acts of terrorism waged against it by Hamas and other Muslim supporters of terrorism.

So the issue for me is who will best protect and defend America.

Note that defending America comes after Koch's concern for israel. Though to be fair he may see them as the same thing.

Palin Pick Puts Many Women on the Verge:

Senator McCain's selection of Governor Palin of Alaska as his running mate, which was hailed in some quarters and met with skepticism in others, is sparking intense reactions from some New Yorkers, who report being driven to fits of rage and even all-consuming panic.

"All of my women friends, a week ago Monday, were on the verge of throwing themselves out windows," an author and political activist, Nancy Kricorian of Manhattan, said yesterday. "People were flipping out. ... Every woman I know was in high hysteria over this. Everyone was just beside themselves with terror that this woman could be our president — our potential next president."

"What I feel for her privately could be described as violent, nay, murderous, rage," an associate editor at Jezebel, Jessica Grose, wrote just after the Republican convention wrapped up. "When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull."

Ms. Grose was not alone. More than 700 comments poured in, many from women who said they were experiencing a visceral hostility to Mrs. Palin that they were struggling to explain.

Ms. Kricorian said some of the agitation was because women felt Mr. McCain was pulling off a political trick, using the novelty of selecting a woman to hide her conservative social and religious views. "The women thing is a ruse. ... She was chosen because of the evangelical thing," the writer said. "It's weirdly stealthy that she's not talking about it."

It's not weird at all that these White-haters so unselfconsciously project their dishonesty onto us and so freely express their homicidal rage. They only struggle to explain how exactly it's all our fault that they hate us so.

In What Hollywood Jews think of white Americans James Edwards quotes Larry David:

The debates were particularly challenging for me to monitor. First I tried running in and out of the room so I would only hear my guy. This worked until I knocked over a tray of hors d’oeuvres. “Sit down or get out!” my host demanded. “Okay,” I said, and took a seat, but I was more fidgety than a ten-year-old at temple. I just couldn’t watch without saying anything, and my running commentary, which mostly consisted of “Shut up, you prick!” or “You’re a f**king liar!!!” or “Go to hell, you c**ksucker!” was way too distracting for the attendees, and finally I was asked to leave.

If Obama loses, it would be easier to live with it if it’s due to racism rather than if it’s stolen. If it’s racism, I can say, “Okay, we lost, but at least it’s a democracy. Sure, it’s a democracy inhabited by a majority of disgusting, reprehensible turds, but at least it’s a democracy.”

OK. That was directed at McCain, not Palin. But Larry David obviously hates McCain, our little Juan McCain, because he imagines that McCain represents White interests. And he thinks of us as disgusting, reprehensible turds. Keep this in mind now - the regime not only lets this guy make nationally broadcast primetime TV shows, they pay him to do so.

Pissed about Palin
McCain's running mate is a Christian Stepford wife in a sexy librarian costume. Women, it's time to get furious.
By Cintra Wilson

Sarah Palin and her virtual burqa have me and my friends retching into our handbags. She's such a power-mad, backwater beauty-pageant casualty, it's easy to write her off and make fun of her. But in reality I feel as horrified as a ghetto Jew watching the rise of National Socialism.

She is dangerous. She is not just pro-life, she's anti-life. She is the suppression of human feeling and instinct. She is a slave to the compromises dictated by her own desire for power and control.

Notice how the nazi bugaboo has a way of popping up whenever jews don't like a White. Even when it's absurd because the person they're talking about isn't saying or doing anything remotely nazi-like. That's because to them "nazi" essentially means "anti-jew", thus it is only natural that it has become a jewish code word for White.

Here's another example. Heather Mallick, a liberal Canadian editorialist, wrote a couple of somewhat infamous fulsome little turgid screeds concerning Palin.

The Alaskan who went 'outside':

Small towns are places that smart people escape from, for privacy, for variety, for intellect, for survival. Palin should have stayed home.

One hundred thousand Canadians visit Alaska every year, and we like to pass by in cruise ships. But it never goes further than that. Alaska is our redneck cousin, our Yukon territory forms a blessed buffer zone, and thank God he never visits. Alaska is the end of the line.

