|June 4th, 2011||#2|
Join Date: Oct 2004
A rather conservative industry, arms, has had a notable Jewish hand in it in recent years. A Jewish-owned holding company now owns the following well-established arms makers: Remington, Marlin, Bushmaster, Harrington & Richardson (bought by Marlin), DPMS, Advanced Armament Corp., and Cobb Mfg. (bought by Bushmaster). SIG Sauer USA is owned by a Jew now as well. The quality control for some of these brands has become notoriously bad lately.
|June 5th, 2011||#3|
|June 5th, 2011||#4|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Remington Arms Co. is one of the biggest producers of ammunition in the USA in addition to being the oldest continuously operated arms maker here and the largest producer of rifles and shotguns. The two industries are certainly related. The group that acquired Remington, along with the other companies, is called
The John M. Olin Foundation is a major neoconservative backer (the Olin family is apparently not Jewish). Irving Kristol said that it was the Olin Foundation, along with another, that made possible the recruitment gains of the neocon movement in the 1970s. This group is connected to the Olin Corporation, which has owned the Winchester ammunition brand since 1931. I think it's the biggest ammunition-maker in the United States.
|July 12th, 2011||#5|
Join Date: Jul 2011
Look who's behind Herman Cain's run for president:
Oh, and as for saying he is an accomplished financial leader:
|August 8th, 2011||#6|
A fifth of all congressmen taking paid-for holidays to Israel this summer
A fifth of members of the House of Representatives will be taking their summer holidays in Israel this year with almost all the trips being paid for by one of America's most powerful lobby groups.
The American Israel Education Foundation is shelling out to take around eighty congressmen to Israel during the summer recess period.
|August 19th, 2012||#8|
Join Date: Jul 2005
They know White's are tired of the P.C. tyranny. So they write.
Published on VDARE.com (http://www.vdare.com)
Home > Harmony before Insight? The Destruction of Western Man
Harmony before Insight? The Destruction of Western Man
By Susie Green
Previously by Susie Green: Jews, Leftists, Immigration: My Journey To Nietzsche 
It is common for those in the West to talk of the decline in our countries—from the decrease in civility  to the rise in violent crime.  However, no one ever seems to be able to offer a coherent reason for these phenomena.
Yet, when one examines truthfully the actions of Western Man  since the end of World War II,  it is clear that the West has turned against the values of its own forefathers.
In our schools, teachers distort or dissemble or slander our forefathers . For example, Abraham Lincoln is now considered the “epitome of racial egalitarianism,”  when, in fact, he never questioned the “inferiority of the black race”  and had a plan  to return the freed slaves to Africa. And Darwinism  is denuded of its true implications —mankind evolved from the apes , but there are supposedly no differences evolved  among groups of men after that . When nature is arbitrary and capricious, how can that be? 
Without a single coherent thought, Western societies have created conditions that have already lowered the human animal to a more primitive state.  Current policies are accelerating this trend. Western societies  have supported the massive increase in the least productive  and most violent  of humankind, with a corresponding reduction in the birthrate  of the High. This is leading to the destruction of our genius and capability.
We are also losing our vast middle, which is essential to the support of the top of the Bell Curve . This massive overall growth in the world’s least productive population is unsustainable.
The preponderance of historic and scientific evidence suggests that almost all human ability and sensibility flows through what is innate. Since there are material genetic differences among groups of people , one only has to follow this truth to reach a disturbing logical conclusion: We are bound to descend over time, to a place where the more violent and less intelligent  human animals will roam across the vast expanse of a once-civilized world and destroy what remains.
Through compassion and false guilt we burden ourselves, and our future, with massive transfers of funds, medicines , and technology to undeserving Third World people . We do this without imposing responsible behavior on their part—a task that the Low is unable or unwilling to accomplish on its own.
In Africa alone, a population that was once relatively small, a mere 470 million in 1980, has grown to one billion in 2010 . Africa’s population is now expected to double to two billion in a little more than 100 years. How can this be sustained?
