Author Topic: * Goodbye, America!  (Read 946 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
    • View Profile
Re: * Goodbye, America!
« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2011, 07:37:54 PM »

This is why we got wikileaks and Arizona shootings -- the net is becoming a real threat.

The Arizona shootings will be bigger than Clinton's OKC and Bush's 9/11.
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline Sue

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 19683
  • Gender: Female
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: * Goodbye, America!
« Reply #21 on: March 09, 2011, 05:19:04 AM »
Feedback: This might interest you Laconas.

From    website.


Here is a reply from a John Spritzler:

Lasha Darkmoon writes, “Multiculturalism is a deadly weapon against Western civilization — a WMD of truly devastating lethality that in the long run will destroy Christianity, traditional moral values, and traditional nationalist cultures in North America, Europe, and Australia. It will also result in the dispossession and dis-empowerment of the White race” and includes an Uncle Sam Wants You graphic that refers to “Whites” as the victim.

Darkmoon’s racialist thinking is poison. Whose welfare should we be concerned with? Whose values should shape all of society everywhere on the planet? Whose side should we be on in the struggle against the oppressors (who include, but by no means are limited to, Zionists)? The answer to this question, my friends, is NOT the “White race”, as Lasha Darkmoon asserts. First of all, there is no such thing as the “White race.” Second, if there were such a thing, it would include some oppressors and it would exclude many of the oppressed. Racialist thinking is a trap. The elite push it in order to get oppressed people to ally with oppressors of the same “race” and to view fellow human beings like themselves as the enemy because they are of the wrong ‘race.” It is POISON!

Dark skinned bus drivers and white skinned bus drivers of the world have infinitely more in common when it comes to basic values and aspirations than either has in common with a billionaire banker sharing their same skin color or religion or language. And you can replace ‘bus driver’ with a million other similar occupations.

Frankly, if I don’t see a robust refutation of racialist poison on this list when it is expressed by articles such as this one by Darkmoon, then I will leave the list. My anti-Zionism is only one aspect of my anti-racialism; I am as opposed to “white people” racialism as I am to “Jewish people” racialism. They are both poison. I consider those who aggressively administer this poison to be agents of the enemy, witting or otherwise.



Hello John,

I would like to take some time to respond to your criticism.  I value your contributions in general, and would hate to see you leave Shamireaders.  Normally I would not respond to an ultimatum such as you have issued here, but in your case I will make an exception:

I agree wholeheartedly with your critique of Lasha Moon’s piece that I posted.  The problem is this:  you have picked out a fly in her ointment, and justly taken it to task.  This piece was published on a White racialist website, so it has that flavor, which is likewise odious to me. However, the piece contained so much that is condign that you fail to acknowledge in passing that I cannot see your criticism in any kind of balanced way. Take out the objectionable racialist admonition here which you take to task, and you have left a scathing and invaluable critique of Zionist/Jewish domination of US foreign policy, which you fail in any way to acknowledge.  Thus, I consider your critique valid but extremely unbalanced.  The minute you see one thing objectionable, you seem to feel free to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

I think here about Shamir’s willingness to associate at times with people like David Duke, despite his objectionable Klan past, because his critique of Zionist domination of America is valid and likewise trenchant.  As a friend of mine once put it, you have to learn to pick the flowers and leave the shit behind. Perhaps it would have been helpful if in posting “Darkmoon’s”  piece I had written a disclaimer of her racialist slant, but I tend to assume that the sophisticated readers of this list are very capable of doing this for themselves.  There is no racialism on this listserve, and I think we can assume that a shared value here is universalism.  This will not stop me from posting a formidable piece by David Duke, Lasha Darkmoon, Kevin McDonald, or any number of other accurate critics of Zionism or its domination of US policies, without in the least sharing any racialist implications that may inhere in their approaches.

Let’s all agree to this:  Zionism is objectionable in part because of its particularism.  There is no particularist solution to the real problems of mankind. You cannot fight the fire of racism (or ethnism) with the same fire (Hitler certainly demonstrated that!).  This simply does not supply moral high ground.  On the other hand, sometimes it takes a thief to catch a thief, and some racialists are very astute in detecting and exposing the racism of Zionism, and whether for the right reasons or not, are able to articulately object to the overweening Zionist influence in America, as I believe Darkmoon does here.  I continue to have faith that those on the Shamireaders list are not about to trade their opposition to the racism of Zionism for support for the racialism of White protectionism or any other racially oriented ideology.  But even a broken watch is right twice a day, and racialists may be able to help us perceive the racialism in our agreed adversary, yet this does not mean we need to accept their starting point.

If we say that because someone at some point makes a politically incorrect statement, that the rest of their utterance must be disregarded, then we engage in a kind of ad hominem argument. This is not a high form of criticism.  In fact, it is illegitimate.   I would encourage you to remain subscribed to Shamirreaders, to submit some of your own pieces for publication, and to keep this kind of balanced perspective with respect to what you see published here.  This is not a racialist listserve.  But some of the writers whose work is posted here may suffer from that malady.  Be charitable, and take them for what they are worth.

Peace,

Ken Freeland



Dear friends and readers,

I fully agree with my friend Ken in his reply to our friend John Spritzler: we do publish texts that we find useful. Our publication does not imply our agreement with the authors. This is particularly true in regard of nationalists and racialists. Some of their texts are useful. Anyway, now we publish the second part of Dr Darkmoon's long piece. But first, some responses.

From Shamir to Darkmoon

Dear Lasha,

thank you for your new piece. Meanwhile, a few remarks.

1. Christian Zionists are indeed unpleasant but I doubt they are the formidable force you present. Until very recently, Christian Zionists were considered "antisemites" , and only a few years ago their leaders discovered the charm of Jewish support. If the tide turns, they are likely to turn, too.

2. As for comparison with Germany, the US did not lose a war yet, the situation is not too bad yet, and while the grub is plentiful, they are not likely to quarrel.

3. The idea of white (ok, Euro-Americans) America is a non-starter; you waste your time and talents there. There is no way to separate America's acculturated "coloureds"; and it makes no sense now with President Obama. There are many ways to fight Jewish influence, and the one you choose is doomed to fail.

4. As a non-American, I would not mind if these seekers of white America were just to create a diversion big enough to keep America busy; but even that is not going to happen. If and when the Jewish-led America will embark to a new war, say, against Iran, your patriotic whites will cheer the war.

5. What is the most probable development? A white activist will be used for a large provocation, maybe for an assassination attempt, and thus they will serve the interests of Obama-hating Jews and will become scapegoats.

6. As I wrote, you can be against immigration without all this search for ethnic European America.

7. My friendly advice -  give a thought to the above; try to avoid disaster.

Yours friendly

Shamir



From Darkmoon to Shamir

Dear Mr Shamir,

...I am not happy with this “White” issue thing. Never have been. I take all your criticisms on board. My ideology is basically similar to yours. I often visit Toronto, a multicultural city. My friends there are of all nationalities. My possible sister-in-law is Indian. From Tamil Nadu.  I wonder what she would think if she read my comment about multiculturalism being a “deadly weapon” against Western civilization.  She would not understand. She would suspect me of being a secret racist. Which I am not.

I genuinely do believe it’s too late to go back to the past. Ployglot, multicolored communities — maybe this is the future. White Utopias? I can’t really see them working. Well, Mr Shamir, you are a Christian, and you know that comment of St Paul’s about “seeing through a glass darkly.” That’s me. I am groping in the dark for solutions. You must understand that I am in many ways a fish out of water on theoccidentalobserv er. net.  Many of the writers there do not meet with my approval. Their obsessions with race and “Whiteness” are not my obsessions. And yet, these people feel beleagured and frightened — that they’re “losing their country”, their jobs, their culture, their traditional values. Their very religion, Mr Shamir — the Christianity you hold so dear — they see it being destroyed in America by organized Jewry’s control of Hollywood, the mass media, and the porn industry which is largely in Jewish hands. So they would seem to have valid grounds for concern. There is much talk nowadays of “violent revolutions” and “military coups”. When hope dies, men get desperate...

Almost every day I am in touch with my dear friend Jill, a Jewish painter in Florida, and so I get a different perspective from her on all these matters.  However much I may rage against “organized Jewry” in my articles, Jill knows I don’t hate Jews. No way.  My close friendship with her precludes any such possibility. 

What I’d like you to do, Mr Shamir, is to publish my future articles on your site in spite of your strong disagreement with me on this multicultural issue. Take the risk.  And then feel free on your site to point out my various errors. You have “Shamir Readers”. Let these clever and well-informed commentators feel free to tear me to pieces if they wish. How else can we find truth and wisdom, dear Mr Shamir, unless we engage in free dialogue?

Your sincere admirer,

Lasha Darkmoon



From Hal Womack, SF to Darkmoon
hal.womack@gmail. com
Dear Madame de Plume & Friends,

Stampede the buffalo over the cliff?

You're way too soft on the Jews, ignoring by far most of their black ops --such as Abe, McKinley, Bernard Baruch's two World Wars, Huey Long, JFK, OKC, Diana & 9/11. At the same time, you swing the axe to try to sever American whites (such as myself) from our natural allies --to wit, the niggers, spics, slopes and their cousins who constitute the overwhelming majority of our race and also a big slice of our home pop. GDEM or "Great Dark-Eyed Majority" way ahead of blue few in recognition of jish _perfidy_ (note also book by this title written by Ben Hecht).

By way of personal intro, I will mention having gone to jail for MLK's SCLC, beginning to learn Spanish half a century ago in Mexico, highly successful leadership for a dozen years in the American youth movement in support of Vietnam during war time and my mastery of the most ancient oriental game of strategy usually called in barbarian tongues by its Nip name of _go_.

Whenever the J's spot someone on their bloody trail, their first reaction = trying to nail that party in the public eye as anti-black, too. SOP. Here you fall in with your master MacDonald, much to the glee of the JAPE bosses. That's for "Jewish-American Political Empire" (my coinage). WADRT (="With All Due Respect To") the tiny minority of exemplary professors, this "occidental" swerve be typical academic cowardice & treachery. KMAC's both a most profound scholar and at the same time a back-stabbing sheethead.

