Friday, October 3, 2008

Toxic TV Syndrome is no Myth

Toxic TV is for Real!

This article from the UK's Guardian newspaper (and if even THEY (arch NWOers) admit to this, it's doubtless even WORSE than they state here) proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the intolerable damage to our society that we see around us in all its various forms arises primarily from the poisonous cultural influences propagated by Television (96% Jewish-owned and/or influenced in the West). The following is the nearest thing to a laboratory test of the effects of the introduction of TV on a society that was previously the nearest thing on earth to a perfect utopia. Read now how the introduction of the Jewscreen totally destroyed the social capital of this previously wholesome little country in a matter of just a few short months.

This is one of the most important articles on the causes of antisocial behaviour ever published on WP, so please circulate it as widely as possible. You may save many a person's life!

Fast forward into trouble

Four years ago, Bhutan, the fabled Himalayan Shangri-la, became the last nation on earth to introduce television. Suddenly a culture, barely changed in centuries, was bombarded by 46 cable channels. And all too soon came Bhutan's first crime wave - murder, fraud, drug offences. Cathy Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy report from a country crash-landing in the 21st century

Saturday June 14, 2003
The Guardian

April 2002 was a turbulent month for the people of Bhutan. One of the remotest nations in the world, perched high in the snowlines of the Himalayas, suffered a crime wave. The 700,000 inhabitants of a kingdom that calls itself the Land of the Thunder Dragon had never experienced serious law-breaking before. Yet now there were reports from many towns and villages of fraud, violence and even murder.
The Bhutanese had always been proud of their incorruptible officials - until Parop Tshering, the 42-year-old chief accountant of the State Trading Corporation, was charged on April 5 with embezzling 4.5m ngultrums (£70,000). Every aspect of Bhutanese life is steeped in Himalayan Buddhism, and yet on April 13 the Royal Bhutan police began searching the provincial town of Mongar for thieves who had vandalised and robbed three of the country's most ancient stupas. Three days later in Thimphu, Bhutan's sedate capital, where overindulgence in rice wine had been the only social vice, Dorje, a 37-year-old truck driver, bludgeoned his wife to death after she discovered he was addicted to heroin. In Bhutan, family welfare has always come first; then, on April 28, Sonam, a 42-year-old farmer, drove his terrified in-laws off a cliff in a drunken rage, killing his niece and injuring his sister.

Why was this kingdom with its head in the clouds falling victim to the kind of crime associated with urban life in America and Europe? For the Bhutanese, the only explanation seemed to be five large satellite dishes, planted in a vegetable patch, ringed by sugar-pink cosmos flowers on the outskirts of Thimphu.
In June 1999, Bhutan became the last nation in the world to turn on television. The Dragon King had lifted a ban on the small screen as part of a radical plan to modernise his country, and those who could afford the £4-a-month subscription signed up in their thousands to a cable service that provided 46 channels of round-the-clock entertainment, much of it from Rupert Murdoch's Star TV network.

Four years on, those same subscribers are beginning to accuse television of smothering their unique culture, of promoting a world that is incompatible with their own, and of threatening to destroy an idyll where time has stood still for half a millennium. A refugee monk from Tibet, the Shabdrung, created this tiny country in 1616 as a bey-yul, or Buddhist sanctuary, a refuge from the ills of the world. So successful were he and his descendants at isolating themselves that by the 1930s virtually all that was known of Bhutan in the west was James Hilton's novel, Lost Horizon. He called it Shangri-la, a secret Himalayan valley, whose people never grew old and lived by principles laid down by their high lama: "Here we shall stay with our books and our music and our meditations, conserving the frail elegancies of a dying age."
In the real Bhutan, there were no public hospitals or schools until the 1950s, and no paper currency, roads or electricity until several years after that. Bhutan had no diplomatic relations with any other country until 1961, and the first invited western visitors came only in 1974, for the coronation of the current monarch: Dragon King Jigme Singye Wangchuck. Today, although a constant stream of people are moving to Thimphu - with their cars - there is still no word in dzongkha, the Bhutanese language, for traffic jam.

But none of these developments, it seems, has made such a fundamental impact on Bhutanese life as TV. Since the April 2002 crime wave, the national newspaper, Kuensel, has called for the censoring of television (some have even suggested that foreign broadcasters, such as Star TV, be banned altogether). An editorial warns: "We are seeing for the first time broken families, school dropouts and other negative youth crimes. We are beginning to see crime associated with drug users all over the world - shoplifting, burglary and violence."
Every week, the letters page carries columns of worried correspondence: "Dear Editor, TV is very bad for our country... it controls our minds... and makes [us] crazy. The enemy is right here with us in our own living room. People behave like the actors, and are now anxious, greedy and discontent."
But is television really destroying this last refuge for Himalayan Buddhism, the preserve of tens of thousands of ancient books and a lifestyle that China has already obliterated over the border in Tibet? Can TV reasonably be accused of weakening spiritual values, of inciting fraud and murder among a peaceable people? Or is Bhutan's new anti-TV lobby just a cover for those in fear of change?
Television always gets the blame in the west when society undergoes convulsions, and there are always those ready with a counter argument. In Bhutan, thanks to its political and geographic isolation, and the abruptness with which its people embraced those 46 cable channels, the issue should be more clearcut. And for those of us sitting on the couch in the west, how the kingdom is affected by TV may well help to find an answer to the question that has evaded us: have we become the product of what we watch?

The Bhutanese government itself says that it is too early to decide. Only Sangay Ngedup, minister for health and education, will concede that there is a gulf opening up between old Bhutan and the new: "Until recently, we shied away from killing insects, and yet now we Bhutanese are asked to watch people on TV blowing heads off with shotguns. Will we now be blowing each other's heads off?"
Arriving at dusk, we pass medieval fortresses and pressed-mud towers, their roofs carpeted with drying scarlet chillies. Faint beads of electric light outline sleepy Thimphu. Twisting lanes rise and fall along the hillside, all of them leading to the central clock tower, where the battered corpse of Tshering, a 50-year-old farmer, was found. In this Brueghel-like scene, crowded and shambolic, where the entire population shares fewer than two dozen names, TV is omnipresent. Potato stores sell flat-screen Trinitrons; old penitents whirl their prayer wheels outside the Sony service centre; inside every candle-lit shop-house a brand new screen flickers.

His Excellency Jigmi Thinley, Bhutan's foreign minister, greets us wrapped in an orange scarf, a foot-long silver sword hanging over his ceremonial robe, or gho. He sweeps us into a pillared hall embossed with golden dragons to explain why the king welcomed cable television to the Land of the Thunder Dragon. "We wanted a goal different from the material concept of maximising gross national product pursued by western governments," he says with a beatific smile. "His Majesty decided that, as a spiritual society, happiness was the most important thing for us - something that had never been discussed before as a policy goal or pronounced as the responsibility of the state." And so, in 1998, the Dragon King defined his nation's guiding principle as Gross National Happiness.
But happiness proved to be an elusive concept. The Bhutanese wondered whether it increased with a bigger house or the number of revolutions of a prayer wheel. A delegation from the foreign ministry was sent abroad to investigate whether happiness could be measured. They finally found a Dutch professor who had made its study his life's work and were disappointed to learn that his conclusion was that happiness equalled £6,400 a year - the minimum on which one could live comfortably. It was a bald and irrelevant answer for the Bhutanese middle classes, whose average annual salary was barely £1,000 and whose outlook was slightly more metaphysical.

The people of Bhutan, however, finally decided for themselves what would make them happy. France 1998 was driving the football-mad kingdom into a frenzy of goggle-eyed envy of those who were able to watch the World Cup on television. The small screen had always been prohibited in Bhutan, although the kingdom was crisscrossed by satellite signals that it was finding increasingly difficult to keep out. Even the king was rumoured to have a Star TV satellite package installed at his palace. Faced by recriminations, the government relented and Bhutan's Olympic Committee was permitted to erect a giant screen in Changlimithang stadium - but only temporarily. A TV screen in the middle of Thimphu was a revolutionary sight. The kingdom, for so long an autocracy, had only recently forged links with the outside world. In 1959, China quelled an uprising in Tibet, spilling war into the north of Bhutan, forcing the previous Dragon King to forge diplomatic ties for the first time in the country's history. "Even then," says the foreign minister, "we were determined not to become pawns on a chessboard and decided not to have formal relations with the superpowers. We also sensed the regret of many nations across the world at what they had lost in terms of values and culture."

The current Dragon King's father initiated a careful programme of modernisation that saw his people embrace the kind of material progress that most western countries take centuries to achieve: education, modern medicine, transportation, currency, electricity. However, mindful of those afraid that foreign influences could destroy Bhutanese culture, he attempted to inhibit conspicuous consumption. No Coca-Cola. No advertising hoardings. And definitely no television.
By France 1998, Bhutan had a new Dragon King and, under growing pressure from an unsettled country, he had a new political agenda. That year, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck announced he would give up his role as head of government and cede power to the national assembly. The people would be consulted about the drafting of a constitution. The process would complete Bhutan's transformation from monarchist Shangri-la into a modern democracy. And television would play its part. The prime minister of Bhutan, Kinzang Dorji, has invited us to tea and we sit with him beneath a large thangka painting of the Wheel of Life. "His Majesty wants the Bhutanese people to run their own country. But many are frightened of the responsibility. A lot of things have changed very quickly in Bhutan, and we do recognise that some people feel lost, at sea," the prime minister explains. "Watching news on the BBC and CNN enables them to see how democracies work in other parts of the world, how people can take charge of their own destinies. The old feudal ways have to end."