A destructive philosophical movement now dominates the world. This movement has promoted the idea that the poor, the weak, the Lowly, are the good  and the powerful and the High have caused their suffering . The “deprived”, the less intelligent, the violent, all exist because of our exploitation  and racism, capitalism , or some other evil.
This philosophical movement holds that, because all groups are inherently equal, any differential in a group’s performance can be fixed by the massive infusion of funds, new systems, or the manipulation of the environment.
The result will be that we become slaves to the Low . Though once fanatically pursued mainly by the Cultural Marxists , egalitarian and multicultural beliefs have dressed up this premise in a new guise, with monstrous results.
It is understandable that Cultural Marxism appeals to those in the Third World.  But the adoption of this credo in the civilized world is a recipe for suicide. 
These Cultural Marxists and their cultural and philosophical allies have taken hold of Western civilization and turned our institutions against us. Starting as a small intellectual coterie,  they have captured the major educational , religious, and cultural institutions of Western civilization—aided now by submissive and clueless conservatives. They have corrupted the universities, the Main Stream Media , the government, the church, and the arts.
It has taken generations of skilled work, cunning and outright dishonesty to generate this deep nihilism and bad conscience among Western people.
But every movement that seeks to alter radically the prevailing orthodoxy needs fertile ground to grow. Cultural Marxism would have remained largely irrelevant if not for several events in modern history:
1) A deep malaise spawned in the West by two great wars . Millions of Europeans and Americans emerged from the war years weary and suspicious of traditional values. Although they labored to achieve material benefits, they had no philosophical direction to offer to themselves or their progeny.
Thus, these children, the first generation to be born into abundant material wealth, had no direction. They asked themselves: why should they be rich and others poor? And Cultural Marxism  was ready with answers.
2) In the past, Western communities had grown in large part due to the desire to “be fruitful and multiply ,” a fundamental tenet of the Judeo-Christian faith. But this has now turned on its head: Western man has failed to replace himself and, instead, encouraged the reproduction of the Low. 
Laws were written to institutionalize this change: among others, the Civil Rights laws; the immigration laws, the expansion of welfare,—now being replicated in Europe too. With no belief in God, Westerners attempted to establish a “heaven on earth” — a fundamental violation of natural laws.
And in an act of extreme hypocrisy, European-Americans tried to segregate themselves from the results of their own laws by running away from the miserable world of the Low. 
What emerged was not a philosophy to live by, but hypocrisy and guilt (Nihilism). The viability of any philosophy is whether one can live by its tenets. This is clearly not the case here.
3) As Peter Brimelow  has pointed out, “Hitler’s Revenge,”  the specter of Nazism, haunts any study of innate group differences.
Atrocities carried out in the name of group differences helped pave the way towards the opposite view—that essentially all human attributes are not innate and can therefore be changed by our efforts.
And if these efforts prove insufficient, the High had to double down and continue to try to uplift the Low—“by any means necessary.” 
If equality is the unquestioned premise, then it follows that Higher people are oppressing the Lower groups. How else are we to explain these glaring group differences? The Low are encouraged to exhibit resentment, envy, and jealousy toward the High.
It is important to understand that there is a consensus for this: “conservatives” only want to use other means.
The High has degraded and subordinated itself to the Low. The weak, the Low, and the other have to be protected at all costs. Western Civilization is an historical accident, or achieved illegitimately, not based on the talent or hard work of a High people. Our accomplishments, once a source of pride, are now evidence of our exploitation.
We have become hypocrites. Moving to white communities  while loudly proclaiming our love of diversity. Supporting the forced integration of schools, but only for the children of other people. In our self-righteous world of moral outrage and public theater, what we say is more important than what we do.
The indoctrination is largely complete. Our civilization recedes, desirable communities grow fewer and smaller, and human misery comes ever closer. Through a bad conscience, and the myth of equality, we are closing in on the destruction of ourselves
If we want humans in the future to be wiser, stronger and smarter, then we need the courage to understand and accept what is innate. The survival of everything that has been achieved, and the future of mankind, is at stake.
We must train ourselves to reject a false perception of harmony in favor of truth, every truth, even plain, harsh, ugly, repellent, unchristian, immoral truths—for such truths do exist.
