Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old October 15th, 2012 #21
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083

"When Jews have power, they seek to curb free speech, whether in Israel or the Diaspora. Obviously, there is no tradition of free speech within traditional Jewish societies which were run like Hassidic communities are today. Non-conformists beware. "
Old December 17th, 2012 #22
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
Default Op-Ed: ADL attempts to censor the Internet

How would you like your government to tell you what you can read, hear and see? Better still, how would you like an apologist for the Gaza Massacre to make that decision?

If you've never heard of the ADL, it's time you did, because the misnamed Anti-Defamation League wants to shut down three hundred websites that peddle "hate".

You might not think that is such a bad idea because you don't visit hate sites, and who needs hate anyway? There are two problems with this: one is that if and when these three hundred are shut down, who will be targeted next? The other is, who decides what is hate and who is a hater anyway?
The picture below was mailed to a number of parties by someone concerned at this attempt to shut down websites. It is a scan of part of a form letter sent by the ADL to a hosting company.
If you have a website, even a free one, then you use a host. The company that received this letter, Endurance International, claims currently to provide "domain, web hosting and online services to more than 2 million small and medium-sized busineses across 40 brands". (Their spelling mistake).

Now imagine if that company were to submit to the ADL's apparently reasonable request. Imagine if all other big Internet companies did too. There would be no more hate on the Internet. Right? Wrong! What there would be is an Internet in the hands of madmen and fanatics who find hate everywhere,

And with good reason, because most of the time they are the cause of this hate.
The man at the top of the ADL's pyramid is Abraham Foxman; here he is whining about anti-Semitism in America.
Yes, you got it, 15% of Americans are infected with serious anti-Semitism, as though anti-Semitism is a disease - sadly the prevailing view. And what does serious mean? Foxman and his gang have produced a spurious survey, so let's ask a couple of questions of our own:
How many synagogues have been burned to the ground in America recently? None, although there was an attempt to bomb one in New York earlier this year, but the headline in the New York Times read Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I. Hmm.

How about lynchings, when was the last time a Jew was lynched in the United States? Last year? 2001? Try 1915! And Leo Frank wasn't lynched because he was a Jew, but because he was a convicted child killer.
Abraham Foxman and his gang of paranoids would like to apply that standard of 15% "infected" to the Internet. In practice this would mean shutting down sites that:
1) Endorse conspiracy theories that claim 9/11 was an inside job, especially those who claim there was a Mossad, Israeli, or Jewish connection. As the mystics, cranks and loonies believe "the Jews" were behind 9/11, what effect will a Jewish organisation censoring them have?
2) Voice any criticism of the policies of the Israeli Government. The ADL has supported Israeli Government policies more or less uncritically for decades, and continues to do so. And to them, anyone who doesn't can only be what?
3) Preach racial separatism, including the Nation of Islam - which according to Abraham Foxman, is a hate group.
This list could be extended, but look at the ADL's letter again and ask yourself how many of the terms therein are or could be interpreted as subjective. What does publishing or disseminating slanderous, libellous or defamatory material mean?
Here is one more example of the ADL's and Foxman's technique.
Awhile ago, there were various claims that Palestinians were having their organs harvested, some after being murdered. The ADL called these claims false and malicious, comparing them with the so-called blood libel of yore. But, when the Israeli authorities arrested a suspect earlier this year, there was not a whimper from the ADL.

Censorship under any pretext is a slippery slope because the paranoids, fanatics and just plain jobsworths can always find more and more things at which to take offence, and eventually to ban first by bribery and intimidation, then by law. In Britain, we have seen such hysteria generated over racism that now people can even be dragged into court for, in effect, miming racial epithets, or investigated by the police for calling someone a choc ice. Did anyone ever hear of such lunacy?
Eventually, the censors begin censoring the truth, and when that truth is unpleasant, or shows the government in a bad light, then the real tyranny begins. So what is the solution?

There is no solution, because there is no problem. The anti-Semites Abraham Foxman and his ilk find under every bed will not go away, if two thousand years of experience is anything to go by. If people want to hate Jews, blacks, or, perish the thought, homosexuals, they will, and nothing will stop them. By persecuting them you simply increase their paranoia and make them hate the target group even more.
If you don't like what they are saying, and can refute it, then go ahead and do so. Always bear in mind though that however crazy they sound, they may be right. Even the 911 'truth' crowd.....
Read more:
Old January 23rd, 2013 #23
Ravening Wolf
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,638
Ravening Wolf

"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."-Revelation 11:15, Holy Bible, (KJV)
Old January 27th, 2013 #24
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,453
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

October 2012
Volume LVI Number 10

Quadrant magazine is the leading general intellectual journal of ideas, literature, poetry and historical and political debate published in Australia.

The War Against Human Nature III: Race and the Nation in the Media

Frank Salter

For the intellectual Left that came to power in the 1960s and 1970s, no front of the culture wars is more important than the national question—what constitutes a nation, the benefits and costs of nationhood, the connections between national identity and interests, ethnic and racial differences, and the proper relations between nation, state, immigration, domestic ethnic groups and other countries. Four of the five taboos in the social sciences are related directly or indirectly to these issues: race differences; blaming the victim; stereotype accuracy; and nativism.[1]

Leftist values are not automatically anti-national. In the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth, Western elites often combined affection for their peoples with liberalism, including support for expanded civil rights. The Christian drive to end slavery in the late eighteenth century was not associated with unpatriotic sentiment. Labour movements have often supported protectionism and restrictive immigration in alliance with conservatives. However, as Eric Kaufmann has documented, the internationalist strand in socialist thought rose to prominence during the course of the twentieth century.[2] From before the Bolshevik coup of 1917, cosmopolitans have fought against beliefs that would bolster Western identity and confidence.

One such activist was Columbia University anthropology professor Franz Boas, who helped supplant the nascent biosocial sciences in the United States with the cosmopolitan New Social Sciences. Boas’s opposition to biosocial science is valorised as “scientific anti-racism”, which he pioneered in a famous publication of 1912[3]. The research purported to demonstrate that races rapidly converge on a common type when living in the same country. His goal was to assuage Anglo-American concerns that mass immigration would alter national identity. Boas was so strongly motivated in this direction that he opposed all biological theories of human nature. To that end he abandoned liberal and academic standards. Despite evincing the values of the 1848 liberal revolutionaries, he remained a stalwart of the Soviet Union through the Ukrainian genocide of 1931–32. On the scientific side, he doggedly supported official Soviet Lamarckianism, the theory that characteristics acquired by individuals during their lifetimes are passed on genetically to children. Boas remained a Lamarckian long after the theory was discredited in scientific circles. He approved Margaret Mead’s deeply flawed doctoral thesis on Samoan teenage sexuality that attributed white puberty blues to pathologies of Western civilisation. His 1912 research, a keystone document in the effort to radicalise American social science, was recently shown to be fallacious, not in the data collected by junior colleagues but in the statistical analysis conducted by Boas, a master statistician.[4] Subsequent attacks on biosocial conceptions of ethnicity and nationhood have frequently been tempted to trade truth for ideology.