The year after France beat Brazil 3-0 in the World Cup final, the people of Thimphu gathered once again in Changlimithang stadium, this time to celebrate the Dragon King's silver jubilee. On June 2 1999, he stood before them to announce that now they could watch TV whenever they wanted. "But not everything you will see will be good," he warned. "It is my sincere hope that the introduction of television will be beneficial to our people and country." The prime minister insists that the introduction of television was carefully prepared: "To mitigate the impact of negative messages, we launched firstly the Bhutan Broadcasting Service [BBS] to provide a local educational and cultural service." Only after the BBS had found its voice would a limited number of foreign channels be permitted to beam programmes into Bhutan via local cable operators.

News footage from the first BBS broadcast of June 2 1999, records the cheer that resounded around Changlimithang. Bhutan's spiritual and cultural leaders were all agreed that TV could only increase the country's Gross National Happiness and help the people to pave the way to a modern, democratic nation. Mynak Tulku, the reincarnation of a powerful lama, is the Dragon King's unofficial ambassador for new technology. Light pouring in through the carved wooden windows catches his large protruding ears and bathes the monk in a golden glow. Nearby, in the main library, some of the oldest surviving texts in Tibetan Buddhism, dharmic verses penned in liquid gold, are being digitised. "I am so excited about technology," beams the Tulku, the epitome of the king's notion of Gross National Happiness. "And let me tell you that TV's OK, as long as you appreciate that it is a transitory experience. I tell my students that it's like rushing in from the cold, going straight to the heater and ending up with frostbite. Ha, ha. TV can make you think that you are being educated, when in fact all you're doing is blinking your life away with a remote control. Ha, ha."

The Bhutan Broadcasting Service was intended to be a bulwark against cable television. When we call by, it is clear the studio is still not finished: the team of technicians hired from Bollywood has gone home for Diwali. The state broadcaster has only one clip-on microphone, but the features producer cannot find it. There are a bundle of programmes "in the can", he says, but none is ready for broadcast. A list of feature ideas hangs on a board, each one eclipsed by a large question mark: Bhutanese MTV? Candid Camera? Pop Idol? Big Brother?
There is no one else on any of the three floors of the BBS building, but there is a distant clamour coming from outside. There, behind a garden shed, we eventually find the BBS cameramen and reporters dressed in their billowing ghos, throwing giant darts at a clay target. It is a badly needed team-building exercise, says Kinga Singye, the BBS executive director, with a doleful voice that makes him sound as if he has had enough of the royal experiment in television. He describes how, in 1999, the last people to learn of the lifting of the television ban were those then charged with setting up the new national station. "They were given three months to make it work. It was done with incredible haste - to be ready in time for the king's silver jubilee. What the government wanted was hugely ambitious and expensive, yet we didn't have experience and they had no funding to give," he says. Everyone was surprised when the ministers then issued licences to cable TV operators in August 1999, a bare three months after BBS went on air.

Three years later, in the absence of investment, BBS can still be transmitted only in Thimphu; tapes of its shows bound for the remote eastern town of Trashigang take three days to arrive, by bus and mule. "Our job was supposed to be to show people that not everything coming from outside is good," Kinga Singye says. "But we are now being drowned out by the foreign TV signals. People are continually disappointed in us." That evening, the nightly BBS News At Seven begins at 7.10pm. A documentary on a Bhutanese football prodigy is mysteriously canned halfway through. It is followed by some footage of an important government event, the Move For Health. The sound is indistinct, the picture faded, the message lost.
Downtown, at the southern end of Norzin Lam high street, a wriggling crowd of children press their faces to a shop window. Inside the headquarters of Sigma Cable, the walls are papered with an X-Files calendar and posters for an HBO show called Hollywood Beauties. Beneath a portrait of the Dragon King, the in-store TV shows wrestling before BeastMaster comes on. A man in tigerskin trunks has trained his marmosets to infiltrate the palace of a barbarian king. When the monarch is decapitated and gore slip-slaps across the screen, the children watching outside screech with glee. Inside the Sigma office, the staff are scrapping over the remote control, channel-hopping, mixing messages. President Bush in a 10-gallon hat welcomes Jiang Zemin to Texas. Midgets wrestle on Star World. Female skaters catfight on Rollerball.

Today, Sigma Cable, whose feed comes from five large satellite dishes at the edge of the city, is the most successful of more than 30 cable operators. Together, they supply virtually the entire country, ensuring that even the folks in remote Trashigang can sit down every night to watch Larry King Live.
Rinzy Dorje, Sigma's chief executive, wears a traditional gho but his mind is on fibreoptics and broadband. He was one of the first people in Bhutan to learn to program a computer, and back then (the 1980s) his machine came housed in a home-made wooden box. When he launched Sigma on September 10 1999, he captured the market in Thimphu, signing up the queen mother, the king and his four wives, among others. Between calls on his new mobile telephone, he defends cable TV: "Look, Bhutan couldn't hold back any longer - we can't pretend we're still a medieval, hermit nation. When the government finally got around to announcing cable TV, I was ready, that's all. All the information you need to know on cable technology is on the net. I got prices and sourced the parts in Delhi and Taiwan. And cable came to Bhutan. It's no big deal."

A disgruntled subscriber rings to complain that MTV has gone down. Are there are too many channels? "I couldn't cut back on the channels even if I wanted to - the customers would go elsewhere and Star TV wants us to show more channels, not fewer."
Have Bhutan's values been corroded by TV? "We are entitled to watch what we want, when we want, if we want. And we are quite capable of weeding out the rubbish; turning off the crap," he retorts.
However you look at it, it's obvious that the BBS has been charged down by the juggernaut of Star TV. "If the government wanted to control what people watched, they should have legislated, not tried to compete," says Rinzy Dorje.

It takes three days to pin down Leki Dorji, the deputy minister of communications, an overloaded crown appointee who is also responsible for roads, urban renewal, civil aviation and construction. He readily admits that, in its haste to introduce TV, the government failed to prepare legislation. There is no film classification board or TV watershed in force here, no regulations about media ownership. Companies such as Star TV are free to broadcast whatever they want. Only three years after the introduction of cable did the government announce that a media act would be drafted. Leki Dorji says his ministry is also planning an impact study, but adds that he does not believe cable television is responsible for April's crime wave. "Yes, we are seeing some different types of crime, but that just reflects the fact that our society is changing in many ways. A culture as rich and sophisticated as ours can survive trash on TV and people are quite capable of turning off the rubbish."
Whether the truck-driver Dorje was influenced by something he had watched on television when he began smoking heroin or when he clubbed his wife to death has yet to be established. We will not know whether the death of Sonam's niece had anything to do with the impatient, selfish society promoted by television until the impact study is completed. But there is a wealth of evidence that points to television having been a critical factor.

The marijuana that flourishes like a weed in every Bhutanese hedgerow was only ever used to feed pigs before the advent of TV, but police have arrested hundreds for smoking it in recent years. Six employees of the Bank of Bhutan have been sentenced for siphoning off 2.4m ngultrums (£40,000). Six weeks before we arrived, 18 people were jailed after a gang of drunken boys broke into houses to steal foreign currency and a 21-inch television set. During the holy Bishwa Karma Puja celebrations, a man was stabbed in the stomach in a fight over alcohol. A middle-class Thimphu boy is serving a sentence after putting on a bandanna and shooting up the ceiling of a local bar with his dad's new gun. Police can barely control the fights at the new hip-hop night on Saturdays.
While the government delays, an independent group of Bhutanese academics has carried out its own impact study and found that cable television has caused "dramatic changes" to society, being responsible for increasing crime, corruption, an uncontrolled desire for western products, and changing attitudes to love and relationships. Dorji Penjore, one of the researchers involved in the study, says: "Even my children are changing. They are fighting in the playground, imitating techniques they see on World Wrestling Federation. Some have already been injured, as they do not understand that what they see is not real. When I was growing up, WWF meant World Wide Fund for Nature."

