Re: Politically Correct Themes in Family Guy
Ubiquitous
>Family Guy IS funny. But it is PC up and down the line, and departs
>from PC in not one particular. I can only remember one un-PC line in
>it:
>
> [...]
>
>Nothing on tv will ever be, so long as the jews control mass media,
>semitically incorrect.
Troll O Meter
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
___________________________________________________
| | | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------------------------
^
|
Topaz
The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA
conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American
University
Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where
does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have
to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they
think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word
denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or
homophobic.
We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this
has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of
pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as
so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they
would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this
situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses,
but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come
from? What is it?
We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something
of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of
it as only half-serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great
disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of
people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world.
It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we
quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural
Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.
It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and
the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic
tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels
are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian
nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than
on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered
North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross
any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-
rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the
other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find
themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the
college, they face formal charges - some star-chamber proceeding - and
punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political
Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an
ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not
an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this
philosophy certain things must be true - such as the whole of the
history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women.
Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must
become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People
must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant
to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and
say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true," the
power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That
is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic
Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism
says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of
production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all
history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of
race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else
matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past
is about that one thing.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e.
workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the
bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of
Political Correctness certain groups are good - feminist women, (only
feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks,
Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims,"
and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do.
Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil,
thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic
Marxism.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When
the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like
Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their
property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university
campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions.
When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance
to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn't as well
qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative
action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation.
White owned companies don't get a contract because the contract is
reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So
expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism....
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role
of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates
Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has
created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about
because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by
the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to
spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he
sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings
Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week,
working on the differences of Marxism.
And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of
think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back
quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt
University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be
known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided
at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly
identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is
for people to figure out it's a form of Marxism. So instead they
decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.
Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay
the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the
Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he
said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to
its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first
director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist,
concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly
stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific
methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the
Institute, and that never changed...
The stuff we've been hearing about this morning - the radical
feminism, the women's studies departments, the gay studies
departments, the black studies departments - all these things are
branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially
does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory
called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you're tempted
to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory
is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order
is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that.
They say it can't be done, that we can't imagine what a free society
would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we're
living under repression - the repression of a capitalistic economic
order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the
conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression - we
can't even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply
criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in
every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of
course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is
just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a
derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not
the 1960s.
Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno,
and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and
Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political
Correctness, and that's the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse,
who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous
perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that
they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing
some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this
runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in
Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm's view,
masculinity and femininity were not reflections of `essential' sexual
differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead
from differences in life functions, which were in part socially
determined." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct...
How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our
universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the
Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933
the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut
down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They
fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in
1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the
Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained
writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German
society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to
Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another
very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work
for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure
in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including
Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.
These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too
much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the
student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by
resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels
needed theory of some sort. They couldn't just get out there and say,
"Hell no we won't go," they had to have some theoretical explanation
behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das
Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the
radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and
unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university,
Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School
relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in
Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there
- when the student rebels come into Adorno's classroom, he calls the
police and has them arrested - Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw
the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity
to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the
New Left in the United States.
One of Marcuse's books was the key book. It virtually became the bible
of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and
Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he
downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A
Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist),
repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person
Freud describes - the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses,
because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future,
if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we
liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of
"polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by
the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a
wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They're students,
they're baby-boomers, and they've grown up never having to worry about
anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy
writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn't require them to
read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to
hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do
it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also
the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to
the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating
tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and
tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the
Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes
back to the 1930s.
In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and
direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological
state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power
of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail
sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to
expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it.
The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on
campus is part of it. It's exactly what we have seen happen in Russia,
in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it's coming here. And we don't
recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it
off. My message today is that it's not funny, it's here, it's growing
and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything
that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.
<http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-PC-Origins-Tony.htm>
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
David Johnston
wrote:
>
>The Origins of Political Correctness
>An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
>
>Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA
>conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American
>University
>
>Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
>victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
>rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where
>does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have
>to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they
>think.
Lying sack of shit. There was never a time when Americans didn't have
to worry about what they said.
Topaz
The Racial Origins of Political Correctness
"Political Correctness" (PC) is, of course, the policing or censorship
of certain language and ideas in the White, Western countries. An
example of PC would be the banning of an essay which a Black, Mexican
or female citizen might find "offensive."
It appears that Jewish communist Georg Lukacs (1885-1971; in top photo
at right) probably created the first hands-on, working program in
which PC was used to indoctrinate the citizenry of a White country.
