CM:
.
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.
America Awake!
Showing posts with label lies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lies. Show all posts
Monday, July 21, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
Some revealing quotes by Benjamin Disraeli...
.
The Jew Benjamin Disraeli was a long-time thorn in the side of the British Government over many decades in Victorian England. He was an agitator (typical Jewish trait) who eventually brow-beat enough good folk in the House of Commons into making him Prime Minister. This final crown of achievement came in the latter part of the 1800s, whilst Queen Victoria presided over the greatest Empire the world had ever seen. Disraeli was a self-admitted groveler to his superiors (he fawningly suggested the title of "Empress of India" be bestowed on Victoria; she loved the idea and from then on Disraeli could do no wrong in her view). He also openly admitted he only married a very rich woman for her money as he felt it would advance his political career. This guy was a sychophantic slimer of the Nth degree. But what makes Disraeli of particular interest to us here today is some of the curious quotes he came out with during his noteworthy life. We are pleased to reproduce some of them herewith with apposite observations on each...
"Frank and explicit - that is the right line to take when you wish to conceal your own mind and confuse the minds of others."
Translated: USE TYPICAL JEWISH DISINGENUOUSNESS TO GET YOUR OWN WAY.
"Colonies do not cease to be colonies because they are independent."
PRIMARILY AIMED AT AMERICA - STILL A COLONY TODAY (of the New World Order)
"Damn your principles! Stick to your party."
THE POWER ELITE CONTROLS PARTY POLICY; DON'T ROCK THE BOAT WITH YOUR UNWELCOME IDEAS OF HOW TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE.
"In politics nothing is contemptible."
BEING A JEW, NOTHING IN POLITICS IS CONTEMPTIBLE TO ME AND MY KIND.
"London is a modern Babylon."
IF IT WAS THEN, IT'S WORSE TODAY. WITH STABBINGS, SHOOTINGS, GANG-RAPE, CHILD PROSTITUTION AND A DRUG EPIDEMIC, IT MORE RESEMBLES THE NEW YORK OF THE EARLY 1970S
"London is a roost for every bird."
YES, EVEN MORE SO TODAY: MULTICOLORED 'BIRDS' FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD.
"Real politics are the possession and distribution of power."
CLINGING ON TO HIGH OFFICE MEANS DEVOLVING JUST ENOUGH POWER TO OTHERS TO KEEP THEM FROM OUSTING YOU.
"The governments of the present day have to deal not merely with other governments, with emperors, kings and ministers, but also with the secret societies which have everywhere their unscrupulous agents, and can at the last moment upset all the governments' plans."
NO CHANGE THERE, THEN! MASONS, JEWS AND THE ILLUMINATI STILL CALLING ALL THE SHOTS 130 YEARS LATER.
"The more you are talked about the less powerful you are."
DEAD RIGHT. HAVE YOU NOTICED THE WAY PEOPLE ONLY WHISPER ABOUT THE JEWS IN VERY, VERY, CAUTIOUS HUSHED TONES?
"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
YES, AND WE NOW KNOW WHO: THE ROCKEFELLERS, THE ROTHSCHILDS, THE WINDSORS, THE MORGANS, THE DUPONTS AND ALL THE REST OF THE PARASITES.
Disraeli's premiership degraded the high watermark of Liberalism in late Victorian England. This is TRUE Liberalism we're talking about here: freedom of individual, unfettered speech and thought, the freedom to bear arms routinely in the street; the freedom to buy drugs and poisons legitimately over-the-counter from any apothecary. Freedoms that carried great responsibility. Abuse them and in those days you paid with your life. But the presumption was that you would NOT abuse them, so there were no controls, and with no Negroes around to speak of at that time, very few people misused these valuable liberties.
The measures that the Jew Disraeli was instrumental in introducing through Parliament began a long, slow decline in Britain's strength as a world power. When Disraeli initially got into 10 Downing Street, this strength and freedom was at its all-time zenith. The years and decades following his gerrymandering and meddling with the country's fundamental political structure presaged an age of decline from which Britain, to this day, has never, ever recovered. All this long, long decline can be traced back ultimately to none other than the Jew Disraeli himself. Jews HATE personal freedoms for others. Always have; always will. They NEVER cease working to undermine them and the fabric of society as a whole.
The most valuable lesson we can learn from Disraeli is that there must be NO place for the Jew in ANY sphere of public influence, for all time, period.