Aren’t our true leaders the ones who have faced adversity with courage and tried to rid themselves of superstition? Great men such as our Founding Fathers , Friedrich Nietzsche , Winston Churchill, Galileo , took these risks. There are many others in our past.
Where are they today?
Susie Green (email her ) is an American of Jewish background. She has worked in New York City all of her professional life in various high-level managerial jobs. She is married and has a large blended family of children and stepchildren.
The articles on VDARE.com are brought to you by the VDARE Foundation. We are supported by generous donations from our readers. Contributions are tax deductible and appreciated.
Source URL: http://www.vdare.com/articles/harmon...of-western-man
 mailto:[email protected]
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?
We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.
-Charles A. Lindbergh
|February 24th, 2013||#9|
Join Date: Jul 2005
By Global Research News
Global Research, February 24, 2013
Haaretz 21 February 2013
Global Research Editorial Note
We bring to the attention of Global Research leaders this Haaretz article that outlines how Argentine president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner diplomatically warned how a terrorist attack in Argentina could be be the world of Israel. Kirchner made the remarks while in a confrontation with pro-Israel Jewish leader Guillermo Borger, who she said was in contact with a ”foreign espionage agency that knows of a new terror attack planned against Argentina.” What Kirchner meant by “foreign espionage agency” was none other than the Mossad.
Argentine president hints Jewish community leader linked to ‘foreign espionage agency’
Shlomo Papirblat and JTA, February 10, 2013
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner publicly attacked the head of Buenos Aires’ Jewish community, hinting he was in contact with a “foreign espionage agency that knows of a new terror attack planned against Argentina.”
Guillermo Borger, president of the AMIA Buenos Aires Jewish center, said the Argentina-Iran agreement to set up a committee to investigate the 1994 bombing of the center “will allow a third bombing in Argentina.” In 1992 the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires was bombed.
“This pact is viewed by some people as a step forward. This may be a step to the precipice. It will allow a very unfortunate third attack,” warned Borger.
The confrontation between Borger and Fernandez came to a head on Saturday as the president took to the national television airwaves and Twitter to defend the agreement.
“I read with concern the statements made by Guillermo Borger, president of AMIA,on the deal with Iran. What do you know to make a statement so terrible?” Fernandez asked on Twitter. “If there was an attack planned related to the agreement with Iran, who is the mastermind and the material author?”
Fernandez’s remarks seemed to accuse Borger of being in contact with foreign espionage bodies who are supplying him with information, a member of the Buenos Aires Jewish community told Haaretz on Sunday.
Argentina’s Senate will be the first legislative chamber to discuss the memorandum of understanding signed Jan. 27 with Iran on the 1994 AMIA bombing, which killed 85 and wounded hundreds. Fernandez has summoned the Argentine Congress to a special session Feb. 28 on the pact, which would create a “truth commission” allowing judges to question Iran’s suspects in Tehran.
Borger now strongly objects to the agreement, yet he had expressed satisfaction with the pact following a meeting with Foreign Minister Hector Timerman at the AMIA building on Jan. 29. Other Jewish leaders and victims’ families also were in that meeting with Timerman.
When the announcement of the memorandum was made, Borger said he was opposed because “we don’t trust Iran.”
Israel and the United States have objected to meetings between Argentina and Iran, and the bilateral agreement.
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?
We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.
-Charles A. Lindbergh
|February 26th, 2013||#10|
Join Date: May 2009
"A Conservative Provocateur, Using a Blowtorch as His Pen"
|October 17th, 2014||#11|
[hadding on griffin talking about offers to fund his BNP so long as he stopped criticizing international banking and stuck to criticizing muslims ONLY - like EDL]
06 March 2013
How Patriotism is Co-Opted and Misdirected
Did you ever wonder why people that pretend to advocate for your interests spend so much time talking about things that are beside the point? Rush Limbaugh, for example, will say that there is propaganda for making White people feel guilty -- which is true -- but then he leaves race out of it. Instead, he says, they are trying to make us feel guilty about global warming. Huh? Global warming? This is supposed to be a greater focus of anti-White guilt-propaganda than the Holocaust? And so the Jewish problem and more generally the race problem is left as the elephant in the living room that everyone is so accustomed to stepping around and not discussing, that we almost forget that it's there. Another common diversion is to say that government as such is the problem, rather than specific things that the government does, like helping non-Whites at the expense of Whites. The rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh and other mass-media conservatives is full of this kind of substitution and omission of forbidden subject-matter.
