Tuesday, 31 August 2010

From a hit-piece printed in the September 2010 Playboy, Imagination Nation - Tea Party Resurrects the Past to Deny the Present, by Stephen Duncombe:

Either party activists really are the ignorant hicks liberals believe them to be, or they truly believe the federal government is a foreign body (with a foreign-born president no less!) and their elected officials don't really represent them. All signs point to the latter.
Tea Party people are white-skinned, white-haired, white bread, white. You can wander the vast mediascape and not witness another sea of whiteness like a Tea Party rally. Over the past 50 years--partly out of political concern but mostly to reach as broad an audience as possible--the culture industry has largely rejected such bland homogeneity.
Conjuring up the past is another way of denying the present. "Take our country back!" is a cry you'll hear at a Tea Party rally. Back. Back to a time when white people were firmly in power and those of other ethnicities knew their place. But also back to an imaginary America that was almost entirely white. Back to Leave it to Beaver, My Three Sons, and The Waltons. Tea Party rallies--the costumes, the outrage, the provocative rhetoric--are so theatrical because they are theater: a way for a dying strain of white people to represent themselves in a mediated world that no longer recognizes them.
Politics, like entertainment and advertising, is about dreams.
Effective leaders and movements tap into our fantasies of the future, not those of the past.
Duncombe doesn't sympathize with White people, but he's not so alienated or consumed with hate that he can't see the grass roots motivations of the Tea Party.

Duncombe makes a living opining on the history and politics of media and culture. He's a cultural marxist:
Courses taught include: Struggle for the Word: History of Mass Media I, The Image: History of Mass Media II, Digital Revolution: History of Mass Media III, From Citizen to Consumer, Cultural Resistance, Politics of Media: Power, Persuasion, Perception, Politics of Style, The Social Construction of Reality, Walter Lippmann and the Manufacture of Dissent, Antonio Gramsci and the Power of Culture, Democratic Persuasion, Special Topics in Media.
His own milieu is a sea of Whiteness.

Duncombe is perhaps best known for his book Dream: Re-imagining Progressive Politics in an Age of Fantasy. Use Your Illusion, a Villiage Voice review from February of 2007, by Emily Weinstein, is subtitled "Stephen Duncombe explains why the left should indulge Americans' fantasies":
He was born into activism: Charles Dickens caricatured one of Duncombe's ancestors, a member of Parliament, as "the radical dandy," and others in his family fled Canada after participating in a failed 19 th-century rebellion against Queen Victoria. His father was a minister and civil rights activist—their phone lines were tapped when Duncombe was a child—and Duncombe refers, with affection, to his teenage "punk rock days" in early-'80s New Haven. ("That scene was exuberant," he says. "It was passionate. Politics should be like that.") He went on to co-found the Lower East Side Collective, a community activist group, and helped organize events with others, including Billionaires for Bush. Their demonstrations were carnivals, attracting revelers who'd dance in the streets. Then came 9-11, followed by war. "Politics became something deadly serious," he said. Liberals lost whatever sense of humor they had.

Dream could have simply been an elegy to that pre–9-11 era—a nostalgia piece for the recent past. Instead, it reads like a manifesto inspired by a pop culture fever dream. Seizing upon references high and low, Duncombe makes the case that spectacle can be an ethical and sophisticated means of appealing to, even seducing, the American public. Rather than bemoan the fact that people are obsessed with Paris Hilton and condemn video games like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, both of which Duncombe discusses with a mix of awe and critical glee, liberals need to determine why that obsession exists—pop culture as road map into the American mind. "We can't afford to ignore it," Duncombe said. "If we do, we're writing off the passion of a hell of a lot of people."

The idea, which Duncombe dubs "dreampolitik," is that progressives, armed with strategies derived from sources as vast as advertisements, celebrity-gossip magazines, and the casinos on the Las Vegas strip, would then be able to enact a politics that enthralls a broader sweep of Americans. The left needs to start appealing to people's hunger for hope and attraction to fantasy life. What's more, Duncombe said, they have to let go of the belief—"naive at best, arrogant at worst"—that intellectual arguments should be enough to win people over, and that spectacle, as the Bush administration employs it, is something to which they shouldn't have to resort, a tawdry means to an end. "It's a pathos of the left," he said. "We're worried about selling out, but no one's buying." Besides, the point isn't that liberals move towards conservatism; it's that they become savvier and, ironically, more realistic about what it takes to win.
"The Democrats are going to lose unless they figure out a way of imagining the world," Duncombe concluded. "They need to figure out what utopia they want to sell."
Duncombe's assertion that "spectacle can be an ethical and sophisticated means of appealing to, even seducing, the American public", is made in a partisan spirit. Still, there's nothing here about spectacles drawing on the past being bad. And nothing about it being bad if it inspires stupid, evil White people. These are ad hoc modifications he's been forced to adopt just now, seeing that hopey-changey "progressives" have let him down while the Tea Party actually did what he advised. How humiliating this would be, if only "progressives" could be humliated.

Saturday, 28 August 2010

The EDL is Zionist, multi-racialist, royalist and in all ways a vehicle for materialist internationalism. This video they have produced themselves should be enough to alert genuine patriots to the fact that all is not as it should be. Opposition to Internationalism must mean defence of the indigenous nation. It is incompatible with Zionism, treating women as sex objects, miscegenation, and all the rubbish being promoted by this Establishment asset. Oppose this organisation by all means necessary!

Whatever one's views of the manipulation of ordinary Britons by Zionist forces, it has to be said that the Police treatment of the indigenous population was absolutely outrageous.

The English Defence League came to Bradford obstensibly to peacefully demonstrate about the perceived dhimmitude which is being encouraged by woolly minded brain-dead liberals from areas with no significant Muslim presence. In near by Rochdale, the local shopping centre has installed squat toilets to make the ever growing foreign population feel at home. One must ask, if they really feel so alienated and homesick, isn't the solution for them to go back to Pakistan and Bangladesh, rather than bring their third world slum mentality to once proud Lancashire? Of course, it isn't Muslims who have driven this lunacy, but indigenous liberals who make a career from social engineering and political correctness. The Muslims have been scape-goated to justify the ridiculous salaries of the enemies within. The abuse meted out across the border in Yorkshire today is typical of the anti-British tyrrany of the Police.