I am not suggesting that the pioneer leftist social scientists were Soviet agents. But they were sympathetic. For example John Dewey, held by Kaufmann to have co-founded the New Social Sciences with Boas, was not a Stalinist. Neither was he a revolutionary. But he did move in far-Leftist circles and in 1937 chaired the Commission of Inquiry into the Charges Made against Leon Trotsky in the Moscow Trials, organised by a Trotskyist front organisation that included Boas. The Commission concluded that Trotsky had been loyal to the revolution.

A century after Boas the flaws in Marxist economics are understood but communist doctrine regarding the national question is triumphant. This is manifested intellectually in a near absence of biology in media and academic discussions. Politically it is evident in the intolerant utopianism of multiculturalism, revolutionary levels of immigration, and censorship of free speech on the subject.

The loss of this front of the culture wars unhinged the West’s political leadership’s capacity to comprehend ethnic affairs in a growingly diverse and mobile world. The same political elite that was surprised when the Soviet Union broke up into its constituent nations—because they did not regard it as an empire consisting of captive nations praying for release—is also managing the progressive swamping of Western nations by mass immigration. The policy is fascinating from the evolutionary perspective because it is drastically reducing the collective fitness of Western populations. Not everything about the process is new. Displacement of populations through colonisation has been happening since time immemorial, usually on a much smaller scale. What distinguishes the present situation throughout much of the West is that it was not initiated by armed invasion. Instead, colonisation is occurring at the invitation of Western elites, often contrary to public opinion. The process is epochal whether viewed through zoological, national or democratic eyes.

Media coverage

The national question figures large in the Australian media. From September 2011 until August 2012 I collected 215 articles and programs on national themes, mainly from the Sydney Morning Herald (henceforth the Herald) but also from the Australian and selected television and radio programs. The Herald is part of the Fairfax media group, which occupies a position analogous to the New York Times in America, from which it often reprints articles. The Australian is the flagship of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire in Australia, which owns most of the country’s print media. The newspaper reflects the Murdoch formula of a campaigning approach to journalism with a neoconservative flavour.

The collected media reports discussed Aborigines, refugees, white racism, the benefits of multiculturalism and diversity, criticism of white Australia, national identity (including Anzac Day), foreign investment, international relations, and overseas ethnic conflict.

As expected, there were almost no references to biological factors. A rare exception was a Herald report of a scientific study concerning the evolution of racial differences (August 16, 2012, p. 18). Though it was not mentioned in the article, this area of research is relevant to studies of ethnic conflict and diversity because it bears on the significant genetic differences between ethnic groups and races.[5] Genetic differences between groups entail genetic similarity within them, which typically resembles that found among cousins and can be as high as that found among half-siblings or grandparent and grandchild. This makes ethnic groups vast pools of kinship for their members, and helps explain the passions that frequently characterise ethnic affairs.[6]

Another exception to the dearth of biology concerned medical differences between Australians of Aboriginal and European descent. In a radio interview conducted by Alan Jones in July 2012, Dr Alan Barclay of the Australian Diabetes Council stated that Caucasians have a lower prevalence of diabetes than indigenous Australians.[7] He explained that the risk of Type II diabetes rises after aged forty-five for Whites but after age thirty-five for Aborigines, due to different evolutionary backgrounds. Caucasians have had agriculture for many thousands of years and become genetically adapted to more sugar in their diet. Neither man remarked that this information contradicts a mantra of multicultural ideology, that racial differences are biologically insignificant, that they are skin deep because populations have not been separated long enough for evolution to occur. Perhaps medical professionals should explain to social scientists that race differences go down at least to the pancreas and that substantial divergent evolutionary change has occurred in the last 10,000 years.[8]

The most impressive discussion of biosocial themes was on the SBS television program Insight on April 20. SBS provides content in languages other than English and on themes of interest to non-Anglo audiences. Dr Fiona Barlow, a social psychologist in the School of Psychology, University of Queensland, explained that racism has an innate basis. Some individuals are more predisposed to develop racist attitudes than others. Humans have a cognitive bias to remember harmful but not pleasant behaviour from members of other ethnic groups, and to attribute it to that group. That is a “normal, natural” thing to do.[9] The same program showed a video clip of an evolutionary psychologist, Professor Doug Kendrick of Arizona State University, explaining how ethnocentrism evolved. Humans are quick to suspect the motives of strangers from other ethnic groups but are also adept at calculating the risks and rewards to be gained from interaction. The evolutionary analysis of ethnic affairs does not indicate automatic racism. These contributions were valuable but did not fully develop the theme of the normality of ethnocentrism. Not only racism but pro-social values of ethnic and national community have an innate basis. And if minority ethnic consciousness is normal, so is the majority equivalent.

The general absence of biosocial perspectives was evident in the media’s lack of interest in signs of ethnic hierarchy. Pecking orders interest zoologists. They are ubiquitous in vertebrate species. Ethnic hierarchy is relevant to the national question because a fundamental legitimation for government is that it protects the people from conquest. In the Western tradition that is the first duty of sovereigns. A king might have exploited his subjects, but in defence of the realm ruler and ruled shared an interest in resisting external domination. In anthropological theories of the state, hunter-gatherers gave up their egalitarian social structure in the interests of group defence. Still today, in liberal doctrine, liberty from external subjugation takes precedence over citizens’ individual civil liberties within the state.[10] (Libertarians are right to see war as a threat to their values.) This made good evolutionary sense because conquered populations lose resources including territory and, ultimately, reproductive fitness.

Yet the Australian elite media show little interest in ethnic hierarchy, beyond alleging white racism. If provoked into commenting on the subject, many would reply that multiculturalism has done away with the only ethnic hierarchy Australia has known, which saw Anglo-Celtic Australia firmly on top and Aborigines and non-English-speaking immigrants firmly underneath. This thesis makes sense for most of Australian history since 1788 but not in recent decades. Anglo-Celtic Australians are being rapidly displaced by mass Third World immigration that they were never asked to approve, are excluded from multicultural forums, and are the prime targets of political correctness, including a growingly coercive legal apparatus.

Anglo-Celtic Australia’s subordinate status is also indicated by the pattern of media reporting and commentary on ethnic affairs. An element of that pattern is the emphasis on white racism. Journalists are alert for discrimination when practised by Anglo Australians but are somnolent in the case of minorities. This is odd from the biosocial perspective because ethnocentrism is a species characteristic, a universal potentiality. Ethnic networking and other forms of solidarity are usually most intense in minorities.[11]

Following in chronological order are examples of criticisms of Anglo and white Australians.