Probably many public figures receive such suggestions about what they should and should not discuss, with incentives to cooperate and deterrents for refusing to do so. The absurd media-blackout on Ron Paul in the last U.S. presidential election, for example, surely did not occur spontaneously. I can name several media-figures supportive of Ron Paul (Pat Buchanan of MSNBC, Andrew Napolitano of Fox Business News, Rick Barber of KOA Denver) who all just happened to lose their shows in late 2011 and early 2012. For his part, Rush Limbaugh managed to discuss the controversy over crooked voice-votes and rule-changes at the Republican national convention for hours without saying the name Ron Paul once, even though it was really all about him.
This is an instructive clip from Nick Griffin's speech, The BNP Solution. Griffin invites former members of the British National Party who have joined other groups to return, explaining that some of those other ostensibly patriotic groups were formed specifically for the purpose of co-opting or weakening nationalism:
Out of all the groups, the most important one by a mile was the English Defense League/British Freedom Party. That was a serious, systematic, hugely funded effort by a section of the ruling elite, by the Zionist-Neocon clique, to dominate, to simply take over nationalism, and turn it into their tool, to encourage the White working class to go and fight their wars, and so that when the banking collapse comes people are looking in the wrong direction instead of [at] the real culprits.
This party, we were approached, I was approached, we were offered money from the United States, and all they wanted was two things.
They only wanted us to concentrate on Islam -- and I yield to no one in my criticism of Islam, and grooming; I put my neck on the line; many of you have put your neck on the line as well -- but, it's not the only problem. And they wanted us only to focus on that.
And it only came with one other thing: they wanted us to drop our criticism of the banking system. Those were the only two things: we had to concentrate on talking about Muslims, and we had to drop our criticism of the international banking system.
And I refused. And we refused. That was in about 2007. And all hell broke loose really from that time, when systematically they tried to take this party apart [by setting up well funded competing organizations].
So, if you witness a discussion where somebody insists that Muslims are the real problem about which we all ought to be most concerned (even in the United States where there are very few Muslims) you'll have an idea what the agenda behind that might be. I recall months and months of wailing and gnashing of teeth on conservatard radio over the fact that somebody supposedly wanted to build a mosque in the general vicinity of the former World Trade Center. What difference does it make? Non-issues like this are hyped into matters of importance in order -- as Nick Griffin says -- to keep us in an uproar against Muslims and positively disposed to fighting the Zionist Jews' wars.
While it is remarkable that Nick Griffin could speak for some minutes about Zionists, Neocons, wars for Israel, and international finance without ever saying the word Jew, it is at least to Griffin's credit that in the instance described he did not take the easier path. You can view Griffin's entire presentation on the BNP's Online Television Channel.
|November 14th, 2014||#12|
How kosher is Jewish money?
Israelis have the most to lose from the destructive potential of donations from the likes of Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson. We should thank them for bringing this debate out into the open.
By Anshel Pfeffer | Nov. 14, 2014
It was like a scene out of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Two immensely wealthy Jews, key financiers of the main political parties of the world’s superpower, discussing how to wage war on the enemies of the Jews, and control the media and presidents. Only, instead of taking place at the dead of night in a Jewish cemetery in Prague, they were sitting on stage in a Washington, D.C. hotel conference room, in full view and making no attempt to hide their intentions.
If the Czarist secret police officers who published the original edition of “Protocols” at the start of the 20th century had been at the Hilton, or just reading the reported dialogue between Power Rangers impresario Haim Saban and casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, they would have had little need for the embellishment, plagiarism and forgery they used to concoct their best seller.