In Forster Square, Bradford, Asian thugs attacked Britons purely for their skin colour today. Are all Britons EDL scum? No! The Police did nothing. in the face of the thuggish attacks by non-whites. This is deplorable - thugs are thugs no matter what their etrhnic origins. In Little Horton, Great Horton, Manningham, and other parts of the city, Bradford has become a no go area for whites - Britons, Poles, Czechs, in fact any Europeans. The Police say nothing and the pathetic liberal rag, the Telegraph and Argus, is silent. Such is the coverage of events today.

One need only look back at the disgraceful media coverage of the Miners' Strike in the 1980s to see that the media lying about ordinary people is nothing new. In the infamous 'Battle for Orgreave', horse-mounted Police charged Miners, assaulting and injuring many, for hours on end, until eventually the Miners retaliated. The BBC and ITV edited the footage to show Miners pelting Police with bottles, then Police charging them in defence! Today is very much like that event.

Today we have witnessed the futility of law abiding protest. The Police serve the Establishment, and the Establishment is part of the internationalist terror. The EDL methods will not work, if the objective is to gain mass support from ordinary Britons.

The problem with Islamification is that enough of the world is Muslim for Muslims to live as they wish - Islam is not compatible with our way of life, and in the interests of genuine peace and cultural survival, the tiny continent of Europe needs to be kept true to our cultural roots. Yes we do need to return our country to our own people. This isn't hatred of others, but love of our own.

Relying on the Establishment media for publicity from public popular protest is asking for trouble. We need to set up our own radio networks, broadcasting the truth on the pirate airways. We need to record the anti-indigenous attacks, and publicise them by every means necessary. We need to talk to people who are fortunate enough to live in areas where the indigenous population is still the majority, and let them know what we who live behind enemy lines have to put up with every day.

The atrocious behaviour of the Police was to be expected. All the organisers of today's protest have achieved is to get a large number of patriots filmed by Police and hostile elements. If the whole purpose of today's protest was to provide information to the Police as to the identity of people who have had enough of the bolshevik materialist society which has replaced European England, then mission accomplished. It does make one wonder...

As a footnote, the number of Police in the streets tonight is ridiculous. One could say that the level of Policing is at intimidation level. Such is 'democratic' England in the time of the internationalist order.

Friday, 27 August 2010

On Saturday the 28th August, the EDL are coming to Bradford to demonstrate against the Islamification of England. The EDL present themselves as ultra-nationalists, who oppose racism and Islam. As anyone who has taken the time to remove his or her head from the sandpit of the mainstream media knows, the truth is very far from what we are told.

The EDL are but the latest in a long series of Establishment creations. Designed as honey traps for patriotic Britons, those who join such organisations will find themselves painted as terrorists and criminals by the controlled media. The treatment meted out will serve as an example to all who oppose internationalism, that to put one's head above the parapets invites persecution. Thus is freedom of expression stifled and the anti-human agenda advanced.

The EDL is not a patriotic organisation. Rather than being a tool for the dismantling of the internationalist menace, the EDL is a vehicle of internationalism. Unlike its fore-runner, Combat 18, membership of the EDL is open to anyone regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, sexuality etc. The only qualification seems to be a pathological hatred of Islam and a blind acceptance of the ludicrous lie that the 11th September 2001 bombings in New York City were the sole work of devout Muslims. Combat 18 was used to discredit European patriots, labelling anyone who supported racial homogeneity and majority rule as 'racists' and 'Nazis'. The leader of C18, Charlie Sargeant, was a Police informant, who used his organisation to goad naïve skinheads into comitting acts of violence ensuring their incarceration. The EDL is a multi-cultural incarnation of C18, and like its predecessor, is controlled by the British political police, MI5.

Dedicated to multi-culturalism, the EDL is a thoroughly internationalist organisation. The founder of political Zionism for the goyim, aka Communism, Frederick Engels would have loved the EDL. In true Marxian style, the EDL purports to be the defender of all that is English, whilst embracing the cultural dilution of England by supporting the right of all people from every corner of the world to live in this country - so long as they produce and consume as good inhuman Communo-Capitalists.

As if we needed further proof of who is behind the EDL, the organisation boasts a Jewish section. The JDL, sorry EDL, supports the murder of Palestinians in their own lands and calls for the nuking of Iran. It is so solidly behind Israel that there can be no doubt that it was created to mould the people living in Britain (Britons and others) into an immature mindset of Israel good, Islam bad, in preparation for a Zionist war against Muslim nations which Israel seeks to destroy. When tomorrows demonstration results in Muslims attacking non-Muslims (Muslim operatives controlled by MI5 attacking non-Muslim operatives also controlled by MI5), the reaction of the people will be indignation that Islamic groups are attacking Britons in Britain - Black Britons, Gay Britons, Sikh Britons included! This will further the agenda of creating a multi-ethnic culturally devoid us versus the Muslims mentality.

For those who genuinely seek the restoration of cultural identity, avoiding the EDL is a good start. We must invest in people, in our own communities, in our own culture. We must not be conned into accepting the internationalist materialist identity and seeing ourselves only in negative terms. The EDL is Zionist, Royalist, materialist and internationalist. Its core values are those of the Rothschilds. By supporting them we justify them, by attacking them, we validate them. We must disconnect from such entrapment and rebuild our communities as spiritual cultural heartlands, built on sound economics free from usury and debt.

Don't fall for this Establishment trap. Stay away from the EDL, and if you live in Bradford, keep away from the area of the demo until these agents provocateur have gone back to London and back under the stones they have crawled from.

Tuesday, 24 August 2010

We are being herded like cattle into the international slaughterhouse of materialism. Why is the world suffering from the machinations of the internationalist mafia? What has happened to us that has allowed these inhuman monsters to gain such power over our lives? It seems that not many years ago, although intrigue was afoot, the world at large was for all practical purposes immune to the drive towards the global gulag. So what happened to weaken our natural immunity? Why did we let our mortal enemies get the upper hand?

We allowed our enemies to gain mastery over the world by failing to appreciate the danger we were in. Our hidden masters worked against us slowly and subtly, gradually dismantling our defences against them. By corrupting the sciences with wholly improvable theories which undermined the link between the physical and spiritual realms, the hidden enemy reduced the self perception of people from vehicles for the fulfillment of Divine will, to mere consuming and fornicating animals - with no more purpose and direction than a dung beetle. When Christendom transferred its faith from the Spiritual to the Scientific, the tyranny of the international forces of evil took a leap forward - to the detriment of humanity as a whole.