Sports journalist Patrick Smith criticised Tiger Woods’s former caddie for calling Woods a “black arsehole” despite the caddie apologising. Smith was so outraged that he rounded on the sport itself: “As for men’s golf, well, it is seen for what it always has been. A white sport played and administered protectively by white men” (Australian, November 9[12]).

Herald columnist Ruth Ritchie (November 26–27) reviewed a television show featuring a pair of Muslim comedians who “share, with rapier wit, how it feels to be hated by white people ... And their observations about idiotic WASP male conversation is [sic] as keenly observed as any woman’s.”[13]

After describing an English commentator as “a fraud and a mountebank”, columnist Angela Shanahan wrote: “It is an English thing, the Oxbridge talent for shock, fury and fulmination all delivered in the closed-mouthed plummy accent” (Herald, December 24–25[14]).

Peter Gebhardt, a retired County Court Judge, wrote: “Australia Day is, of course, an artificial fabrication designed by governments ... and smug Anglo-Saxons to ensure that we forget real history. That Anglo-Saxon smugness is a resilient child of hypocrisy and racism ... It is only the resilience and the strength, the honesty and the earth-strength of the Aboriginal people that has enabled them to survive ... every conceivable peril placed in their paths by the whites who rely on a specious superiority” (Herald, January 26, online[15]).

Former SBS newsreader Mary Kostakidis wrote: “Commercial television is still the province of middle-aged white male fantasy—non-white faces and older women are sent to Coventry” (Herald, March 3–4[16]).

Germaine Greer’s combination of sexism and anti-Anglo chauvinism is published without editorial protest: “Australian men generally avoid women; Englishmen actively torment and belittle them” (Herald, March 3–4).[17]

On SBS television Toby Ralph, a marketing strategist, criticised the negative stereotyping of an Indian actor in a banned television advertisement, calling it racist. He then characterised an actress in the same advertisement as “this pert little Caucasian blonde who is like a sexualised Hitler youth” (Insight, March 20[18]).

In May, Helen Szoke, Australian Race Discrimination Commissioner, stated that Anglo Australians have a special problem with racism not found in other ethnic groups. “People who are part of the majority grouping, the white Anglo-Saxon grouping” deny that their discrimination is racist (Law Society Journal, May[19]). Szoke painted a picture of an insensitive Anglo Australia which is not giving enough opportunities to Aborigines or immigrants of non-English-speaking background: “the white Australia policy is still part of the ‘muscle memory’ of the more homogenised white Australia”. The evidence for this strong claim was weak.[20] Typical for anti-discrimination advocacy from its earliest days, these disparaging remarks were not balanced by a discussion of non-Anglo networking or anti-social behaviour or, on the other side of the ledger, success and overrepresentation in important areas such as higher education, selective schools, the professions, and areas of business.[21] No mention was made of group interests, for example the cost to the Anglo community of affirmative action for minorities or infrastructure for immigrants. Racism is seen only in Anglos and whites. It gets worse. Szoke described how her own family has been adversely affected by Australian discrimination. “Here [Australia], our psyche has been scarred ... We’ll have to wait and see what happens”. The components of this story sit uncomfortably together—the categorical criticisms of Anglo Australians, the failure to consider ethnic interests, and the Commissioner’s personal ambivalence towards the same ethnic group that she officially condemns. The combination looks dangerous when she calls for the criminalisation of racial vilification (Herald, August 30[22]). This is not an aberration. The problem is systemic and fits the Left-minority coalition’s broader effort to discourage white dissent and only white dissent.

On Anzac Day, which commemorates soldiers’ sacrifice for the nation, Eva Cox of the University of Technology, Sydney, doubted that Anzac Day was for all Australians because it is “very Anzac Anglo” (Sun-Herald, April 29, p. 86). In his Anzac comment, historian Craig Stockings sought to soften the clash between national identity and the multicultural population by exploding misconceptions about Australian soldiers. True, the Anzac legendary hero is “always, always white”, but thankfully Australia’s behaviour on the battlefield has had nothing to do with its soldiers being Australian, with their national character or “ethnic inheritance” (Australian, April 25). As Peter Coleman succinctly puts it, “Leftist writers, who do not like Australia or Australians, have assembled a portfolio of charges to debunk ‘the Anzac myth’.”[23]

There is also the minority ethnocentric motive, usually expressed in leftist tropes. Aboriginal activist Noel Pearson feels distant from Anzac Day because it is “too white”, despite him also maintaining that race is an irrelevant category. The ritual is nauseating, he says, because it distracts whites from the more worthy memory of his own people’s suffering.[24] Australia’s wars have been fought overwhelmingly by Anglo and other white Australians. So recent was the start of mass non-European immigration—since the 1970s—that the minority segment of the population does not yet figure in the core national identity as accumulated in images and memories of war heroes, veterans, war diaries and correspondence, casualty lists, war memorials and war leaders. The same can be said of our explorers, pioneers, leaders, writers, scientists, and of the imprint of culture, law and political institutions.

The change has been so rapid that veterans can notice. An example was publicised during Anzac Day in 2011 when Jim Wallace, head of the Australian Christian Lobby, commented in an online message that Australians should “remember the Australia [veterans] fought for—it wasn’t gay marriage and Islamic” (Australian, April 26, 2011[25]). He sent the message—which is true—after watching the Anzac Day march on television with his ninety-six-year-old father, a veteran of Tobruk and Milne Bay. The message provoked a storm of protest. Predictably he was called racist, despite the religious and homosexual themes. The message is also true when applied to ethnicity and race. Australian did not fight for diversity or to see their descendants become an ethnic minority. Among the reasons soldiers fight, the most common ideal was probably the aspiration for national freedom. That reality, combined with the Anglo make-up of the Anzacs, makes Australia’s past a foreign country for those alienated from the historical nation.

A Herald opinion piece complained that Australian boardrooms were too white and too male and that both deficiencies contributed to their staleness (May 9).[26]

Herald education editor Andrew Stevenson claimed in a front-page article that private schools are insufficiently diverse. The headline contained a racial slur which indicated that “insufficiently diverse” meant too white: “The white bread playground: top private schools shun ethnic diversity” (June 12).

The ABC2 television program Dumb, Drunk and Racist, June to July 2012, presented harsh images of Anglo Australians.[27] Mainly white Australians were shown displaying ethnic hostility and abusing alcohol. The anchor, Joe Hildebrand, a journalist for the Murdoch-owned Daily Telegraph, invited four Indians to fly to Australia and pass judgment on Australian race relations. Indians were chosen because that country has an especially negative view of Australian racism. The show focused on displays of racial abusiveness in interactions claimed by Hildebrand to be purely spontaneous: “The truth is virtually every confrontation, every bit of violence or abuse, was caused by people we just happened to accidentally stumble across—or rather who just came across us.”[28] This seems a hazardous way of organising a costly documentary. But we need go no further than Hildebrand’s own views to detect bias. In the second episode of the series, his response to the view that immigrants should adopt Australian customs was: “not sure what Australian customs there are, maybe drinking, gambling, wearing stubbies”.