If you haven’t yet read the musings of these two gentlemen on the best way to confront Iran (bombing “the daylight out of these sons of bitches” is an option), the shortcomings of Barack Obama’s presidency, the need (or lack of) for Israel to be a democracy, the best way to take over The New York Times, and how to ensure a sufficient supply of latkes at the White House Hanukkah party, then you really should. It would be no exaggeration to call it a historic event.
The joint appearance of the two billionaires at the Israeli American Council’s inaugural conference last weekend was the moment that Jewish benefactors, who have always preferred to use financial influence on behalf of their brethren as far behind-the-scenes as possible, chose to do so out in the open.
Not that they had anything to be ashamed of. Jewish financiers using their fortunes to protect and promote a small scattered nation, persecuted for much of its history by vastly superior forces, is an honorable tradition. Only, it was always a tradition considered to be much more effective when carried out discreetly. Why give the haters more ammunition to incite with?
In most countries where Jews live, discretion is still the norm. On the same day Adelson and Saban took to the stage in Washington, across the pond a British daily blazed the headline “Labour funding crisis: Jewish donors drop ‘toxic’ Ed Miliband” across its front page. The Independent on Sunday was referring to a shortfall in fund-raising for Britain’s main opposition party, due to concerns of Jewish donors that its embattled leader, Miliband (himself Jewish, of course), will, if elected prime minister next year, toughen his government’s policy toward Israel.
There are a number of troubling flaws to this story. Labour’s campaign machine relies, to a large degree, on funding from trade unions and is hardly beholden to private Jewish donors. Miliband is indeed in deep crisis, but that is due to his inability to project a credible image of being prime-minister-in-waiting and the constant sniping by his own senior party members, who fear he is leading them to five more years in the political wilderness.
The misgivings of the party’s Jewish donors over his foreign policy is really the least of his worries, and it is odd (or perhaps not) that The Independent on Sunday chose to make this relatively minor concern the main headline of its Remembrance Sunday issue. Especially as even the reporter admitted that it is not yet a problem – merely one that could emerge in the months leading to the election – and is dwarfed by the general reluctance of donors, not just Jewish ones, to contribute to Miliband’s campaign.
But by far the biggest flaw in the report, especially one that had been given such prominence, was that it did not include even one named source. None of Labour’s Jewish donors or fund-raisers had agreed to identify themselves by name, though some seem to have agreed to be quoted anonymously.
Difference between U.S. and British Jews
The interviewees’ reticence is not surprising. Whether or not they are satisfied with their party’s candidate, Jewish philanthropists do not voluntarily discuss in public their political donations.
This is probably all you need to know about the difference between American and British Jews. Both communities are phenomenally successful, and for the past few decades have enjoyed a disproportionate prominence in just about every walk of life – unparalleled since the Golden Age of the Jews in Middle-Ages Spain, perhaps even surpassing that. But while Jews in the United States routinely celebrate their extraordinary position of near-dominance in finance, the creative arts, media, and now also political influence, among British Jews there is still a prevailing anxiety, and even sense of shame, whenever the words “Jewish” and “money” are used in the same sentence. Whenever a politician or media commentator combines the two, there is an outcry of “anti-Semitism.”
There is ample historic justification for this defensiveness. “The Protocols” were not the first or last time the insidiousness of Jewish moneymen was a central plank of Judeophobia. And it’s still around. Even today, when you start typing “Jewish bankers” into the world’s most powerful search engine (founded by two Jews, of course), it automatically suggests “control the world.” But then, the Web is full of the most vile conspiracy theorists, and we can’t let them dominate our lives.
The influence and power of big money in capitalist democracies are a fact of life. You can try and legislate to close loopholes and create a more level playing field, but you can’t eliminate it. Unless, that is, you want to live in a country like Vladimir Putin’s Russia, where troublesome oligarchs are packed off to a penal colony in Siberia or forced to flee and live in permanent exile.
The best we can do is try and take the Internet – that wonderful tool our capitalist economies have created – away from the conspiracy theorists and use it to truthfully increase transparency, so we at least know who is using money to acquire influence.