CBC’s Mallick: ‘White Trash’ Palin Has ‘Porn Actress Look,’ ‘Smart People’ Flee Small Towns refers to an especially fulsome screed. The original document got flushed down the memory hole, but fortunately some leftist was particularly fond of it and saved a copy.

In the face of reader outrage Mallick did what any White basher normally does. She wrapped herself in philo-semitism and bashed the evil racists who criticized her. After all, she reasoned, only an evil racist White could object to her bashing Whites.

Canadian columnist's diatribe against Palin stokes anger in the U.S.:

The Toronto-based Mallick admits she's been shaken by the violence suggested in hundreds of e-mails similar in tone to Jones's, but adds the messages have simply served to underscore her point about the bigotry and small-mindedness of some Republican supporters.

"The violent and obscene threats against me were one thing — it's easy to filter those — but the anti-Semitic hate mail was very troubling. I am not Jewish but I am honoured to be taken for one. I consider it a great compliment."

What a hero. Curious, I reached back into Mallick's past columns to get a grasp on her pro-jewish sentiments. Here's an interesting column where she rails against racism. The subtlety of words: Are you Canadian or Canadian-born?:

Antonia Zerbisias is a brave unstoppable media critic for Canada's best and biggest paper, the Toronto Star. She took issue with a columnist named Christie Blatchford, who was objecting to the police statement that the accused men came from "a variety of backgrounds," for writing the following in a front-page column in the Globe and Mail: "The accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the Taliban fashion. They have first names like Mohamed, middle names like Mohamed and last names like Mohamed. Some of their female relatives at the Brampton courthouse who were there in their support wore black head-to-toe burkas … which is not a getup I have ever seen on anyone but Muslim women." Despite Blatchford's comments favourable to the majority of Canadian Muslims, I find the quoted material horrifying.

I didn't read the sentence as Mohamed this and Mohamed that. I read it like this:

The accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the Jewish fashion. They have first names like Yehoshua, middle names like Ariel, and last names like Morgenstern. Some of their female relatives wore typical Jewish garments, black and alien, their hair covered in typical Judaic fashion, not a garment I have ever seen on anyone but Semitic women.

Blatchford did not write this. I'm sure she never would write this. But people do write things like this when they believe it is popular. Racism is lumping a people together as if they were all the same. Thus the alleged sins of one are the sins of the group and this is when the bully pulpit and the violence join forces. This is how it begins.

Whether or not Mallick is jewish she sure sees the world as if she were. My old foil Larry Auster certainly does and so do his "conservative" jewish buddies. Hymowitz on Red State hysteria

I'm less and less alone. Here is yet another Palin-critical conservative. Kay Hymowitz ... casts a cold eye on the conservatives who have lost their minds over Sarah

Conservatives lost their minds? If anybody lost their minds over Palin surely I hope it's clear from all of the above it was jews. And by the way, I don't believe Auster, in all his many words on Palin, wrote anything at all about that.

If all of the above wasn't clear enough then it's a good thing I saved the worst for last.

The Sandra Bernhard monstrosity

Sandra Bernhard: Palin Would Be Gang-Raped By Blacks in Manhattan

You really should go read for yourself the vile hatred Bernhard expressed. The stunning thing about her invective is that it came not in some one-off drunken outburst, ala Mel Gibson, but instead was professionally produced and performed repeatedly in a mainstream jewish theater as entertainment for profit.