Sports reporter Simon Barnes’s London Times article on Wimbledon was reprinted in the Weekend Australian: “I can never watch Serena Williams without being overwhelmed by a race-guilt for all the terrible things that white people have done to non-white people over the centuries” (July 7–8[29]).

A candidate for council elections was reported in the Herald as opposing sharia law and praising Australian in contrast to Muslim culture. The reporter, Nicole Hasham, implied that the candidate was a “racial supremacist” (August 21[30]).

In the context of criticising the federal parliament for insufficient ethnic diversity, columnist George Megalogenis implied that the institution is too white and that whiteness reduces openness: “It has become more monochrome at the very moment we need to pursue more openness—in markets and in immigration” (Weekend Australian, July 21–22[31]).

The Foreign Minister Bob Carr criticised a statement by the Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, that Australia belongs to the Anglosphere. He linked the statement to the anti-Asian views of One Nation founder Pauline Hanson in the 1990s. “With our heritage of White Australia and membership of the British Empire ... it’s too risky for us even to glance in the direction of talk of an Anglosphere. It revives all those unfortunate recollections and associations” (Weekend Australian, July 28–29[32]).

In the context of criticising Christian missionaries, Phillip Adams’s accusations became racial: “The spiritual destruction of aboriginal religions throughout the world by white invaders was finally far worse ...” (Weekend Australian, August 4–5[33]).

It seems that the elite Australian media do not always report events as objective observers but as participants, and that when they participate in ethnic issues they sometimes adopt a hostile attitude towards Anglo and white Australia but not towards minorities.

The gentle reception of anti-Anglo defamation

Sometimes what is not stated in the media points to bias. The media routinely pass over chauvinism and racism directed at Anglo Australians. An example is Herald journalist Jane Cadzow’s criticism of Aboriginal activist Noel Pearson’s verbal abuse of government officials and reporters as “f**king white c***s”. She did not dwell on the remark’s racist content (Herald, August 25[34]). The same was true of journalist Tony Koch’s original exposé in the Weekend Australian (April 28–29[35]). The emphasis was more on the fact that Pearson had abused a female journalist and done so with language “so foul it couldn’t be repeated here”. However, Koch was able to report Pearson’s lesser abuse of calling government officials and another female journalist “f**king racist white c***s”.

Despite this behaviour Pearson claims to be philosophically opposed to the concept of race, especially in governmental policy. In this view the British content of Australia’s national identity is all cultural. Likewise, Aboriginal identity and disability have nothing to do with race.[36] The National Trust of Australia has named Pearson a living national treasure, something of a contrast to the treatment afforded whites who deploy vulgar racial abuse. Professor Marcia Langton, foundation chair of Australian Indigenous Studies at Melbourne University, defended Pearson’s harsh language by describing it as a feature of Aboriginal English, in which profanities are used as emphatics, “like exclamation marks”. Langton did not insert a sunset clause in her argument, such as a proviso that the cultural excuse expires in the case of a speaker who has a law degree or exerts political and administrative leadership. The twilight of Langton’s argument was when she herself lapsed into vilification by referring to the “Anglo preference for supercilious politeness”. The comment was published without apology by the Weekend Australian (May 5–6[37]).

Also excused were negative views about whites expressed by Gracelyn Smallwood, an Aboriginal activist and an associate professor at James Cook University, made in the context of criticising Pearson. Smallwood made invidious generalisations about Anglos and whites in the Weekend Australian of July 7–8.[38] She wrote that white Australians prefer Noel Pearson’s approach to indigenous affairs, referred to the “racist realities of mainstream Australia”, and opined that Aborigines “have long ago given up hoping that white right-wingers might be capable of understanding such things”. She continued that “Anglo-Saxon pride has been promoted for over 200 years in Australian schools. Just because it talks of being fair dinkum doesn’t disguise its origins or trajectory.”

The treatment of racist language used by Aborigines and their supporters fits the “moral apartheid” described by Herald commentator Paul Sheehan, in which Aborigines are judged by different, lighter, standards,[39] though in the broader picture it is the Anglo community that is pilloried in its Bantustan of blame.

A higher-profile example of anti-Anglo sentiment being excused concerns the late art critic Robert Hughes. Hughes was a prominent expatriate Australian who supported the republican cause in the 1999 referendum from New York, where he was art critic for Time magazine. His anti-monarchical views extended to criticism of the British core of Australia’s national identity. He had unpleasant ethnically-charged memories of Catholic education, expressed in his book The Culture of Complaint (1993, p. 89):

Our education would prepare us to be little Englishmen and Englishwomen, though with nasal accents. We would not be accepted as such by the English themselves: we were not up to that ... In those days we had a small, 95 per cent white, Anglo-Irish society ... We were taught little Australian history.

The sentiment resembles that of the journalist John Pilger, who ridiculed Anglo Australia as a “second-hand England” in his 1992 book A Secret Country. In his book, Hughes defended the memory of the dead white males who built up most of the Western artistic and philosophical canon. But nowhere did he defend the right of live white people to witness for an identity that still nurtures that civilisation.

Anti-Anglo sentiment is also omitted from recent press coverage of the 1977 murder of anti-drugs campaigner Donald Mackay (Herald, July 13; July 14–15[40]). The reports failed to mention the ethnic dimension of the crime. A royal commission concluded that a Calabrian Mafia organisation had targeted Mackay, an Anglo Australian. Al Grassby, a pioneering figure in Australian multiculturalism, had been a close associate of the Mafia leader who ordered Mackay’s murder, and had received generous political donations from this individual for many years. Acting on behalf of the Mafia, Grassby subsequently spread the accusation that Mackay’s own family had arranged the murder, for which he was successfully sued by Mackay’s widow.[41] None of this was mentioned in recent press reports. An elite newspaper can be expected to inform readers of such background, indicating that Mackay’s death was an ethnically-entailed conspiracy and cover-up. Despite Grassby’s criminal activities having been revealed, the ACT’s Labor government erected a life-sized statue of him, which still stands, a cold display of contempt for the Mackay family, the Anglo community and law-abiding citizens.[42]

Of the foregoing media reports, two of the largest categories are contradictory. Whites are commonly depicted abusing and stereotyping non-whites but also common is actual abuse and stereotyping of Anglos. No examples were sighted of journalists or commentators defaming minorities. Such behaviour exists but it is rare in the mainstream media, where abuse of Anglo Australia is common. The asymmetry in pecks and the identity and institutional affiliations of the peckers indicates that Australia has an ethnic hierarchy in which Anglos are firmly underneath and an alliance of leftist intellectuals and minorities are firmly on top. The examples also indicate that the hierarchy is not the natural order of things but is maintained through soft totalitarianism, known euphemistically as “political correctness”, consisting of intolerance on the part of the elite media, lack of political alternatives, and intimidation both informal and formal delivered by a growingly authoritarian and openly anti-Anglo immigration industry.