The printed word, which offered the opportunity for a great spreading of knowledge, has become a medium for the spreading of ignorance and falsehood. Darwin's Theory of Evolution provided the justification for Marx's materialist credo, 'Das Kapital', allowing a Talmudic heresy to implant itself in the psyche of the West. The medium of print was seized upon by the enemies of humanity to push a dogma which denies man's rightful place as a link between the spiritual and physical realms. Works by Hegel, Darwin, Marx have demoralised the West to the point where any Talmudic/Kabbalistic lie can be sold to the people. Feminism, Capitalism, Communism, and all manner of anti-human sickness would never have gained acceptance in the general populace but for the Sabbatean control of the printed word.

Beyond the printed word, lies the audio-visual media which to a ridiculous degree has become nearly entirely controlled by the Zionist mafia. Even in the so-called Truth Movement, the presence of Zionist manipulators is evident. One only has to think of shills such as Michael Moore and Alex Jones to see that some of the key figures who purport to fight against the internationalist menace, are in fact actively aiding that menace by leading the resistance down blind alleys and focusing attention upon imaginary enemies and the disposable puppets who may themselves not even realise that they have been given positions of visible authority, solely for the purpose of taking the fall when the people wake up to the fact that all is not well.

We find ourselves at this sorry juncture because we have entrusted others to make decisions for us. By delegating the ability to think critically, we have abrogated the responsibility of understanding which comes with knowledge. By placing faith in others to tell us what to do, how to behave, and in all seriousness, how to live, we have created our own serfdom. The internationalist menace is real enough, but we have allowed it to grow beyond any realistic bounds. By refusing to view the world as adults; by holding steadfastly to the childlike state of absolute trust in 'authority figures', we have become the architects of our demise.

As a species, we have an innate need for family support. We rely upon our parents to nurture us and guide us to adulthood, and in turn we take the burden of responsibility upon our own shoulders as we raise our own children to the best of our abilities. Perhaps the most diabolical aspect of the internationalist war on humanity is the destruction of family and the usurping of the natural role of parents to raise their children from the child state to fully conscious adulthood.

In countries such as Germany, Home Schooling is illegal. Why? Are German parents really so incompetent that they cannot be trusted to give their children the knowledge requisite for survival in the adult world? Or, maybe, just maybe, the Establishment seeks to break the bond between Father, Mother and Child, in order to take charge of every individual, who can then be slotted into the machinery of international materialism?

Across the European Union, anti-Home Schooling legislation either outright forbids the right of parents to parent their own children, or so hampers the parents' ability as to make it practically impossible. An adult response to this obscenity is to refuse to conform and to band together with other parents to raise the communities' children as each community sees fit. The acquiescence and submission to this crime is testament to the success of the Establishment.

We have allowed our enemies to gain power because we have blindly accepted that the experts they give us are more trustworthy than ourselves. We have swallowed the lie that the 'Party' will save us, or the Monarchy, or the 'Team'. Salvation lies within. We have committed treason against our selves and our children by failing to take responsibility for our own lives and to make hard choices. We have wallowed in ignorance, accepting whatever the Establishment tells us. We have become as infants, taking the materialistic toys from our surrogate parents and in return giving doting obedience.

The key to our salvation is to stop blindly obeying the Establishment. We must restore the sacred bonds of Faith, Family and Fatherland. These were the essentials which protected us from the intrigues of the rootless cosmopolitans who were unable to undermine our cultures so long as we stayed true to ourselves and our own ways. These bonds remain our best defence. We need to leave the Establishment kindergarten and face reality as adults. To hell with their shiny materialism. Our way must be to embrace what is wholesome and spiritual. That way we will overcome our adversaries.

Sunday, 22 August 2010

Internationalism is the greatest danger facing humanity. We are led into fighting the symptoms of the disease whilst all the while our demise continues unchecked. Whether it is the Global Warming hoax, or the bogus War on Terror (in truth, War OF Terror), our enemies have used their propaganda machinery keep the opposition occupied, with spectres of their own creation. Some of the most idealistic people who should be fighting alongside us, have been tricked into siding with the architects of the global gulag. This is a situation we cannot allow to continue. If we are to defeat our common enemy, we need to reach out to idealists from across the spectrum - even to those who have fallen for the lies of the Establishment and see the defenders of National Freedom as the real enemy, nay, not even, but especially to these idealists.

People with a passionate love of ecological matters have been duped into supporting the imposition of taxation which transfers wealth from the ordinary people into the hands of the Establishment. They have swallowed the lie that pollution is causing the Earth's climate to change, and that only the abolition of national frontiers and private property can stop mass pollution. The multi-national corporations who produce the overwhelming majority of toxic waste have no loyalty to individual countries. Laws enacted to force the corporations to reduce their harmful emissions are laws written by the corporations themselves, who actually increase their profits by trading in carbon credits which are another form of taxation for making the Establishment richer and the people poorer. The environmentalist movement is a God-send to the Establishment, if not a product of it.

With regards to the environment, it is important that we treat our home with respect, and that we do not destroy whole swathes of land in order to maximise the profits of an anti-human elite. The 'green' activists are correct in their assertion that the multi-national conglomerates are killing the seas and wreaking havoc everywhere. However, their solution to these ills - to create Global institutions to control industry - is a false solution. Internationalism does not halt the monopolisation of wealth and power in the hands of the anti-human elite, it fulfills it. The only way to stop the greedy and destructive vast multi-national cartels is to dissolve them into the smallest practicable units of commerce - and to control them at local level. Internationalism increases the power of the polluters, localism restores the rightful place of industry to the servant of the people, not the master.

With the brutal wars of cultural genocide being waged across the globe, a mass of people are sufficiently outraged to demand an end to the slaughter. Whether it is the Zionist conquest of Gaza and the Arab territories west of the River Jordan, or the systematic murder of Afghanis and Iraqis in their own lands, people are waking up to the reality that these are not 'just' wars of defence against terrorism, but very unjust wars carried out by international terrorists using the military capabilities of the Occident. Again, the anti-war campaigners are right to demand an end to the butchery of civilians by military forces acting at the behest of governments in the pay of international finance. Sadly, however, they fail to realise that the governments are no more than puppets.

With puppet Bush being replaced by puppet Obama as figurehead of the branch of international commerce known as the USA - with absolutely no 'Change' in the military policy - all too many peace protesters still focus attention on the politicians in power at the time. There must be a feeling that all is not as it seems, and were it not for the leaders of the anti-war movement keeping the attention on the puppets rather than the puppet masters, the protesters would surely see what becomes glaringly obvious once one abandons the Establishment game of joining easy to control pressure groups. It is easy to fall for the propaganda that the wars in Central Asia are for the procurement of oil and other precious commodities, and that the 'war on terror' is a cover story. However, the oil to be had is but a fringe benefit, and one which scarcely compensates for the vast material outlay in armaments etc for its procurement.