To stand up bravely like an honest woman and teach one's fellow whites to extend the hand of friendship to the rest of our race = to light the fuse in the powder room of the jish imperial flagship. Rather harder to get tenure that way, hire learning & all that rot, eh?

We the Seven Billion are evolving a planetary culture, despite the heavy lid of JAPE oppression, that wonder of hyper-leverage.

BTW: a) Maybe we're finally getting close to a translation of the German pamphlet which coined the fateful term "anti-Semite" ? And

b) On a related topic for Ish & Ken: The Clintonz concocted the Bosnian War as a diversionary maneuver to give them cover for the destruction of Iraq, by far the J's main strategic objective in that period. Who can discuss this topic at all without invoking the classic prequel, WAG THE DOG ? Only lack of his address stops me CC'ing Gordon Arnaut.

c) Groovy octopic. Thanks for your historical review, up to the point mentioned.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
    • View Profile
Re: * Goodbye, America!
« Reply #22 on: March 09, 2011, 06:43:41 AM »
A lot of ideas an opinions here, but I would agree that groups based on European types are a dead end at this time.

The deck is really stacked against European types at this times.


March 8, 2011
Expounding on a Theme, Obama Visits Boston School
By MARK LANDLER

BOSTON — President Obama visited a high-tech public school here on Tuesday to pound away at his themes of innovation and education, sticking to a schedule that has taken him out of Washington nearly every week, despite budget battles and upheaval in the Arab world.

Declaring that “there is no better economic policy than one that produces more graduates with the skills necessary to succeed,” Mr. Obama said that revitalizing education was one of his administration’s top priorities and a “responsibility of every American — every parent, every teacher, every business leader, every public official, and yes, every student.”


The president and Melinda Gates visited TechBoston Academy, which was started with Gates Foundation financing, on Tuesday.
Blogs


The president has been elaborating on a theme of American competitiveness since he first articulated it in his State of the Union address in January. The school Mr. Obama visited here, known as the TechBoston Academy, was ideally suited to illustrate his points, its gritty classrooms stuffed with laptops and students mixing fluids to analyze their density and purity.

“You guys are a pretty impressive bunch,” Mr. Obama said to a science class of juniors and seniors, quizzing them on where they were applying to college and what they wanted to do after that.

“We have such a shortage of engineers now,” he said to a young man who said he wanted to study engineering. Gesturing to the boy’s friends, he said, “We need architects and pharmacists, too.”

Mr. Obama was accompanied by Melinda Gates, who runs the Gates Foundation with her husband, Bill Gates, the chairman of Microsoft. The school was started in 2002 with financing from the foundation and integrates technology into every aspect of the curriculum. The school, which offers classes from sixth to 12th grade, is a pilot school in the Boston public school system.

Mr. Obama had some fun at Mr. Gates’s expense, noting that both of them had attended school in Boston — he at Harvard Law School, Mr. Gates at Harvard College. But Mr. Gates, he said, “couldn’t hack it in school here, so he dropped out. Then he started a modestly successful computer company.”

When nobody laughed, Mr. Obama said, “That was a joke, guys,” adding that he had actually started a big computer company.

To revitalize the nation’s education system, Mr. Obama said the United States needed to treat teaching as an honored profession, noting that in South Korea, teachers are referred to as “nation-builders.”

Mr. Obama took note of the budget battle with Capitol Hill, saying that his proposed budget calls for a freeze in domestic spending for five years. But he said he would fight Republican proposals that would cut back spending on education to reduce the deficit.

“A budget that sacrifices our commitment to education is a budget that sacrifices our country’s future,” Mr. Obama said. “It is a budget that sacrifices our children’s future, and I will not let it happen.”

After his visit, Mr. Obama met with several players from the Boston Celtics before attending a Democratic fund-raiser at the Museum of Fine Arts here, where he raised $1 million.

In his speech to a partisan crowd, Mr. Obama struck an almost conciliatory note, saying that Democrats would have to compromise with the Republicans in Congress to find ways to cut the deficit. “Not everything has to be a fight, not everything is a battle to the death,” Mr. Obama said. “There’s no weakness in trying to reach out and find common ground.”

During his schools tour, Mr. Obama has also visited a school in Miami with former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, as well as one in Northern Virginia with Prime Minister Julia Gillard of Australia. He made a more personal school stop Monday, when he attended a parent-teacher conference for his daughter Sasha at Sidwell Friends School in Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html
« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 07:01:08 AM by laconas »
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline Sue

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 19683
  • Gender: Female
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: * Goodbye, America!
« Reply #23 on: March 10, 2011, 01:07:23 AM »
A lot of ideas and opinions here, but I would agree that groups based on European types are a dead end at this time.

The deck is really stacked against European types at this times.

Yes, that time has long passed and there is no way back.

Quote
Declaring that “there is no better economic policy than one that produces more graduates with the skills necessary to succeed,” Mr. Obama said that revitalizing education was one of his administration’s top priorities and a “responsibility of every American — every parent, every teacher, every business leader, every public official, and yes, every student.”


The president and Melinda Gates visited TechBoston Academy, which was started with
Gates Foundation financing, on Tuesday.Blogs


More rhetoric and photo ops, while in real life people have lost their jobs and homes. Take
a look at that picture. We had numerous dignitaries visiting our schools, I don't remember
the Secret Service in the background guarding the door.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 19683
  • Gender: Female
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: * Goodbye, America!
« Reply #24 on: March 10, 2011, 02:33:39 AM »
Quote
Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation [my emphasis]. … At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination. … It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed — and lavishly displayed — by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.

Sir Arthur Bryant, Unfinished Victory (1940) (slightly edited for brevity)

With one significant difference: America is in a far worse condition. Historian Sir Arthur Bryant summarizes Jewish power in pre-1933 Germany:

The Origins of World War 2

The unexpected views of four key diplomats who were close to events

contributed by collettj@telkomsa.net

Just consider the following:

Joseph P. Kennedy, U.S. Ambassador to Britain during the years immediately preceding WW2 was the father of the famous American Kennedy dynasty. James Forrestal the first US Secretary of Defense (1947-1949) quotes him as saying "Chamberlain (the British Prime Minister) stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war." (The Forrestal Diaries ed. Millis, Cassell 1952, p129).

Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office in January 1939, is quoted approvingly by the highly respected British military historian Major-General JFC Fuller. Concerning public opinion in America he says "Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands .. when bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe .. It is interesting to observe that in this carefully thought-out campaign .. no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries.. Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps .. President Roosevelt has been given the power.. to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for." (Fuller, JFC: The Decisive Battles of the Western World vol 3 pp 372-374.)

Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out, found anti-Semitism in Germany understandable. This was because before the advent of the Nazis, "the stage, the press, medicine and law [were] crowded with Jews..among the few with money to splurge, a high proportion [were] Jews..the leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred." (Hugh Wilson: Diplomat between the Wars, Longmans 1941, quoted in Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh, Hodder 1976).

Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Berlin, 'said further that the hostile attitude in Great Britain was the work of Jews and enemies of the Nazis, which was what Hitler thought himself.” (Taylor, AJP: The Origins of the Second World War Penguin 1965, 1987 etc p 324).

Is all of this merely attributable to antisemitism?

The economic background to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding, before casting judgement on the originators of these viewpoints.

At the end of the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked [see Paul Johnson "A History of the Modern World" (1983) p24 and H Nicholson Peacemaking 1919 (1933) pp13-16] into paying massive reparations to France and other economic competitors and former belligerent countries in terms of the so-called Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the liberal American President Woodrow Wilson. Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the war, in spite of the fact that "Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts, though too belated, to avert one." (Professor Sydney B Fay The Origins of the World War (vol. 2 p 552)).

"As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations, by 1923 the situation in Germany became desperate and inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were engaged to print money around the clock. In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar. By 1924 this had become about 5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle class, reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero."  (Koestler The God that Failed p 28)

According to Sir Arthur Bryant the British historian (Unfinished Victory (1940 pp. 136-144):

"It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation. But to those who had lost their all this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions. The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions (in spite of constituting) less than one percent of the population. The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them.

So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed. The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly. Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation. At this time it was not the 'Aryans' who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed and lavishly displayed by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle."

Goodness gracious, Sir Arthur! What made you get out of the wrong side of the bed?

Strangely enough, a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon (Hitler, Germans and the "Jewish Question") essentially confirms what Bryant says. According to her, "Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933." But she adds "Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private service. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks.

They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange. By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their 'race'. At least a quarter of full professors and instructors (at German universities) had Jewish origins. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the law and medical students. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%. In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents." etc etc.

Arthur Koestler confirms the Jewish over-involvement in German publishing.

"Ullstein's was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind in Europe, and probably In the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these the venerable Vossische Zeitung, founded in the eighteenth century, and the B.Z. am Mittag, an evening paper. Apart from these, Ullstein's published more than a dozen weekly and monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own travel agency, etc., and were one of the leading book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers Ullstein - they were five, like the original Rothschild brothers, and like them also, they were Jews." (The God that Failed (1950) ed. RHS Crossman, p 31).

Edgar Mowrer, Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, wrote an anti-German tract called Germany Puts the Clock Back (published as a Penguin Special and reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938). He nevertheless notes "In the all-important administration of Prussia, any number of strategic positions came into the hands of Hebrews. A telephone conversation between three Jews in Ministerial offices could result in the suspension of any periodical or newspaper in the state. The Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration that same considerable part that they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual and cultural life of the country. And thereby the impression was strengthened that Germany, a country with a mission of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners."

Mowrer says "No one who lived through the period from 1919 to 1926 is likely to forget the sexual promiscuity that prevailed. Throughout a town like Berlin, hotels and pensions made vast fortunes by letting rooms by the hour or day to baggage-less, unregistered guests. Hundreds of cabarets, pleasure resorts and the like served for purposes of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper mood." (pp. 153-4). Bryant describes throngs of child prostitutes outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. He adds "Most of them (the night clubs and vice-resorts) were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews. among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years." (pp. 144-5).

