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.