The Jew Benjamin Disraeli was a long-time thorn in the side of the British Government over many decades in Victorian England. He was an agitator (typical Jewish trait) who eventually brow-beat enough good folk in the House of Commons into making him Prime Minister. This final crown of achievement came in the latter part of the 1800s, whilst Queen Victoria presided over the greatest Empire the world had ever seen. Disraeli was a self-admitted groveler to his superiors (he fawningly suggested the title of "Empress of India" be bestowed on Victoria; she loved the idea and from then on Disraeli could do no wrong in her view). He also openly admitted he only married a very rich woman for her money as he felt it would advance his political career. This guy was a sychophantic slimer of the Nth degree. But what makes Disraeli of particular interest to us here today is some of the curious quotes he came out with during his noteworthy life. We are pleased to reproduce some of them herewith with apposite observations on each...
"Frank and explicit - that is the right line to take when you wish to conceal your own mind and confuse the minds of others."
Translated: USE TYPICAL JEWISH DISINGENUOUSNESS TO GET YOUR OWN WAY.
"Colonies do not cease to be colonies because they are independent."
PRIMARILY AIMED AT AMERICA - STILL A COLONY TODAY (of the New World Order)
"Damn your principles! Stick to your party."
THE POWER ELITE CONTROLS PARTY POLICY; DON'T ROCK THE BOAT WITH YOUR UNWELCOME IDEAS OF HOW TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE.
"In politics nothing is contemptible."
BEING A JEW, NOTHING IN POLITICS IS CONTEMPTIBLE TO ME AND MY KIND.
"London is a modern Babylon."
IF IT WAS THEN, IT'S WORSE TODAY. WITH STABBINGS, SHOOTINGS, GANG-RAPE, CHILD PROSTITUTION AND A DRUG EPIDEMIC, IT MORE RESEMBLES THE NEW YORK OF THE EARLY 1970S
"London is a roost for every bird."
YES, EVEN MORE SO TODAY: MULTICOLORED 'BIRDS' FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD.
"Real politics are the possession and distribution of power."
CLINGING ON TO HIGH OFFICE MEANS DEVOLVING JUST ENOUGH POWER TO OTHERS TO KEEP THEM FROM OUSTING YOU.
"The governments of the present day have to deal not merely with other governments, with emperors, kings and ministers, but also with the secret societies which have everywhere their unscrupulous agents, and can at the last moment upset all the governments' plans."
NO CHANGE THERE, THEN! MASONS, JEWS AND THE ILLUMINATI STILL CALLING ALL THE SHOTS 130 YEARS LATER.
"The more you are talked about the less powerful you are."
DEAD RIGHT. HAVE YOU NOTICED THE WAY PEOPLE ONLY WHISPER ABOUT THE JEWS IN VERY, VERY, CAUTIOUS HUSHED TONES?
"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
YES, AND WE NOW KNOW WHO: THE ROCKEFELLERS, THE ROTHSCHILDS, THE WINDSORS, THE MORGANS, THE DUPONTS AND ALL THE REST OF THE PARASITES.
Disraeli's premiership degraded the high watermark of Liberalism in late Victorian England. This is TRUE Liberalism we're talking about here: freedom of individual, unfettered speech and thought, the freedom to bear arms routinely in the street; the freedom to buy drugs and poisons legitimately over-the-counter from any apothecary. Freedoms that carried great responsibility. Abuse them and in those days you paid with your life. But the presumption was that you would NOT abuse them, so there were no controls, and with no Negroes around to speak of at that time, very few people misused these valuable liberties.
The measures that the Jew Disraeli was instrumental in introducing through Parliament began a long, slow decline in Britain's strength as a world power. When Disraeli initially got into 10 Downing Street, this strength and freedom was at its all-time zenith. The years and decades following his gerrymandering and meddling with the country's fundamental political structure presaged an age of decline from which Britain, to this day, has never, ever recovered. All this long, long decline can be traced back ultimately to none other than the Jew Disraeli himself. Jews HATE personal freedoms for others. Always have; always will. They NEVER cease working to undermine them and the fabric of society as a whole.
The most valuable lesson we can learn from Disraeli is that there must be NO place for the Jew in ANY sphere of public influence, for all time, period.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Disinformation/Bullshit Alert!!!
Fellow truth-seekers,
I feel it is my duty to warn you that a certain article which has appeared on a number of alternative news websites is blatant HOGWASH.
Here's the item in question:
===============================================================================
The Final Trump Of
Britain Over America
Closer Fianancial And Regulatory Ties
Sealing The Two Countries As One
By Joan M. Veon
The Women's International Media Group, Inc
WomensGroup.org
4-5-8
Unlike the 17th Century battles fought on American soil to give us our independence from Great Britain, the final battle of brilliant maneuvers and institutions began in 1903 to delicately orchestrate the gradual reintegration of the United States with Great Britain. The military genius of the plan would be for American armies to unite with Britain in the name of world peace; the common enemy being, WWI, WWII, and the war on terrorism. The second wave would be on an international level to bring order to a disorderly global market while merging financial and regulatory authorities. It was the money of one man that started the ball rolling.