Douglas Reed, Chief Central European correspondent before WWII for the London Times, was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported: "I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes the word 'Jew', in dripping red letters. The Kurfürstendamm was to me a revelation. I knew that Jews were prominent in business life, but I did not know that they almost monopolized important branches of it.

Germany had one Jew to one hundred gentiles, said the statistics; but the fashionable Kurfürstendamm, according to the dripping red legends, had about one gentile shop to ninety-nine Jewish ones." (Reed Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3). In Reed's book Disgrace Abounding of the following year he notes "In the Berlin (of pre-Hitler years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and stage actors were Jews, the plays performed were often by German, Austrian or Hungarian Jews and were staged by Jewish film producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers.

The Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it. It is not true that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin papers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish" (pp238-9).

The Jewish writer Edwin Black notes "For example, in Berlin alone, about 75% of the attorneys and nearly as many of the doctors were Jewish." (Black, The Transfer Agreement (1984) p58.

To cap it all, Jews were perceived as dangerous enemies of Germany after Samuel Untermeyer, the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation, declared war on Germany on August 6 1933. (Edwin Black The Transfer Agreement: the Untold Story of the Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Palestine (1984) pp272-277) According to Black, "The one man who most embodied the potential death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermeyer." (p 369). This was the culmination of a worldwide boycott of German goods led by international Jewish organizations. The London Daily Express on March 24, 1933 carried the headline "Judea Declares War on Germany".

Hitler saw the tremendous danger posed to Germany by Communism.

He appreciated the desperate need to eliminate this threat, a fact that earned him the immense hatred and animosity of the Jewish organisations and the media and politicians of the west which they could influence. After all, according to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant, although Jews formed less than five percent of Russia's population, they formed more than fifty percent of its revolutionaries. According to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant in his book The Jews (1977, chapter 8]:

"It must be added that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last century and the first decades of this one, stemmed from prosperous Jewish families. They were perhaps typified by the father of revolution, Karl Marx. Thus when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm; Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Kurt Eisner in Bavaria, and, most improbable of all, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin.

"To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a preponderance of Jews. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews." Other authors agree with this:

"There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War 1. The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this was a very serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years. It is clear then that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists. led many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation." (Sarah Gordon, "Hitler, Germans and the Jewish Question", Princeton University Press (1984) p 23).

"The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic crises of the 1920s and 30s.. Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution. Such feelings were not restricted to Germany, or to vulgar extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism became the norm in 'nice society', and 'nice society' included the universities." (Martin Bernal, Black Athena vol. 1 pp. 367, 387).

"The major role Jewish leaders played in the November (Russian) revolution was probably more important than any other factor in confirming (Hitler's) anti-Semitic beliefs." (J&S Pool, Who Financed Hitler, p.164).

Hitler came to power in Germany with two main aims, the rectification of the unjust provisions of the Versailles Treaty, and the destruction of the Soviet/Communist threat to Germany. Strangely enough, contrary to the mythology created by those who had an opposing ethnic agenda, he had no plans or desire for a larger war of conquest.

Professor AJP Taylor showed this in his book The Origins of the Second World War, to the disappointment of the professional western political establishment. Taylor says, "The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all" (p.267), and "Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership" (p104-5). What occurred in Europe in 1939-41 was the result of unforeseen weaknesses and a tipping of the balance of power, and Hitler was an opportunist "who took advantages whenever they offered themselves" (Taylor).

Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. [/b][/color]Hitler wanted peace with Britain, as the German generals admitted (Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill 1948, Pan Books 1983) with regard to the so-called Halt Order at Dunkirk, where Hitler had the opportunity to capture the entire British Army, but chose not to. Liddell Hart, one of Britain's most respected military historians, quotes the German General von Blumentritt with regard to this Halt Order:

"He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but 'where there is planing, there are shavings flying'. He compared the British Empire with the catholic Church saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany's position on the Continent. The return of Germany's colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere." (p 200).

According to Liddell Hart, "At the time we believed that the repulse of the Luftwaffe in the "Battle over Britain" had saved her. That is only part of the explanation, the last part of it. The original cause, which goes much deeper, is that Hitler did not want to conquer England. He took little interest in the invasion preparations, and for weeks did nothing tospur them on; then, after a brief impulse to invade, he veered around again and suspended the preparations. He was preparing, instead, to invade Russia" (p140).

David Irving in the foreword to his book The Warpath (1978) refers to "the discovery, that at no time did this man (Hitler) pose or intend a real threat to Britain or the Empire."

This gives a completely different complexion, not only to the war, but to the successful suppression of this information during the war and afterwards. Historians today know only too well where the boundaries lie within which they can paint their pictures of the war and its aftermath, and the consequences of venturing beyond those boundaries, irrespective of the evidence. Unfortunately, only too few of them have been prepared to have the courage to break out of this dreadful straitjacket of official and unofficial censorship.

E-mail comment received:

I worked and studied in Berlin for three years, have an MA in International Relations and a BA in Government with a minor in History. I am embarrassed to say that until I read this article, I had no idea of the scope and cause for the anti-Semitism in Germany before WWII. The Halt Order at Dunkirk was never mentioned in my studies, nor was the ownership of the media, banks and businesses.

Thank you for the excellent article. It certainly gives me a new perspective. I have always questioned the actual numbers of Jewish victims of the concentration camps, as the numbers didn't make sense based upon Germany's population. Perhaps it was fear of failing or being labeled an anti-Semite by my history professors (all but two were Jewish) and classmates that I refrained from demanding an honest discussion during my classes. I once said that the only reason Israel existed was out of Holocaust guilt, and I was immediately labeled a terrorist sympathizer.

I see what is now happening in Israel and I am aghast. The parallels to WW II are frightening. Even today, one cannot bring up this subject without being labeled a Holocaust denier or white supremacist.

Thanks again for an excellent article. I am forwarding it to several friends.

JBP

Winston Churchill: "You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest."

Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill - His Career in War and Peace, p. 145

http://globalfire.tv/nj/08en/history/origins_of_ww2.htm
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 19683
  • Gender: Female
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: * Goodbye, America!
« Reply #25 on: March 10, 2011, 03:25:06 AM »
Quote
David Irving in the foreword to his book The Warpath (1978) refers to "the discovery, that at no time did this man (Hitler) pose or intend a real threat to Britain or the Empire."

It makes perfect sense to me why certain elements continue to demonize Historian David Irving.



 
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline clefty

  • Shill
  • Group Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1363
    • View Profile
Re: * Goodbye, America!
« Reply #26 on: March 10, 2011, 03:57:44 AM »

Winston Churchill: "You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest."

Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill - His Career in War and Peace, p. 145


Hitler or a Jesuit priest?...or a catholic priest...what's the difference?

http://one-evil.org/entities_organizations/evil_org_nazi_ss.htm

As a military order of the Roman Catholic Church, the Knights of the Holy See (Nazi SS) are bestowed by the "infallible" legal orders of the Roman Pontiff on behalf of the Mother Church to wage constant Holy Inquisition against all heretics, including assassinations, torture and counter-intelligence, to protect the name of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and directly represent the interests of the Holy See as its primary order of Holy Knights-- the SS (Sedes Sacrorum or Holy See).

there's more...http://www.spirituallysmart.com/nazi.html
« Last Edit: March 10, 2011, 04:09:47 AM by clefty »

Offline Sue

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 19683
  • Gender: Female
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: * Goodbye, America!
« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2011, 04:27:43 AM »
Since you must have read it all, would you please elaborate, using your own words, Clefty?
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 19683
  • Gender: Female
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: * Goodbye, America!
« Reply #28 on: March 10, 2011, 05:07:20 AM »
The Christian Zionists and organized Jewry: fools conned by knaves

But one scourge Germany did not have, and which America has, is this scourge of a non-Jewish enemy within: the 60 million Christian Zionists acting in cahoots with organized Jewry to oppose the interests of their own people. America`s Christian Zionists, it would seem, are their own worst enemy`”blithely planning their own demise without knowing it.''

Despite its history as the only Western institution that has been able at times to resist Jewish power, the Catholic Church, of which I am a hopelessly dysfunctional practicing member, has proved to be an acute disappointment. It has been thoroughly subverted from within and without. It offers neither guidance nor leadership. So forget the Catholics—a spent force.

The Church and anti-Semitism—again

Kevin MacDonald

February 2, 2009

Recently there has been a media uproar about the reinstatement of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), a traditionalist Catholic group, that broke off from the Church after the reforms of Vatican II. Jewish groups are furious that there would be any attempt to reconcile these traditionalists to the Church. This is not surprising since the issue that led to the schism was the reform of the Church initiated by the Second Vatican Council and its declaration  on Judaism, anti-Semitism, and non-Christian religions.

The man behind the schism was Marcel Lefebvre. Lefebvre not only objected to the changes wrought by Vatican II but also opposed Muslim immigration to Europe. As noted in the National Catholic Reporter,

A troubled history with Judaism has long been part of the Catholic traditionalist movement associated with … Lefebvre — beginning with Lefebvre himself, who spoke approvingly of both the World War II-era Vichy Regime in France and the far-right National Front, and who identified the contemporary enemies of the faith as “Jews, Communists and Freemasons” in an Aug. 31, 1985, letter to Pope John Paul II.

Within the past year, a priest of the SSPX stated that the Jews were “co-responsible” for the death of Christ. One of the reinstated bishops, Richard Williamson, has questioned standard accounts of the Holocaust.