Kinley Dorji, editor of Kuensel (motto: That The Nation Shall Be Informed), warns that Bhutan's ruling elite is out of touch. "We pride ourselves in being academic and sophisticated, but we are also a very naive kingdom that does not yet fully understand the outside world. The government underestimated how aggressively channels like Star market themselves, how little they seem to care about programming, how virulent the message of the advertisers is." Kinley Dorji, a member of the taskforce charged with drafting the kingdom's first media act, believes Bhutanese society is in danger of being polarised by TV. "My generation, the ministers, lamas and headteachers, have our grounding in old Bhutan and can apply ancient culture to this new phenomenon. But the ordinary people, the villagers, are confused about whether they should be ancient or modern, and the younger generation don't really care. They jettison traditional culture for whatever they are sold on TV. Go and see real Bhutan, see how the people are affected."
A fanfare of Tibetan trumpets booms through the pine forest. A rough choir of a thousand voices sings out: "Move for, move for health." It is so early in the morning that the birds are still asleep. But Sangay Ngedup, minister for health and education, has been on the path for hours. His gho is bunched beneath his backpack, and a badge with the king's smiling face is pinned on to his baseball hat. In the past 15 days, he has climbed and scrambled over some of the world's most extreme terrain, from sea level to a rarefied 13,500ft in the Bhutanese Himalayas. Is there anywhere else in the world where a cabinet minister would trek 560km to warn people against becoming a nation of couch potatoes? "We used to think nothing of walking three days to see our in-laws," he says. "Now we can't even be bothered to walk to the end of Norzin Lam high street."
He pauses at an impromptu feeding station, gulping down salt tea and buttered yak's cheese. "You can never predict the impact of things like TV or the urbanisation it brings with it," he says. "But you can prepare. If the BBS was intended as our answer to the cable world, I have to say that, at the moment, it is rather pathetic." Sangay Ngedup is one of the only government ministers willing to voice concerns about television.

For the first time, he says, children are confiding in their teachers of feeling manic, envious and stressed. Boys have been caught mugging for cash. A girl was discovered prostituting herself for pocket money in a hotel in the southern town of Phuents-holing. "We have had to send teachers to Canada to be trained as professional counsellors," says Sangay Ngedup. This march is not just against a sedentary lifestyle; it is a protest against the values of the cable channels. One child's placard proclaims, "Use dope, no hope." "Breast is best," a girl shouts. "Enjoy the gift of sex with condoms," reads a toddler's T-shirt.
The next day, as they do every day at Yangchenphug high school, teachers prepare their pupils for the nightly onslaught of foreign images on television. They pray to Jambayang, the Buddhist god of wisdom, a recent addition to the school timetable insisted upon by the clergy. A class of 15-year-olds are inquisitive and smart. How many of you have television, we ask. Laughter fills the room. "We all have TV, sir and madam," a girl at the front pipes up.
"What's your culture like?" they ask. "Do you have universities? Does it rain a lot where you come from?"

What do you like about TV, we ask the class. "Posh and Becks, Eminem, Linkin Park. We love The Rock," they chorus. "Aliens. Homer Simpson." No mention of BBS. No one saw its documentary on Buddhist festivals last night. Superficially, these pupils are as they would be in any school in the world, but this is a country that has reached modernity at such breakneck speed that the god of wisdom Jambayang is finding it virtually impossible to compete with the new icons.
A new section entitled "controversies" in the principal's annual report describes "marathon staff meetings that continue on a war footing to discuss student discipline, substance abuse, degradation of values in changing times". On another page is a short obituary for ninth-year pupil Sonam Yoezer, "battered to death by an adult in the town". Violence, greed, pride, jealousy, spite - some of the new subjects on the school curriculum, all of which teachers attribute to the world of television. In his airy study, the principal, Karma Yeshey, whose MA is from Leeds University but whose attitude is still otherworldly, pours Earl Grey tea. "Our children live in two different worlds, one created by the school and another by cable. Our challenge is to help them understand both, and we are terribly afraid of failing."

Outside Thimphu, the two worlds of Bhutan are already beginning to blur into one. In the heart of the kingdom's spiritual capital of Punakha stands the Palace of Great Happiness, where the Shabdrung, the country's founding father, is interred. Today a black wire crosses the drawbridge to the 17th-century fortress, running through a top-floor casement and taking cable television into the sacred shrine. So high is the demand for Oprah and Mutant X that in this town the size of London's Blackheath there are now two rival operators vying for business.
The children of Punakha are, by the dozen, abandoning their ghos for jeans and T-shirts bearing US wrestling logos; on their heads are Stars and Stripes bandannas. On the whitewashed mud wall of the ancient crematorium, they have scrawled in charcoal a message in English: "Fuck off Kinley and die."
How quickly their ancient culture is being supplanted by a mish-mash of alien ideas, while their parents loiter for hours at a time in the Welcome Guest House, farmers with their new socks embossed with Fila logos, all glued to David Beckham on Manchester United TV. A local official tells us that in one village so many farmers were watching television that an entire crop failed. It is not just a sedentary lifestyle this official is afraid of. Here, in the Welcome Guest House, farmers' wives ogle adverts for a Mercedes that would cost more than a lifetime's wages. Furniture "you've always desired", accessories "you have always wanted", shoes "you've always dreamed of" - the messages from cable's sponsors come every five minutes, and the audience watching them grows by the day.
There is something depressing about watching a society casting aside its unique character in favour of a Californian beach. Cable TV has created, with acute speed, a nation of hungry consumers from a kingdom that once acted collectively and spiritually.

Bhutan's isolation has made the impact of television all the clearer, even if the government chooses to ignore it. Consider the results of the unofficial impact study. One third of girls now want to look more American (whiter skin, blond hair). A similar proportion have new approaches to relationships (boyfriends not husbands, sex not marriage). More than 35% of parents prefer to watch TV than talk to their children. Almost 50% of the children watch for up to 12 hours a day. Is this how we came to live in our Big Brother society, mesmerised by the fate of minor celebrities fighting in the jungle?

Everyone is as yet too polite to say it, but, like all of us, the Dragon King underestimated the power of TV, perceiving it as a benign and controllable force, allowing it free rein, believing that his kingdom's culture was strong enough to resist its messages. But television is a portal, and in Bhutan it is systematically replacing one culture with another, skewing the notion of Gross National Happiness, persuading a nation of novice Buddhist consumers to become preoccupied with themselves, rather than searching for their self.


Copyright Guardian Newspapers, 2003.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Treasury's bail-out: The REAL reason for the desperate haste?

They claim this dire urgency to reach an agreement at break-neck speed on seizing our money is necessary to bring some much-needed order and stability to their precious markets. As if $700bn would fix up THIS catastrophic mess! And what's all this about said agreement not being subsequently reviewable or reversible by ANY court of appeal no matter how high? Somewhat suspicious to say the least, wouldn't you say?

Let's think about it for a moment in the light of what we know about these crooked banksters. The degree of desperation demonstrated by Ben, Henry and others in their frantic pleas to Congress could more accurately be attributed to something else entirely and here Phaedrus sets out his suspicions as to a more probable ulterior motive behind the extraordinary haste. As usual, we'll do so by way of a short analogy. We like analogies here on World Peace. You may have noticed!

Imagine then, if you will, a beautiful, brim-full lake like - oh, I don't know - say Lake Michigan. All the time the water level is high, everything's real pretty, life is sweet and everyone's happy. A while later, however, imagine a structural fault in the lake bed developing which causes the water to gradually drain away. Slowly more and more of the shoreline dries up and extends as the water level continues to sink. More and more it resembles a fetid swap with an evil stench to match. Eventually, long hidden objects on the lake floor begin to become visible for the first time. The roofs of clapped-out old cars dumped years ago by owners who'd claimed they'd been stolen to get the insurance money are first to break the surface. More and more unsightly wreckage is gradually revealed by the subsiding waters until finally, the lake is nothing more than a bone-dry basin peppered with old jalopies, rusty bicycles, the skeletons of murder victims, and hastily concealed impliments of past crimes: knives, guns, iron bars and what-have-you.

Now Phaedrus proposes that this is the scenario these rogue financiers are so DESPERATE to prevent arising. They are seeking to use OUR money to ensure the 'lake of liquidity' is kept topped-up sufficiently to prevent the evidence of the extent of their craven thievery from coming to light. The proposed injection of yet more liquidity into the system (or 'lake basin' in this analogy)will - temporarily at any rate - cover up a considerable amount of highly embarrassing criminal evidence!

Every time throughout history that there's a been downturn in the economy - here or abroad - businesses that seemed fine in the good times but fail when things get tough often turn out to have been improperly run (that's a polite way of saying FRAUD is involved). Recessions not only cull inefficient businesses, they reveal the bent ones for what they are, too and the folks that run them typically wind up in jail. This scenario never fails to materialize during any period of economic difficulty you care to mention. Now here today, we are in a period of GRAVE economic difficulty where we can reasonably expect that the most prolific and deep-rooted crooks at the business end of the money trail will become progressively exposed as the pool of liquidity which previously concealed their duplicitous chicanery continues to dry-up. This, in Phaedrus's submission, is the REAL reason for the desperate clamor for yet another big shot of liquidity and nothing to do with market stability.

The only proper course of action therefore is NOT to replenish the 'lake' until the LEAK (Israel and the pockets of the Zionist banksters) has been stopped up, and every item of forensic evidence that's being exposed by this money drought has been collected, cataloged, thoroughly investigated, and the rogues responsible for this chronic, systemic fraud against our nation are exposed for the embezzlers they are are and dealt with in a manner commensurate with the magnitude of their vile and despicable crimes. It is vitally important, therefore, that Congress must not allow itself to be browbeaten and railroaded into letting these JERKS off the hook by acceding to their insistent calls for an irreversible agreement of such size with far-reaching implications in the space of a few short days. The American people will come to hate them for it if they fail us YET again and show no courage and guts in the face of these crooks' intimidation.

Monday, September 22, 2008

Who's up for a Tax Rebellion?

Important proposal - please circulate widely!

Why shouldn't WE default, too! Anyone Care to Join Us?