Cecil John Rhodes, a British aristocrat who died in 1902, funded the merger by leaving his gold and diamond fortune as a means to bring America back under British rule, believing the British was the finest race in the world. Those agreeing with his mission included many wealthy American industrialists who, in 1903, pledged allegiance to the British Crown when they founded the Pilgrim Society. This powerful society still meets today as a secret membership. If you listen to the words of our politicians, such as New York Senator Charles Schumer and former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer you can hear their approval of anything British for America.
It is the men of the Pilgrim Society who determined the best way to re-unite the countries was to get America to come in on the side of the British during WWI, continuing through with World War II. Now the British have come to our aid with the war on Iraq and the War on Terrorism.
Rhode's fortune also helped to fund the creation of the Royal Institute for International Affairs-RIIA in England, which is a key think-tank creating ideas and procedures in how best to merge our countries. The US counterpart is our Council on Foreign Relations. It was the Scottish industrialist turned American, Andrew Carnegie, who endowed America with its library system in his belief it would be good to re-unite the two countries into the "British-American Union."
The British then took a brilliant step by passing the Statute of Westminster in 1931 in which the UK would establish legislative equality between the self-governing dominions of their empire and the mother country. As a result the Commonwealth was birthed. Between 1946 and 1989 Britain gave "independence" to 41 of its colonies.
But it was not enough for Britain to have the Commonwealth; they had to create an international system where they could outvote everyone else! The idea of the League of Nations came first through President Woodrow Wilson after World War I. Our then wise Congress swore its allegiance to the United States Constitution thereby preventing ratification. However, after World War II, the British idea of a United Nations was birthed as a means to end to all wars and to serve as the guardian of world peace.
Each time a British colony gained independence, they were given a vote at the United Nations and at the various UN agencies, commissions and organs. While the United States receives one vote at the United Nations, the Commonwealth receives 54. While the US receives one vote at the World Trade, the Commonwealth receives 46, and so forth. This type of imbalance is also seen at the World Health Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. In other words, the British run the world through the international level that they set up!
That brings us to this hemisphere and the 14 year old North American Free Trade Agreement. Eventually all the countries of this hemisphere will be connected in a free trade zone like that of the European Union. Ours is called the Free Trade Areas of the Americas-FTAA.
With regard to NAFTA, Canada is a member of the Commonwealth and is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy. The proper title of the queen is, "Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." I think the question should be asked, "Does the Queen of Canada become the Queen of the United States?" As such when you consider the FTAA, there are 13 commonwealth countries in this hemisphere which means we are outvoted in our own hemisphere!
With regard to disorderly markets and a global financial crisis, if one will just look at the number of banks closely involved, they are all inter-related, many of them British owned and if they had continued to buy each others mortgage paper, we would not have had a problem. As I see it, there is no problem at all; there is a situation to create chaos so the problem can be solved according to the pre-determined plan to reemerge our countries. In many ways, the military is already merged. The structure of our congress is no longer the two sided republicans and democrats as both sides have the same global philosophy. Now the international bankers, who run the Treasury, have signed an agreement with the British to merge our Treasury Department and the SEC with theirs. This is NOT being addressed at the hearings between Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and our congress at the respective House and Senate committees.
This is a diabolical stealth move to use the global financial system as a way to merge the finances of our two countries with no public understanding of what is really happening. According to the 3/31/08 Financial Times, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and U.S. president George Bush have agreed to "step up cooperation over the crisis in financial markets by setting up a UK-US working group that will develop proposals to monitor and regulate the banking system."
Thus far the new working group will be comprised of senior treasury and regulatory figures from London and Washington. It is reported they are working on a system of "individually tailored international supervision for leading banks and financial institutions involved with cross-border activity". While other details will be confirmed next week at the IMF/World Bank Spring Meeting, it is recognized that this new body will meet "fairly intensely, sharing information, and over time, pushing through the kind of regulatory action that needs to be taken. It will also seek to improve day-to-day cooperation between regulators in the US and UK."
The British have overturned the outcome of the War of 1812. British accents have become common on our TVs and radios. There is an increase in movies about the British monarchs. The British outvote the U.S. on all international levels. Powerful groups comprised of key CEO's, economists, and politicians, such as the Pilgrim Society, the RIIA and the Council on Foreign Relations are working to reintegrate America under British rule. Our military and intelligence agencies now work very closely with one another, and now our financial and regulatory system is being merged through the UK-US working group. And I say to you, not one shot was fired!