All this raises once again the issue of anti-Semitism and the Church. Visiting St. Peter’s in Rome last summer I noticed that there was a fairly large and prominent crypt of St. John Chrysostom. There is also a large statue of Chrysostom as part of the Altar of the Chair of St. Peter by Bernini, as well a statue on the colonnade. Chrysostom was certainly an important Doctor of the Church. But he is also one of history’s most well-known anti-Semites:

Although such beasts [Jews] are unfit for work, they are fit for killing . . . fit for slaughter. (I.II.5)

[The Synagogue] is not merely a lodging place for robbers and cheats but also for demons. This is true not only of the synagogues but also of the souls of the Jews. (I.IV.2)

Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? (I.VII.1) (St. John Chrysostom, Adversus Judaeos)

Or consider St. Jerome: “If you call [the synagogue] a brothel, a den of vice, the devil’s refuge, Satan’s fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever else you will, you are still saying less than it deserves.”

Or St. Gregory of Nyssa: [Jews are] murderers of the Lord, assassins of the prophets, rebels against God, God haters, . . . advocates of the devil, race of vipers, slanderers, calumniators, dark-minded people, leaven of the Pharisees, sanhedrin of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners, and haters of righteousness.

I wrote a chapter on this in Separation and Its Discontents, proposing that the Catholic church in late antiquity [4th–6th century AD] was in its very essence a powerful anti-Jewish movement that arose out of resource and reproductive competition with Jews. This idea of mine hasn’t received much attention — perhaps because it leads to some basic questioning about our beliefs and our culture. Darwin really did have a dangerous idea. But since the issue is topical right now, I thought that I would use this opportunity to summarize the argument there, followed by some further comments on anti-Jewish attitudes in Catholicism. 

·      The 4th and 5th centuries were a time of increased anti-Jewish attitudes at all levels of Roman society. Preachers and bishops like Chrysostom portrayed the Jews very negatively and attempted to erect walls between Jews and non-Jews.

·      Jews had become economically prosperous during this period even though the society as a whole was losing population and declining economically. Accusations of Jewish greed, wealth, love of luxury and of the pleasures of the table became common. Jews were prominent in certain sectors of the economy, including the slave trade, banking, national and international trade, and the law. Jews had also developed monopolies in specific industries, including silk, clothing, glassware, and the trade in luxury items. Jews were seen as wealthy, powerful, and aggressive.

·      Church actions against the Jews and the anti-Jewish rhetoric of the Church Fathers struck a deep resonance with popular attitudes. A historian noted that “if the Christian populace so many times threw itself into the attack on synagogue after synagogue, it was not because it passively accepted orders given from above. … If the anti-Jewish polemic was so successful, it was because it awakened latent hatreds and appealed to feelings that were already there.”

·       Emperor Constantine, who established the Church as the religion of the Empire, had bishops in his entourage who held strongly anti-Jewish attitudes. Constantine himself stated that the Jews are “a people who, having imbrued their hands in a most heinous outrage [i.e., killing Christ], have thus polluted their souls and are deservedly blind.”

·       Several of the Church Fathers, including Chrysostom, came from areas where there was a long history of conflict between Jews and non-Jews. Chrysostom describes Jews as numerous and wealthy and seems to have seen Judaism more as an economic force than as a religious organization. He often compared Jews to predatory beasts and accused them of virtually every evil, including economic crimes such as profiteering. St. Jerome also refers to Jews as encircling Christians and seeking to tear them apart. Jerome complained about the Jews’ love for money in several passages. And he complained that the Jews were multiplying “like vermin” — a comment that clearly suggests a concern with Jewish reproductive success.

·      Outspoken anti-Jewish attitudes were typical of many who rose in the Church hierarchy and among many prominent Christian writers of the 4th and 5th century (e.g., Eusebius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa). In the Eastern Church during this period, the monks were “militant anti-Semites” who had considerable influence among the Church hierarchy. The suggestion is that anti-Semitism was of prime importance in attaining positions of power and influence in the Church during this period. Individuals exhibited their anti-Semitism openly, as a badge of honor, and were made saints of the Church after their death.

·      A significant percentage of all Christian writings during the period are essentially anti-Jewish. These writings are attempts define an ingroup fundamentally opposed to Jews. Christians saw the Old Testament and the New Testament as fundamentally opposed: “The adversos Judeaos tradition represents the overall method of Christian exegesis of the Old Testament. . . . It was virtually impossible for the Christian preacher or exegete to teach scripturally at all without alluding to the anti-Judaic theses.”

·      This rhetoric was meant to apply not only to the Jews of the Old Testament but also to their descendants in the contemporary world. According to Chrysostom, Jewish responsibility for killing Christ and their many other vices had been passed to the descendants of the ancient Jews as inherited traits.

·    Anti-Jewish references occurred in Christian liturgy and rites, especially those surrounding Holy Week emphasizing the role of the Jews in the crucifixion of Christ. Prayers intended for use by the masses of Christians contained reproaches against the Jews. Christian holidays and periods of fasting were set up to be directly opposite to Jewish ones and to act as anti-Jewish commemorations. For example, the Christian Holy Week originally coincided with the Jewish Passover, but the Christian liturgy emphasized Christian mourning for the Jewish act of deicide at a time of Jewish rejoicing. Friday became a fast day commemorating the crucifixion, whereas for Jews, Friday was a joyous time prior to the Sabbath. Anti-Jewish attitudes were deeply ingrained in the important documents of the religion and closely connected to expressions of Christian faith.

·      The culmination of this perceived Jewish evil is, of course, the rejection and killing of Christ. According to Eusebius — an important Christian theoretician, by rejecting Christ as the Messiah, the Jews rejected God and forfeited their status as the Chosen People. Their punishment for this rejection can already be seen by their defeats at the hands of the Romans, their loss of secular power, and the loss of their priesthood.

·    The result was a very potent anti-Jewish ideology. Christian anti-Semitism was not only intellectually respectable, it also developed an emotionally compelling anti-Jewish liturgy. With the political success of the Church, society as a whole became organized around a monolithic, hegemonic, and collectivist social institution defined by its opposition to Judaism.

·      Christian writers, such as Eusebius, described Judaism as an ethnic entity, but they saw Christianity as a universalist religion that would eventually include all of mankind. Eusebius repeatedly contrasts the universalist message of Christianity versus the religion of the “Jewish race.” The new covenant is “not for the Jewish race only” but “summons all men equally to share together the same good things.” Eusebius thought of Jews as biological descendants of Abraham who have rejected the universal message of Christianity, which remains open to them if only they would see the light.

·    This Christian ideology was accompanied by an increase in anti-Jewish actions sanctioned and even encouraged by the Church. Monks “stirred up mobs of Christians to pillage synagogues, cemeteries, and other property, seize or burn Jewish religious buildings, and start riots in the Jewish quarter.” Christians were able to destroy synagogues with virtual impunity and with the tacit or open approval of the Church. The Church pressured the government to forgive anti-Jewish acts.

·     A number of anti-Jewish laws were enacted, including laws against Jews owning Christian slaves, laws discouraging social contact and intermarriage with Jews, and laws regulating economic relationships between Jews and non-Jews. Jews were barred from the legal profession and government service, and they were prohibited from making accusations against Christians or even testifying against them in civil or criminal legal proceedings.

·      The government was often reluctant to pursue these anti-Jewish restrictions and did so only as a result of ecclesiastical and popular pressure. The Church was active and influential in changing imperial legislation regarding the Jews, and the wording of the laws often betrays extreme hostility to the Jews. The Church developed the ideology that it was superior to the emperors — clearly a necessary condition if the Church was to be an instrument of anti-Semitism rather than having only a spiritual function.

·    As with the official Muslim position, Jews were allowed to exist within Christian societies, but, as a condemned people, their life was to be miserable. With this type of ideology it is easy to see that Christian religious ideology would be inconsistent with Jewish wealth, political power, and reproductive success.

·      I suggest that the reason for Christian universalism was that the Empire had become a polyglot, ethnically diverse “chaos of peoples” (quoting race theorist Houston Stewart Chamberlain). The world became divided into Jews and non-Jews. The Jews remained an ethnic group, while the non-Jews developed a religious identification as Christians.

·    The result was that ethnicity had no official place in Christian religious ideology. This in turn had a number of important consequences in later centuries. On the one hand, there is no question that Catholicism was able to serve as a viable institution of ethnic defense in other historical eras, notably the Middle Ages when, as James C. Russell notes, the Church was influenced by German culture. On the other hand, the strands of Christian universalism can lead to compromising the ethnic interests of Christians. Indeed, since Vatican II, Catholicism has become part of the culture of Western suicide. In the US, it is in the forefront of the open borders movement. It is therefore not at all surprising that Jewish organizations would be dismayed by any retreat from Vatican II.

Fundamentally, the Catholic traditionalists seem to desire a return to an older form of Catholicism capable of defending the West as a cultural entity and perhaps implicitly as an ethnic entity. Indeed, it is interesting to read the article on Judaism in The Catholic Encyclopedia from 1910 — during the papacy of Pius X.  The article shows that Catholic attitudes on Jews had not changed much in the 16 centuries since Eusebius. Jews in the time of Jesus are described as a "race" that rejected the call of Jesus for repentance, showing no sorrow for sin, unfit for salvation and rejecting the true kingdom of God in favor of earthly power: "Jesus justly treated as vain the hopes of His Jewish contemporaries that they should become masters of the world in the event of a conflict with Rome."

[The Kingdom of God] is the Christian Church, which was able silently to leaven the Roman Empire, which has outlived the ruin of the Jewish Temple and its worship, and which, in the course of centuries, has extended to the confines of the world the knowledge and the worship of the God of Abraham, while Judaism has remained the barren fig-tree which Jesus condemned during His mortal life. ...

[After the resurrection of Jesus,] the Church ... took the independent attitude which it has maintained ever since. Conscious of their Divine mission, its leaders boldly charged the Jewish rulers with the death of Jesus, and freely "taught and preached Christ Jesus", disregarding the threats and injunctions of men whom they considered as in mad revolt against God and His Christ (Acts 4).