That occurred just a bit before the Jewish-led Frankfurt School began
its own journey towards creating PC ideas with the help of the
School's Max Horkheimer (1895-1973; in bottom photo at right), who was
also a Jew and who invented the concept of "critical theory," which
amounted to criticizing White, Western culture and values (Lukacs
himself was a fringe Frankfurt Schooler). "Critical theory" paved the
way for modern PC by portraying White culture as something oppressive
and foul. Interestingly, "critical theory" borrowed some ideas from
yet another Jew: Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis.
However, sometimes several historical events happen at the same time.
While Lukacs (as commissar of culture in Jewish communist Bela Kun's
Hungarian regime in 1919) was creating a Marxist-based PC program to
indoctrinate Hungarian schoolchildren with using politically left-wing
propaganda, other Jews, such as Franz Boas, were also creating
ideology based wholly or partly on Marxism. Whether their creations
were social, economic, racial or a combination of all three, they were
all rooted in Marxism, or very similarly, egalitarianism/universalism
(i.e., the historically-new idea that all humans and cultures are, or
can be, "equal" in importance, and that White/Western culture is
oppressive and evil). Marxism and egalitarianism/universalism are very
nearly the same thing, except one is based more on economics while the
other is based more on social/cultural matters. (It can be argued that
Marxism was an attempt to use economic ideas to transform the social,
and, by default, racial features of society, so in that sense Marxism
wasn't only economics-based).
But no matter the type of Marxist/universalist programs that those men
created, they all amounted to the same thing: cleverly-disguised
Jewish attacks upon traditional, White culture. Their programs were
designed to end White control of most of the world for the benefit of
the Jewish people. Theirs were racial programs masquerading as mere
political or social movements. Jews instinctively know that movements
that "equalize" the cultures of White countries in one way or another
are good for the Jews, since that equalizing helps to ensure that
nationalist movements cannot rise up and "oppress" the Jews, such as
happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. (Note that those disguised
cultural attacks by the Jews often use confusing words and phrases,
and are often made to appear scientific, in order to give the attacks
an air of legitimacy and sophistication).
Marxism, feminism, leftism, egalitarianism, PC - they are all
Jewish-created assaults upon White, Western culture. And they have all
been embraced by many Westerners as legitimate, with few exceptions.
All of those ideas employ "equality" as a main argument and main goal.
All of them are unnatural and universalist, and all require
governmental or bureaucratic force to make the public accept them.
Starting with Karl Marx, and moving on to Sigmund Freud, V. I. Lenin,
Leon Trotsky, Georg Lukacs, Franz Boas, the Frankfurt School
theorists, Ashley Montagu, and Stephen J. Gould, we can see the roots
of the movement(s) that led directly to today's PC movement. All of
those men were racially-Jewish (Lenin was part-Jewish), all held
non-traditional ideas that could be called anti-Western, all were
socially and politically influential, and all played vital roles in
first creating, and then paving the way for the acceptance of, PC.
Even though non-Jews push PC ideas today, they are actually only
unwitting helpers of the Jews who created PC. Without the Jews, it is
very likely that Political Correctness, as we know it today, wouldn't
exist.
Tony Harding
> The Origins of Political Correctness
> An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
>
> Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA
> conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American
> University
ROTFLMAO - thanks for the comic relief! <chuckle, chuckle>
Tony Harding
Mainly because they had to worry about pissing off the rightwingnuts and
being beaten or shot. Think I'm making this up? Check out Henry Ford &
the striking auto workers in the '30's and the IWW ("Wobblies") earlier.
Even today, it's dangerous to speak out for the workers.
Tony Harding
Didn't get it right the first time, wingnut?
Unique
4866a3a6$0$7353$607e...@cv.net,
There's little physical danger these days because there are easier ways
to prevent unions from getting a toehold. With very few exceptions
unions are now relatively powerless; little more than a relic of the
industrial revolution.
--
DVDs for sale: http://unique-dvd.com
165 Banned Cartoons, The Unknown War, Amerika,
Space, Lon Chaney, George Washington 1 & 2,
Rich Man Poor Man 1 & 2, Beatles Music Videos,
and many more...
Topaz
No Way Out But Through the Jews
A Review of Paul Gottfried's The Conservative Movement
by Alex Linder
Executive summary: The Jews have taken over the American right, and
they have the money and media access to shut out any contenders.
Meaning: Unless you build a movement that explicitly forbids Jewish
participation and focuses on Jews as the political enemy, you are
destined to be coopted or crushed. Or at least rendered impotent, like
the Old Right, and left broke and fuming on the sidelines. Caveat: The
Internet isn't accounted for in Gottfried's calculus.