The low status of Anglo advocacy

The media review also revealed a pronounced status difference in Australian ethnic relations. Ethnic minorities are routinely represented by university-educated elites with access to the mass media and government while the ethnic majority is usually not. Rare exceptions, such as Professor Geoffrey Blainey was perceived to be in the 1980s, prove the rule, as does the fury they provoke from the mainstream media and Left activists. The class difference corresponds with institutional support, such that minority advocates are privileged by the establishment while majority advocates are excluded. Minority ethnic activists are treated with respect by government, the media, universities and corporations. They receive positive media coverage, jobs and other perks from the multicultural and immigration industry. They are invited to participate in government forums. Political parties sometimes favour them for preselection as a means of attracting the “ethnic vote”. Activist lawyers volunteer strategy and legal services. Peccadilloes and indiscretions are overlooked. By contrast, majority activists are derided by the media, university experts, minority activists and government officials. There are no jobs for advocates of Anglo-Australian interests in the multicultural industry or in government agencies. They are not invited to government forums. Lawyers demand full payment. Majority advocacy can stunt careers. Peccadilloes and indiscretions become the whole story. Throughout the West, efforts continue to legislate ever harsher penalties for expressions of loyalty to shrinking white majorities.

Vilification of Anglo ethnic consciousness helps perpetuate this difference. The resulting stigma helps silence the professional class that could marshal a powerful electoral and cultural defence of the historical nation.

The class difference between minority and majority ethnic advocates may have been instrumental in the top-down demographic revolution now under way across the English-speaking world. This can happen in a democracy when elites become alienated from the founding nation. According to the best academic study of the phenomenon in the USA, by Canadian sociologist Eric Kaufmann, by 1950 Anglo elites were stepping away from their traditional role of national leadership.[43] Kaufmann argues that this change of heart occurred initially in the upper echelons of the intellectual elite, largely due to leftist ideologues such as Boas driving Anglo loyalists out of the social sciences and literary circles. (The remainder of this synopsis drops the positive spin Kaufmann puts on cosmopolitanism.)

One of the first casualties was consideration of human nature, the scientific study of which offered a prestigious counterweight to millenarian socialism. This changing of the intellectual guard occurred in the United States by the 1940s and was already apparent in the 1920s and 1930s with the rise of anti-Anglo ideology dressed up as anti-racism. That was the tipping point. The Gramscian process came full circle as graduates of elite universities conveyed the cosmopolitan agenda to the federal government, including the executive, the Supreme Court, and senior levels of the bureaucracy. The alienation of the state from the nation left the nation without effective leadership and thus ill-equipped institutionally or financially to contest control of centralised government, education and media.

The remainder of the twentieth century saw the mopping-up of uncoordinated pockets of Anglo dissent. One rearguard action was flight from the mainstream churches to evangelical denominations whose preachers were not the products of Ivy League colleges or adherents of progressive ecumenicalism. Despite such resistance, the top-down march of cosmopolitan ideas had a general indoctrination effect. The ability of Anglo Americans to resist electorally was steadily eroded by the mass immigration of those whose ethnic and economic interests usually lay with the Democrats, the party of relatively generous welfare, diversity enthusiasm and porous borders. Coercive measures were also deployed, formal and informal, that characterise multiculturalism everywhere (though in America the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech has been a stumbling block to criminalising racial vilification). This was a repeat of the intolerance originally shown by the left in the elite universities. Kaufmann is critical of the anti-Anglo stance of multiculturalism, suggesting that this endangers the cosmopolitan enterprise.[44]

The process is similar in Australia, though a greater proportion of the intellectual influence has come from overseas. The Anglo elite was becoming alienated from ethnic defence by the 1960s. The Immigration Reform Group, founded in 1960 at Melbourne University, was influential in advocating ethnic moralism that soared unburdened by a concept of ethnic interests. Loyalists have still not found a response to their people’s loss of control over the state. From the 1960s the universities became a stronghold for anti-Anglo activists, eventually leading to school curricula having their civics courses stripped of patriotic history. The present Labor government is intent on introducing a national civics curriculum for schools that teaches children nothing of the country’s Anglo-Celtic and European history. Instead it intends to emphasise Aboriginal culture, Asian geography, environmental sustainability and leftist values.[45] As Chris Berg of the Institute of Public Affairs notes, Australia’s own English and European political traditions are not mentioned in the draft curriculum; neither is individual liberty. And as the Australian Christian Lobby argues, there is no justification for ignoring Western biblical traditions.[46]

The potential for shifting demographics to prevent an Anglo recovery was demonstrated during the 2007 federal election, when the serving prime minister, John Howard, lost his seat to a campaign that pulled Asian votes from him on the basis of ethnic affiliation. One comment that he made twenty years earlier, to the effect that Asian immigration should be slowed a little during times of economic recession, a view he later withdrew, was sufficient to convince conservative middle-class voters of Asian origin to support the party of the left.[47] Race trumped class. More significantly, the commentariat did not hurl accusations of racism at the Labor Party or ethnically-motivated voters. Instead they commended the tactics used. It seems that anti-racism sometimes means anti-white. The foregoing examples of media defamation send the same message. A similar double standard prevents the Greens from opposing mass immigration, which overnight transforms low-polluting Third Worlders into the highest polluters on the planet. In a way, race trumps the environment.

The subordination and steady replacement of Anglo Australia is not due to high principle but an unholy Left-minority alliance. The cosmopolitan Left has abandoned the shrinking white blue-collar working class for new constituencies, including minority ethnics who can be relied upon to vote for parties that keep the immigration door open to ethnic kin. Australia’s cosmopolitan elites are, in effect, electing a new people to replace reactionary Anglo Australia. The fact that the new people are more ethnically motivated than Anglo Australians has not bothered ideologues who are on hair-trigger alert for any hint of Anglo ethnic sentiment.

The concluding part of this article, in the next issue of Quadrant, describes how the national question is treated in Australia’s universities. Are the confusion, double standards and outright anti-white hostility evident in the media occurring despite or because of what is being taught in the social sciences?

Dr Frank Salter ( is an urban anthropologist and political ethologist. His article “The War against Human Nature in the Social Sciences” appeared in the June issue, and “The War against Human Nature II: Gender Studies” in the July-August issue.