Phaedrus and friends have decided to avail themselves of the increasingly-known fact that it's not compulsory to pay any tax on what you earn. If it's good enough for scheming Jews, it's good enough for us! We urge everyone else to do the same as a protest against the outrageous off-loading of Jewish bankers' massive debts onto ordinary folks like you and me. Back in about 1988, the infamous Jewish fraudstress, Leona Helmsley accurately observed: "Only the little people pay taxes" - before being sent to the slammer for 4 years for drawing attention to this embarrassing little loophole which enables 'those in the know' to put nothing back in the communal pot, yet have their asses supported by the gullible masses when things turn pear-shaped – as they now have, in case you hadn't noticed.

In fact, even if the law is changed in response to a mass tax-revolt, this blogger for one won't be paying a single penny to the US Treasury, even if it costs me a year of my liberty cooped up with a Negro in some shitty prison cell. It might even be a great opportunity to evangelize to the vast Negro prison population and set the record straight about who has REALLY exploited and oppressed them for the last 400 years: the Jews. Now back to the point: this is my vow to the blogosphere: I shall not be paying ONE THIN DIME in income tax for the foreseeable future, as the only meaningful form of peaceful protest against this criminal transfer of money from the innocent middle classes to the cravenly greedy super-rich. Fuck the lot of them to hell and back! Now try making a "write-down" out of that!!

Note: nothing very Revolutionary here being proposed. It's simply a call for some Thoreau-inspired Civil Disobedience on country-wide scale to show the suckers in Washington that they can't just do what the hell they please and that there ARE, AND HAVE TO BE LIMITS to the blatant robbery now being attempted against the people that build this country up, for the benefit of those hell-bent on tearing it down. Withholding our taxes in the face of this criminal enterprise of theirs is the VERY LEAST a patriotic American can do. If you can't even be bothered to do THAT - then we really are FINISHED FOR GOOD.

Random Thoughts #3: Condoleeza Rice

What is this butt-ugly Negress actually GOOD for? She never achieves anything other than massively aggravating the air pollution problem through her never-ending flights to every basket-case country you can name in the pursuit of Israel's aims. Perhaps we should bite the bullet and admit that though black males are useless at anything other than raping and murdering white women, black WOMEN are even WORSE than useless and should never be allowed anywhere remotely near a discussion table! I'll wager she has to be spoon-fed every little policy detail over and over again until they're happy to let the bitch get aboard a plane to deliver (parrot-fashion) the well-rehearsed message. It must be costing us all a fortune!

Random Thoughts #2: George Michael

Phaedrus has nothing personal against queers that keep themselves to themselves. Being a freedom-lover at heart, this blogger believes that what goes on IN PRIVATE between consenting perverts should be their own goddamn business. However, when you get said queers openly manifesting their revolting proclivities in public toilets and inflicting their sickness on the general population, then the gloves are off and it's a whole different ball game.(no pun intended)

Michael himself has NO excuse. He has more than enough money to hire some actively WILLING professional pervert to indulge him in his dirty desires. There's no need for him with his undeniable wealth to go around stinking up a respectable neighborhood like Hampstead Heath in London inflicting his revolting and abhorrent lifestyle on decent and principled men and children.

George Michael and his like hanging around public toilets with hard drugs (or without, for that matter) attempting to draw innocent children into a lifetime of debauchery and dependency on illegal substances through sordid sex acts with middle-aged dung-beetles should be dealt with in a fitting manner. They should enjoy NO legal protection whatsoever from understandably outraged parents meting out summary justice at the point of a shotgun if necessary.

It's horrible to have to be judgmental (Phaedrus shrinks from finger-pointing as regular readers will know) but what is Michael's defense here? How could anyone other than a libertine with the values of a Jew attempt to justify such vile behavior? It's sick, sick, sick and Michael should be locked up in a mental hospital for a good dose of forced treatment over many months; not to be released again until he's no longer a menace to young boys.

Random Thoughts #1: Thabo Mbeki's Resignation

This latest useless, corrupt African waster - sorry, "Elder, Dignified Statesman" - has been forced to resign from the presidency of the once-great country of South Africa. "Once-great", because it WAS, until the Negroes took over the running of it back in 1990. Since then it's been downhill, downhill, downhill. The fact is that the only time that southern Africa has been successful was when it was run by WHITE europeans. Nelson Mandela made a semi-credible job as a black president for the first 8 years or so of black rule, in not doing too much damage to the country he inherited (even though crime predictably rose massively) but it was only a matter of time before Afrocosis set in, as it invariably does, when blacks attempt to run ANYTHING.

Mbeki's departure is likely to result in the eventual assumption of power by one Jacob Zuma, whose catchy election theme song is entitled: "Pass Me My Machine Gun!" - which gives us some frightening insight into the country's future direction. What a terrible, terrible prospect for the decent, hard-working white folks who made the country into Africa's bread basket and the most prosperous country on the dark continent. What then, can South Africa's whites look forward to under Zuma's leadership? Just take a look at Zimbabwe after 28 years of black rule and that should answer any outstanding questions we have. Furthermore, let's not forget that when Zuma was South Africa's 'health minister' he thought taking a shower after having sex with a woman with AIDS would prevent him becoming infected! Enough said, huh?

Beneath all Contempt

Just the one question...

To which group of people have the following stinging epithets most commonly been applied:-


Please choose one of the following:-

a) Gypsies
b) Homosexuals
c) Lesbians
d) Jews
e) White folks
f) Negroes
g) Nips
h) Chinks
i) Eskimos
j) Druggies
k) Communists
l) Pan-handlers
m) the Mafia

Correct! Even though you only had a one in 13 chance of being right, you were! And you don't even need your correct answer confirmed!

Saturday, September 20, 2008

The Treasury's latest scam to mug us is nothing new..

If you've read the previous posting by Phaedrus below, you will probably - as a decent, hard-working, human being - not be acquainted with the fact that the government's purchase of irredeemable debt at OUR expense is in reality just a variation of an old fraud that was hugely popular for a while during the 1970s.

The scam worked like this...

It required someone placed in what is known in financial circles as the "back office" - these are the clerks that don't do any deals themselves, but keep the books in order and simply ship the securities for those that DO – the Big, Swinging Dicks who constitute the highly-paid hot-shots of the "front office" - the guys with two phones in each ear; a plethora of screens before them and the obligatory Ferrari parked out front.

The scam as it was then is no longer operable in quite the same form today. It was eventually rumbled, and stricter procedures were introduced to ensure it couldn't be worked again - not at employee level, anyway. The only victims of it, by the way, at THAT time, were the stockholders of the individual banks and investment brokerages directly concerned. It had no 'macro-adverse-effects' on the broader economy - nor even the banking sector.

In those far off days, it was permissible for a trader to execute different trades both for himself (as a perk of his job) AND (separately) for his employer, by maintaining two entirely SEPARATE account record books. The trader would enter his own, personal dealings records in one book, and his employer's (the bank's) dealings in another book solely for that purpose. In this way, the trader could follow his hunches and take positions with his OWN money along side of dealing for his firm with their money on their behalf.

Such was the dealing-room scene in those distant days. TRUST was granted without question as a matter of course (and had been for centuries). On the dealing floor of the London Stock Exchange, for example, they had a time-honored Latin maxim for it: "dictum meum pactum meum" - "my word is my bond" - and the whole show was operated around (and depended upon) a man's integrity and honesty to stick by every deal he made and never fail to deliver on time the purchase monies or the stock as appropriate. To accuse a dealer of wrongdoing or bad faith was an unforgivable slight on his character, if such could not be quickly proven beyond doubt.

This paper-based system was open to exploitation, not surprisingly, by the dishonest. These a-moral con-artists would keep the two sets of books as required, but neglect to fill in certain particulars at the time the deal was done – most importantly the contract dates - until AFTER it became clear whether the deal in question had turned a profit or not. Back then, unscrupulous traders had SEVERAL WEEKS in which to complete their books. If their deals came good, there was the temptation to accredit the bargain to the trader's PERSONAL account. On the other hand, if the deal turned out badly, the dealer could escape personal losses by marking the bad deal down to the bank's own account book. No supervisor ever made a day-by-day audit to check!

Young dealers today would marvel at the opportunities to make illicit profits if they knew how loosely things were run in the old days when TRUST was implicit and regulation and oversight virtually non-existent, nor even necessary when a man's word alone was so completely trusted.

So this classic malpractice has today become the model by which the plutocratic Jewish financiers (who discovered its weakness and ruthlessly exploited it) have shafted us into buying garbage 'assets.' The original scam is the inspiration and basic methodology behind what is being done to us right now. You are probably already seeing the light, but let me spell it out, anyway: the old scam has broadened: the individual rogue trader has become the bank or investment brokerage itself. The individual commercial bank has become the conglomerate, corrupt merchant bank, and the (collective bank) losses are now having to be borne by the taxpayer thanks to the illegal actions of a traitorous government which pathetically cries out, "it's the only way to stave off global economic collapse!"