The truth of war can be summed up by the following quote from Gutle Schnaper, wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild:

"If my sons did not want wars, there would be none."

War is waged in the modern age solely for the consolidation of power in the hands of the internationalist mafia. The anti-war movement is being used to further this agenda with calls for the handing over of the military power of individual nations to international bodies such as the United Nations. The protesters fail to make the connection between the real powers which create wars and the internationalist political bodies which are provided as a solution to war. Using the nonsense label 'anti-Semite' to slander people who can see beyond the smokescreen, the leadership of the anti-war movement are providing invaluable aid to the internationalist cabal. Once all arms are in the hands of the Establishment, no-one will be safe. Giving military power to the UN means removing any possibility of defence from nations which do not submit to the rule of anti-human materialism and global serfdom. The disarmed people of Gaza are allegedly under the protection of the military power of Israel. Entrusting power to the UN would globalise this tragedy.

There are many organisations, with many sincere activists, which should be fighting on the same side. The strength of our common enemy has been to bamboozle us into fighting one another, and thus allowing them to continue their march to total global domination, unhindered by an effective opposition.

The Internationalists have in their ranks the weapon of political correctness. Alongside sincere libertarians, there are die hard communists who worship at the altar of Marx et al, and sincerely believe they are fighting against economic injustice. They have been tricked into aiding the Bankers and their Internationalist brethren by accepting the lie that the abolition of private property and the redistribution of wealth will cure the ills of society. The Internationalist elite plan to redistribute wealth from the people to themselves, and as for abolishing private property, that is a euphemism for stealing our property which they will then control themselves.
Our enemies have changed the meanings of many words so as to confuse, divide and control us. The word 'Fascism' has undergone such manipulation and distortion. The street level anti-Fascists are fighting against the expansion of corporate power - just as Mussolini before them! Sadly their leaders are more attuned with the likes of Stalin, as evidenced by their 'no platform' strategy - basically refusing to talk to anyone who does not conform to the Internationalist ideology, and using 'any means necessary' to silence free opinion.

The anti-Fascist leadership exploit the emotional sensitivities of the rank and file who they use to attack the real enemies of corporate power, thereby protecting the financial elite who the leadership serve. The rank and file are told not to speak to people labelled as Fascists, because such people are evil, and that speaking to 'Fascists' could pollute them with the same sickness. This, from people who not only publicly eschew God, and by so doing render the concepts of good and evil meaningless, but significantly from a leadership who are fully cognisant of the existence of a spiritual plain, and serve a power which can be justifiably described as dæmonic.

Opposition to Internationalism is not evil, indeed it is the very antithesis of the real evil which manifests in materialist-internationalism. Most of us who have been labelled as Fascists, or anti-Semites have incurred that label by daring to openly speak the name of the international menace. The labels used are intended to work at an emotional level, and do not stand close scrutiny - indeed, due to the emotive nature of the labels, in most instances it is a waste of time and energy to debate their merits (or lack of). The label anti-Semite, for instance, is applied to anyone who exposes the banking cartels - even to Jews. the word Fascist is bandied around to such an extent that it can be made to mean anything, and all too often can be used to silence the voice of reason with no debate whatsoever.

We are dangerous to the Internationalists and their lackeys in the anti-Fascist movement because we have seen through their lies, and should we be given the opportunity, we will help free the genuine idealists from the bigots from whom they naïvely take their orders. Thankfully, we do not have to wait for opportunities to be given to us. The contradictions in the professed goals and the actual results of the various protest movements are so obvious once one has the basic information, that we need do little more than infiltrate ourselves into the protest movements and expose the truth from within.

Environmentalists, Peace Campaigners, Free Tibetters, anti-Corporatists, etc, are being conned into supporting global solutions, which in truth will exacerbate the evils they oppose. They are missing key information as to the motives and techniques of the internationalists. Like Pavlov's dogs, they have been conditioned to bark 'Fascist!' and 'Anti-Semite!' at anyone who their leaders dictate they must not speak to. We need to treat these people as a Freemason would treat a brother mason from a lower degree - only revealing as much as he or she is capable of accepting. A lot of the people in the protest movements have been saturated with so much propaganda that they will react violently (often literally) when confronted with evidence of the duplicity of their leaders with the people behind the issues they are fighting. We have to be careful to coax them to the truth at a pace they can handle - albeit as quickly as practicable.

Fighting online is pointless if the battle is not taken to the real world. Taking the 'no platform' stance of the anti-Fascist hierarchy is counterproductive, as is making oneself an obvious target for such people. We need to get involved in all the movements we can, on condition only that we are sufficiently versed in the issues as to blend in un-noticed. We must then reveal the truth to all who we can identify as able to accept it. In this way we will open the minds of the high quality idealists who have been misled through manipulation and distortion of information. Doubtless we will be removed from such organisations, but if we can alert a sufficient number of the best activists, that will not matter one iota.

The Resistance has been subverted to serve our enemies. We need to take it back and undermine our enemies. By denying them the allegiance of the 'useful idiots' (as their own leaders so nicely call them), we can remove their power. Without the support of idealistic activists they are nothing. Let us remove that support and win back our freedom.

Friday, 20 August 2010



The need for a better word for anti-Semitism. Commissar Auster is searching for a new term because "anti-semite" isn't working as well as he would like. Oh, and it seems the facts aren't good for "the jews" either, so they'll need to be replaced too.

Auster refers, indirectly, to Committing PC's Most Mortal Sin. After three years of presenting facts and naming names I stand by what I've written.

Thursday, 12 August 2010

30,000 line up for housing vouchers, some get rowdy:

Thirty thousand people showed up to receive Section 8 housing applications in East Point Wednesday, suffering through hours in the hot sun, angry flare-ups in the crowd and lots of frustration and confusion for a chance to receive a government-subsidized apartment.
The Housing Choice Voucher Program, called Section 8, subsidized the rents of low-income families living in apartments and houses that are privately owned. The federal program makes up the difference in rent that the poor can afford and the fair market value for each area.
The same media pundits who pathologize the Tea Party as violent and greedy and too White won't be saying anything like that about this seething crowd of self-interested blacks, or how desperate they are to be delivered from their own kind.