[1] Haidt, J. (2011). "The bright future of post-partisan social psychology", Talk given at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, Texas, 27 Jan.

[2] Kaufmann, E. (2004). The rise and fall of Anglo-America. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

[3] Boas, F. (1912). "Changes in bodily form of descendants of immigrants." American Anthropologist 14(3): 530-562.

[4] Sparks, C. S. and R. L. Jantz (2002). "A re-assessment of human cranial plasticity: Boas revisited." Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 99(23): 14636-14639.

[5] Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., P. Menozzi, et al. (1994). The history and geography of human genes. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.

[6] Harpending, H. (2002). "Kinship and population subdivision." Population and Environment 24(2): 141—147.

Salter, F. K. (2007/2003). On genetic interests. Family, ethnicity, and humanity in an age of mass migration. New York, Transaction.

[7] Alan Jones Show, Radio 2GB, 9 July 2012.

[8] Cochran, G. and H. Harpending (2009). The 10,000 year explosion: How civilization accelerated human evolution. New York, Basic Books.

[9] Insight, 20 April 2012, first interview;, accessed 23 April 2012, at about 12 mins.

[10] Skinner, Q. (1998). Liberty before liberalism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

[11] Salter, F. K. (2002). Risky transactions: Trust, kinship, and ethnicity. New York, Berghahn Books.

[12] Patrick Smith, “White man’s game could show Woods some respect”, The Australian, 9 Nov. 2011, Sport, p. 33.

[13] Ruth Ritchie, “Crossing the racial divide”, SMH, 26-27 Nov. 2011, Spectrum, p. 18.

[14] Angela Shanahan, “An intellectual to learn from and a fraud to recoil from”, SMH, 24-25 Dec. 2011, p. 18.

[15] Peter Gebhardt, “Nation’s day a chance to shine a light into the darkness”, SMH, 26 Jan. 2012, online.

[16] Mary Kostakidis, “A diversified media can tell humanity’s myriad stories”, SMH, 3-4 March 2012, New Review, p. 16).

[17] Germaine Greer, “Women’s struggles go beyond one day”, SMH, 3-4 March 2012, p. 18.

[18] Insight, SBS Television, 20 March 2012. Transcript at:

[19] Anne Susskind, [Interviews Helen Szoke], Law Society Journal, May 2012, pp. 20-22.

[20] The evidence of Anglo racism consisted of a fall in the proportion of Aborigines in government employment, too many whites in advertising and free-to-air television, and a fall is social cohesion.

[21] Wilkinson, P. (2007). The Howard legacy: Displacement of traditional Australia from the professional and managerial classes. Essendon, Australia, Independent Australian Publishers.

[22] Dan Harrison, “Calls for federal law to criminalise racial abuse”, SMH, 30 Aug. 2012, p. 5.

[23] Coleman, P. (2012). “Australian notes”. Spectator Australia. London, The Spectator Ltd., p. vi.

[24] Noel Pearson, 2011, Up from the mission: Selected writings, Collingwood, Victoria: Schwartz Media, p. 337.

[25] “Christian lobbyist sorry for gays, Islam tweet”, The Australian, 26 April 2011.

[26] “Diversity the answer for boardrooms”, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 May 2012, p. 11.

[27], accessed 30 Aug. 2012.

[28], accessed 30 Aug. 2012.

[29] The Weekend Australian, 7-8 July 2012, Sport, p. 39.

[30] Nicole Hasham, “Politics of prejudice as cultural cowboys court xenophobic vote”, SMH, 21 Aug. 2012, p. 3.

[31] George Megalogenis, “Reform blues stem from parliament’s monochrome demography”, Weekend Australian, 21-22 July 2012, Inquirer, p. 22.

[32] “Carr takes Abbott to task on Anglo outlook”, Weekend Australian, 28-29 July 2012, The Nation, p. 6.

[33] Phillip Adams, “Wrecking crews”, Weekend Australian, 4-5 Aug. 2012, Life & Style, p. 46.

[34] Jane Cadzow, “Cape crusader”, SMH, 25 Aug. 2012, Good Weekend, pp. 12-17.

[35] Tony Koch, “Pearson yet to learn lessons of leadership”, Weekend Australian, 28-29 April, Inquirer, p. 18.

[36] Noel Pearson, “Constitutional reform crucial to indigenous wellbeing”, Weekend Australian, 24-25 Dec. 2012, Inquirer, p. 20.

[37] Marcia Langton, “Why I continue to be inspired by Pearson”, Weekend Australian, 5-6 May 2012, Inquirer, p. 20.

[38] Gracelyn Smallwood, “Self-belief a matter of survival for indigenous people”, SMH, 7-8 July 2012.

[39] Paul Sheehan, “Mundine sentiment missing the mark”, SMH, 26 April 2012, p. 11., accessed 30 Aug. 2012.

[40] Lisa Davies, “Hopes high in search for remains of Mackay”, SMH, 13 July 2012, p. 1; Lisa Davies, “Last chance to ease pain of a town and a crusader’s family”, SMH, 14-15 July 2012, p. 15.

[41] National Observer (2005):, accessed 30 Aug. 2012.

[42] Paul Sheehan, “Monuments to honesty and deceit”, SMH, 16 Feb. 2009,, accessed 30 Aug. 2012.

[43] Kaufmann, The rise and fall of Anglo-America.

[44] Ibid., pp. 293, 295.

[45] “New civics curriculum calls for students to be citizens of the web”, SMH, 5 June 2012, p. 3.

[46] Christ Berg, “Blatant bias in national curriculum could damage our democracy”, Sun-Herald, 8 July 2012, pp. 68-9. ACL submission on the national curriculum, 28 May 2010.

[47] Maxine McKew, who defeated Howard in the 2007 elections, won partly because the Labor machine targeted the Asian vote:, accessed 1 Sept. 2012; see supporting comments by Asian community leaders in the Bennelong electorate:, accessed 1 Sept. 2012.
Old February 2nd, 2013 #25
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
Default Hungary Criminalizes Holocaust Denial, Orders Man To Visit Memorial

Hungarian Holocaust Denier Sentenced To Visit Memorial And Journal About Experience
A Holocaust denier has been ordered to serve an unconventional punishment in Hungary.
Gyorgy Nagy, 42, is the first Hungarian to be convicted of the offense of being a Holocaust denier, reports Hungarian site MTI.
On Thursday, the Budapest Court upheld the ruling of a lower court, according to MTI. The Court sentenced Nagy to 18 months in prison, suspended for three years, and probation. He also has to visit either Budapest's memorial museum, Auschwitz or Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, reports the the AFP. If he chooses his local Holocaust Memorial Centre, he must make three visits in total and record his observations, according to the AFP.
Nagy was arrested in 2011 at a rally in the capital city. The unemployed computer technician was holding up a banner reading: "The Shoah [Holocaust] did not happen," according to SkyNews.
The Hungarian parliament made Holocaust denial a punishable offense in February 2010, according to The Independent. The bill was submitted by Attila Mesterhazy, a prominent member of the governing Socialist Party.
Language in the bill made "denying, questioning or making light of the Holocaust" illegal, according to The Independent.
Israel National News notes that anti-Semitism in Hungary has been recently complicated by the actions of incoming right-wing government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban's Fidesz. The site claims that Fidesz has been accused of "pandering to nationalists" and "stoking anti-Semitism."
#topnav_margin_btm { margin:0 !important }