===================================================================================
Items like these aren't too difficult to spot for the informed few who take the trouble to actually READ them before further propagating them. In short, any suggestions of supra-national conspiracy that don't point to the Jews as at their core, aren't worth jack. Plus, any conspiracy theories which generate suspicion, mistrust or hatred between naturally cohesive, ethnically-linked peoples are the hallmark of the Jews themselves. They never stop trying to set natural allies at each others throats.
A word to the wise:
Will bulk sites take more trouble over the stuff they post? Crap like the above shouldn't be given a platform anywhere on the net.
Thanks for listening.
I feel it is my duty to warn you that a certain article which has appeared on a number of alternative news websites is blatant HOGWASH.
Here's the item in question:
===============================================================================
The Final Trump Of
Britain Over America
Closer Fianancial And Regulatory Ties
Sealing The Two Countries As One
By Joan M. Veon
The Women's International Media Group, Inc
WomensGroup.org
4-5-8
Unlike the 17th Century battles fought on American soil to give us our independence from Great Britain, the final battle of brilliant maneuvers and institutions began in 1903 to delicately orchestrate the gradual reintegration of the United States with Great Britain. The military genius of the plan would be for American armies to unite with Britain in the name of world peace; the common enemy being, WWI, WWII, and the war on terrorism. The second wave would be on an international level to bring order to a disorderly global market while merging financial and regulatory authorities. It was the money of one man that started the ball rolling.
Cecil John Rhodes, a British aristocrat who died in 1902, funded the merger by leaving his gold and diamond fortune as a means to bring America back under British rule, believing the British was the finest race in the world. Those agreeing with his mission included many wealthy American industrialists who, in 1903, pledged allegiance to the British Crown when they founded the Pilgrim Society. This powerful society still meets today as a secret membership. If you listen to the words of our politicians, such as New York Senator Charles Schumer and former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer you can hear their approval of anything British for America.
It is the men of the Pilgrim Society who determined the best way to re-unite the countries was to get America to come in on the side of the British during WWI, continuing through with World War II. Now the British have come to our aid with the war on Iraq and the War on Terrorism.
Rhode's fortune also helped to fund the creation of the Royal Institute for International Affairs-RIIA in England, which is a key think-tank creating ideas and procedures in how best to merge our countries. The US counterpart is our Council on Foreign Relations. It was the Scottish industrialist turned American, Andrew Carnegie, who endowed America with its library system in his belief it would be good to re-unite the two countries into the "British-American Union."
The British then took a brilliant step by passing the Statute of Westminster in 1931 in which the UK would establish legislative equality between the self-governing dominions of their empire and the mother country. As a result the Commonwealth was birthed. Between 1946 and 1989 Britain gave "independence" to 41 of its colonies.
But it was not enough for Britain to have the Commonwealth; they had to create an international system where they could outvote everyone else! The idea of the League of Nations came first through President Woodrow Wilson after World War I. Our then wise Congress swore its allegiance to the United States Constitution thereby preventing ratification. However, after World War II, the British idea of a United Nations was birthed as a means to end to all wars and to serve as the guardian of world peace.
Each time a British colony gained independence, they were given a vote at the United Nations and at the various UN agencies, commissions and organs. While the United States receives one vote at the United Nations, the Commonwealth receives 54. While the US receives one vote at the World Trade, the Commonwealth receives 46, and so forth. This type of imbalance is also seen at the World Health Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. In other words, the British run the world through the international level that they set up!
That brings us to this hemisphere and the 14 year old North American Free Trade Agreement. Eventually all the countries of this hemisphere will be connected in a free trade zone like that of the European Union. Ours is called the Free Trade Areas of the Americas-FTAA.
With regard to NAFTA, Canada is a member of the Commonwealth and is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy. The proper title of the queen is, "Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." I think the question should be asked, "Does the Queen of Canada become the Queen of the United States?" As such when you consider the FTAA, there are 13 commonwealth countries in this hemisphere which means we are outvoted in our own hemisphere!
With regard to disorderly markets and a global financial crisis, if one will just look at the number of banks closely involved, they are all inter-related, many of them British owned and if they had continued to buy each others mortgage paper, we would not have had a problem. As I see it, there is no problem at all; there is a situation to create chaos so the problem can be solved according to the pre-determined plan to reemerge our countries. In many ways, the military is already merged. The structure of our congress is no longer the two sided republicans and democrats as both sides have the same global philosophy. Now the international bankers, who run the Treasury, have signed an agreement with the British to merge our Treasury Department and the SEC with theirs. This is NOT being addressed at the hearings between Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and our congress at the respective House and Senate committees.
This is a diabolical stealth move to use the global financial system as a way to merge the finances of our two countries with no public understanding of what is really happening. According to the 3/31/08 Financial Times, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and U.S. president George Bush have agreed to "step up cooperation over the crisis in financial markets by setting up a UK-US working group that will develop proposals to monitor and regulate the banking system."