The article portrays Church laws against Jews, such as laws against Jews having Christian slaves and forcing Jews to live in ghettos, as necessary to protect the Christian faith. And it accurately portrays the Church in later centuries as at times protecting Jews against popular anti-Jewish actions. However, it asserts that the causes of popular anti-Semitism included real conflicts between Jews and non-Jews and are not only due to Christian religious ideology. In particular, the causes of anti-Semitism are described as follows:

    * The deep and wide racial difference between Jews and Christians which was, moreover, emphasized by the ritual and dietary laws of Talmudic Judaism;

    * the mutual religious antipathy which prompted the Jewish masses to look upon the Christians as idolaters, and the Christians to regard the Jews as the murderers of the Divine Saviour of mankind, and to believe readily the accusation of the use of Christian blood in the celebration of the; Jewish Passover, the desecration of the Holy Eucharist, etc.;

    * the trade rivalry which caused Christians to accuse the Jews of sharp practice, and to resent their clipping of the coinage, their usury, etc.;

    * the patriotic susceptibilities of the particular nations in the midst of which the Jews have usually formed a foreign element, and to the respective interests of which their devotion has not always been beyond suspicion.

These ideas on the causes of popular anti-Semitism are pretty much the same as the ones I emphasize in my overview of historical anti-Semitism.

The Catholic Church has played the role of ethnic and cultural defense in the past. It is certainly not surprising that Jewish organizations are alarmed by any suggestion that it might be returning to its historic self-conception. Indeed, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a quasi-Jewish organization that is the epicenter of leftist intolerance of any remnant of the traditional culture of the West, has also targeted traditional Catholics using its familiar methods of disinformation and intimidation (see The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Hate Mongers).

Let's hope the traditionalists don't give in to what will be a furious onslaught to prevent any glimmer of the resurgence of traditional Catholicism.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. 

Permanent URL: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-SSPX.html
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline mallard

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1904
  • Gender: Male
  • Coulda had a V-8
    • View Profile
Re: * Goodbye, America!
« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2011, 05:58:30 AM »
Quote: laconas:

"The deck is really stacked against European types at this time."

Interesting way of putting it ... into a gambling/gaming sort of format ... quite aptly. 

Asians are sailing through the 'slump', I note.  Others will be deemed more deserving; as Johnny's ... gone out of style.

Of course, it's like a game of cut-throat over here [traditionally], already.

The deciding point though is ... who says "good-bye" and who says "good riddance!" 
don't eat yellow snow

Offline clefty

  • Shill
  • Group Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1363
    • View Profile
Re: * Goodbye, America!
« Reply #30 on: March 10, 2011, 10:54:43 AM »
Since you must have read it all, would you please elaborate, using your own words, Clefty?
it remains a spiritual war with physical manifestations and there is one power seeking ultimate control...

christianity is useful in attaining that power

christianity promises heaven in the afterlife for submission to the state in this life...(incidently islam does the same not ironic if you dare speculate its origins)

not ironic also is that freemasonry and communism came from catholic munich

we concentrate on the parasite joo which merely does what parasits do...thrive under ideal conditions...

the joo is symptomatic...who brought this parasite in? (who revived this khazar version joo in the 6th century?)

if the church was to protect europe from foreign invasion why allow joos to live at all and not just in ghettos much less give them contol of money?

it remains a battle for physical power disguised with spiritual "truths"...

as humans we seek "truth" and "order"...the church exploits us with lies for personal gain

and of course more deceptions through politics

http://www.vaticanassassins.org/2010/05/jesuits-direct-pope-benedict-xvis-alien-roman-catholic-latino-invasion-pt-1-of-2/
In realizing this political conspiracy, the Supreme Law of the Land—the U.S. Constitution—had to be “altered and modified.” Enter the declared ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, the incorporation of Washington, D.C. in 1871 and the Supreme Court’s decision of the Slaughterhouse Cases in 1873. Done deal. (See my VAIII for further explicative details.) Washington, D.C. was now “Rome on the Potomac,” the president was now “the Pope,” the Senate was now “the College of Cardinals” and the Supreme Court was now “the Pope’s Sacred Rota,” the States were now Roman Provinces, and the newly created 14th Amendment citizenship for both Whites and Blacks was now Roman Citizenship,
« Last Edit: March 10, 2011, 11:00:58 AM by clefty »

Offline Sue

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 19683
  • Gender: Female
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: * Goodbye, America!
« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2011, 04:17:53 PM »
The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Hate-Mongers

On the Southern Poverty Law Center

by John Vennari

Saint Augustine once said that in the case of some individuals, an intellect may be capable of forming an objection without being capable of understanding the argument that meets that objection. Is the Southern Poverty Law Center, supposedly staffed by intelligent people, truly incapable of grasping basic rudiments of Catholicism? Or are they willfully malicious in their refusal to understand the Catholic Faith, and in their refusal to admit the most fundamental distinctions? My guess, it is a combination of both.

    In its Winter 2007 Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC], an enormously wealthy left-wing organization that sets itself up as a watchdog of hate-groups, racism and anti-Semitism, published a brutal attack on traditional Catholics. For years, SPLC monitored scurvy groups such as Neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, Skinheads and White Supremacists. More recently it targeted the so called “Christian right”.  The SPLC accused Pat Buchanan of "hawking racism", calling his State of Emergency book a "white nationalist screed". Two years ago, its Winter 2005 Intelligence Report disparaged the “Christian Right” for its opposition to homosexuality, gay marriage and the gay agenda, after which the homosexual New York Blade celebrated with the headline: “Report Labels Religious Right as Hate Group”.

    Now the SPLC has targeted traditional Catholics, claiming various “radical traditionalist” organizations “are preaching anti-Semitism to as many as 100,000 followers.” Twelve traditional Catholic groups, which the SPLC calls “The Dirty Dozen”, have been “added to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of hate groups.” Catholic Family News is listed as one of the “Dirty Dozen”, along with the Remnant, the Fatima Crusader, Catholic Apologetics International, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart in New Hampshire, Tradition in Action and others, including at least one sedevacantist organization. The Society of Saint Pius X was also lambasted, independently from the “Dirty Dozen” section, as a “Radical Powerhouse”

    I knew the SPLC assault was coming, and the attack is every bit as absurd as I thought it would be. The members of the other groups targeted are capable of answering the SPLC if they choose to do so. My response and observations will center primarily on what was said about Catholic Family News.

    In its so-called “interviews” with various traditional Catholics before the article was published, and in the article itself, the SPLC employs tactics and stratagems designed to demonize its opponents. Their tactics are what I call “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Hate-Mongers”, which we will look at one by one.

1) Ignore the facts and adhere to your pre-conceived prejudices.

    In late September, Michael Matt from The Remnant was contacted by a representative from the SPLC. She explained they were working on a piece about traditional Catholics, and asked Mr. Matt a series of antagonist questions. The questions revealed a formidable lack of understanding of what the traditional Catholic Movement is all about, but when Mr. Matt tried to answer or offer a clarification, she immediately jumped to another question. One of the questions was: “Isn’t it true that traditional Catholics share the same heroes with the neo-Nazi movement such as Father Denis Fahey and Father Charles Coughlin?” Mr. Matt tried to explain the clear distinction between traditional Catholic teaching and Neo-Nazi racism, but to no avail. He then terminated the conversation, as it seemed clear that the SPLC had no intention of trying to understand traditional Catholics or to present them in an unbiased manner.

    Around the same time I received a call from Heidi Beirich of the SPLC. I was not in the office at the time, but called her back a few days later: twice, only to receive her answering machine on which I left polite messages. She never tried to contact me again. As I was aware of Michael Matt’s bizarre interrogation, I was not eager to attempt to contact Ms. Beirich any further. From the beginning, there was a strong note of SPLC ill-will. It is my belief that the SPLC telephoned various traditional Catholics for one reason only: so the SPLC could say, if asked, “Yes, we contacted, or tried to contact, them.” But this contact was not for the purpose of seeking the truth, or seeking to be corrected of their pre-conceived prejudices. This was obvious from the SPLC’s phone call to Mr. Matt.

2) Employ “Politician’s Logic”

    “Politician’s Logic” is a term coined by the brilliant British comedy, Yes, Prime Minster. It runs as follows:

- all dogs have four legs,

- my cat has four legs

- therefore, my dog is a cat.

    In the SPLC context, “Politician’s Logic” runs as follows:

- Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists are hate groups that talk against Jews.

- Traditional Catholics “talk against” Jews

- Therefore, traditional Catholics are a hate group on a par with Neo-Nazis.

    Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The Catholic’s quarrel with Judaism has nothing to do with race, but is religious in essence. Our Lord Jesus Christ said, “He who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” Our Lord also commanded his Church, “Go forth and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. He who believes and is baptized will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned.”

    The adherents of Judaism reject Jesus Christ, and some are openly hostile to Him and to the Church he established. Witness the explosion of fury from certain Jewish groups over Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, a film that merely attempted to portray the Gospel account of the Holy Thursday to Easter Sunday. Witness the hostility to the Oberammergau Passion Play from Jewish groups who called for an international boycott. Witness the Tel Aviv journalist who in the May 3, 2000 edition of Ha’aretz Daily Newspaper, openly denounced the New Testament, saying that any Passion Play based on the Gospel is beyond redemption. Here, Eliahu Saltpeter wrote, “The New Testament was written by a cult which loathed the Jewish establishment and everything it stood for. Christianity is founded upon the New Testament, and no script alterations or interpolated explanation can change that fact.”

    Catholics have no choice but to oppose those who display such hostility to Christ and His Gospel, not by force or bloodshed, but by argument, by proclaiming the truths of the Catholic Faith, and by not complying with their demands.

    Father Denis Fahey, whom the SPLC despises, made the clear distinction in his treatment of Anti-Semitism. He explained, “On the one hand, Catholics must stand unflinchingly for the Integral Rights of Christ the King, as contained in the Papal Encyclicals, while on the other hand, keeping their minds and hearts free from hatred of Our Lord’s own nations according to the flesh. On the one hand, they must battle for the Rights of Christ the King and the Supernatural Organization of Society, as laid down in the Encyclical Quas Primas, unequivocally proclaiming that the rejection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the True Messiah, by His own nation, and the unyielding opposition of that nation to Him, are a fundamental source of disorder in the world. On the other hand, as members of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Catholics should neither hate the members of the nation in which, through the Blessed Mother, the Lily of Israel, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed human nature, nor deny them [Jews] their legitimate rights as persons.”