In short, it is nothing new. The only difference is in its SCALE. This is the essence of Corporate Communism: it heaps financial losses onto the masses whilst keeping any gains for itself. We the People are the ultimate 'lender of last resort' through our tax contributions, NOT the Fed. There really is virtually no difference between the two forms of this old CON beyond the sheer SCALE it is now being worked. And as any reasoning person will surely accept, unchallenged thieves will only grow more emboldened until they finally wind up hanging themselves through their own naked greed and the inability to know when they have pushed people that bit too far. Jews have abused the trust that gentiles unwisely granted them when they began dealing with these vermin in the mid 1600s.
The question is, when are these blatant thefts from his pocket going to hurt Joe Public sufficiently to sting him into action? How much more can the Jews feasibly get away with??

Friday, September 19, 2008

The Corporate Communists buy themselves more time - with OUR money!

Everyone should be familiar with the ethos behind today's Corporate Communism by now: everybody's equal, except that SOME are rather more equal than others. "Those who are equal" means the residents of main street; those that are MORE equal, on the other hand, are the Wall Street Players. Deals that go well and turn a profit are booked down privately to the Players' account; deals that go sour and lose money are booked down to the taxpayers' and heaped onto the National Debt. The Fed can always print more dollars and boy, aren't they always doing so!

So it was confirmed in Nancy Pelosi's proud announcement yesterday that the Zionist money men from the Fed and the upper strata of the 'Financial Community' had reached a consensus approach that will "insulate Wall street from main street." - and so it is - but NOT in the way we would justifiably expect! The average Joe would take this phrase to mean that main street was going to be shielded from Wall Street's self-inflicted idiocy and ordinary folks would therefore be spared from their greed and largess. This technique of the 'implied statement' is one of our politician's most recent inventions. Bush himself uses it frequently, so always read between these phony lines!

Unfortunately for us, it REALLY works the OTHER way around. Want proof? Just see how the markets have joyously reacted in the space of just 12hrs. The champaign corks have really been popping in trading rooms on both sides of the Atlantic! Pelosi was right: Wall street's losses have successfully been shifted once again onto the taxpayers and their children for generations to come, freeing the Players to get back to making profits for the plutocrats once more whist the rest of us Plebs pick up the ever-lengthening tab for their limitless greed and kleptomania.

Phaedrus suggests they enjoy the fruits of their latest THEFT whilst they can, for they are only in reality buying time. The eventual crash isn't going away; not a chance. Even if the great American public remains too lazy and ignorant to do anything right now over this latest outrageous RIP-OFF, they won't have any choice but to finally get up off their butts in due course when the derivatives market collapses taking EVERYTHING else with it. So let the fraudsters, shysters, counterfeiters and their cronies enjoy their respite while they can, for it simply ain't gonna last...!

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Can you spot the odd one out?

Difficult, isn't it? The reason for this difficulty is that no character really stands out here, for the simple reason that they're ALL odd! This photo comes from the long-running New World Order children's TeeVee show: 'Sesame Street' and when the format was originally conceived almost 40 years ago, this is the manner in which its Jewish designers envisaged how a future pluralistic, multicultural, utopia might appeal to the minds of children. Note that no two characters are the same; everyone's kinda different – 'diverse' you might even say - and consequently there's no conformity within this creepy little microsociety.

Nevertheless, there is ONE character that's different for a very good reason and we shall see which it is as we strip away the distractions provided by all those colorful weirdos that make him that much harder to spot.

For example, check out this next shot. And the one under that, too.

Can you NOW see who the odd one out is? You SHOULD be able to now, because said character (known as 'Count Von Count' from the series) has been stripped away from his colorful companions and is now juxtaposed between members of respectable, homogenous groupings. He thus becomes far more readily identifiable by virtue of being totally out-of-place. His individuality is now exposed by virtue of everyone else's respectable conformity. Those of us who are familiar with Sesame Street will know that the arithmetically-inclined 'Count' is the mathematician of this long-running series, who loves to show the children basic number theory. In fact it is reckoned that the inspiration behind the Count Von Count character was a real Jew called Leon Druckmann who died in the mid 1950s in New York with a fortune in gold coins under his bed, whilst insisting to his neighbors and everyone that knew him that he hadn't a single penny piece to his name in whole world.

So what are we to infer from this little glimpse into the world of children's TeeVee? The most obvious lesson here to be learned is that - quite apart from any other reasons (of which there are many) - Jews seek to set about promoting multicultural societies where people are encouraged to dress and adorn themselves absurdly and buy into bodily self-mutilation in the form of piercings and hideous tattoos, so as to form a loud and chaotic backdrop behind which the Jew is less readily identifiable. Thus sheltered, he may go about his dubious dealings without attracting unwanted attention from those who might otherwise discover him and out him for what he is. It is simply SO much nicer for the International Jew to be able to stalk the planet and feel at home anyplace his ideas have been adopted, rather than to wind up in a monocultural country like Norway for example, where all the residents are normal, fully-functional, healthy and decent. That must be the worst nightmare for any member of the Stateless Tribe to encounter, when hoping to find acceptance in yet another country.

Will our taxes replenish the coffers of Lehman Brothers?

Phaedrus is well aware that there are discussions (supposedly) taking place right now between Lehmans and a consortium led by Bank of America, to try to salvage this, the fourth largest Jewish investment bank in the US from the all-out collapse it so richly deserves.

However, the fact remains that should such a private buyout rescue deal fail, then once again (illegally) the Government may wind up shelling out our hard-earned tax-dollars to prop up this miserable, monolithic monument to craven greed and stupidity, when the average American home-owner enjoys no such safety net. Curious, isn't it? Typically, in a normal country with some degree of social insurance, it is the poorest and most at risk that enjoy such protection. Only in the USA can it apply the other way around and provide a safety net for the super-rich. How utterly perverse!

This is, as regular readers who have informed themselves will know, unmistakably indicative of Jews calling the shots over the wishes of hard-pressed American people. The "Entitled Ones" whose Holy Book tells them that WE (you and me) are only put here as beasts of burden for their exploitation; we have no property rights and must render up to the Jews everything we own when called upon to do so. That is their Talmudic belief and we have to suffer lawmakers on Capitol Hill who appear perfectly happy to go along with this twisted belief system, too.

So if the current rescue talks fail and Bush says, "Lehman Brothers is just too big to be allowed to fail; we gotta support it." then you will know that YOU are going to foot the bill for it. Not only YOU, but since we're already in debt up to our eyeballs, your children, your children's children, and your children's children's children! America's Jews have got everything sown up REAL tight! They certainly ARE enslaving us all, just as their so-called Holy Book predicted.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

The Jews' Beast of Burden - Us!

Confident we’re at the top of the food chain? Think again…

Mankind has, throughout all recorded history, unquestionably been regarded as the dominant species on this planet. That said, however, on a one-to-one basis, we’d be eaten alive by African big game or sharks and whatnot, but since we’re smarter than they are, we could, if we had sufficient Will, wipe them out (and of course in certain cases we have actually done so without even meaning to).

But it is worth noting that we’re not as invincible as we think we are.
It is estimated, for example, that the mosquito has killed more people than any other disease-carrying insect and more people than in both World Wars. This tiny creature only seeks a negligible speck of blood from us, which we can easily spare, and intends us no harm. It is not the mosquito’s fault that it can carry yellow fever and malaria.

In the world of medicine, it is a remarkable fact that today, leaches are still utilized by doctors to treat certain illnesses. The leach takes rather more than the mosquito from us, but still not enough that we’d notice, unless they are applied en masse by the doctors who treat us, whereby sufficient quantities of fluid can indeed be drained to make a noticeable difference.

Bacteria live within us – both good and bad forms – and some strains can kill us. The biologically more developed strains, however, will only kill us after we’ve carried them onward to further hosts. Evolution has selected within them the ability to APPEAR to ‘think ahead.’ In this way they’re more successful than more primitive forms that ‘can’t wait’ to kill us off and as a result, die along with us.

The study of parasites is at once an utterly fascinating yet an utterly horrifying one. There is, for example, a species of fly in south America that can sting a person painlessly and yet 6 weeks later, after the resulting bump has swelled and been lanced, a sizable maggot can be withdrawn from the host victim.

In all these cases, however, we are aware of the risks. We know certain insects are dangerous and we can take precautions to protect ourselves when we go to areas that such insects inhabit. Likewise with dangerous mammals and sea creatures. We know the risks and we can protect ourselves and if we fail to and get killed as a result, then it’s our own fault; it’s simply Darwinism in action. Simple, huh? Unfortunately, however, it isn’t that simple at all.

Imagine the typical farmyard. The animals go about their daily business of being born, eating, breeding and being killed. In between these activities, they may also, depending upon their species, be milked, or shawn of wool, or lay eggs – whatever, it’s not important. The farmer has any number of ways of making his farm productive. But they all involve exploiting the animals in one way or another. But that’s okay, because the law allows it. Not only that, but even the Bible allows it, too. The Bible gives Mankind dominion over the animals to use them in any which way we please.

Now imagine for a moment, that WE are the animals in a broader farmyard going about our daily business, blissfully unaware that we were only there, being fed and watered in a seemingly benign environment, to be milked, shawn, skinned or any other which way exploited, and then finally slaughtered. That wouldn’t be acceptable, would it?
We’re better than animals, aren’t we? Well hopefully most of us are.