Thus far the new working group will be comprised of senior treasury and regulatory figures from London and Washington. It is reported they are working on a system of "individually tailored international supervision for leading banks and financial institutions involved with cross-border activity". While other details will be confirmed next week at the IMF/World Bank Spring Meeting, it is recognized that this new body will meet "fairly intensely, sharing information, and over time, pushing through the kind of regulatory action that needs to be taken. It will also seek to improve day-to-day cooperation between regulators in the US and UK."
The British have overturned the outcome of the War of 1812. British accents have become common on our TVs and radios. There is an increase in movies about the British monarchs. The British outvote the U.S. on all international levels. Powerful groups comprised of key CEO's, economists, and politicians, such as the Pilgrim Society, the RIIA and the Council on Foreign Relations are working to reintegrate America under British rule. Our military and intelligence agencies now work very closely with one another, and now our financial and regulatory system is being merged through the UK-US working group. And I say to you, not one shot was fired!
===================================================================================
Items like these aren't too difficult to spot for the informed few who take the trouble to actually READ them before further propagating them. In short, any suggestions of supra-national conspiracy that don't point to the Jews as at their core, aren't worth jack. Plus, any conspiracy theories which generate suspicion, mistrust or hatred between naturally cohesive, ethnically-linked peoples are the hallmark of the Jews themselves. They never stop trying to set natural allies at each others throats.
A word to the wise:
Will bulk sites take more trouble over the stuff they post? Crap like the above shouldn't be given a platform anywhere on the net.
Thanks for listening.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Huxley Warned Us: Part 5
Please see the intro from Part 1 if you haven't already.
Aldous Huxley, 1958:
"No people that passes abruptly from a state of subservience under the rule of a despot to the completely unfamiliar state of political independence can be said to have a fair chance of making democratic institutions work. Again, no people in a precarious economic condition has a fair chance of being able to govern itself democratically. [true freedom] flourishes in an atmosphere of prosperity and declines as declining prosperity makes it necessary for the government to intervene ever more frequently and drastically in the affairs of its subjects. Overpopulation and over-organization are two conditions which, as I have already pointed out, deprive a society of a fair chance of making democratic institutions work effectively. We see, then, that there are certain historical, economic, demographic and technological conditions which make it very hard for Jefferson's rational animals, endowed by nature with inalienable rights and an innate sense of justice, to exercise their reason, claim their rights and act justly within a democratically organized society. We in the West have been supremely fortunate in having been given our fair chance of making the great experiment in self-government. Unfortunately it now looks as though, owing to recent changes in our circumstances, this infinitely precious fair chance were being, little by little, taken away from us. And this, of course, is not the whole story. These blind impersonal forces are not the only enemies of individual liberty and democratic institutions. There are also forces of another, less abstract character, forces that can be deliberately used by power-seeking individuals whose aim is to establish partial or complete control over their fellows. Fifty years ago, when I was a boy, it seemed completely self-evident that the bad old days were over, that torture and massacre, slavery, and the persecution of heretics, were things of the past. Among people who wore top hats, traveled in trains, and took a bath every morning such horrors were simply out of the question. After all we were living in the twentieth century. A few years later these people who took daily baths and went to church in top hats were committing atrocities on a scale undreamed of by the benighted Africans and Asiatics. In the light of recent history it would be foolish to suppose that this sort of thing cannot happen again. It can and, no doubt, it will. But in the immediate future there is some reason to believe that the punitive methods of I984 will give place to the reinforcements and manipulations of Brave New World."
Huxley initially points out that democracy as it once was, in the long golden period following Independence in 1776, delivered the goods. The monolithic tenants of the Constitution had only recently been formulated and were at that time entirely safe from the kind of revisions and attacks from Jewish shyster lawyers for whom the sight of a successful, prosperous and peaceful country was to become simply unacceptable.
Hard working European people, their strong, principled leaders and 24 karat gold governance based on openness, integrity, free speech, individual liberty and carefully-drafted legal framework guaranteed the stunning success of young America. It swiftly rose to become the world's richest and most powerful country thanks entirely to the vision of the founding fathers and the hard work, honesty and enterprise of the northern European settlers who built a paradise on earth the like of which the world had never before seen.
Obviously, we all know what has happened since and who exactly it is that is responsible for our collective demise. Huxley in his day correctly predicted that the age of the 'social engineer' was about to commence. Out of the two great dystopian paths, it was more likely that in the drive to gain total control of the masses, the forces of darkness would opt for subtle mind-manipulation rather than outright physical brutality. And for many decades, this was indeed the way of things.