...the review
In his 1993 book The Conservative Movement, Jew Paul Gottfried
provides an excellent short history of post-WWII conservatism, and one
that provides a clear, if implicit, message for today's White
nationalist. That message is the title of this review: No way out but
through the Jews. If you plan to pursue the political goal of a
civilized White America, these Jews will be at your throat every step
of the way. So you might as well not kid yourself about that but set
your phaser on "kill" from the start.
Gottfried never comes right out and says it, but the upshot of his
history is that the right has been taken over by Jews. Centered around
the Podhoretz and Kristol families, this Jewish movement pushes an
anti-American ideology. Where George Washington and Thomas Jefferson
advocated no entangling alliances abroad and local rule at home, the
neocons promote a plus-sized managerial state at home, and global
democratic crusades abroad. Since their infiltration in the late
sixties, early seventies, says Gottfried, these Jewish "conservatives"
have garnered the lion's share of money and media access,
marginalizing the traditional right. And although he nowhere mentions
talk radio or the Internet, Gottfried sees virtually no options at the
disposal of those who would usurp the usurpers.
Who are the neoconservatives? Essentially, they are a small group of
East Coast Jewish intellectuals of regular private morality. They are
former reds or red-diaper babies who departed from the New Left when
it started advocating odd sex and communism and other policies they
felt were potentially anti-Semitic. As they emerged from this sixties
morass, they gravitated to the right, where they found allies in the
anti-communist cause; friends with foundation money that could be used
to construct a bulwark against their crazier New Left brethren. Over
the course of the seventies, the Jewish neoconservatives took over one
foundation after another, supplanting the Christian traditionalist
bias of American conservatism with their detailed policy studies and
position papers. These bore proof of their sociological and
statistical cast of mind, different from the Kirkian
religious-literary bias of traditionalists.
By the time of Reagan, they had achieved dominance. Any conservative
hoping to make a career of it, whether in politics or writing or
commentating, had to hew to their specific vision of the America they
wished to conserve if he wished to preserve his own office, air-time
or sheet space. Any vestigial strains of racial feeling or regional
sympathy were anathema to these racist philo-Semitic anti-racists who
are unstinting in their anathematizing of anyone who diverges from
their pluralist, democratic dogmas. Any American, that is. The
dogmatic democratic pluralism disappears when it comes to Israel,
where Semitic chauvinism is, quite rightly they think, the law. What
White racialists want for America is no different from what Jewish
neoconservatives want for Israel. But they will try to shout down
anyone who makes the equation, just ask Joe Sobran. Only Jews have a
right to an ethnostate; democratic pluralism is good enough for the
rest of us. This hypocritical double-standard springs directly from
the gut Jewish feeling that an America made up of many conflicting
groups, riven by cultural standards, divided by ethnicity, history and
behavior, is the America in which the Jew is safest, and can move
about most freely. A strong, sure White nation scares the Jew. So
whether it's America or Europe, he tries to undercut it with
anthropological lies about the unreality of race, falsified histories
("diversity has always been our greatest strength") support for open
immigration, suppression of free speech and the destruction of free
association-all in the name of "civil rights." Neoconservatives are
Jews, no need to look further than that. Jews, whether left or right,
ask only one question: Is it good for the Jews? They hide behind
universalist rhetoric, but their concern is for themselves. And you
can be absolutely sure of this: Their interests are not our
interests..
David Horowitz would be a prime example of an expert deployer of a
plausible, counterfeit theory and history of America to suck in
potential White racialists and get them four-square behind a nutty,
extremist, ahistorical view of politics that can only lead America
into South Africa's pit of horrors. The triumph of individual rights
in Black lands means the triumph of the jungle. It is extremist,
rationalist and counter-historical to elevate a political process over
the character of the people. How can ignorant, 75-IQ blacks produce
civilization protecting the individual rights these neoconservatives
claim to love? Can one-man, one-vote really produce that miracle? Of
course not, and these Jews know it. And they know that the Founders
knew it. So they lie. The truth, as they know and cover up, is that
the Founders understood that only civilized, self-controlled White men
were capable of civilization, and that to expect dissolute, lazy,
TV-drenched slobs mixed with mulattoes and Negroes and Mexicans to
vote in ordered liberty was to expect the impossible. But David
Horowitz, living in Los Angeles, can look out the window and tell you
it's possible. Never underestimate the power of Jewish duplicity in
furthering Jewish self-interest. That's a second corollary to
Gottfried's study.
We asked above whether or not these neoconservative Jews were really
conservative. Perhaps that question isn't important. One point
Gottfried does develop, writing in 1993, is just how little difference
there is in today's political discourse between left and right. As I
write, George W. Bush is battling Al Gore, so the point is hardly
stale. Effectively, the left and right may differ in degree, but
everybody supports a capitalist welfare state and global democracy.