Apparently, some in the international community have also noticed a political shift.
In June, Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel returned his Hungarian Order of Merit, Grand Cross, according to the Daily News. The Nobel peace laureate said he could not keep the honor, awarded in 2004, because of Hungary's recent attempt to "whitewash" its collaboration with the Nazis
Old February 12th, 2013 #26
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,453
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

ADL jews veto/whine about SNL skit making fun of slavish devotion to israel in Hagel hearings
Old February 21st, 2013 #27
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
jewsign Illinois lawmaker wants to abolish Internet anonymity

An Illinois lawmaker has brought forth a bill in the state that would abolish the right of website commenters to post anonymously.

Those who don’t post their names risk having their comments removed, according to a report in The Daily Caller.

Called the Internet Posting Removal Act,
the bill that was introduced by Sen. Ira Silverstein, states, in its summary section: “A web site administrator shall, upon request, remove any posted comments posted by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name and home address are accurate. Effective 90 days after becoming law.” That’s according to the bill text posted on the Illinois legislative website, under Senate Bill 1614.
Old February 23rd, 2013 #28
America First
Senior Member
America First's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First

America Shamed Again: A colonized people — Paul Craig Roberts
February 17, 2013 | Categories: Articles & Columns | Tags: jsonp_6, | Print This Article
Americans have been shamed many times by their elected representatives who cravenly bow to vested interests and betray the American people. But no previous disgraceful behavior can match the public shame brought to Americans by the behavior of the Senate Republicans in the confirmation hearing of Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.

Forty Senate Republicans made it clear that not only do they refuse to put their service to America ahead of their service to Israel, but also that they will not even put their service to America on a par with their service to Israel. To every American’s shame, the Republicans demonstrated for all the world to see that they are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Israel Lobby. (The Israel Lobby is not their only master. They are also owned by other powerful interest groups, such as Wall Street and the Military/Security Complex.)

The most embarrassing behavior of all came from the craven Lindsay Graham, who, while in the act of demonstrating his complete subservience by crawling on his belly before the Israel Lobby, dared Hagel to name one single person in the US Congress who is afraid of the Israel Lobby.

If I had been Hagel, I would have written off the nomination and answered: “You, Senator Graham, and your 40 craven colleagues.”

Indeed, Hagel could have answered: The entire US Congress, including Rand Paul who pretends to be different but isn’t.

The real question is: Who in the Congress is not afraid of the Israel Lobby?

The hatchet job on Hagel is driven by fear of the Israel Lobby.

Perhaps the worst affront Israel’s American representatives ever inflicted on the US military was the coverup of the Israeli air and torpedo boat attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. The Israeli attack failed to sink the Liberty but killed and wounded most of the crew. The survivors were ordered to silence, and it was 12 years before one of them spoke up and revealed what had happened (James Ennes, Assault On The Liberty). Not even Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could get Washington to own up to the facts.

The facts are now well known, but as far as Washington is concerned they are dead letter facts. The entire event has been moved to some parallel universe.

Why are the Senate Republicans out to destroy Hagel for Israel?

The answer is, first, back when Hagel was a US Senator he refused to be intimidated by the Israel Lobby and declared, “I am a US Senator, not an Israeli Senator.” In other words, Hagel did the impermissible. He said he represented US interests, not Israel’s interests. Hagel’s position implies that the interests of the two countries are not identical, which is a heresy.

The second part of the answer is that Hagel doesn’t think that it is a good idea for the US to start a war with Iran or for the US to permit Israel to do so.

But a US war with Iran is what the Israeli government and its neoconservative agents have been trying to impose on the Obama regime. Israel wants to get rid of Iran, because Iran supports Hizbollah in Southern Lebanon, thus preventing Israel from annexing that territory and its water resources, and because Iran supports Hamas, the only Palestinian organization that tries to oppose Israel’s total theft of Palestine, although Iran has never supplied Hamas with effective weapons.

The two organizations that oppose Israel’s territorial expansion, Hizbollah and Hamas, represent large numbers of Arab peoples. Nevertheless, both are declared, on Israel’s orders, to be “terrorist organizations” by the servile US Department of State, which in all reality should be called the Israeli Department of State, as it never puts US interests before Israel’s.

In other words, Hagel did not grovel. He did not say how much he loved Israel and how it would be his great honor to sacrifice all other interests to Israel’s, how he has waited his entire life for the chance to serve Israel as the US Secretary of Defense.

Hagel is not an opponent of Israel. He merely said, “First, I am an American.” His lack of craven subservience is unacceptable to the Israel Lobby, which has branded him an “anti-semite.”

Lindsay Graham, in contrast, has what it takes to be Israel’s perfect choice for US Secretary of Defense.

Graham will go out of his way to please the Israel Lobby. He will pull out all stops and behave with maximum servility to a foreign power in his effort to embarrass the President of the United States and his nominee, a war veteran and former US Senator who simply thinks that the US Congress and the executive branch should put American interests first.

Senate Majority Leader Reid has used Senate rules to keep Hagel’s nomination alive.
If Lindsay Graham succeeds in doing the Israel Lobby’s dirty work, he will have handed a defeat of the US President to the Israeli Prime Minister, who has demeaned the President of the United States for not doing Israel’s bidding and attacking Iran.

Americans are a colonized people. Their government represents the colonizing powers: Wall Street, the Israel Lobby, the Military/Security Complex, Agribusiness, Pharmaceuticals, Energy, Mining, and Timber interests.

Two elected representatives who tried to represent the American people–Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich–found representative government to be an inhospitable place for those few who attempt to represent the interests of the American people.

Like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Gerald Celente, I stand with our Founding Fathers who opposed America’s entanglement in foreign wars. In an effort to prevent entanglements, the Founding Fathers gave the power to declare war to Congress. Over the years Congress has gradually ceded this power to the President to the extent that it no longer exists as a power of Congress. The President can start a war anywhere at any time simply by declaring that the war is not a war but a “time-limited, scope-limited, kinetic military action.” Or he can use some other nonsensical collection of words.

In the first few years of the 21st century, the executive branch has invaded two countries, violated the sovereignty of five others with military operations, and has established military bases in Africa in order to counteract China’s economic penetration of the continent and to secure the resources for US and European corporations, thus enlarging the prospects for future wars. If the Republicans succeed in blocking Hagel’s confirmation, the prospect of war with Iran will be boosted.