Ari Roth artistic director of Theater J was unsympathetic and unapologetic:

In fact, the play wears its politically VERY correct heart on its sleeve with its indictment of America as “A Man’s World, It’s a White Man’s World, It’s a Fucked Up White Man’s Racist World” and can only be suggested to be racist in its content if one is hell-bent on protecting White Folk for Sandra’s blistering indictment.When Sandra warns Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers, she’s being provocative, combative, humorous, and yes, let’s allow, disgusting. The fact that the show has a few riffs like this does not — to my mind — make it a “disgusting show.” there’s too much beauty, variety, vitality, and intelligence to label the entire show as “disgusting.” I’ll agree with you that we produced this show because we did find it to be edgy — because we wanted to give right wing conservative Jews a good run for their money by being on the receiving end of some blistering indictments from Sandra.Does it go over the edge sometimes? On the gang-rape joke, yes. Sure. Not much else. It goes over the edge and then comes right back to the cutting edge.Finally you ask, “where is the Theater J staff and council? Where is the DCJCC administration?” They were all there on opening night, one night before you came. We partied together after. There were three members of Theater J staff at the show last night, and there’ll be more of us this weekend when we present three shows — soon to be all sold out. I was teaching a political theater class last night, but I’ll be back for everything this weekend.We’re proud of our producing - proud of Sandra’s sense of timing - taking the fight out to the house and to the street beyond, channeling so much of our rage and frustration at the bizarre recent twists of fortune since Karl Rove trotted out Sarah Palin for John McCain to briefly meet and then get in bed with.Sandra’s face is hanging 10 feet tall in a banner over the DCJCC steps and we’re proud that she’s a new emblem and ambassador for our theater and our center. She’s not the only one who represents us. But her large heart, her generous talent, and her big mouth are all a big part of who we are.

About Theater J:

Hailed by The New York Times as “The Premier Theater for Premieres,” Theater J has emerged as one of the most distinctive, progressive and respected Jewish theaters on the national and international scene. A program of the Washington DC Jewish Community Center, Theater J works in collaboration with the four other components of the Washington DCJCC’s Morris Cafritz Center for the Arts, which include the Washington Jewish Film Festival and Screening Room, the Ann Loeb Bronfman Gallery, the Program in Literature, Music and Dance, and Nextbook.

Theater J produces thought-provoking, publicly engaged, personal, passionate and entertaining plays and musicals that celebrate the distinctive urban voice and social vision that are part of the Jewish cultural legacy.

Isn't that special?

Earlier this evening I joined Dietrich and Mishko on their weekly Voice of Reason internet broadcast. Dietrich likes my essays and wanted to know what drives me.

In three years of writing I've never discussed what my thinking was when I started blogging or how that thinking changed. Tonight I enjoyed having the opportunity to explain.

Thanks to Dietrich and Mishko. Despite the shameful confessions it was a pleasure speaking with them.

Barack Obama has been elected to the position of President of the USA. He is America's first Black President, a man of the people and the most powerful man in the world - so say the mainstream media. Sounds good doesn't it? Only problem is none of it is true.

Barack Obama is a mulatto. His father was Barack Hussein Obama, a Kenyan Muslim, who abandoned him when he was an infant. His mother, Ann Dunham was a white American Marxist. She sent her son to live with her parents when he was ten. How then is this Obama, black? He had a white mother and was raised by a white mother with men appearing at various intervals, until he was passed to a white couple who brought him up to adulthood. Genetically he is not black or white, but part white and part black. For those who see nurture as more important than nature, his background is overwhelmingly white - therefore to the liberal mentality, Barack Obama is not black, he is white. Oddly, it is the liberals who are shrieking with joy about having a 'Black' President. (How many p's in Opportunistic Hypocrites?)

The notion that the President of the USA is the most powerful man in the world is laughable. Like all high profile officials, he is a puppet, with the real power resting in hidden hands. Corporations and financial institutions are the holders of power, not politicians. The USA is the military arm of the New World Order. That is the true reason for the drive to merge Mexico and Canada with the USA into the North American Union - the masters of the NWO need more cannon fodder, which the Americanised Mexicans will unwittingly supply. But that is to digress. Obama is a high profile puppet, and nothing more. He has no real power at all.

So then, is Obama a man of the people? Is he the man who will deliver 'change'? That question has already been answered in the fact that he is a servant of globalism. However, to take a cursory look at who he has been publicly aligned to in the elections, gives an insight into which 'people' he is a man of.