Everybody is "inclusive." Everybody bows before the great God of
Diversity. Are the Jews conservative? In the deeper sense, no. They
are still radicals, intent on spreading their lies about human
fungibility, from which they aone are exempt as the "Chosen" people.
Left or right, they are eager to destroy our White civilization to
further their group interests.
On the second most important political issue of the day-leaving the
borders open to the third world-the Jews speak with one voice: no
patrols. Note this well: Never in American history has a majority of
Whites favored colored immigration. The Jews alone favored it, for
reasons outlined above. Now whose policy is followed today? -- that of
the Jewish minority, which doesn't think like you and I do. You
thought the majority was supposed to prevail in a democracy? Wrong.
Political control in a democracy, as Aristotle observed, is vested in
those who control television. This is part of what certain Americans
are getting at with the 'ZOG' formulation that all the
pseudo-sophisticated college-educated folk laugh at (as TV has taught
them to). The Jews almost to a man push open-borders immigration, and
they denounce anyone who differs as an evil racist/nativist/xenophobe.
All the Jewish lies dovetail intellectually, and all of them advance
Jewish interests. I recommend, I urge, I wish I could force everyone
who hasn't to read Kevin MacDonald's paper on the Jewish influence in
the hundred years of debate preceding the nation-killing 1965
immigration act that opened the floodgates to the third world. The
Jewish hatred of the White world is the story that doesn't make the
news, even as it remakes your neighborhood. I doubt the plush-paunched
Republicans watching TV politics as spectator sport will ever pick up
on it. You will run a long way before you meet an average American
with the slightest historical awareness-nor the interest in developing
one. But the arguments are lying there, exactly as I've presented
them, and perhaps in a crisis people will take a hard look at what
brought us to our current position. For all the disinformation out
there, it's still not too hard to detect the patterns once you have
the facts. . . .
So we've seen that Jews claiming themselves "conservatives" but not
all that different from their leftist brethren have come in and
dominated the right. Where does this leave whatever is left of the
non-Jewish right? I would break this set into two subsets: those who
are openly racist (which Gottfried avoids) and those who make veiled
or open Semitically Incorrect arguments while attempting to maintain
their "respectability." The former have no political power, while the
latter are desperate to hang on to their columns and speaking
engagements.
Although there are a handful of Jews pushing standard White-racist
arguments, and who would receive even less notice than they do get if
they weren't Jewish, these same never take into account that Jews can
never simply be another ethnic group assimilated into a purified White
America. The nature and qualities and history of their group shows
just that-they are a group. And since they are a group that recognizes
itself as a group and fights against other groups on that basis-they
must be opposed as a group. This is not so much guilt by association
as guilt by genetics and behavior and history. As a group they have
strategized to destroy the civilized White America they felt
threatened by, and anything we do to them in return is more than
deserved. Treating them as individuals, just like we are, has failed.
The correct path is to treat them as the radical alien outsiders and
eliminate their influence. We need to take their flag off the
courthouse, so to speak.
Getting back to the lesson at the top of the page, Jews have so
strategized their evolution (see Kevin MacDonald's work) as to be
considerably more intelligent than their hosts, with an average IQ of
115, a standard-deviation above the White mean. This intelligence and
their proven historical character combine to ensure Jews will always
be the yeast, the irritants, the makers-uncomfortable, the
revolutionaries. Wherever they exist in White society they will be a
force for disruption. The fact that some can exist as peaceful ethnics
among the White majority does not negate this Big Truth (for if there
can be Big Lies, there can also be Big Truths). Because
class-arguments can be abused, and because injustice will be meted out
to individual non-Whites when we rebuild civilization, the Jews
enforcing their dogma of individualism will always have points to make
that resonate with our myopic right-wing individualists. But just as
surely as these Jews averted their eyes from the general horrors
ensuing in South Africa after their racial-and-political equality
dogmas were enacted, the pro-White right must be louder than ever in
showing that their ethnic Jewish self-interest can only end in the
extinction of the White race. Really. Those are the stakes.
The media neoconservatives can't afford to admit the evidence of the
failure of their dogma in South Africa, rape and murder capital of the
world; rather they redouble their insistence on individualism to evade
the Big Truth that colored demographics and political democracy doom
White minorities everywhere. And taking a global perspective-as we are
all supposed to do, nowadays-the White race is a small minority, and
growing smaller every day. Our White kinsmen are already being
butchered in their homes and driven off their farms in South Africa
and Zimbabwe. Literally tens of millions of Whites have become victims
of violent Black assault in America since the Jew-eased passage of
"Civil Rights" legislation. The Jews well know these facts, and that
is why they avoid reporting them. They hated South Africa when it was
ruled by civilized Whites. They don't give a damn what happens to
Whites once their beloved Negroes are carrying the whip. Foolish,
foolish White man-will you not wake up while there is time?