Hanna Rosin's American Murder Mystery tries to bury the answer to the "mystery" of the relationship between Section 8 and crime in paragraphs of tedious, turgid obfuscation. I'll try here to cut through it.
Memphis has always been associated with some amount of violence. But why has Elvis’s hometown turned into America’s new South Bronx? [Lieutenant Doug] Barnes thinks he knows one big part of the answer, as does the city’s chief of police. A handful of local criminologists and social scientists think they can explain it, too. But it’s a dismal answer, one that city leaders have made clear they don’t want to hear. It’s an answer that offers up racial stereotypes to fearful whites in a city trying to move beyond racial tensions. Ultimately, it reaches beyond crime and implicates one of the most ambitious antipoverty programs of recent decades.
Note that neither Rosin or any of the people she quotes in this article, except perhaps the police, sympathize with the "fearful" Whites. Never once is the terrible cost to Whites mentioned. The main reason this is a "dismal" tale "they don't want to hear" is that Section 8 has not helped non-Whites as much as they would have liked.
[University of Memphis Criminologist Richard] Janikowski might not have managed to pinpoint the cause of this pattern if he hadn’t been married to Phyllis Betts, a housing expert at the University of Memphis. Betts and Janikowski have two dogs, three cats, and no kids; they both tend to bring their work home with them. Betts had been evaluating the impact of one of the city government’s most ambitious initiatives: the demolition of the city’s public-housing projects, as part of a nationwide experiment to free the poor from the destructive effects of concentrated poverty. Memphis demolished its first project in 1997. The city gave former residents federal “Section8” rent-subsidy vouchers and encouraged them to move out to new neighborhoods. Two more waves of demolition followed over the next nine years, dispersing tens of thousands of poor people into the wider metro community.
About six months ago, they decided to put a hunch to the test. Janikowski merged his computer map of crime patterns with Betts’s map of Section8 rentals. Where Janikowski saw a bunny rabbit, Betts saw a sideways horseshoe (“He has a better imagination,” she said). Otherwise, the match was near-perfect. On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots.

Betts remembers her discomfort as she looked at the map. The couple had been musing about the connection for months, but they were amazed—and deflated—to see how perfectly the two data sets fit together. She knew right away that this would be a “hard thing to say or write.” Nobody in the antipoverty community and nobody in city leadership was going to welcome the news that the noble experiment that they’d been engaged in for the past decade had been bringing the city down, in ways they’d never expected. But the connection was too obvious to ignore, and Betts and Janikowski figured that the same thing must be happening all around the country.
After decades of pathologizing millions of "fearful" Whites who objected to Section 8 and other government-imposed racial integration programs as morally and/or mentally defective, statistics show that our fears were justified. But that isn't what Betts is "discomforted" or "deflated" about. What's such a "hard thing to say or write" is that crime and poverty and blackness are connected.
Betts’s office is filled with books about knocking down the projects, an effort considered by fellow housing experts to be their great contribution to the civil-rights movement. The work grew out of a long history of white resistance to blacks’ moving out of what used to be called the ghetto. During much of the 20th century, white people used bombs and mobs to keep black people out of their neighborhoods. In 1949 in Chicago, a rumor that a black family was moving onto a white block prompted a riot that grew to 10,000 people in four days. “Americans had been treating blacks seeking housing outside the ghetto not much better than … [the] cook treated the dog who sought a crust of bread,” wrote the ACLU lawyer and fair-housing advocate Alexander Polikoff in his book Waiting for Gautreaux.

Polikoff is a hero to Betts and many of her colleagues. In August 1966, he filed two related class-action suits against the Chicago Housing Authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, on behalf of a woman named Dorothy Gautreaux and other tenants. Gautreaux wanted to leave the ghetto, but the CHA offered housing only in neighborhoods just like hers. Polikoff became notorious in the Chicago suburbs; one community group, he wrote, awarded him a gold-plated pooper-scooper “to clean up all the shit” he wanted to bring into the neighborhood. A decade later, he argued the case before the Supreme Court and won. Legal scholars today often compare the case’s significance to that of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
It could be argued that the genocidal monsters who imposed this nightmare might have done so out of ignorance. At least as first. For those who continue to support it now there is no explanation but anti-White animus. Here we can see that animus in the depiction of White violence, decades past, in the same tired pathologizing terms. Why else ignore the self-defensive motivations of Whites long since proven justified, and why present White violence as worse than the more brutal, more enduring, and more widespread black violence perpetrated since?
A well-known Gautreaux study, released in 1991, showed spectacular results. The sociologist James Rosenbaum at Northwestern University had followed 114 families who had moved to the suburbs, although only 68 were still cooperating by the time he released the study. Compared to former public-housing residents who’d stayed within the city, the suburban dwellers were four times as likely to finish high school, twice as likely to attend college, and more likely to be employed. Newsweek called the program “stunning” and said the project renewed “one’s faith in the struggle.” In a glowing segment, a 60 Minutes reporter asked one Gautreaux boy what he wanted to be when he grew up. “I haven’t really made up my mind,” the boy said. “Construction worker, architect, anesthesiologist.” Another child’s mother declared it “the end of poverty” for her family.

In 1992, 7-year-old Dantrell Davis from the Cabrini-Green project was walking to school, holding his mother’s hand, when a stray bullet killed him. The hand-holding detail seemed to stir the city in a way that none of the other murder stories coming out of the high-rises ever had. “Tear down the high rises,” demanded an editorial in the Chicago Tribune, while that boy’s image “burns in our civic memory.”
If replacing housing projects with vouchers had achieved its main goal—infusing the poor with middle-class habits—then higher crime rates might be a price worth paying. But today, social scientists looking back on the whole grand experiment are apt to use words like baffling and disappointing. A large federal-government study conducted over the past decade—a follow-up to the highly positive, highly publicized Gautreaux study of 1991—produced results that were “puzzling,” said Susan Popkin of the Urban Institute.
More fitting words for "the whole grand experiment", as well as those who aid and abet it: mendacious, fraudulent, genocidal. Criminal.
The best Popkin can say is: “It has not lived up to its promise. It has not lifted people out of poverty, it has not made them self-sufficient, and it has left a lot of people behind.”
For Popkin, Rosin, Janikowski, Betts, Polikoff, Rosenbaum, The Atlantic, Newsweek, 60 Minutes, and their fellow travellers, what's really important is that non-Whites haven't benefitted enough. No apologies to the victims of their violence. No refunds for those who have been forced to fund their own genocide.