And that is already happening. Every community, business sector, and lobby is using its financial clout to try and change policy, and safeguard its interests. Jews have no reason to be ashamed of having learned – out of bitter necessity – to play the game well, and they certainly have every right to lobby on behalf of the country where half of their people live. Accusing them of dual loyalties (and we all have multiple loyalties) is not only anti-Semitic, it is also a denial of their democratic rights to decide who and what they choose to support.
For all the vulgarity of the Saban-Adelson dialogue, we should commend them for holding it in the open. Especially since now we have heard Adelson publicly state that as far as he is concerned, “so what” if Israel is no longer a democracy, we know the ugly truth about the man who is our prime minister’s number one patron.
It doesn’t matter whether or not we supply the Israel-haters and Judeophobes with fodder. They will warp facts and invent lies, anyway. We will have to continue facing their poisonous propaganda, and we have never been in a better position to do so.
But we need to know whatever we can about how “pro-Israel” tycoons use their money and what they believe in, because they are now in a far more powerful position than any hostile newspaper or biased blogger to cause Israel untold harm.
|November 20th, 2014||#13|
Did We Vote for War?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
November 19, 2014
“How do you like the Journal’s war?”
So boasted the headline of William Randolph Hearst’s New York flagship that week in 1898 that the United States declared war on Spain.
While Hearst’s Journal, in a circulation battle with Joe Pulitzer’s World, was a warmongering sheet, it did not start the war.
Yet the headline comes to mind reading the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial pages seem to have concluded that on Nov. 4 America voted for new wars in the Middle East, and beyond.
On Nov. 13, the Journal’s op-ed page was given over to Mark Dubowitz and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Assuming nuclear talks with Iran conclude unsuccessfully by the Nov. 24 deadline, they write, we have four options.
Two involve continued or tougher sanctions. The other two are a preemptive war featuring U.S. air and missile strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, or a U.S. attack to bring down Bashar Assad’s regime.
“Taking Mr. Assad down would let Tehran know that America’s withdrawal from the Middle East and President Obama’s dreams of an entente with Iran are over.”
It would surely do that.
But taking down the Syrian regime could also lead to a slaughter of Christians and Alawites, an al Qaida-ISIS takeover in Damascus, war with Iran, and attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and across the Middle East.
Which raises a question: What is this FDD?
Answer: A War Party think tank that in 2011, according to Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss website and Eli Clifton of Salon, took in $19 million from five rabidly pro-Israel givers.
Home Depot’s Bernard Marcus gave $10.7 million, hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer $3.6 million. Sheldon Adelson, the Vegas-Macau casino kingpin, chipped in $1.5 million.
Last week, Adelson and media mogul Haim Saban spoke of plans to dump hundreds of millions into the presidential campaigns of 2016.
What does the pair want from our next president? According to the Washington Post’s Phil Rucker and Tom Hamburger, action on Iran:
“Saban said that fundamentalist Iranians represent a real threat. If necessary to defend Israel, and as a last resort, he added, ‘I would bomb the living daylights out of the sons of bitches.’”
Echoed the 81-year-old Adelson, “I would not just talk. I would take action.”
Last year, at Yeshiva University, Adelson, who pumped $150 million into the 2012 campaign, said the U.S. should fire a nuclear missile into the Iranian desert as a warning to end their nuclear program, or the next atom bomb would be dropped on Teheran.
This billionaires boys club wants to buy U.S. foreign policy and a U.S. war on Iran. And the propagandists of FDD are paid to produce that war, in which they will not be doing the fighting and dying.
Back to the Journal. On Nov. 15, its lead editorial declared that the great “question before President Obama and Europe is how to stop the Napoleon of the Kremlin.”
Putin is Napoleon? Has the Journal lost it?
Vladimir Putin is 62. By age 40, Napoleon’s empire encompassed nearly all of Europe. France had swallowed Belgium, Holland, parts of Germany and the Italian coast to Rome. The Emperor had alliances with Austria, Russia, Denmark, Sweden and a truncated Prussia. Virtually all the resources, industries and populations of Continental Europe were at the service of the French Empire.
Putin has reacquired Crimea, which belonged to Russia before the United States was a nation, and is about the size of Vermont.