What we are discussing is a very simple: the Jews are a class fighting
to dominate other classes, just as Benjamin Stein saw in his report on
the TV Weltanschauung, The View from Sunset Boulevard. Jew Stein, like
Jew Michael Levin (Feminism and Freedom), will never name his people
as that class, pointing to "writers and producers," "feminists," and
"neoconservatives." (It is really truly amazing the way that Jews are
able to camouflage their interests, always presenting their specific
goal as a general good, and that their terms are tacitly accepted in
their opponents' rhetoric. It's like we all are under contract to
agree that the Jews aren't a group and don't have any specific
interests and certainly don't work to advance those interests and even
if they do, they aren't in conflict with ours. But notice that on the
flip side, the opposite conditions obtain: Jews always attack their
opponents by class (right-wing Christian extremists, racist haters,
Arabs), lingering lovingly on the specific interests of their
undifferentiated opponents; always forestalling counter-arguments as
"anti-Semitism" driven by the only motive Jews ever allow their
opponents-all together now-"hate." The Jews can only get away with
this clever I-criticize-you-and-you
criticize-that-bag-of-flour-over-there setup because they exert
extraordinary control over television and newspapers. And their backup
line of defense, of course, is to denounce anyone who notices the
strategies behind their tactics as an anti-Semitic conspiracymonger.
This is a second aspect of what the 'ZOG'-minded are pointing to.
Stein is writing about the class of TV writers and producers;
Gottfried is writing about neoconservatives; Levin is writing about
feminists. All of them mean Jews, none of them can afford to say it.
When you become a Jew, it's almost as though you have to sign a sheet
saying you will either avoid mentioning negative Jewish
characteristics or-pace Marx and Freud-reinterpret specific, offensive
Jewish behaviors or patterns as generically human: i.e., repression,
or characteristic of an exploited class. (An excellent book, The
Ordeal of Civility, by John Murray Cuddihy, covers this topic in
depth.) The one thing none of these rightist Jews wants is a civilized
White society where Jews are nonexistent. Or ghettoized. Or looked
down on socially. Or in which you are free to speak and write and talk
about Jews as specific people who act, look and think in generalizable
ways. Jews may be physically ugly duplicitous socialist troublemakers,
but they don't want you saying that. They will propagandize through
the schools and TV until you are practically unable to notice it
because the whole context in which you might make such an observation
has been destroyed. They will make hard to find the few books that
dare discuss it. (Just try finding Cuddihy's book.) History is nothing
but a propaganda tool to them. In living memory they were kept out of
the better hotels and clubs and colleges, and since treatment of the
Jews, to Jews, is the true measure of civilization, any time they were
legally or socially treated as other than the God-sent gift they
present themselves (that is, all history up until about fifty years
ago) must be falsified into Dark Ages (Jews out of power) preceding
today's Enlightened Age (Jews running the show). Let alone the
ghettoes of old Europe, these people are capable of portraying the
fifties in America as some sort of racist hellhole, saved only through
heroic Blacks led by saintly Jews in the name of civil rights or
federal tyranny, if you prefer your descriptions accurate. What is
clear to every Jew seems to be unclear to most White Americans,
especially those on the right who ought to know better:
this is a war of classes, a war for power and dominance between a
small but smart and well-positioned ethnic group and the vast majority
of civilized White people. The Jews instinctively recognize this
battle, feel it in their blood, and are fighting hard for their side.
Most on our side aren't even aware a war is going on.
Gottfried points to two symbolic episodes that show the transfer of
power from the traditional right to the neocons: 1) Rockford's firing
of John Neuhaus, and his subsequent denunciation of traditionalist
racism and anti-Semitism among the Old Right; and, 2) the neocons'
successful defeat of M.E. Bradford, a traditionalist historian, as
head of the National Endowment of Humanity. What was the traditional
right to do? Basically, it retreated, licked its wounds, and looked
about in search of allies and money and media outlets. What has
happened, and this is clearer now than when Gottfried completed the
book, is that the American political system under Clinton has gotten
so corrupt that even average people began to notice. This alone has
strengthened the traditional right's never-too-strong confidence, and
strengthened its new ally, the libertarians, too. And both sides have
benefited hugely from the Internet, which at once strengthens small
groups and somewhat threatens established media institutions. By 2000,
there were enough ganglia of pro-Whites on the Internet to get
mainstream Jewish groups scribbling "hate crimes" model statutes,
anti-gun legislation, and politically correct browser censorware at
top speed.