    SPLC’s Heidi Beirich presents a skewed summary of Father Fahey’s distinction and immediately rejects it as a “distinction without a difference.” To the SPLC, Father Fahey and those like him oppose Jews. Therefore, Fahey and those of his ilk are anti-Semitic. The dog is a cat because they both have four legs. Politicians’ logic!

3) Don’t even try to get your facts straight.

    Ms. Beirich’s SPLC report gets a number of facts wrong, which displays shoddy journalism. I will not treat all of them, but a few regarding myself, the 2003 Catholic Family News conference, and some obvious falsehoods concerning the Society of St. Pius X.

    Beirich writes that John Vennari “says he is now part of the official Vatican press corps.” I have no idea where she got that one. Any CFN reader will attest that I have never made such a claim. I received Press Credentials from the Vatican Press Office for the June 2002 Vatican Press Conference on the clerical scandals, but this does not constitute any journalist as a member of the Vatican press corps. It seems Ms. Beirich just made up certain things as she went along.

    There were also some silly falsehoods contained in SPLC comments on the October 2003 Catholic Family News conference in Philadelphia. “Sunday’s activities started with a now rarely celebrated hour-long recitation of the Rosary.” Again, where that came from is anyone’s guess. We have never at any of our conferences recited a rosary that lasted an hour. Of the vendors at this CFN conference, Beirich writes, “Priests in Roman collars staffed many tables: brown cloaked monks manned others.” Again, this is straight from outer space. Only one table at that conference was manned by two brothers in Roman collars, the rest of the venders were that of lay organizations staffed by laymen and women all wearing lay clothes. Perhaps, if there was a SPLC informant at the conference, he saw a vender in a brown hoodie and knows so little about Catholicism that he could only describe him as a “brown-robed monk”. This is an “Intelligence” Report?

    The report also published blunders regarding the Society of Saint Pius X. Beirich said, “In the late 1980s, Pope John Paul II excommunicated all SSPX priests and declared the sect formally in schism.” In truth, any mention of “excommunication” was limited only to the six bishops involved in the June 30, 1988 consecrations, and even these “excommunications” are extremely doubtful when examined in light of the Canon #1323 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Also, Ms. Beirich chose not to mention that the Vatican’s Cardinal Hoyos said in November 2005 — well before the Intelligence Report went to press — that the SSPX is not in formal schism.

    Regarding the possibility of the SSPX’s reconciliation with Rome, Beirich said Pope Benedict XVI “last September approved an institute for French priest who left the movement [SSPX]. The pope’s move marked the effective end to efforts by the Vatican to bring the SSPX sect back into the Catholic fold.” This is patently untrue. The resolution between today’s Rome and the SSPX will indeed be difficult, but it is a lie to claim Pope Benedict has abandoned all efforts to effect a reconciliation. The Vatican has never made such as statement. Again, Beirich appears to be making it up as she goes along.

    To spotlight each of the various untruths, partial truths and misrepresentations is beyond the scope of this short commentary. Suffice to say that the SPLC is so arrogant and reckless, so accustomed to bullying others with impunity, that it prints falsehoods and inaccuracies that would not be tolerated in a fourth grade history report.

4) Use pot-boiler rhetoric at every opportunity.

    The SPLC employs explosive terminology calculated to generate emotional response. It uses the term “anti-Semitic” constantly. Traditional Catholics “may represent the largest population of anti-Semites in the United States.”; Father Fahey spouted “the same kind of anti-Jewish propaganda as the Nazis.” (Beirich does not understand the distinction, nor does she mention that the Vatican condemned the Nazis and praised Father Fahey.) From traditional Catholics, “disdain and outright hatred of the Jews flows like a poisonous river.” The CFN conference Sunday Mass was said by “an apostate priest”; Father Charles Coughlin was “a leading American anti-Semite of the 1920s and 1930s.” The list goes on.

    Another example of the SPLC’s unbalanced rhetoric is their condemnation of my booklet, The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita, a Masonic Blueprint for the Subversion of the Church. SPLC calls it an “anti- Semitic” tract. Yet throughout the entire booklet, readily available to anyone who wants to read it, I do not mention Jews at all, nor do I employ the term “Judeo-Masonry”.

    SPCL disparages the booklet nonetheless. Warnings against the dangers of Freemasonry are a laughable conspiracy theory. After denouncing my critique of the French Revolution, in which the SPCL, not I, mentions the Jews, Beirich then makes an unbelievable admission. She says, “Catholic fears about Masonic power have not been limited to Vennari. Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) for one branded Freemasonry as an ‘enemy of religion and society’ and wrote in an 1884 encyclical that Masons sought to impose the ‘kingdom of Satan on earth’.”

    The SPLC thus denounces me for fidelity to the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, and to all the Popes who condemned Freemasonry. Clearly, it is the Catholic Faith of all time that the SPLC despises.

    Further, the SPLC never mentions the fact that both Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII considered the Alta Vendita a true Masonic document that should be published as a means of tearing the mask off of Freemasonry.

    Ms. Beirich stokes the fires saying, “In his CFN newspaper in 2003, Vennari called Judaism ‘part of the Kingdom of Satan’ and accused the Talmud of ‘teaching of contempt’.”

    As for the “Kingdom of Satan”, Beirich (deliberately, I believe), did not tell her readers the context in which this is said.

    In the 2003 article, which was on the attack against the Oberammergau Passion Play by certain Jewish groups, I quoted Saint Augustine’s doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, reiterated by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical against Freemasonry. Augustine and Leo teach that the world is divided into two camps, the Kingdom of God to the contempt of man, and the kingdom of man to the contempt of God. The kingdom of man is ultimately the kingdom of Satan.

    Those who are baptized and live the life of sanctifying grace are part of the Kingdom of God, and those who reject Christ and live outside of His Grace are part of the kingdom of Satan. Muslims, Jews and all non-Catholics, according to the defined dogma of the Catholic Church, are, in the objective order, not part of the kingdom of God and are therefore part of the kingdom of Satan. There is no third alternative. The eminent American theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton reiterated this truth in the pages of the American Ecclesiastical Review. The SPLC, however, does not give the full context, but merely limits it to “Jews”, as if the denouncement of Jews is all that traditional Catholics live for. Again, skewed and selective journalism on Bierich’s part.

    As for the Talmud containing “teaching of contempt”, this is admitted by Jews as well.

    First of all, the term “teaching of contempt” was coined by the Jewish historian Jules Isaac in the 1940s as a derogatory term against the Catholic doctrine that Jews will not find salvation unless they convert to Christ and His Church. This, in fact, is the teaching of Our Divine Lord Jesus Christ that Isaac finds contemptible. Our Lord said, “He who is not with me is against Me”, and “He who believes and is baptized will be saved, He who does not believe will be condemned.”

    In describing the Talmud, I purposely used the term “teaching of contempt” to emphasize that this Jewish holy book contains contemptible teachings against Jesus Christ. Israel Shahak, an Israeli Jew, born in Poland, incarcerated for four years in Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp during World War II, lived in Palestine from 1945 until his death in 2001. His 1994 book, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, speaks openly about the Talmud’s anti-Christian teachings. Mr. Shahak writes:

“It must be admitted at the outset that the Talmud and Talmudic literature ... contains very offensive statements and precepts directed specifically against Christianity. For example, in addition to a series of scurrilous sexual allegations against Jesus, the Talmud states that His [Jesus’] punishment in hell is to be immersed in boiling excrement a statement not exactly calculated to endear the Talmud to devout Christians. Or one can quote the precept according to which Jews are instructed to burn, publicly if possible, any copy of the New Testament that comes into their hands. (This is not only still in force, but actually practiced today: thus on March 23, 1980 hundreds of copies of the New Testament were publicly and ceremonially burned in Jerusalem under the auspices of Yad Le’ akham, a Jewish religious organization subsidized by the Israeli Ministry of Religions.)

“... The Edito Princeps of the complete Code of Talmudic Law, Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah [is] replete with the most offensive precepts against all Gentiles but also with explicit attacks on Christianity and on Jesus (after whose name the author adds piously, “May the name of the wicked perish) ...” (pp. 20-21).

    I published this quotation in the 2003 article that Ms. Beirich refers to, but she never mentioned it. Only certain kinds of “hate crimes” are worthy of her censure. Nor did she report that caveat I wrote in the same article regarding the Talmud and the average Jew:

“I am aware that the average Jew on the street probably does not know about the severe anti-Christian teachings in the Talmud. I am virtually certain that many of them would be scandalized if they learned of these tenets. Even Rabbi Drach, of the 19th Century, said that certain Talmudic passages made him ‘blush with shame’. Thus I am not trying to incite hostility against the average Jew on the street, nor would it be fair to do so. But I do have a quarrel with the Jewish leaders of the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith who are certainly not ignorant of these anti-Christ, Talmudic teachings. Yet all the while, these same Jewish leaders accuse Catholics of a ‘teaching of contempt,’ and muscle in to tell us what we may or may not say when depicting the Passion and Death of Our Lord; and what we may or may not say within our own Catholic liturgy, and in Catholic classrooms.”

    Thus, the SPLC purposely uses pot-boiler rhetoric to denigrate its enemies, and studiously omit quotations that disprove its claim.

5) Never present an honest depiction of those whom you wish to smear.

    A former Communist who converted to Catholicism once told Bishop Fulton J. Sheen that the most accurate definition he ever read of Communism was contained in Pope Pius XI’s 1937 Encyclical against Communism. Likewise Modernists of the early 20th century would tell their initiates that if they wanted to fully understand the modernist system, read Pope Saint Pius X’s encyclical against Modernism.

    The Catholic Church always presented in its teaching a clear and accurate exposition of the doctrine that it set out to condemn. The Church did this without emotional and pot-boiler rhetoric, but with fairness and precision. This is the opposite approach from that of SPLC hucksters who construct a false image of whomever they wish to smear, and never present his full system of beliefs or try to understand his motives for action.