Napoleon made it to Moscow. Does the Journal think Putin will make it to Paris, as Czar Alexander I did, or to Berlin, as Stalin did?
The Journal hails the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 18-0 vote to arm the Ukrainians, and urges Congress to do the same.
And what would be the result of U.S. heavy weapons arriving in Kiev?
Would Putin recoil in shock and awe and scurry out of Crimea?
Probably not, as the Journal itself concedes, “In 15 years running Russia, Mr. Putin has never stood down.”
And if Putin, seeing U.S. weapons arriving in Kiev, sent in the Russian army to annex Luhansk and Donetsk, took Mariupol on the Black Sea coast, established a land bridge to Crimea, and then offered to negotiate, what would Kiev do?
Even with U.S. weapons Ukraine cannot defeat Russia.
What would we do? Accept defeat? Send U.S. advisers or troops into Ukraine? Launch strikes on Russian forces? Blockade Crimea? Are we really prepared for war with Russia, over Donetsk?
Since Nov. 4, the Journal and its neocon allies have been cawing for U.S. troops to fight ISIL in Iraq and Syria, for U.S. air strikes on Assad’s regime, for bombing Iran, and for arming Ukraine to fight the Russians in a war that Kiev would surely lose.
Was this what America voted for on Nov. 4?
Is this what the Grand Old Party has on offer — endless war?
|November 26th, 2014||#14|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Jewish extremists gearing up to co-opt the Tea Party movement
MARCH 13, 2010 AT 12:30 AM
‘Jewish supremacists fear Tea Party patriots because they could vote out the Democrat majority at midterms and end easy victories for ADL’s pro-homosexual legislation’
By Rev. Ted Pike — MP3
Last November, the Anti-Defamation League vilified millions of anti-Obama and Tea Party protestors as “conspirators”—part of an unruly, violence-prone movement paranoid about government. The Southern Poverty Law Center, like the Anti-Defamation League, is a 100% Jewish “civil liberties” group dedicated to crushing any sign of Christian, conservative renewal. A year ago, these groups tried to convince Missouri state police to profile patriotic Americans as potential domestic terrorists. Now, SPLC has released a new Intelligence Report and video claiming that potentially violent militia and extremist groups are “cross-pollinating” the Tea Party.
The Tea Party is “shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,” says SPLC editor Mark Potok. He claims current anti-government rage is “a tinderbox…much like the white-hot period just before [the bombing by Timothy McVeigh in] Oklahoma City.” He says “many in law enforcement are very worried that all it is going to take is some kind of spark to set this thing off.” (If a spark does ignite violence or terrorism, it may well be provided by these very Jewish groups who claim to oppose violence. America’s radical secular Jewish community has a long record of defacing their own synagogues, burning crosses, and covertly distributing “hate” literature to fabricate proof that hate and anti-Semitism are rampant in heartland America.)
SPLC’s report, “Rage on the Right,” is not as extensive or derisive of the Tea Party movement as ADL’s earlier “Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies.” But it is a cannonball across the bow of the explosively growing Tea Party movement. It warns leaders not to let the whole truth about international Zionist control and conspiracy take root, or these super powerful Jewish muscle groups will use their influence to inflame Jewish media, the Congress and law enforcement against them. (See Jews Confirm Big Media Is Jewish)
ADL and SPLC want the Tea Party movement to obediently follow the Democrat and Republican parties down the garden path they blindly entered three-fourths of a century ago. They want the Tea Party to accept big Jewish money and advisement and promote Israel-first potential candidates, particularly Sarah Palin. As Israel’s attack dogs, ADL and SPLC specialize in keeping American conservatism in line. They are intent now on furthering a Tea Party platform that serves Israel and undermines America, favoring even more military intervention on behalf of Israel in the Mideast. Unfortunately, with 85 percent of Americans supporting Israel, their mission should be easily accomplished.
Unless lovers of the whole truth resist, leaders of the Tea Party from Glenn Beck down will cave to these powerful organizations and drive out original thought. Zionists can then co-opt the movement entirely.