It might have been expected that the loss of power and funding would
have resulted in the radicalization of the traditional right, at least
to the point of open talk about taking the American right back from
the Jews. There was very little of such talk, none of it open-at least
among those with one eye on "respectability," that ever leftward
moving boundary observed by fools.
What we still see on the right in the year 2000 are leading non-Jewish
right-wing Whites couching what they know to be racial arguments in
regional or race-neutral terms. Sam Francis speaks of Middle American
Revolutionaries. He means Whites, but he's afraid to come out and say
it. Of course, he gets called racist just the same. And he got fired
from the neocon Washington Times just the same. But Jews, to him, are
just people with a different religion, and he can still find a way to
fit minorities into that Middle American revolution.
Then there are the various Southern separatist groups. All are
carefully non-racial. All get accused of being racist. All fail to
draw the correct conclusion. It is amusing in a sick and increasingly
irritating way. Is there nobody left who can think clearly and isn't
afraid to voice his conclusions publicly? No, the Southern Semitically
Correct separatists present as sorry a face as they always do. Always
trying for that elusive respectability, always failing to achieve it,
and always losing the few-and merely symbolic-battles they do engage
in. For people who brag incessantly "on" their heroic Confederate
ancestors, they show little courage and less intelligence.
I'll say it again, a little louder now, so Johnny Reb can hear me:
THERE IS NO WAY OUT BUT THROUGH THE JEWS. IT DOES YOU NO GOOD TO BE OR
PRETEND TO BE NON-RACIST. YOU ARE THREATENED AS A GROUP, BY A GROUP,
AND YOU'D BETTER GET THOSE GROUPS STRAIGHT IN YOUR HEAD TO HAVE ANY
HOPE OF PRESERVING THE LAND AND PEOPLE YOU LOVE.
A little more on the Southern-rights groups. The left always froths
over them, as though people too scared and powerless to say what they
mean openly are going to achieve anything. This frothing is more a
measure of media boredom and the fact that the left is so dominant it
has forgotten what real opposition feels like that it goes overboard.
The left so buys its own frothing demagoguery it can't even realize
these people have ceded the essential point before they even start
arguing. Pity the poor Southern separatist. He can't even keep the
flag in the air or the Blacks from pooping on the statue of his
great-grandaddy. Even with all that Confederate heroism running in his
blood, he's still selling his problem as Northerners, not Blacks. As
though America hasn't been homogenized by TV into one big mall or
airport lobby. As though the guy in Arkansas is worried about the
White man just over the Missouri line, more than the Black next door.
How pitiful and obvious he is, our man of gray, thinking the media
will buy that he's really not racist. He can't see that it doesn't
matter in the slightest if he isn't, and if he is, he's contemptible
for not arguing openly. Ditch the gray and go for black and white,
Southern Man.
How many times does the right have to learn that the media really is
controlled by Jews, by intimidation where not by ownership; that Jews
really are leftist; and that anyone preaching anything remotely
resembling White pride gets treated like a human showing emotion in
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (that is, squawked at and pointed out
to the cops by the aliens who are taking over the planet) - so that he
might as well oppose the Jew's anti-White hatred openly. You can't win
where the other guy defines the terms, sets the labels, interprets the
law. You must oppose him openly, directly, explicitly and give him no
quarter. Why are you always on the defensive? Could it be the same
reason you always lose? Here we come to a deep-lying problem with
conservatism. First of all, nobody's ever satisfactorily defined it. A
branch of that problem is that there is no philosophical basis for
incorporating political attack. A new conservatism must be envisioned
that incorporates not merely the preservation of custom and tradition,
but one that can accommodate formless spiritual or psychic drives that
are even more important than patterned behaviors: questing,
exploration, simple competitiveness. Even blood-lust. What could be
more conservative than blood-lust? But where do you find it among the
Republicans; over at the Jew-intimidated National Review? Among the
foundation-based low-tax remonstrators?
The funny thing is that once you say, Yes, I am a racist. Just like
George Washington. And you are a White-hating Jew-the poison is drawn.
They have set the terms of this political game we all play, and only
by refusing to play do we stand a chance of winning. It is utmost
foolishness, as anybody who has published conservative articles
anywhere in the world will tell you, to try to escape the racist tag.
You can't, and in any case it ain't a meaningful word, people-it's
just a way to smear and discredit you. Fight the smearers and
discrediters directly, refuse to play on their terms. Love and
fairness no more conquer hate than they conquer bullets. Prefixing
your conservative arguments with "I'm not a racist, but..." and
expecting to achieve your political goals is like one of those African
rebel guerillas smearing himself with magical pig grease thinking it
will stop bullets.