The article concludes with a talmudic shrug, magically transferring the blame to Whites:
It’s difficult to contemplate solutions to this problem when so few politicians, civil servants, and academics seem willing to talk about it—or even to admit that it exists. Janikowski and Betts are in an awkward position. They are both white academics in a city with many African American political leaders. Neither of them is a Memphis native. And they know that their research will fuel the usual NIMBY paranoia about poor people destroying the suburbs. “We don’t want Memphis to be seen as the armpit of the nation,” Betts said. “And we don’t want to be the ones responsible for framing these issues in the wrong way.”
Pathologizing Whites as "paranoid" is how these issues have long been framed.

Alexander Polikoff's Gautreaux Proposal, written in Nov/Dec 2004, puts it this way:
Ending black ghettos wouldn’t end anti-black attitudes any more than ending Jewish ghettos ended anti-semitism. But it is not easy to find anything in American society that matches the black ghetto for its poisoning effect on attitudes, values and conduct.

Sixty years ago, Gunnar Myrdal wrote: “White prejudice and discrimination keep the Negro low in standards of living, health, education, manners and morals. This, in its turn, gives support to white prejudice.” Decades later, sociologist Elijah Anderson’s studies of a ghetto and an adjacent non-ghetto neighborhood led him to conclude: “The public awareness is color-coded. White skin denotes civility, law-abidingness, and trustworthiness, while black skin is strongly associated with poverty, crime, incivility, and distrust.” In American society at large, most whites act like the ones Anderson studied — their public awareness is also color-coded, and they steer clear of poor blacks and keep them in their ghettos. Predictable ghetto behavior then intensifies whites’ sense of danger, validates their color-coding and drives their conduct.
Sixty years ago this kind of anti-White guilt-tripping might have seemed brave or iconoclastic. Today the government and blacks are the ones inflicting violence on Whites. We can see that "prejudice and discrimination" don't cause black poverty, crime, and incivility. Blacks know it. They prove it by suffering through hours in the hot sun to get an application to be put on a waiting list so they can escape and live amongst Whites. We know that they bring their poverty, crime, and incivility with them.

Knowing all this, we are justified in distrusting, opposing, and even despising the professional grievance mongers who are complicit in it. Their sympathies for blacks, even if sincere, don't excuse the harm their twisted thinking has caused Whites.

UPDATE 12 Aug 2010: More on Janikowski and Betts via James Edwards.

Couple's findings link crime in Memphis to Section 8 voucher renters » The Commercial Appeal, by Fredric Koeppel, 11 Sept 2008:
In other words, crime follows poverty wherever it goes.

"Well, that's a bit of a simplification," said Janikowski, associate professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Memphis and director of the Center for Community Criminology and Research, "though that's the way our studies have been interpreted. Crime and poverty are inextricably linked, there's no question, but it's not that poverty causes crime. Poverty creates a contact point that exacerbates all sorts of stresses on people. It's not that there's any one cause. It's a confluence of stresses."
In other words, crime and poverty and other stresses follow blacks wherever they go. There is no question that Section 8 has shifted crime and poverty to neighborhoods previously unafflicted by such problems. There is no question this has exacerbated all sorts of stresses on the people in these predominantly White neighborhoods, impoverishing them and making them miserable enough to leave, if they can. Clearly Janikowski isn't talking about these stresses. The attempt here is to obfuscate the link between blackness and crime and poverty. And it is done even while the problems are deliberately simplified and explicitly linked to Whiteness, which is consistently offered both as the only cause for the problems and as the only obstacle to ending them.
As outsiders to Memphis and as a couple committed to public service, Betts and Janikowski feel keenly the ambivalence of their position. They have, after all, and almost inadvertently, delivered the bad news that the Section 8 housing program in Memphis is not working. They are white college professors, trained in academic research; most residents of public housing are poor and black and uneducated.
The "bad news" here is not that Section 8 has been foisted on Whites who don't want it, justified by historic anti-White stereotypes and libels, and when it is empirically demonstrated not to lift blacks out of poverty and crime, that this too is blamed on Whites. That's just how the "bad news" (i.e. blackness is linked to crime and poverty) has been framed. It is classic blame-the-victim apologia from fulminating hypocrites who make their living sniffing out and pathologizing stereotypes, libels, and blaming-the-victim. The bad news for Whites is that Section 8 exists - that there's no question we, as a group, pay for it and are harmed by it.
At that meeting [where Betts and Janikowski presented their findings to the Memphis City Council] was Robert Lipscomb, director of the city's Housing and Community Development division. He remains among their most vocal detractors.
Lipscomb is black. He unequivocally describes Section 8 participants as "the victims of crime, not the cause".
"Well, Robert has his viewpoint," said Janikowski. "Maybe we should have put it differently, not emphasized vouchers so much. We have gotten local feedback that has been much more positive, but people have been saying racist things."

"There's been so much follow-up at the national level from people who have no background at the local level," said Betts. "The feeling that we share ideas with right-wing bloggers is devastating."
Janikowski regrets that he didn't try sooner and harder to frame the problems even more simply and explicitly as being caused by "racists" and "right-wing bloggers". The fact is that Whites at the local level have been deliberately harmed by the anti-White/pro-black policies. These policies are advocated by dishonest snake-oil salesmen operating at the national level, who are provided megaphones by media and academia and courts to broadcast their poisonous ideas.

Sunday, 8 August 2010

Internationalism is a clear and present danger which, if unstopped, will see the entire globe subjugated under the heel of a cabal which has fed its tentacles into every hierarchy on the Earth. But, what exactly is this 'Internationalism' which brings so much harm? More importantly, how can it be stopped?

Internationalism is the complete erosion of Nationalism. It is presented by its adherents as a solution to the ills of the world. A world without borders, so they reason, would be a world without war, and, (the bleeding hearts contend) would be such a wonderful accomplishment that only truly evil people could object to it. People who take such a position are either wholly ignorant of reality, and experience life with a childlike naivety, or they are motivated by an attachment to ideology which is nothing short of self-induced mind control. Alongside these types are the calculating liars who are driving the march to a One World Government.

How dare I say such a 'hateful' thing? How dare I speak out against Internationalism? More to the point, how dare anyone who cherishes freedom, NOT speak out against Internationalism?

The Internationalist propagandists maintain that the merging of nations and the free movement of diverse peoples contributes to the cultural enrichment of humanity as a whole. They use the nonsense word 'multi-culturalism' to describe this blending of cultures. The problem is that behind this fanciful term, the reality is that rather than cultures merging to form a greater culture, the effect is akin to the addition of differing paints to one another - the result is a bland mess devoid of beauty or any worthy character.