Baruch Osama, oops, Barack Obama, claims to be the man who will bring 'change' to the USA. So does this mean he will break with the agenda pushed by the last frontman of the globalist elite?

Obama has stated he does not believe that politicians should do the bidding of lobbyists. This is all just hot-air for public consumption. Obama has pledged unswerving support for Israel when speaking at AIPAC meetings. So, no 'change' there - the USA will continue to do the bidding of the Zionist hub in Israel, and will continue to threaten Iran with military aggression. Appointing Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff is absolute proof of Obama continuing the Zionist path to World War III.

Obama comes from a Marxist family, is pro-homo, pro-abortion, pro-Israel, pro-multi, pro-NWO. His superficial difference with Bush, who was allegedly pro-morality, is that he openly advocates the destruction of the family - under the guise of 'human rights' for 'minorities'. The results are the same. Obama is pushing the same war mongering anti-human agenda which Bush has presided over. Of course he is - the puppets may change, but the string-pullers remain the same.

Barack Obama is a willing tool of the Zionist global elite. His presidency will not alter the New World Order agenda one iota. He, like Bush, is a Zionist-Goy servant of his Satanic self-chosen masters. He is an enemy to free humanity everywhere.

For more information on the Zionist construction of the Global Slave State, click here.

The number of coalition military personnel who have been killed or wounded in the war in Iraq is now counted in the tens of thousands. The number of Iraqis killed by military and non-military means as a direct result of the war and sanctions is in excess of 1.5 million. These figures are for Iraq alone. When the figures for the war in Afghanistan are added, the numbers are staggering.

The death-tolls will be much higher in years to come due to the immoral and illegal weaponry the coalition forces are using. They are routinely using munitions which have depleted uranium incorporated into them. This means the levels of cancer caused by radiation will be phenomenal. For the Iraqis, birth defects are now commonplace. Military action is turning whole swathes of Iraq and Afghanistan into nuclear wastelands.

The wars in the middle east and central Asia are not about confronting 'terror', whatever that may be. They are about expanding the military occupation of the Global elite into strategic areas. The staged atrocity of 9/11 was used as an excuse to 'get' Osama Bin Laden. In truth he was never a target. The wars are about building bases, increasing opium/heroin supplies and taking control of oil reserves. They are not just wars of liberation. They are wars of occupation and aggression.

The military in the present conflicts are being encouraged to commit all manner of atrocities against the indigenous peoples. By doing this they are becoming desensitised to the suffering of humanity. This will make them very useful in the coming New World Order as the boot-boys of the Zionist rulers. Having got used to torturing, raping and murdering civilians in one region, they will be able to do it anywhere.

Our military have earned the respect of the people for defending their nations from external threats. These wars are destroying the high standards of the military. The Zionist rulers are trying to turn the best of the nation into blood-thirsty animals. They are sadly having a measure of success. To see the depths to which British soldiers are stooping follow the link to a truly disgusting video here

Support the Troops. Protect the decency of the men and women who put themselves forward to defend their nations. Save them from the insane and cruel leaders who view them as 'dumb stupid animals' and cannon fodder. Bring them home.

God save Zionism's Queen
Long live the reptile Queen,
God save the Queen:
Send her uranium,
Depleted insanium,
Squeaking on helium:
God save the Queen.

Lord, Lucifer, arise,
Smash masonry's enemies,
Destroy them all:
Confuse their politics,
Fool them with knavish tricks,
From thee our fears we fix:
God save us all.

Our blood and tears in store,
On her be sure to pour;
Long may she reign:
May she subvert our laws,
And ever pain us cause
To cry with sickened voice
God save the Queen.

Not in this land alone,
But Moloch's wrath be known,
From shore to shore!
Lord make the nations see,
That men enslaved should be,
In Global tyranny,
The New World Order.

From every righteous foe,
From the resister's blow,
God save the Queen!
O'er her thine arms extend,
For money's sake defend,
Our murdering spiteful fiend,
God save the Queen!

Lord grant that the U N
May by with-holding aid
Starvation bring.
May they free voices hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Peaceful resistance crush.
God save the King!