Apart from your opinion of the Nazis, consider their tactics. Did they
win-democratically-by adopting the tactics of the respectable American
right, or did they gain converts by their physical courage and their
willingness to confront the Jew-led communists? How much worse can the
Old Right do than it is doing right now? Not much. The mainstream
right-as I write, G.W. Bush and the Republican convention are in full
swing, every other speaker addressing the hall is a colored-has
decided to ape the liberals. In the words of the song, Freedom's just
another word for nothing left to lose. Well, what on earth do the Sam
Francises and Thomas Flemings and the Pat Buchanans have left to lose?
A column in an obscure magazine? A speech to a few dozen like-mindeds?
Is it possible they will turn to effective tactics out of sheer
boredom? Sam Francis (you'll serve as representative here), how could
you possibly do worse than you are doing now by openly criticizing
Jews instead of making pusillanimous attacks on East Coast elitists
and New World Order bureaucrats? How could you possibly fare any worse
by defending the Black-and-White truths of the Founders in
black-and-white terms?
Then you've got the libertarians, trying to get government off our
backs without any recourse to racial explanations or group interests
in explaining human behavior. Trying to understand the world one
person at a time. Some of these libertarians are products of Silicon
Valley, and to the extent they philosophize, they are Randian
individualists. They believe in free trade and free movement of
peoples, and make no distinctions between them. Libertarians seem to
instinctively turn away from any historical recognition of the
circumstances under which the freedoms they demand were actually
realized. Even their few (and in many ways impressive) intellectuals
who are interested in history tend to fall in line with the
politically safe Jewish lie about the non-racial aspect of our
founding, building their future utopias in that tired old,
misunderstood, misrepresented "all men are created equal."
Politically, libertarians are laughable, beyond their useful ability
to supply policy papers. Imagine a whole bunch of computer geeks and
economics professors marching on Washington under the fear-inspiring
banner of "Me!" Now there's an Army even our heroic neo-Confederates
could take! Libertarians maybe never will realize that, again I yell,
BLOOD AND RACE ARE WHAT MOVE PEOPLE, NOT THE RIGHT TO SMOKE DOOBIES
AND BUGGER YOUR BOYFRIEND. NOT EVEN ECONOMICS. Am I really the only
idiot to notice that when Whites ruled America, White people were
free? And that when Jews and Blacks rule America, they're slaves? But
most "right-wing" libertarians would rather support a minimum wage
hike than acknowledge this simple historical fact. They are too
rationalist in temperament, too much like our liberal dictators. Too
in love with their idea of
people-as-individuals-in-the-low-tax-multicultural-utopia-of-tomorrow
to pay attention to street-level political and historical reality.
Many of us want individual liberty, but it only obtains under certain
circumstances. There sure doesn't seem to be much of it around in
these days of "civil rights" for everybody except the people who
created the idea of 'em in the first place. If there's anything that
gives the lie to what passes for "conservatism" these days, it's right
here: Genuine civil rights-association, property, speech,
self-defense-were much better protected in the days before the prating
Jews and their colored parasite minions rose to the fore. Yet
recognition of the race-based nature of practical, effective, genuine
freedom will get you kicked out of the Libertarian party faster than
you can say Don't Do Drugs!
Libertarians take one aspect of looking at the world and inflate it
into the entire cosmos. This is their built-in bias. When you combine
it with their standard right-wing fear of crossing the Semitical
Correctness line, you have a second hurdle between them and racialism.
The conservative Christians share these political flaws. Their concern
is not for the race or the group, but for the salvation of the
individual soul. Of course, since in years past the Good Book has been
used to support virtually every position under the sun including
communism, there is a bit more hope for their conversion on the racial
issue, should the powers that be change. TV Christians have proven
able adopters of the Semitically Correct line. Israel is good and
racialism is bad. That's the message they're getting from New York,
and that's the message Pat Robertson is putting out to rural North
Carolina. The libertarians have their hated parties, but these are
always anonymous "bureaucrats" or "statists," or "socialists"-never
anyone you can actually get your hands on. Same with the Christian
conservatives. They are the equivalent of the libertarians in that the
former are excellent at certain types of economic reasoning (Why We
Should Privatize Trash Collection) while the Christians retain solid
moral and character-development advice. They are both good on the
small-picture stuff. But neither group can take a realistic look at
the general; they are both concerned about saving Heaven or Liberty
one soul at a time. They both simply refuse to make necessary
generalizations. Christians, again like Libertarians, invariably throw
their opprobrium on carefully generic targets: Atheists, secular
humanists (gays are the one exception, and even here they say "Hate
the sinner, not the sin," as though that doesn't conflict with their
doctrine of free will). A Jew or a black or a Mexican is a vivid
image, immediately recognizable. The abstractions countered by the
Christians and the libertarians are creatures that nobody would
recognize on a public street. They are fighting abstactly against
abstractions, instead of coherently for something concrete.