But there are a race of people on this planet of ours that believe that we are all – yes, ALL – only animals ourselves and here solely for their benefit; to be their slaves no less. These people have already been working their plans against us for centuries, in fact. The severely screwed-up world we see around us is in large measure the way it is because of their twisted vision of how things ought to be, which has shaped it accordingly.
These people, gentle reader, are the Jews and they have changed not one iota in their hatred for us since way before they arranged Christ’s execution 2,000 years ago. This attitude of theirs is in their blood; their very DNA and cannot therefore be reformed. History has proved this too many times.

These fully-referenced quotes from the Jews’ Holy book, the Talmud illustrate their contemptuous attitude toward everyone else:

“The Non-Jews have been created to serve the Jews as slaves.” - (Midrasch Talpioth 225)

“Just the Jews are humans, the Non-Jews are no humans, but cattle.” (goyim – human cattle) – (Kerithuth 6b page 78, Jebhammoth 61a)

“As you replace lost cows and donkeys, so you shall replace dead Non-Jews.” – (Iore Dea 337,1)

If they didn’t have any power or influence, of course, these horrible beliefs wouldn’t matter. Plenty of religions have crazy belief systems, yet they don’t impinge on our way of life. With the Jew, however, they very much do.

Jews control 96% of the Western world’s media. They dominate cinema, TV, radio, newspapers and magazines. Virtually all our sources of information that determine how we form our view of the world are shaped and filtered by Jews.

The areas of finance, banking, politics, the judiciary and industry are likewise similarly infested with Jews. Granted not all Jews take advantage of the superior rights supposedly granted them under Mosaic law, but even if only 10% of them do, then can we really afford to take the risk of letting such people run the planet? For that is what they are in reality doing and have been, for a very long time.

The Jew is the world’s only Super Parasite. Many of us can live whole lifetimes without ever becoming aware that we’ve been victims of Judaism. When we take home barely enough money to live on; when we get robbed, raped, assaulted or murdered, few of us ever realize that the Jew was in some way responsible. It all seems too far fetched, doesn’t it? But it is the TRUTH, nevertheless.

Phaedrus is absolutely implacably opposed to affording these people any influence whatsoever in the running of our Western countries. They are Asiatics. They do not belong in the West. To kick them out of their positions in the media, the judiciary and the government is to make a far better, more peaceful and very much less screwed-up world for the rest of us. Such a world is long, long, long overdue.

A Message for Israel (timely re-post)

To the Scum in Tel Aviv and Washington DC:

Don’t you DARE try to drag us into yet another war in the Middle East. Are you murderous bastards never satisfied? Americans are at heart a decent, peace-loving people who don't share your insatiable thirst for blood. But for your endless interference and meddling in our foreign policy, we would not have now become the world's most hated country. We'd be better off by thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Fight these enemies of yours on your own. YOU made enemies of them, so don't DARE expect us to pitch in every time and save your worthless hides. The lives of all the children in Israel aren’t worth one American fingernail. We pay you bastards $4bn a year to prop up your rotten, bloody, criminal pseudo-state and yet you're still not satisfied. You have put to slaughter the cream of American youth in fighting your phony, artificially-created and totally unnecessary wars.

Wars without end is the way of the Jew, NOT the way of the Gentile.

Have YOU been a victim of the Jews?

When we speak about someone being a 'victim of the Jews' we typically envisage someone who's been ripped off in some massive investment fraud, or been swindled out of their inheritance by some crooked Jewish law firm. That is our instinctive expectation. And of course in very many instances, it proves to be correct. However, in our jumping to this conclusion and in not looking beyond it, we are in fact crediting the Jews with being far less of a menace than they really are. The reason for this is that the machinations of world Jewry are very much more extensive, corrosive and pernicious than mere financial crime alone can ever be. Most often, we completely fail to see the bigger picture...

If we do our level best to raise our kids right, yet despite our best efforts they slip into bad company and wind up on drugs and maybe ultimately in jail, it would never cross our minds that this is anything other than our own family's fault. Responsible parents invariably ask themselves, "Where did we go wrong?" and and are usually completely unable to identify any causal factor for such a dramatic and catastrophic personal failure. However, surely it must be in SOME way OUR fault, mustn't it?

Similarly, we may work hard for the same corporation for 30 years; said corporation enjoys strong sales and a good measure of profitability, yet one day, out of the blue, we find the plant is closing and we're all out of work because we're told we can't compete with factories in the far east where labor costs are far lower. But this isn't OUR fault; it's a 'failure of the market' or 'economic realities coming home' or whatever. What can you do?

One of your neighbors tells you that their 15 year-old daughter is close to death in hospital. She has suffered with anorexia for the past 3 years and is now refusing to eat altogether. Though at age 12 she was perfectly healthy and beautiful, she became convinced that she was fat and ugly and began to hate herself and her self-image. Nothing anyone could say could ever convince her otherwise. She had compared herself to 'ideal' images of female beauty as portrayed in teenage magazines and became deeply depressed and unresponsive to any rational argument. She is now down to just 60lbs and has perhaps only a few days to live.

You reside in a nice, peaceful, settled neighborhood where everyone knows everyone else and crime is virtually nil. Then over a relatively short period of perhaps less than 10 years, demographic shifts and changes in local government housing policy result in a substantial influx of immigrants or other outsiders who maybe don't share your existing view of community values. Crime rises, the jobs move away, drugs and gangs appear on the streets... You know it's the fault of these newcomers because everything was fine before they arrived, yet you're too afraid to speak out for fear of being branded a "racist." Your hands are therefore tied and all you can do is watch your once lovely hometown's long and painful decline.

Another example: no matter how diligently we raise our kids, no matter how much we teach them right from wrong and try to keep them on the straight and narrow and to uphold decent moral values, it doesn't prevent them from falling victim to someone ELSE'S kids who haven't been so scrupulously brought up by THEIR parents. Our sons may become victims of a violent attack/stabbing/shooting/whatever from some black thug with no father and a crack addict for a mother. Our daughters may in their turn wind up getting raped and murdered by some Negro who's spent the better part of his life in jail. In this case, it's the fault of the society in which we live today. So again, what can you do?

You may be a first class wife and mother, you believe everything's going swimmingly and your family life is a rock-solid cake-walk, when one day your husband, completely out of nowhere, says he's found someone else and is going to dump you and the kids flat cold. It's no failure of yours, is it? Whose fault is it, then? It's got to be just the way things are today. People don't take their responsibilities as seriously as they did back in the old days. Yeah, that's it: people just don't make the effort they once did to work at a relationship to ensure its success.

One could go on and on for paragraph after paragraph with innumerable other examples of how Bad Stuff happens and 'it's just the way it goes today and what can you do?'

Phaedrus believes that in all the above scenarios and in countless others that will doubtless spring to the reader's mind, it is not only POSSIBLE that there could ultimately be more to it than meets the eye, but there most assuredly IS. And that something, dear reader, arises out of the implementation of the Jewish Agenda, which is being vigorously pursued throughout the West as never before.

Raising a family successfully today is a really tough job. And families are the fundamental core units of society. Families need SUPPORT and PROTECTION for a healthy society to flourish. Broken homes equals broken society. The last thing families need is to be constantly under attack as they have been in recent years by the predations of the Jewish media in all its poisonous forms which seeks to foster in our minds a strong sense of dissatisfaction and disaffection with every decent, sterling value upon which this once-great nation was founded.

Regular readers of this blog will therefore not be surprised at Phaedrus' proposed remedy: it is more vital today than at any time in our history for us to seize back control of our country from the claws of the Jews by totally excluding them FOR ALL TIME from ANY involvement (directly or indirectly) in the media, the judiciary, politics and the legislature. If you remember nothing else from reading this item, I beg you, I IMPLORE YOU in fact, to remember just this last paragraph.

Sunday, September 7, 2008

These Evil Madmen MUST be removed before they start YET ANOTHER Major War

We refer here, of course, to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney - their immediate removal from office being of the UTMOST urgency. They SHOULD have been impeached as soon as their complicity in the attacks of 9/11 became apparent. How can such committed, psychopathic enemies of the American People be permitted to remain at the helm of this formerly great nation - which yet remains nuked-up to the eyeballs - whilst they contrive ever more odious mayhem against blameless innocents at home and abroad? We simply cannot stand idly by and watch them pointedly and repeatedly provoke Russia (with potentially deadly consequences for us all) over that two-bit, Jew-infested pseudo-entity in the Middle East, "Israel" - for that is ultimately what this gunboat diplomacy off the Black Sea coast is all about.

Bush and Cheney have contrived one pointless, futile and costly conflict after another since getting their treasonous butts ensconced in the White House 8 years ago. The damage they have done abroad and at home has been incalculable, and brought the American people NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER. Everything is being orchestrated by and for the benefit of the parasite 'state' of Israel - our 'special ally' in the region. Some "ally" this is, which has over many decades bent over backwards to drag America into any and every strategic conflict that might benefit them (the Jews) and their business interests which are heavily invested in armaments and munitions and need a constant supply of cannon fodder American youth to generate a lucrative return for those evil entities who profit from the squandered blood of others.