At present, Jewish supremacists only fear Tea Party patriots because they could vote out the Democrat majority at midterms and end easy victories for ADL’s pro-homosexual legislation. But the Tea Party should aspire to make Jewish supremacists fear it for another reason: power to eventually forge a foreign policy that adamantly seeks American interests first. This policy would resist further enticement into war and loss of American lives to make the Mideast safe for Israel.
Saving the Tea Party
How can the Tea Party be rescued from inevitable Zionist takeover? Tea Party leaders and members must be educated. One of the best ways is for those who know the whole truth to join Tea Party chapters and begin to speak out. (Tea Party chapters in your area are listed at teapartypatriots.org.) Inform your local Tea Party members that Americans must have all the facts in order to win the war for national survival. If a soldier enters combat not even knowing who his enemy is, he will become a battlefield statistic.
This is the case with the Tea Party.
The fastest way to begin crucial enlightenment is for Tea Party patriots to view my 60-minute documentary, The Other Israel (Watch it here!). This fast-moving, information-packed film has been viewed by countless lovers of freedom worldwide. It tells the whole truth about the conspiracy of Jewish supremacism. While it spares nothing, it is so Biblically oriented, moderate and documented that another Jewish-dominated attack group, the American Civil Liberties Union, can’t fault it. When The Other Israel was the epicenter of a heated cable-access TV controversy in Fairfax, Virginia, the ACLU was called in to arbitrate. Its verdict? “The Other Israel is not anti-Semitic.”
SPLC is right that a wave of anger is building on the right and prompting many to advocate violent revolution. If this rage is not sublimated by constructive political and legislative protest, then acts of violence like last week’s attack by an anti-government gunman at the Pentagon will undoubtedly increase. This will strengthen ADL/SPLC’s demand that rights to speak freely and bear arms be further restricted. Jewish dominated media will also whip up public revulsion at anti-government “extremism” to a degree unseen since it extinguished a similar Goldwater conservative awakening in the early 1960s.
It is vital now, in the formation of this potentially powerful movement, for patriots to energetically take King Solomon’s advice: “In all your getting, get wisdom.”
|December 15th, 2014||#15|
Germany says will help finance four new Israeli warships
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany plans to finance part of the cost of four new corvette warships for the Israeli navy made by German firm Thyssen Krupp under a deal struck with the Jewish state in November, the government said on Monday.
Following approval by German parliament's budget committee the contract could be finalised before the end of this year, government spokesman Steffen Seibert said.
As part of its atonement for the Nazi Holocaust, Germany is committed to Israel's security and has often helped pay for the cost of military equipment such as submarines.
The mass-circulation Bild am Sonntag newspaper reported on Sunday that Berlin had earmarked up to 115 million euros for the warships -- which would cost around 1 billion euros in total.
Seibert declined comment on the size of the German contribution.
|December 15th, 2014||#16|
Join Date: Aug 2012
Anyone remember the "English Defense League", the anti-Muslim group?
One of the clearest examples of a false front in history (In the Hadding link, Nick Griffin mentions them specifically when he talks about "American donors" demanding he take a purely anti-Muslim line, and then giving the money to the EDL when he refused).
There's a similar organization in Germany leading anti-muslim protesters in defense of (their words) "Judeo-Christianity". All the dipshits on Stormfront are throwing up Sieg Heils like its 1936 again over this. I swear, maybe white people really are too stupid to be saved:
They say they are protesting against Islamic extremism and perceived abuses to Germany’s generous asylum system, but not against asylum seekers or Muslims in general.
The group says it wants to preserve Germany’s Judeo-Christian Western culture.
"The favorite slogan of the reds is: 'No Pasarán!: Yes we have passed! And we tell them...and we tell them, we will pass again!'"
― Benito Mussolini after the Communist capitulation in Barcelona
|March 25th, 2015||#17|
|April 22nd, 2015||#19|
Join Date: May 2009
Last edited by littlefieldjohn; April 22nd, 2015 at 04:41 AM.
|April 25th, 2015||#20|
Join Date: May 2009
George Soros’ son Alex Soros Forming Jewish Super PAC to Further Jew America