Never do the Christians go after the Jews who are killing their
doctrines; never do they speak the name of their real enemy despite
the spittingly obscene provocations to which he has subjected them.
This is why, with tens of millions in numerical advantage, the
Christians aren't even masters of the civilization they created. In
fact, much of the leadership class of the Christians has become so
enthralled with Jewish ideas that now the church will bend any which
way the Jews require, whether it's removing the Commandments from the
classroom the way the Jew judge and Jew-created and -run ACLU tell
them to, or rewriting history to avoid the fact that Jews condemned
their own Savior to die (as in the revised [read: Semitically Correct]
Passion Plays)! They may think they are only turning the other cheek,
but self-abasing worms is what these new Christians truly are. This
used to be a religion whose adherents killed others in glorious
crusade for their Truth, and died at the stake before renouncing their
Faith. Today, the biggest name in Christendom hobnobs with nutty
Buddhists and faxes apologies to Jerusalem. For all its residual focus
on humility and self-discipline (welcome antacids to the Jewish public
school lies about self-esteem, which is really self-absorption and
self-worship; in a word, selfishness), the Christian church in America
is today furthering the racial evils that Jewish ideologues,
especially those misappropriating the name conservative, have
subjected us to. Pat Robertson has no problem with those influxing
Mexican chicken-pluckers heaping his collection plates, and has
publicly advocated miscegenation as the long-term solution to our
racial ills. If he preached miscegenation as a sin, as his hardier
forebears did, he would be burned at the stake. Pardon me, I mean, he
wouldn't be on TV. The fact that any evangelicals are on TV at all is
conditioned on their support for Israel and their multiracialism. This
is what makes their leaders despicable-not the hypocrisy and
White-trashiness the left and right would have us sneer at them for.
Recently Bush's first national campaign ad aired. It shows him at a
school surrounded by little black and brown kids, all well on their
way to becoming the computer programmers and doctors and lawyers and
Republicans of tomorrow. It seems the GOP has made up its mind which
way it's going. It's everyvato's party; down with the homies, too.
Make any show that persuades in order to capture power. The old
Clinton strategy. After all, reality is that waves of wets wash over
the border every night, and at some point they and their kids will
vote. The bulk White population is fading, and the core demographic
supporting conservative principles simply won't be there to swing a
presidential election in another ten years. Even Jew-genuflecting
National Review has noticed this Californication of America, as has
been termed in a different context. But sucking up to the powers that
be, angling for a spot, doing what he's told, is something the
middle-manager mind that makes up the Republican ranks well
understands. Ya got to roll with the punches, ya know?
White man, you have to decide. If you choose not to decide, you still
have made a choice, to make a phrase. You can pull a Christian
Scientist, and pretend that that brown spot on our national chest will
just go away if we think positive thoughts long enough, refuse to
acknowledge it. But it won't. Those coloreds swamping the border,
those grasping welfare niggers, those lying Jewish press manipulators
won't disappear of their own accord. Twenty years from now, George
Bush-Brown will be president, and all the things you fear today-
your kids blood-libeled at school; yourself discriminated against on
the job; your taxes higher than ever; your wife subject to insults,
rape or assault; your big cities gang-dominated; your small cities
dominated by nigger "music" and clothing pollution; your guns
outlawed; your political opinions criminalized; your TV louder and
more intrusive and hateful-will be worse. As Paul Gottfried shows,
but doesn't tell, the same Jews that have made the present possible
are working hard to make this future inevitable. But there is still a
window of opportunity. But only if you recognize that we-you and I
and the others reading this-are part of the White race, share
interests, and must band together. And that, politically, culturally
and socially, to achieve a civilized future, there is
NO WAY OUT BUT THROUGH THE JEWS!
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/v1/index5.htm
Mike Plowman
wrote:
>
>No Way Out But Through the Jews
>A Review of Paul Gottfried's The Conservative Movement
>by Alex Linder
>
>Executive summary: The Jews have taken over the American right, and
TL:DR
Could you sum it up in just one line please?
Topaz
Jews control the media and therefore rule over us and they are our
enemy.
Topaz
very likely that Political Correctness, as we know it today, wouldn't
exist.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com