It's high time our military personnel AT ALL LEVELS educated themselves about foreign policy and exactly what drives it. It's high time these soldiers from the lowest ranks to the highest, made a serious effort to do some research for themselves to establish the TRUTH about this unending slaughter and how they, the best of our young people, are exploited with callous, utter ruthlessness for the sake of mollifying the insatiable hunger for power and money that these vile parasites can evidently never get enough of. Bush and Cheney MANUFACTURE conflicts wherever and whenever they please for their own personal gain and the enrichment of their Jewish cronies - and our soldiers have to pay for this endless greed with their very blood. Isn't it time the armed services woke up to the manner in which they're being duped into believing they're fulfilling some 'patriotic duty' - and have been ever since the Jews slimed their way into the US government?

Phaedrus appeals to everyone and anyone who may come across this item in whatever form it may be found after this initial publication, to do everything in their power to ensure that this message and others like it get read by the brave young men and women under arms who have NO IDEA that they are being ruthlessly exploited by FOREIGN agents with FOREIGN interests who have NO thought whatsoever for the suffering they are causing to innocent people both at home and abroad. Israel is NOT our ally - it is and always has been our WORST ENEMY OF ALL TIME. The Jews have practiced their deceit against the American people now for generations and all we have to show for it is hundreds of thousands of graves and a bankrupt economy where criminal immigrants enjoy more rights and freedoms under the law than the rest of us put together.

The time is fast approaching when elements of the armed forces of the US are going to have to decide where their loyalties truly lie: with their OWN people and the Constitution they have sworn to defend (against enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC) - or else the Jewish/Internationalist cabal currently fronted by a sicko president and his unaccountably taciturn side-kick. So come on, guys and girls in uniform; privates, sergeants, colonels and generals: where does YOUR loyalty lie and when you have made up your minds, WHEN are you going to ACT to remove these grubby, sordid TRAITORS from their long-enjoyed positions of disastrously-misplaced public trust??

An Apology to Curt Maynard!

Phaedrus herewith apologizes unreservedly to Curt Maynard for unwittingly re-publishing his outstanding essay on "multiculturalism" (yet ANOTHER Jewish 'ism' we've been afflicted with) under "author unknown." Yes, Curt, I have since realized it is your very own elegant handiwork and in fact it had already been republished here on WP (under your name) only recently! In my defense I have to say I came across it on a moderated Usenet political discussion forum where it had been posted in full, yet unattributed and your usual style was not instantly recognizable from it. However, it does prove what I observed in my (most recent) tribute to you (after you were banned from Joogle YET AGAIN) that your work continues to proliferate anywhere and everywhere in cyberspace regardless of any further effort from you! I had TRIED to clarify matters within hours of the re-publication but it seems the J*** were not keen to allow me to do so and have been interfering with my access to WP now for the better part of a week (as they are also doing with Jeff Rense's site, as I understand it.) We must really be stepping on some highly sensitive toes! BTW, GREAT to see you up and running so soon after declaring your temporary moratorium. I hope you enjoyed your remarkably brief 'break' bonding with your family and look forward to many more of your great, insightful articles in the weeks and months to come!

A Word to the Wise...

These comments are addressed primarily to Curt and Apollonian.

It cannot have escaped even the most unastute of reader's notice that the two of you have fallen out big time. This is sad and regrettable. When folks who are batting for the same team fall out publicly and resort to viscerally ill-willed name-calling, it only ever benefits our common enemy and does nothing but harm to our cause. This blog was set up in response to Frank Weltner's inspiring 'call to arms' on Jew Watch in which he was at pains to insist that we all act in a PROFESSIONAL manner. The kind of insults that are currently being traded are grist to the Jewish mill; a gift to those who have advanced their interests, and continue to do so, by means of their primordial, instinctive doctrine of divide and rule. It's a lesson for us all in how NOT to behave. I have been forced to watch passively while this sorry episode unravels before my eyes with horror and disbelief. Gentlemen, in the interests of our noble, vital and common cause, (pretty-please-with-sugar-on-it) KINDLY DESIST.

How does giving $1bn to Georgia's Jews benefit the average American??

The US is falling to pieces at home; people being robbed of their houses by Jewish-owned banks in a contrived economic collapse, and ever more hard working folks being thrown out of work as a result. What's Cheney's response? Export a billion dollars to the Jews of Georgia, just to piss off Russia! What the HELL use is a 'government' like this to the average, decent American? How much longer are we expected to sit idly by whilst these huge frauds - 'high crimes' - are perpetuated against us, progressively bringing the country to ruin?

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

The Abject Failure of "Multiculturalism"


This excellent piece on how Jewish contrived ideologies have CONTINUALLY screwed us in the West was discovered by Phaedrus on a trawl of the net earlier today. Author unknown.


I recently came across a college students essay on the Internet and it's entitled "Multiculturalism: The Subdividing of History." Originally written in 1991 the essay affords us an opportunity to look back at how this process developed over time.

The author, Julie Ann Kessler, then a senior at Ashland College, a mid sized teaching institution in Ohio, presents her thesis in a typically dry and academic format, but manages to immediately highlight a curious fact about "multiculturalism," something that was much easier to recognize and admit to fourteen years ago than it is today.

Today many of us are under the erroneous impression that "multiculturalism," was designed to encourage tolerance by bringing together members of our society through the celebration of diversity ­ in fact the entire "multicultural movement," has been divisive from the beginning
Ms. Kessler acknowledges this fact in her first paragraph:

No debate within higher education is more divisive than the one being waged between self-proclaimed "multiculturalists" and those who could be called traditionalists in the study of Western culture.

You'll hear many people exclaim today that Jews were the initiators of this divisive agenda, and then you'll immediately hear these people referred to as anti-Semites for daring to suggest such a ridiculous hypothesis. However, Kessler pointed out in 1991 that Racism and Sexism: An Integrated Study a treatise by the Jewish Paula Rothenberg was described in Newsweek as the "primer," for multiculturalists. It is so easy for time to wear away the foundation of uncomfortable facts.

Kessler rightly points out that originally there were two schools of thought within the "multiculturalist movement," one, the "particularist," tended to emphasiz that "the experiences of one ethnic group can't have any relevance to members of another," which is nothing more than Boasian "cultural relativity," repackaged for modern consumption. According to Kessler, the other school of thought, "pluralism," "hold[s] to an all-inclusive American history, with an accent on shared experiences." What Kessler realized at the time was that both paradigms are essentially integral parts of the same puzzle, i.e. multiculturalism, and both challenged the "traditionalist" view.

We see this type of dichotomous argument often in American intellectual thought, an alleged division in ideology, but just under the surface a common agenda. More often than not one of the theories is presented in such a way as to appear to be more acceptable than the other, something Kessler also notes:

Pluralists in essence say, "American culture belongs to all of us," as opposed to "American culture belongs to us whites." The particularists, on the other hand have turned this old, exclusive view on end: "American culture does belong to whites; so celebrate your ancestral homeland instead of your present home. Ethnic and racial differences must be accentuated and hatreds fanned.

What we know fourteen years later is that "multiculturalism," won the "fixed," debate, the particularist and pluralist views merged and have left us with a singular idea, American culture does not belong to whites and ethnic and racial differences should be accentuated and hatreds fanned, except where and when whites are concerned. This wasn't an accident; this was the intention all along, something else that Kessler prophetically revealed in her analysis of something that happened at Stanford University in 1988 when the clarion call "Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture's got to go," initially went out.

Kessler notes how the very unlikely example of a Guatemalan female Marxist that renounced marriage and motherhood in the pursuit of the Marxist ideal was used to inculcate impressionable young minds, when she cites the fact that Stanford students were encouraged to read I, Rigoberta Menchu a book about exactly that and how that book was supposed to sensitize the students in such a way that they might "understand the perspective of female Marxist Guatemalan peasants of Indian ancestry, not to examine whether the book is valid or contributes to a student's education."

Kessler reveals a good bit of skepticism in 1991, which proved to be quite healthy in that after receiving the Nobel Prize in 1992 Rigoberto was exposed by the New York Times as a fraud. In her memoirs she notes that he brother had died of malnutrition, but a Times reporter found him alive and well, and living prosperously in Guatemala. Not unexpectedly, because central to the thesis of multiculturalism is "white oppression," Rigoberto claims that her impoverished family was subject to intimidation and oppression by "wealthy landowners of European descent." Unfortunately for Rigoberto, her fellow villagers claimed that the "dispute was really a land feud that pitted Rigoberta's father against his in-laws. It was a family quarrel that went on for years and years."

This comes as no surprise to some of us, those who read and embraced I, Rigoberta Menchu in the 1980s however might be somewhat taken aback as the Nobel Prize and her fraudulent memory still stand despite these revelations. Another interesting aspect of this story is that the same people at the Times who initially built up Rigoberto's image in the 1980s were the same ones that exposed her as a fraud in the 1990s ­ possibly a matter of reminding a prima donna that what can be built up can also be broken down.

Kessler continues by highlighting some of the more meaningless infighting within the multiculturalist perspective, i.e. the "pluralists" refer to the "particularists," as "extremists," and the latter believe the former to be unrealistic. Sensational accusations are passed back and forth as though they have some meaning; in actuality they don't. As an example one black professor and advocate of the "pluralist perspective," refers to a Jewish professor of history at Columbia, and "particularist," Diane Ravitch, as "the ultimate, supreme, sophisticated, debonair racist" and a "Texas Jew." Ravitch then exposes the entire dichotomous scheme when she "readily admits, pluralism easily can be, and has been, transformed into particularism. In its concern to include everyone in a new common American history, to be nice to everybody and not leave anyone out, pluralism may well give rise to cultural divisiveness where none might otherwise exist."