However, whilst social engineering (such as political-correctness and massive immigration, the encouragement of inter-racial breeding and the destruction of the family unit (and through this, society as a whole) have been the core techniques for the implementation of these changes, we have lately seen very much more ruthless methods coming into play which if permitted to continue, will eventually see the infinitely more menacing methodology of Nineteen Eighty-Four coming to fruition.
In fact we have already seen Orwellian developments growing at a pace - since Washington's NeoConmen took the helm 8 years ago. Extraordinary rendition, torture, pre-empitive strikes, the silencing of dissenting voices, the massive increase in the prison population, the use of agencies like the ATF and their sibling clone agencies to act as stormtroopers against America's own citizens. The entire process is now taking on a far more baleful dimension. Legislation is already on the shelf which would - at a stroke - turn America into a clone of 1930s Stalinist Russia. And all that is required is one single precipitating event to bring this about...
We will not have long to wait, either. The trigger might be a genuine external threat, it may be another false flag operation, or it may come from America's repeated provocation of Russia. Either which way, when it happens (and it WILL - and soon) we will have our remaining (already weakened) rights whisked away in the blink of an eye. What happens next will not be pretty. Untold thousands of good men will die and our lives will never be the same again. Our freedoms will be history - at least for a while - and if we do not prevail, our children and their children will be slaves in perpetuity.
But you know what? Maybe we deserve such a future, for we did NOTHING to nip this situation in the bud when the possibility to seize our country back without bloodshed was within our grasp. Now it's probably too late, without considerable loss of life, to do so. Our collective inaction means that when the day of reckoning comes, we'll have a FAR higher price to pay because we didn't act at the outset. it all points to an unavoidable blood bath in which very many of us will perish. Such is the price of early inaction.
Aldous Huxley, 1958:
"No people that passes abruptly from a state of subservience under the rule of a despot to the completely unfamiliar state of political independence can be said to have a fair chance of making democratic institutions work. Again, no people in a precarious economic condition has a fair chance of being able to govern itself democratically. [true freedom] flourishes in an atmosphere of prosperity and declines as declining prosperity makes it necessary for the government to intervene ever more frequently and drastically in the affairs of its subjects. Overpopulation and over-organization are two conditions which, as I have already pointed out, deprive a society of a fair chance of making democratic institutions work effectively. We see, then, that there are certain historical, economic, demographic and technological conditions which make it very hard for Jefferson's rational animals, endowed by nature with inalienable rights and an innate sense of justice, to exercise their reason, claim their rights and act justly within a democratically organized society. We in the West have been supremely fortunate in having been given our fair chance of making the great experiment in self-government. Unfortunately it now looks as though, owing to recent changes in our circumstances, this infinitely precious fair chance were being, little by little, taken away from us. And this, of course, is not the whole story. These blind impersonal forces are not the only enemies of individual liberty and democratic institutions. There are also forces of another, less abstract character, forces that can be deliberately used by power-seeking individuals whose aim is to establish partial or complete control over their fellows. Fifty years ago, when I was a boy, it seemed completely self-evident that the bad old days were over, that torture and massacre, slavery, and the persecution of heretics, were things of the past. Among people who wore top hats, traveled in trains, and took a bath every morning such horrors were simply out of the question. After all we were living in the twentieth century. A few years later these people who took daily baths and went to church in top hats were committing atrocities on a scale undreamed of by the benighted Africans and Asiatics. In the light of recent history it would be foolish to suppose that this sort of thing cannot happen again. It can and, no doubt, it will. But in the immediate future there is some reason to believe that the punitive methods of I984 will give place to the reinforcements and manipulations of Brave New World."
Huxley initially points out that democracy as it once was, in the long golden period following Independence in 1776, delivered the goods. The monolithic tenants of the Constitution had only recently been formulated and were at that time entirely safe from the kind of revisions and attacks from Jewish shyster lawyers for whom the sight of a successful, prosperous and peaceful country was to become simply unacceptable.
Hard working European people, their strong, principled leaders and 24 karat gold governance based on openness, integrity, free speech, individual liberty and carefully-drafted legal framework guaranteed the stunning success of young America. It swiftly rose to become the world's richest and most powerful country thanks entirely to the vision of the founding fathers and the hard work, honesty and enterprise of the northern European settlers who built a paradise on earth the like of which the world had never before seen.
Obviously, we all know what has happened since and who exactly it is that is responsible for our collective demise. Huxley in his day correctly predicted that the age of the 'social engineer' was about to commence. Out of the two great dystopian paths, it was more likely that in the drive to gain total control of the masses, the forces of darkness would opt for subtle mind-manipulation rather than outright physical brutality. And for many decades, this was indeed the way of things.