The dream of the Internationalists of a multi-cultural interdependent world rests on the ability of of every culture to tolerate (and be tolerated by) every other. To be successful in their endeavour, the multi-culturalists must impose their ideology on every facet of life, not even food is free from the Internationalist ideology. For example, a meat eater who does not support Halal slaughter, will find his or her personal choice denied in the interest of merging Islamic practices with their secular and spiritually opposed cultural counterparts. Thus one culture has to give way to the other. In this case (as in every other!) it is the more vocal culture which triumphs over the others, and in the case of European Christian culture, the imposition of alien dietary measures means the destruction of a part of the indigenous culture. Multi-culturalism is a lie.

The driving force of Internationalism is an economic one. In the above example, the imposition of Halal slaughter is justified as necessary on religious grounds, insofar as there are no religious restrictions on meat-eating people to avoid such meat. Thus it is seen as better for all meat to undergo such ritual sacrifice in order to avoid restricting the ability of observers of the Qu'ran to purchase meat. The average brain-washed consumer who has swallowed decades of multi-cultural propaganda, will accept the ritual slaughter of animals in order to not appear 'racist' or 'Islamophobic'.

In a nation such as England which refers to itself as a 'nation of animal-lovers', the kowtowing to multiculturalism is an acceptance of a thought process which runs counter to the indigenous mindset, and in in essence an abandonment of the innate culture. Those who stand up for their principles are labelled as haters by the liberal mafia by the association of opposition to ritual slaughter with opposition to people of a different religion. The result? The standardisation of meat production is achieved with maximisation of profit to the Establishment, with any opposition on animal welfare grounds silenced as hateful opposition to Muslims and Islam as a whole. Oddly, the Talmudic aspect of ritual slaughter is carefully kept away from public attention, with any opposition kept trained on the Islamic dimension. Surely this must be a coincidence and nothing to do with the dietary demands of the diabolical global rulers?

Meat production is but one example of the lie of multi-culturalism. Where cultural standards clash, there can be no multi-culturalism, only the existence of rival cultures which will coexist only until such time as one or the other gives way. In Europe especially, the indigenous culture is being displaced. Opposition to the erosion of culture tends to manifest as opposition to the new communities which have been brought into previously mono-ethnic lands. This allows the architects of Internationalism to continue their anti-cultural agenda virtually unopposed. Rolling a pig's head into a Mosque in Europe may temporarily amuse an individual who instinctively feels the need to do something to halt the destruction of his or her cultural identity, but it will not have any impact whatsoever on the forces who have manipulated the migration of Muslims into Europe. The Internationalists sitting in Government are more than happy to provoke indigenous anger against the new-comers, which can then be used to justify the introduction of further draconian legislation to silence free speech under the lie of protecting minority rights and promoting equality and diversity. Hot-headed stupidity will not help anyone. Think before you act!

There is no easy answer to our predicament. We are now in a situation where our Governments are our enemies. Whether it is the treacherous politicians in the Dáil allowing foreign Police on Irish soil, or the Reichstag passing legislation to assist pædophile infiltration of German schools, we cannot rely on the Establishment to help us. We have to face the fact that our legal, political, economic and religious Establishments have been compromised to the point of comprising the greater part of the visible enemy. Our enemies are not going to come to our rescue! We have to become self-reliant and separate from these institutions.



The answer to Internationalism is not a return to Nationalism, but rather a radical departure from the old systems. What we need is to build organic communities which are self-policing and self-governing. Our loss of liberty is a direct result of our acceptance of the ability of others to control our lives. The current superstates are a logical extension of the large nation states, which merged the wholesome regions (countries) which preceded them. We need to stop thinking of ourselves as Germans, but as Westphalians, Bavarians etc. We are not British, but West Saxons, Mercians, Yorkshiremen. Rather than identify with Washington DC, look to your local county.



We need to restore the natural State. Internationalism only exists because we allow it to. We need to give up the imperialist pretensions we have been handed and start to see ourselves as the sources of authority, not some remote President or Monarch. Our natural Government is the tribe. That may be impracticable right now, but it is what we need to march towards. The movement of people across the globe occurs for one reason only - because the opportunities are better away than at home. We need to be self-reliant and take care of our own. When there is no longer a pull factor, people will not leave their homelands. When we create all we need locally, and trade only with our neighbouring ethno-States, the reliance on slave labour from China will collapse - which is great news for the exploited Chinese too.



Internationalism means the assimilation of all cultures into a mono-culture of soul-less materialism. Real multi-culturalism comes from the preservation of distinct peoples in their places of origin. That is our choice - a beautiful and varied world with every possible way of life, cherished and respected, or an anti-human international abomination, a living death for humanity.

Wednesday, 4 August 2010

Oddly, last night Manchester, Connecticut Shooting.: Several Dead; Omar Thornton Identified As Shooter, at the LA Times, was at the top of a Google news search for Thornton. The fact that Thornton was black was mentioned three or four paragraphs in. On page 4 the significance of the Hollander family was mentioned. Unfortunately I did not excerpt the story, and cannot find any archive of it.

Today that LAT link redirects to a two page report, Manchester Shooting: 9 Dead; Omar Thornton Identified As Shooter at Courant.com, which omits both facts.

Searching again today it is possible to find other stories that make Thornton's race and race-based motivation clear, eg. Omar Thornton: "I Killed the Five Racists" - Crimesider - CBS News.

However, most mainstream stories have, as of now, reduced the jewish angle to orthodox jew Louis Felder being amongst those killed.

The Hollander reference remains at Jewish father of 3 killed in Conn. rampage | JTA - Jewish & Israel News:

Steve Hollander, the company's head of marketing, and a member of the Hollander family that founded and owns the company, was reported to have been shot, according to the Hartford Courant.

“The Hollander family is probably one of the most venerated families in the Hartford area in the Jewish community," U.S. Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) told the Courant. "There isn’t a charity that they haven’t contributed to.”
The LAT and Courant may have memory-holed this aspect of the story, but the New York Times hasn't: Behind Hartford Distributors, a Charitable Family.

When Whites commit crimes, nobody in the media makes excuses. If there's a racial angle it is magnified, not suppressed. Such incidents produce immediate calls to pathologize and silence "conservatives"/"teabaggers"/"haters", however tenuously linked to the incident. The insinuation, if not outright accusation, is that any expression of collective interests by Whites is immoral, unethical, and evil. Even when Whites don't explicitly identify or organize by race we are cynically accused of deviously hiding our true motives.