    It is not hard to explain the thinking and actions of traditional Catholics. For example, an honest critic would explain that traditional Catholics oppose today’s interreligious ecumenism, because it contradicts the defined doctrine, “no salvation outside the Church”, and because today’s form of ecumenism was explicitly condemned by the perennial magisterium of the Church, summarized in Pope Pius XI’s encyclical, Mortalium Animos.

    An honest critic could also explain with ease the reason traditional Catholic resist change in doctrine. It is a perennial Catholic truth that doctrine cannot change, no more than the formula two plus two equals four can change. Objective truth is immutable.

    Aside from this, there is the infallible definition of Vatican I that Catholics must always believe everything that the Church always taught “in the same meaning and in the same explanation”, that no updating or change of doctrine can be made “in the name of a deeper understanding”, and that not even the Pope has the power to change Catholic doctrine. This is all laid out infallibly in Vatican I’s Dei Filius and Aeterni Patris. Yet the SPLC does not even try to explain why the traditional Catholic thinks and acts the way he does. Rather, Heidei Beirich, Mark Potok and those at the SPLC ignore the basic decencies justice demands. Rather, they smear, smear, smear. In truth, it is they who are the real hate-mongers.

6) Raise millions by claiming you are saving the world from hate groups.

    The SPLC was founded in 1971 by millionaire and direct-marketing whiz Morris Dees. Neither he nor the SPLC enjoys and an unsullied reputation.

    • The Washington Times (2/9/01) said, “The Southern Poverty Law Center, which sounds like the hide-out of a noble band of warriors against hate crimes and other racial wrongs, is actually a fund-raising scheme that could teach televangelists a thing or two.”

    • Harpers Magazine (11/2000) reported the statement of Millard Farmer, a leading anti-death penalty lawyer and former partner of Dees. Farmer said Dees “is the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the Civil Rights Movement, though I don’t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye.”

    • Organization Trends (11/2006) summarized the SPLC as follows: “Obsessed with fundraising, the fabulously wealthy Southern Poverty Law Center exaggerates the scope of racism in the United States to frighten donors into opening their wallets. SPLC is nominally a public interest law firm, but it spends little on actual litigation. Instead, it uses politically skewed definitions of racism to indoctrinate children while smearing conservatives who question racial preference programs.”

    • Morris Dees’ yearly salary is colossal. For the year that ended October, 2005, SPLC paid Dees $297,559 in salary and pension plan contributions. (Organization Trends).

    • USA Today ((8/3/96) quoted Stephen Bright of Atlanta’s Southern Center for Human Rights who said Dees “is a fraud who has milked a lot of very wonderful, well-intentioned people. If it’s got headlines, Dees is there.”

7) Trample underfoot the Eighth Commandment.

    The SPLC is allegedly out to defend Jews, yet most people readily associate Jews with the first Passover, the parting of the Red Sea, Moses and the Ten Commandments. The Eighth Commandment states clearly, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

    The Southern Poverty Law Center tramples this holy Commandment into dust through its publication of falsehoods, half truths, and odious rhetoric against those whom it wishes to demonize. This disdain for the Eighth Commandment is a mortal sin that sends the soul to hell. It appears that those at the SPLC do not believe in mortal sin, and think themselves above a Biblical injunction in force since the days of Moses.

    Much more could be said about the SPLC report, but what is written suffices to demonstrate the SPLC as a dishonest critic that seeks to malign its opponents, and will employ hate-monger tactics to achieve its ends.

    Shortly after Our Lord’s resurrection, Saul of Taursus persecuted the early Christians. The Christians prayed fervently for someone to answer Saul, and Our Lord responded by sending Saul to answer Saul. Heaven did not condemn him, but converted him into the most zealous proponent of Our Lord’s sacred teaching.

    By some miracle, may those at the Southern Poverty Law Center be touched with an extraordinary grace to convert that organization from an opponent of the doctrine of Christ to its defender. Some may consider this a preposterous prayer, since indeed it takes a miracle to convert those of ill will. At the birth of Christ, the Angels did not say, “Peace on earth, good will to men,” but “Peace to men of good will.” Nonetheless we may still pray that the Immaculate Heart of Mary converts the hearts of those who calumniate us and defame Catholicism.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 19683
  • Gender: Female
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: * Goodbye, America!
« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2011, 04:20:08 PM »
Link to:  The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Hate-Mongers  http://www.cfnews.org/SPLC.htm
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 19683
  • Gender: Female
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: * Goodbye, America!
« Reply #33 on: March 10, 2011, 06:06:10 PM »
it remains a spiritual war with physical manifestations and there is one power seeking ultimate control...

christianity is useful in attaining that power

christianity promises heaven in the afterlife for submission to the state in this life...(incidently islam does the same not ironic if you dare speculate its origins)

not ironic also is that freemasonry and communism came from catholic munich

we concentrate on the parasite joo which merely does what parasits do...thrive under ideal conditions...

the joo is symptomatic...who brought this parasite in? (who revived this khazar version joo in the 6th century?)

if the church was to protect europe from foreign invasion why allow joos to live at all and not just in ghettos much less give them control of money?

it remains a battle for physical power disguised with spiritual "truths"...

as humans we seek "truth" and "order"...the church exploits us with lies for personal gain

and of course more deceptions through politics

http://www.vaticanassassins.org/2010/05/jesuits-direct-pope-benedict-xvis-alien-roman-catholic-latino-invasion-pt-1-of-2/

In realizing this political conspiracy, the Supreme Law of the Land—the U.S. Constitution—had to be “altered and modified.” Enter the declared ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, the incorporation of Washington, D.C. in 1871 and the Supreme Court’s decision of the Slaughterhouse Cases in 1873. Done deal. (See my VAIII for further explicative details.) Washington, D.C. was now “Rome on the Potomac,” the president was now “the Pope,” the Senate was now “the College of Cardinals” and the Supreme Court was now “the Pope’s Sacred Rota,” the States were now Roman Provinces, and the newly created 14th Amendment citizenship for both Whites and Blacks was now Roman Citizenship...

That is a lot of information, Clefty, leading to many questions, again, in regard to the grand "Experiment USA". Most people have no time for reading and thinking, they are too busy trying to survive and in many cases don't even know how long their jobs will last....


Republican Justices End The Grand Experiment:
USA Delivered to Corporate Masters



The five Republican-appointed right-wing activist judges on the Supreme Court have hammered the last nail in the coffin of government by “We The People” by officially granting the right of personhood to corporations, thus giving the green light to Mussolini style fascism in the United States.

What is Mussolini-Style fascism, you ask? Well… Early twentieth century Italians invented the word fascism and Benito Mussolini said,” Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

In Italy, at least they were genuine enough to just outright admit that their government was sponsored by and functioned for the sake of Corporations. Parliament was dissolved and replaced with the “estato corporativo”: the corporatist state.

In the United States we will be left to listen to fairy tales of “one person, one vote” where will be allowed to go out and pantomime a real election, but the corporate candidate will already be a forgone conclusion. All the while we will no doubt be systematically assured by the consolidated right wing media protection racket that “all is well.” “Go shopping.” “Freedom isn’t free so go fight manufactured bully number three thousand and fifty three!” and “those damn liberals are to blame!”

The fact is this is ALREADY the world we live in thanks to war on the Middle Class and FDR’s New Deal policies that started with Reagan.

Our government is already corrupted by the influence of corporate money, and left unchecked, the huge, absolute economic power of corporations will corrupt absolutely.

Proving again that Republicans live to turn the “Land of the Free” into the “United States of Serfs and Lords,” the conservative activists on the Supreme Court, who actually loathe democracy, reinterpreted the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, (which says that no PERSON should be denied equal protection under the law), to apply to CORPORATIONS as well as a living human being.

Never mind the fact Corporations are not “natural” persons. They feel no shame, remorse, guilt, have no community or family ties and they NEVER DIE. They are immortal sociopaths who adopt the privileges of so-called “natural persons” without the burden of conscious or responsibility – except to the unholy dollar.

Chief Justice John Roberts, the Bush Jr. appointed former corporate lawyer who was given his position on the Supreme Court as payback for helping George W. Bush steal the office of the Presidency by Judicial coup d’etat proved again that Republicans lie as a matter of policy. We can all remember the Roberts’ assurances during his confirmation hearing that he would not overturn Stare decisis.

Normal people (non-Republicans) are already comparing Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to the Dred Scott decision that arguably led directly to the American Civil War.  These two game changing decsions are basically mirror images of each other.  The later being the Supreme Court deciding a human being was not a person, and the forming being the Supreme Court deciding that a non-human being IS a person.

Obama and the Democrats in Congress say they will do something to remedy this alarming blow to democracy but we’ll see. Like battered spouses pining away for their abusers, these spines Democratic Party worms are still hoping for “bipartisanship!”

What can we do? I’m all for a NATIONAL STRIKE in the spirit of the French. It is tragic that a county so inspired by our American Revolution (that would have had a very different outcome if it weren’t for French funding and support) would know how to keep their hard-won freedom by bringing France to a grinding halt at the mere mention of the abuse of labor. Whereas, we have been successfully cowed by DESIGN. This “worker insecurity,” Greenspan cultivated by stagnating wages and increasing credit to create the illusion of prosperity was a purposeful plan to create a workforce that would shut the Hell up and do what it was told. A worker tied to their job because tehy need the healthcare is a modern-day wage slave, an indentured servant.

FDR said, “a necessitous man is not a free man.” With this ruling today, look for a full-out attack on what’s left of our social safety net. You see… Republicans NEED MORE PROFIT and YOUR RIGHTS and “ENTITLEMENT” ARE IN THE WAY OF THEIR NEO-FEUDAL WET-DREAM!

I called all my representatives and the White House today (as I do most days, frankly) to remind them that they were elected on a mandate for change to restore democracy, level the playing field for working people and mend our broken system after a disastrous 8 years of Bush and 30 years assault on the middle class beginning with Reagan – not to get along with the snakes who’s policies created the disaster.