However, whilst social engineering (such as political-correctness and massive immigration, the encouragement of inter-racial breeding and the destruction of the family unit (and through this, society as a whole) have been the core techniques for the implementation of these changes, we have lately seen very much more ruthless methods coming into play which if permitted to continue, will eventually see the infinitely more menacing methodology of Nineteen Eighty-Four coming to fruition.
In fact we have already seen Orwellian developments growing at a pace - since Washington's NeoConmen took the helm 8 years ago. Extraordinary rendition, torture, pre-empitive strikes, the silencing of dissenting voices, the massive increase in the prison population, the use of agencies like the ATF and their sibling clone agencies to act as stormtroopers against America's own citizens. The entire process is now taking on a far more baleful dimension. Legislation is already on the shelf which would - at a stroke - turn America into a clone of 1930s Stalinist Russia. And all that is required is one single precipitating event to bring this about...
We will not have long to wait, either. The trigger might be a genuine external threat, it may be another false flag operation, or it may come from America's repeated provocation of Russia. Either which way, when it happens (and it WILL - and soon) we will have our remaining (already weakened) rights whisked away in the blink of an eye. What happens next will not be pretty. Untold thousands of good men will die and our lives will never be the same again. Our freedoms will be history - at least for a while - and if we do not prevail, our children and their children will be slaves in perpetuity.
But you know what? Maybe we deserve such a future, for we did NOTHING to nip this situation in the bud when the possibility to seize our country back without bloodshed was within our grasp. Now it's probably too late, without considerable loss of life, to do so. Our collective inaction means that when the day of reckoning comes, we'll have a FAR higher price to pay because we didn't act at the outset. it all points to an unavoidable blood bath in which very many of us will perish. Such is the price of early inaction.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
The Creature Lives Among Us...
Soldiers in uniform quite rightly enjoy the protection of the Geneva Convention. They can clearly be seen to be members of one side or another. No harm should befall them in the event of capture - beyond a temporary period of incarceration and interrogation, of course. Likewise with police officers. Any villain contemplating an attack on a uniformed police officer knows he’s going to get a stiffer sentence if caught. And that’s only fair, too (always provided, of course, that such an attack isn’t carried out for political reasons against an utterly corrupt or illegal regime which is oppressing its citizens and denying their rights.)
In Phaedrus’ opinion, the ultra-orthodox Jew with all the trappings of his faith shouldn’t be victimized for his beliefs, because he makes no secret of them by the open display of certain clothes which render him unmistakably a Jew to whom such beliefs can reasonably be attributed. Phaedrus has a certain respect for those who are open about what they believe in and make no secret of it. It doesn’t mean we have to like such people. They might be Jews, they might be policemen, they might be skinheads; it doesn’t matter. We know where they’re coming from simply by their appearance.
According to our individual political and/or religious preferences, we can modify our behavior accordingly. For example. If Phaedrus sees an Hisadic Jew on the street, he doesn’t indulge in heckling or spitting, at the person as some folks might. Phaedrus fixes the Jew with piercing eye-contact and a slow nod of the head that conveys the unmistakable message, “I know exactly what your game is.” That’s all. Nothing threatening, nor is it intended to be. But the message will have got through, nevertheless, without a single word being spoken. Needless to say if such a Jew coming down the road tried to engage one conversation, it is obvious that it would only be some proposition of benefit to the Jew alone and to the other party’s detriment. So it’s best to simply walk on in silence. If a class of persons can be readily identified on sight, then we can take simple steps to avoid them so no one is put at risk.
Contrast this situation with the first example above. A soldier in wartime who is either out of his uniform in a foreign country, or perhaps worse, wearing the uniform of the other side. Now we have a problem. There is deceit. The rules have been broken. Same applies with some ordinary citizen donning a police uniform. He’s purporting to be something that he isn’t. In both of these instances, unfair advantage can be gained by deception.
This is why we must always, all of us who constitute ‘gentiles’ (non-Jews) at any rate, be ever vigilant for Jews who APPEAR to be just like the rest of us. No religious garb overtly worn to give any indication as to that person’s character, ethnicity, or likely behavior. Jews whose names are not typically Jewish. Jews who have ditched their original family names and adopted common names from the country in which they now live. They don’t follow the Mosaic law like their brethren the Hisadic/Ultra-orthodox Jew does with their characteristic, giveaway hairstyles and beards. They look just like you and me. This kind of Jew Phaedrus refers to as an “Occult Jew” from the Latin word whose root means ‘hidden’ or concealed. Of course, if this person runs a tailoring business or a café or a car dealership, then he’s no ostensible threat to my country or my way of life. So that’s fine. But if he’s running a major corporation, or a bank, a TV station, a newspaper, an advertising agency, or has a job in the government or is trying to form a new political party or whatever; THEN, I’m afraid, we have a problem. This Jew is analogous to the soldier out of uniform. We know his innate beliefs entitle him to treat the rest of us worse than battery chickens for his personal gain. And if he’s in a position of power, then no matter what he may say to the contrary, he’s out to screw us. His Holy book gives him carte blanch to milk us for all we’re worth.