Of course the broad-based anti-White "anti-racism" pumped out by the media 24/7 can be measured by the same yardstick. The media uniformly treats "people of color" as having legitimate grievances both as a whole as as various independent non-White "communities". They serve up numerous narratives concerning suffering and perennial victimhood at the hands of Whites, encourage activism on this basis, and generally defend those who do act. Taken as a whole it constitutes a deliberate incitement to violence against Whites. And that's exactly what it produces.

Sometimes this impacts jews. To the extent Thornton was acting on a hatred of Whites he'll be painted by the media as a victim and "racism" will be blamed. On the other hand, if it is determined that Thornton was acting against jews he'll be demonized and the most politically incorrect form of "racism", "anti-semitism", will be blamed. Either way, "anti-racism" is both excused and validated at the same time.

See also Christoper Donovan: Hate-Fueled Black Mass Murderer in Connecticut Spun as ‘Disgruntled Man’ by Media at The Occidental Observer Blog, and Racism Charges Not Without Consequences at Mangan's.

Newsweek Losses Revealed - The Daily Beast, 3 Aug 2010:

Yesterday's purchase of a 77-year-old magazine, Newsweek, by a 91-year-old audio magnate, Sidney Harman, had all the makings of a feel-good story, even as editor Jon Meacham announced his departure. A venerable media franchise rescued from an uncertain future by someone who loves the printed word—Harman is the author of two books and has said that writing "enables the process of self-discovery"—and considers Newsweek a "national treasure."

But make no mistake, Harman's pocket change purchase of Newsweek—he paid $1, plus the assumption of liabilities for the magazine—has to be a passion play, because it certainly isn't a financial one. The Daily Beast has obtained a copy of the 66-page sales memorandum that the Newsweek seller, the Washington Post Co., gave to prospective buyers, and it paints a picture of a media property given to someone unequipped to fundamentally change the current trajectory.

As with many weeklies, Newsweek's financial freefall is jarring. Revenue dropped 38 percent between 2007 and 2009, to $165 million. Newsweek's negligible operating loss (not including certain pension and early retirement changes) of $3 million in 2007 turned into a bloodbath: the business lost $32 million in 2008 and $39.5 million in 2009. Even after reducing headcount by 33 percent, and slashing the number of issues printed and distributed to readers each week, from 2.6 million to 1.5 million, the 2010 operating loss is still forecast at $20 million.
In fairness to Harman, many moguls, from Si Newhouse (The New Yorker) to David Bradley (The Atlantic) have had the patience to see their money-losing gems all the way into the black. But the print media outlook has never been worse—and even billionaires tire of losing money. For every Newhouse and Bradley, there are currently two Sam Zells, who had employees of the Tribune Company rejoicing about their good fortune in finding a benefactor willing to sustain millions of dollars in losses to protect journalism's standing as a public trust.

Not unlike Harman, Zell, too, promised minimal layoffs and a commitment to finding a business model that worked, Zell's tune quickly changed after realizing the realities of today's printed media world, however, and multiple rounds of layoffs and an eventual bankruptcy proceeding are the legacy his Tribune purchase left behind.

Those are the kind of realities that prompted Fred Drasner, the former CEO of Daily News and US News and World Report who also bid on Newsweek, to sum up Harman's $1 acquisition this way: "I think he paid a very full price."
Sidney Harman buys Newsweek - POLITICO.com, 2 Aug 2010:
Graham personally chose Harman from among several well-heeled bidders, in part because he would provide the most continuity for the magazine, according to the sources.
The other two finalists were New Yorkers: Marc Lasry, an influential Democratic donor who heads Avenue Capital Group, a hedge fund where Chelsea Clinton worked; and Fred Drasner, former part owner of the Washington Redskins and former co-publisher of the New York Daily News.

Graham felt comfortable with Harman’s centrist politics, and was comforted by the idea of selling to a stalwart of the Washington establishment. Harman is expected to preserve the serious-minded, essentially New-Democratic tone Meacham set for the magazine.
From this friendly spin you'd think all these cold calculators want to own businesses that lose tens of millions annually because they're soft-headed "philanthropists" who just love "journalism", not because they've coldly calculated that media outlets provide them a political megaphone with which to tell the masses how and what to think.

Democracy is the theory that you have as much power and influence as plutocratic moguls like Harman, Newhouse, Bradley, Zell, Drasner, Lasry, ...

The Washington Post Company Agrees to Sell NEWSWEEK to Sidney Harman - Newsweek, 2 Aug 2010:
Asked why he wanted to purchase NEWSWEEK, Harman, in a brief interview, said he saw it as an "opportunity to synthesize all of that experience [in industry, education, and government]. I couldn't pass it up."

He added, "I did not and do not think of this in traditional business terms. The purpose of the investment is to provide fuel for the transition of the magazine in its current position into a thriving operation in the print, mobile, and digital worlds ... I'll consider it a victory when it breaks even. Breaking even is a big deal."
Harman’s wife, Jane Harman, is a member of Congress representing California’s 36th Congressional district in Los Angeles’s South Bay area, since 1993. She is chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence & Terrorism Risk Assessment, and is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, where she sits on the Health and Energy & Environment Subcommittees.
CQ Politics | Wiretap Recorded Rep. Harman Discussing Aid for AIPAC Defendants, 19 April 2009:
Rep. Jane Harman , a California Democrat long involved in intelligence issues, was overheard on a 2005 National Security Agency wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
“It’s the deepest kind of corruption,” said one of the sources, a recently retired law enforcement official who was involved in the AIPAC investigation. “It’s a story about the corruption of government — not legal corruption necessarily, but ethical corruption.”
Spy Story: Harman, Saban, and AIPAC | The Nation, 20 April 2009:
Who was Harman talking to when she was caught on tape by the NSA? Stein says she was speaking to a suspected "Israeli agent." The Jewish Telegraph Agency suggests -- as did earlier reports, in 2006, when the story first broke -- that the person lobbying Harman to intervene in the AIPAC case was Haim Saban, a top Democratic fundraiser:

Similar reports surfaced in October 2006, just prior to the midterm elections. Those reports named the Israeli "agent" as Haim Saban, the Israeli-American entertainment magnate who is a major donor to the Democratic Party and to AIPAC.
Federal prosecutors eventually abandoned the espionage-law case against AIPACers Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman. The non-jew involved, Lawrence Franklin, got 12 years.

Who Rules America?

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
 

FREE HOT VIDEO | HOT GIRL GALERRY