What we need now is real, bold, unapologetic change in the style of FDR, not a pro-business, weak-willed compromise in the style of Bill Clinton.

Listen to a REAL Democrat taking the Banksters to the woodshed:
The New American Corporatocracy! A Special Comment - Part 1 of 2





The slide into Fascism is almost complete. If nothing is done, George Orwell has a pretty-accurate vision what to expect.

There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face . . . for ever. —Part III, Chapter III, Nineteen Eighty-Four

Watch Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment:






Well on that note all one can say: '600 million guns (or more) privately owned in North America'  - Yet, not a single shot has been fired!
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 19683
  • Gender: Female
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: * Goodbye, America!
« Reply #34 on: March 10, 2011, 07:14:04 PM »

One is also forced to conclude that there is little hope that American Protestants
could come to the rescue. Their infatuated legions — particularly the 60 million
Christian Zionists who constitute the most influential group among them — are
in many ways as rabid as the fanatical Jews who seem to have infected them
with their zealotry, egging them on to find solace in eschatological ecstasies and
millenarian mumbojumbo.


Strange Alliance: Christian/Jewish Zionists.
When debating the existence of God, philosophers point to two major problems: unnecessary evil in the world and non-belief (See T.M. Drange’s Nonbelief & Evil, 1998). One strong component of many religions then is to find ways to prove that God exists, and especially reassuring are miracles and prophecies.

In The Politics of Apocalypse: The History and Influence of Christian Zionism by Dan Cohan-Sherbok, 2006, he traces the long history of Christian Zionists attempts’ to use biblical prophecy to show that God exists, that God plays an active role in the unfolding of the future, and being saved before “Armageddon arrives,” which is right around the corner, should be the main concern for Christians. Until recently I have always considered such ideas belonging to a small number of religious literalists, but they have far more influence than I was aware of before—and outside their group I would assume others are also quite unaware of their influence.

Cohan-Sherbok notes, “Similarly, President Jimmy Carter acknowledged his pro-Zionist beliefs, as did Ronald Reagan. By 1981, he had read Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth and other books about Armageddon. As governor of California, he discussed these convictions with a colleague, James Mills. Based on Ezekiel 38, he insisted that Israel would soon come under attack from ungodly nations…. In the 1980s with the election of Ronald Reagan, Lindsey along with leading evangelists such as Jerry Falwell and the Christian televangelist Mike Evans were included in White House Seminars…. As a result, Christian Zionism has become a major force in American social and political life. As a consequence, some of the largest and most influential Christian Zionist organizations have redefined their message to that of blessing Israel and have set up headquarters in Jerusalem. Today there are over 250 pro-Israeli evangelical organizations in America. Thus, contemporary Christian Zionism has become a central factor in the West’s support of the Jewish state.”

Some time after 9/11, I noticed that the Neocons were promoting family values and Christianity, even siding on the side of Evangelicals when it came to denouncing the validity of evolution. Knowing that the Neocons are extremely bright, have a full understanding of evolution, and for the most part are secularists and atheists, they must find the Christian Zionists extremely useful.

Cohan-Sherbok notes, “Christian Zionist organizations and the pro-Israel lobby are among the special interest groups whose concerns have converged since Bush was first elected president. These interest groups include the right wing of the Republican Party; neo-Conservatives; multinational construction firms, the petroleum industry and the arms industry; the pro-Israel lobby and think tanks; and fundamentalist Christian Zionists.”

He goes on to note however that things may be changing: “Yet, the Christian community is divided as to whether Christian Zionism is true to the teaching of the Church. In the Christian world, those who are offering support for the Jewish state are being delegitimized and demonized by a growing chorus of critics. Frequently, they are accused of blocking the way to peace in the Middle East, or of having some end-time agenda that seeks to hasten the Apocalypse.”

So the Neocons want war in the Middle East to protect Israel, and the Christian Zionists want wars leading to Armageddon and the return of Christ. I just want war to help cull the human masses from down under and overthrow liberalism.



The Rapture is a reference to the catching up of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 when Christians will be gathered together in the air to meet Christ.

The event is mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 where the Latin Vulgate has rapiemur, which may be translated as "we shall be raptured" or "we shall be caught up." Along with the Rapture it is said that Christians will be gathered together in the air to meet Christ. Thus the Rapture is clearly a Biblical event. However, the Rapture's relationship to other eschatological events is a matter of hot dispute: second coming of Christ to take over the earth, Daniel's 70th Week, the "tribulation." Simultaneously at issue is whether or not the tribulation (or events of Revelation 6-18) are past, present, or future, literal or figurative.

The primary passage used to support this idea is 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, in which Paul cites "the word of the Lord" about the return of Jesus to gather his saints.

    ...and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be raptured (or "caught up") together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.

more at the link.



Life is indeed so empty and sterile for these wretched lumpengoyim that the only thing that excites their sluggish sensitivities is the prospect of Armageddon and the thought of universal and catastrophic death — the quicker the better.

Christian Zionism ~ Roadmap to Armageddon?


“I am glad to commend Stephen Sizer’s ground-breaking critique of Christian Zionism. His comprehensive overview of its roots, its theological basis and its political consequences is very timely. I myself believe that Zionism, both political and Christian, is incompatible with biblical faith. Stephen’s book has helped to reinforce this conviction.” Revd John Stott, Rector Emeritus, All Soul’s, Langham Place, London, the principal framer of the Lausanne Covenant (1974) and founder of the Langham Partnership International.

60 Endorsements of Christian Zionism: Roadmap to Armageddon?
http://www.stephensizer.com/books/christian-zionism/

1.The historical roots of Christian Zionism ..

The early intimations: proto-Christian Zionism
The socio-political context for the rise of Christian Zionism
The origins of covenantal premillennial restorationism in Britain
The origins of dispensational Christian Zionism in Britain
Lord Shaftesbury and the influence of restorationism upon British foreign policy
British Christian political support for the Jewish Zionist movement
The Balfour Declaration and the implementation of the Zionist vision
Dispensationalism and the birth of Christian Zionism in America (1859 – 1945)
Anti-Semitism and American liberal Christian Zionism (1918 – 1967)
Contemporary American evangelical Christian Zionism (1967 – 2002)
The proliferation and diversification of Christian Zionist organizations
The historical roots of Christian Zionism: conclusions

2.The theological emphases of Christian Zionism

The Bible: a literal futurist hermeneutic
Chosen peoples: the relationship between Israel and the church
Restorationism: the return of the Jews to Zion
Eretz Israel: reclaiming Judea, Samaria and beyond
Jerusalem: the eternal and exclusive Jewish capital
The temple: rebuilding for desecration
The future: the eschatology of Christian Zionism
The distinctive theology of Christian Zionism: conclusions .

3.The political implications of Christian Zionism

The chosen people: supporting Israeli colonialism
Restorationism: facilitating aliyah from Russia and Eastern Europe
Eretz Israel: sustaining the West Bank settlements
Jerusalem: lobbying for international recognition
The temple: identifying with religious Zionism
The future: opposing peace and hastening Armageddon
The political implications of Christian Zionism: conclusions

4. Conclusions
Observations on the development of Christian Zionism
Variant forms of Christian Zionism
The constructive and destructive aspects of Christian Zionism
A critical assessment of Christian Zionism
Biblical Zionism: a convenantal alternative

http://www.stephensizer.com/books/christian-zionism/



Whipped into a frenzy of religious fervor by the Grahams and the Robertsons, the Falwells and the Hagees, the Lindseys and the La Hayes, these Christian Zionists have become imitation Jews almost indistinguishable from Vladimir Jabotinski and Baruch Goldstein. They believe in a Greater Israel — entailing further conquests of Arab Land — and in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. They have “adopted” illegal settlements and they directly finance the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, the uprooting of olive trees, and the daily oppression of the rightful owners of the Holy Land. They pray every Sunday in their vast soulless churches for the destruction of Iran. And if push came to shove, they would gladly give their blessings to genocide — and call it “the will of God.”

Fifty million evangelical Christians unite with five million American Jews, standing together on behalf of Israel....The man or nation that lifts a voice or hand against Israel invites the wrath of God.”

There are now 80,000 fundamentalist pastors and clergy preaching their message of madness to these ill-educated Christian masses — in many ways as gullible and gormless as medieval peasants.  The pernicious views of their “pastors” are disseminated by 1000 local Christian radio stations as well as 100 Christian TV stations. See here.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2011, 07:15:59 PM by sushigirl »
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline clefty

  • Shill
  • Group Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1363
    • View Profile
Re: * Goodbye, America!
« Reply #35 on: March 12, 2011, 07:35:21 AM »
the grand "Experiment USA".
Its true...experiment USA...and we have learned alot...they have gained more...

as for the supreme courts decisions...no surprise there with 5 catholics and 3 jews....states/corporations win easily
dont be distracted by the republican v democrat puppet show
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/weekinreview/11liptak.html

the church is a very old corporation....with a logo, mission statement, charter, constitution...everything...
and a high demand product....salvation or death....its the end of the world dontcha know

and as for FDR's new deal...not new and no deal....
artificial manipulations of the currency created panic and the FED was established...corporations win
or course masked by the benevolent state with its steroid injections of free cash backed on nothing..america grew and fast...steroids do that...
but steroid use creates terminal damage as it destroys natural growth...and the current crises reflects that

the catch?
debt doesnt matter as long its not called in
and if we keep going with the corporations agenda GLOBALLY...there will be some who survive
the 600 million one man armies will only advance the chaos and anarchy further aiding the corporation...all the guns thought to defend against traitors have not been used and will be used when it all collapses...egypt will never happen here...our crowds are armed and undisciplined...mobs will rule

the only difference with communism in europe was that it was foreign to them...created by western banks and forced...americans on the otherhand beg for state rule and care...and once the chaos erupts will beg for the police state...


as for the christian zionist...
who was to build the new joorusalem?...protestant zionists merely carry on the old catholic work of crusades to save baby jesusville
the 666 blueprint has been at work a long time...