THIS Jew, reader, is the source of 90% of the world’s problems. He’s constantly claiming to be working in our interests and fighting for value, truth, justice – whatever - but in reality he is doing the exact opposite. He is enriching himself at others’ expense.
Prove it to yourself. The next time you see some big business has collapsed as a result of fraud, do a little bit of digging on the internet. Investigate the pasts of the CEO, the Managing Director or the Finance Director. You may be surprised to find that in the VAST MAJORITY of instances, at least one of these key figures will be Jewish. But you’ll hardly ever, in any TV, radio, or newspaper report, be informed of this vital detail. It’s something you have to discover for yourself. And on this point, I wonder why the authorities seem so keen to keep former press baron "Lord Black" out of jail? Will he ever see the inside of the Slammer?
In Phaedrus’ opinion, the ultra-orthodox Jew with all the trappings of his faith shouldn’t be victimized for his beliefs, because he makes no secret of them by the open display of certain clothes which render him unmistakably a Jew to whom such beliefs can reasonably be attributed. Phaedrus has a certain respect for those who are open about what they believe in and make no secret of it. It doesn’t mean we have to like such people. They might be Jews, they might be policemen, they might be skinheads; it doesn’t matter. We know where they’re coming from simply by their appearance.
According to our individual political and/or religious preferences, we can modify our behavior accordingly. For example. If Phaedrus sees an Hisadic Jew on the street, he doesn’t indulge in heckling or spitting, at the person as some folks might. Phaedrus fixes the Jew with piercing eye-contact and a slow nod of the head that conveys the unmistakable message, “I know exactly what your game is.” That’s all. Nothing threatening, nor is it intended to be. But the message will have got through, nevertheless, without a single word being spoken. Needless to say if such a Jew coming down the road tried to engage one conversation, it is obvious that it would only be some proposition of benefit to the Jew alone and to the other party’s detriment. So it’s best to simply walk on in silence. If a class of persons can be readily identified on sight, then we can take simple steps to avoid them so no one is put at risk.
Contrast this situation with the first example above. A soldier in wartime who is either out of his uniform in a foreign country, or perhaps worse, wearing the uniform of the other side. Now we have a problem. There is deceit. The rules have been broken. Same applies with some ordinary citizen donning a police uniform. He’s purporting to be something that he isn’t. In both of these instances, unfair advantage can be gained by deception.
This is why we must always, all of us who constitute ‘gentiles’ (non-Jews) at any rate, be ever vigilant for Jews who APPEAR to be just like the rest of us. No religious garb overtly worn to give any indication as to that person’s character, ethnicity, or likely behavior. Jews whose names are not typically Jewish. Jews who have ditched their original family names and adopted common names from the country in which they now live. They don’t follow the Mosaic law like their brethren the Hisadic/Ultra-orthodox Jew does with their characteristic, giveaway hairstyles and beards. They look just like you and me. This kind of Jew Phaedrus refers to as an “Occult Jew” from the Latin word whose root means ‘hidden’ or concealed. Of course, if this person runs a tailoring business or a café or a car dealership, then he’s no ostensible threat to my country or my way of life. So that’s fine. But if he’s running a major corporation, or a bank, a TV station, a newspaper, an advertising agency, or has a job in the government or is trying to form a new political party or whatever; THEN, I’m afraid, we have a problem. This Jew is analogous to the soldier out of uniform. We know his innate beliefs entitle him to treat the rest of us worse than battery chickens for his personal gain. And if he’s in a position of power, then no matter what he may say to the contrary, he’s out to screw us. His Holy book gives him carte blanch to milk us for all we’re worth.
THIS Jew, reader, is the source of 90% of the world’s problems. He’s constantly claiming to be working in our interests and fighting for value, truth, justice – whatever - but in reality he is doing the exact opposite. He is enriching himself at others’ expense.
Prove it to yourself. The next time you see some big business has collapsed as a result of fraud, do a little bit of digging on the internet. Investigate the pasts of the CEO, the Managing Director or the Finance Director. You may be surprised to find that in the VAST MAJORITY of instances, at least one of these key figures will be Jewish. But you’ll hardly ever, in any TV, radio, or newspaper report, be informed of this vital detail. It’s something you have to discover for yourself. And on this point, I wonder why the authorities seem so keen to keep former press baron "Lord Black" out of jail? Will he ever see the inside of the Slammer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