Exactly the point, what is indeed rare though is that a senior at Ashland College in 1991 saw through the smoke and mirrors of theoretical multiculturalism, but perspectives like hers were never voiced publicly.

There is no longer any doubt, multiculturalism is a dismal failure as evidenced by the fact that tens of thousands of Americans have signed up voluntarily as part of a popular movement to patrol our nation's borders because our government refuses to do so. It is also quite clear that American society has reached the point where it will no longer silently serve as liberalisms experimental model; it has reached the point of total saturation.

Interestingly, failed liberal models have been quite common over the last one hundred years. They also tend to be extremely destructive and are almost never exposed to any subsequent scrutiny. The common denominator is that they almost always tend to be Kosher, developed and propagated by Jews. The reason they are never exposed is because Jews have monopolized the massive power and influence of the media, whether that be television, newspapers, news magazines, cinema, or through the equally cornered market of academics, American Universities and the publishing houses that provide these Universities with textbooks. For example one learns through the aforementioned mediums that the Bolshevik's employed the concept of collectivization on Russian peasantry with disastrous results. We may also learn that the concept and process of collectivization was subsequently exported to China, North Korea, Cambodia and other Asian nations, but we will never hear that the failed process which led to the deaths of more than ten million Christian Russians and Ukrainians, also failed in China, failed in North Korea and failed in Cambodia with similar results, the deaths of tens of millions!

"Multiculturalism," is nothing more than the newest failed "liberal model," a modern day "collectivization" scheme, an abortive idea that society can't seem to rid itself of. There were many Julie Ann Kessler's fourteen years ago vocally opposing what to them was an obviously flawed system, but they were denounced as racists and/or completely ignored. Today the failure of "multiculturalism," shines as a beacon in all its inglorious ineptitude leaving us the opportunity, and that is what it is, to make the changes necessary to make our country a better place to live in for our children and grandchildren.

Although the concept of "tolerance," is and has always been an American virtue, the people of this country have been taken advantage of.

Saturday, August 30, 2008

Is 'Evil' a Real Force in the World?

A few weeks ago, Apollonian, one of the more recent respondents here on World Peace, took issue with Phaedrus over the concept of Evil. Phaedrus has made frequent references to "evil deeds" and "evil people" and so forth, and this respondent (who appears to be pretty well-read in philosophy) objected vehemently and repeatedly to this blogger's frequent use of terms such as "good" and "evil" and so on and tried to win this writer over to his point of view, which is essentially that there is no such thing. Getting bogged down in a dry, academic discussion on what is essentially a matter of personal belief between myself and any respondent would not exactly excite and animate World Peace's readership, so initially it was decided to simply ignore the matter. However, on second thoughts, I have conceived a way in which these matters CAN be addressed in a way which is meaningful to readers and also explains why my stated position on the existence of Evil as a real and highly dangerous force in our lives will not be changing one iota. Here goes....

Phaedrus has always been a great believer in the power of allegory in getting complex concepts more clearly across. It's not necessary in this essay to resort to a full-blown allegory; a simple parable will more than adequately show where I'm coming from on this issue. Apollonian will no doubt leap on what follows and dissect it in extreme detail in the comments section if he so choses and he is free to do so. But I would like to remind him that in so doing, he is not, in any way whatsoever, going to advance the cause in which we are all united, but rather divert attention from it to the benefit of those who would prefer we totally avoid any direct examination of their odious behavior. I refer here in particular to the Jews, of course. In rebutting Apollonian's arguments by way of a parable in essay form rather than by simply following up his comments, we waste no time and effort in letting the Jews off the hook by arguing the matter out in the small print where few people would take notice.

Imagine if you will, a man clinging to a rocky precipice by his fingernails. He has stumbled off a mountain path and is hanging on for dear life. Certain death follows should he lose his fragile grip. A short time later, a group of three walkers pass by the spot: a Christian, a Muslim and a Buddhist. He calls out to them for help. They rush over to him and without any thought for their own safety, pull him back onto the path. Much relieved, he asks them how he can ever thank them. They laugh and tell him no reward is necessary and that any decent person would do the same. The situation is resolved with good feeling all-round. Now rewind this scenario to the beginning and imagine the man clinging once again to the edge of the precipice. This time, a group of Negroes approach. The man calls out to them for assistance, but they just laugh at him, make a few racial slurs and walk by. A moment later, one of them turns back towards the man. Could this be a sudden change of heart? Sadly not, the Negro has spotted the man is wearing a gold watch. Said black person removes the watch and gleefully returns to his friends to show them the spoils.

Rewind this same scenario for the final time. On this occasion, a Jew walks past. The man calls over to him for assistance as with the other passers-by. The Jew walks over, listens to the man's appeals, then thoughtfully strokes his beard. "Aren't you going to help me?" pleads the man in desperation. The Jew looks up and down the path. There's no one else in sight. He reaches down and removes the man's gold watch, just as the Negro did. "OK, OK!" cries the man, "Keep the watch. It's yours. Just help me up!" The Jew quietly slips the watch into his pocket and, taking one more look about him to ensure he remains unobserved, proceeds to stamp on the man's fingertips, forcing him to relinquish his grip and fall to his death.

So in the forgoing example, we have three very different types of behavior exhibited. The first people rescued the man without a second's thought and sought no reward for rendering their assistance. The Negroes, on the other hand, were callously indifferent to the man's plight and robbed him of his watch, leaving him still clinging precariously to the ledge. Finally, the Jew passed by and robbed the man of his watch AND needlessly sent him plunging to his certain death. Apollonian (in accordance with the teachings of Nietzsche and others) conjectures that none of these behaviors evidence either goodness OR evil on the part of the passers-by. This is a standpoint which Phaedrus finds impossible to reconcile with reality. It goes to the core of the problems we face today. Apollonian posits the view that (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I misunderstand him - and probably even if I don't) that there is no such thing as Evil and that what we commonly TAKE to be Evil is simply rather "utter selfishness" on the part of some individuals. They satisfy their needs totally without empathy for others and without the slightest prick of conscience.

To some extent, this may be true. But it is an inchoate picture which seems to have been dreamed up only by those who have been blessed to have had no personal experience of REAL Evil in their lives. They've never seen it up-close-and-personal, so-to-speak. What these people are REALLY describing is PSYCHOPATHIC behavior, which CAN be Evil, but often isn't. There's a key difference that I shall make clear here in this essay, after which I plan to make no further attempt to justify my beliefs to anyone who has no idea of my background, my age, nor how many books I have read, nor of what quality they were. Here's that key difference illustrated by reference to the above parable we examined: The Christian, the Muslim and the Buddhist acted altruistically. They put themselves out to save someone and sought no reward for doing so. Anyone with a lick of common sense is going to say they exhibited "goodness" in so doing. There's very little to argue about here with this first group of people; the REAL essence of the question can only be resolved by examining the behavior of the other two parties: the Negroes and the Jew.

The Negroes exhibited classic psychopathic behavior. They put themselves out not one iota to assist a man in trouble; all they did was steal his watch. Here we have selfish desires satiated with no regard or empathy for the victim. Classic Negro behavior from what we see all the time in the more truthful elements of the news media. But is it actually Evil? In Phaedrus' view, no, it isn't. It's merely self-centered indifference to the suffering of others and a bit of advantage-taking thrown in. Now consider the Jew's response. He failed to assist the man, he stole the man's watch AND he needlessly killed him. He COULD have simply walked away with the watch like the Negroes, but instead, he went just that bit further,when there was NO need, to see the man plunge to his death. This is the whole point of the parable where a form of behavior extends beyond pure indifferent self-enrichment and strays into the realm of Evil. It wasn't NECESSARY to send this man plummeting to his death. The Jew had what he wanted - like the Negro - and could have left it like that. Instead, he felt the inclination to stray into needless, wanton cruelty for no reason but his own sick enjoyment - and THIS is the point where Evil arises and we can see it all around us in the way Jews behave towards others, wherever they may be in the world, there is always this sick element of "gratuitous nastiness" that so typically characterizes their behavior as a race.

Now Phaedrus would be the first to admit that there are plenty of people who consider themselves 'religious' who are anything BUT pious. And there are equally Jews who do NOT exhibit this trait. Furthermore, there ARE honest and civilized black people. But in every case, they are A-typical of their race or creed and do not represent the majority. Patrick Grimm reminded us of the importance of stereotypes; the instilled wisdom of generations which we fail to call upon at our peril when forced to deal with foreigners. Jews and their NWO buddies are at the forefront of rubbishing stereotypes and trying to make stereotyping people a 'thought crime.' Given the primordial nature of the Jews, the impetus behind this piece of social engineering should come as no surprise to us! Who but the Jews and the Negroes would have more to gain from having their essential core natures effaced from the awareness of others?

So there you have it: my justification for using the terms "good" and "evil" and my resolution to CONTINUE to do so for as long as Evil remains such a pervasive force behind Western nations' internal and external policy development!