By abdicating its war power, Congress lost its control of the purse. As the executive branch withholds more and more information from Congressional oversight committees, Congress is becoming increasingly powerless. As Washington’s war debts mount, Washington’s attack on the social safety net will become more intense. Governmental institutions that provide services to Americans will wither as more tax revenues are directed to the coffers of special interests and foreign entanglements.

The tenuous connection between the US government and the interests of citizens is on its way to being severed entirely.
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

Last edited by America First; February 23rd, 2013 at 01:40 PM.
Old March 24th, 2013 #29
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
jewsign Union of French Jewish Students suing Twitter for £32 million over #unbonjuif

The Union of French Jewish Students (UEJF) has announced that it is suing Twitter for €38.5m (£32.8m) over its failure to comply with a French court ruling over the #unbonjuif case.

On January 24 this year, a French court ordered Twitter to hand over the details of people who had tweeted racist and anti-Semitic remarks, and set up a system that would alert the police to any further such posts as they happen.

Although Twitter deleted the offensive comments from the site, it has failed to implement its country withheld content feature to pre-filter potentially offensive content.

The Parisian court gave the micro-blogging site two weeks to comply or face a fine of up to €1,000 (£849) for every day it doesn't. As it stands, Twitter owes €44,000 but the UEJF has stated it wants considerably more because "is making itself an accomplice and offering a highway for racists and anti-Semites".

UEJF president, Jonathan Hayoun told AFP: "Twitter is playing the indifference card in not respecting the decision of 24 January,” adding that if the UEFJ wins its case, it will donate the money to the Shoah Memorial Fund.

Twitter has maintained that as it is based in the United States it is protected by the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech guarantees.
Old May 29th, 2013 #30
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
Default Jewish groups welcome appointment of US anti-Semitism czar

NSNS Saturday, 25 May 2013

ANTI-SEMITISM COMMISSAR — Ira Forman has been named by the Obama administration to spearhead efforts to stem the threat of anti-Jewish hostility worldwide.
WASHINGTON — Jewry's top policy-setting body in the United States has welcomed the appointment by Secretary of State John Kerry of Ira Forman as Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.

"This appointment could not be more timely," said American Jewish Committee Executive Director David Harris. "Anti-Semitism and related violence have been on the upswing worldwide, and continued US leadership to combat it is urgently needed."

"Ira Forman has the knowledge, commitment and experience to focus government-wide attention on documenting and devising new ways to fight this ages-old scourge," Harris continued. "We welcome his appointment as a successor to former Envoy Hannah Rosenthal and Interim Envoy Michael Kozak."

Warning: 'Holocaust® denial.'
The appointment came as the State Department issued an annual report Monday on international religious freedom, ominously concluding that 2012 brought "a continued global increase in anti-Semitism" and "Holocaust® denial."

The Department's International Religious Freedom Report pointed specifically to anti-Jewish hostility that has resulted from an increase in anti-Semitism "by government officials, religious leaders, and the media, particularly in Venezuela, Egypt and Iran."

The Special Envoy provides the input on anti-Semitism for these reports, which provides details for every country in the world, focusing on government policies, court cases and educational programs, as well as instances of popular insensitivity.

Forman previously served as Director of Congressional Relations for the Office of Personnel Management during the Clinton administration. He was CEO of the National Jewish Democratic Council for 15 years.

Hailed by ADL
The post of Special Envoy was established by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, and is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL)

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, hailed the appointment of Forman as anti-Semitism envoy, saying it showed US resolve to fight anti-Semitism is "serious and ongoing." The ADL, he said, is confident Forman "will play an important role in ensuring that the significant political will and diplomatic resources of the US are brought to bear to urge foreign governments to take action" against anti-Semitism
Old August 3rd, 2013 #31
Jean West
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 476
Jean West
Default New-hate websites in NSW probed

Jew-hate websites in NSW probed
August 2, 2013

Vic Alhadeff, president, NSW Jewish Board of Deputies

TWO websites registered to the same person, one that claims to be a chat forum for people living in the Southern Highlands in NSW and one that claims to help people deal with police, are being used to spread racist and anti-Semitic images, videos and messages.

The sites, and, include posts like “Understanding parasitic Jews”, “Jews kill 66 million Christians in Russia”, “Jewish Zionists sacrifice babies” and links to a video on YouTube, Synagogue of Satan Jewish Ritual Murder.

Both sites are registered to a Nick Rolis, believed to be an alias for another man who has a history of running anti-Semitic websites.

The AJN has tracked down the actual owner of the site, who cannot be named for legal reasons, but was unable to contact him before the paper went to print.

NSW Jewish Board of Deputies (JBOD) president Vic Alhadeff lodged a complaint with YouTube regarding the video and contacted the company that designed the pages to try and find out who is hosting the sites.

“This YouTube posting is scurrilous racism at its worst,” Alhadeff said. “It makes wild accusations against Jews, the Jewish people, faith and culture which have no connection with reality.

“The obscene claim that Jews practise ritual murder can have no purpose other than to encourage hatred of Jews and violence against them. We insist that this video be taken down immediately.”

Alhadeff said in the past it has taken about two days for YouTube to respond to complaints by the JBOD to racist material, so although the video was still online when The AJN went to print, he is hopeful it will be taken down.

He said the video, and the two sites, show the danger of the internet.

“People are able to remain hidden and anonymous while peddling insidious racism, hatred and bigotry.

“It’s a serious flaw in the system and it exposes us all to the lowest elements of society.”

B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) chairman Dr Dvir Abramovich said the community is obliged to speak out against such shocking displays of blatant anti-Semitism and hate-speech.

“Throughout history, such centuries-old blood libels and ugly depictions of Jews have led to abuse and violence against Jewish communities and it’s distressing that more than 60 years after the Holocaust such Jew-hatred is still circulating in Australia,” Abramovich said. “I implore everyone to flag and report such vile and offensive content, and to make online providers more accountable.”

NSW Jewish Board of Deputies (JBOD) president Vic Alhadeff has lodged a complaint with YouTube.
Old February 6th, 2014 #32
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
Default jews flip lids over lack of holodenial laws in Europe

More than a dozen European Union nations have failed to fully criminalize the denial of crimes against humanity and war crimes, the EU's executive said on Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Though the bloc agreed in 2008 to outlaw the denial, condonement or gross trivialization of such crimes, around half of its 28 members have failed to write these rules into their domestic legislation, the European Commission said.

"Today, we have achieved peace between nations in the European Union," said the bloc's Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding.

"Yet another challenge remains: to continue the quest for tolerance. Nobody should ever have to experience hate speech or hate crime."

Reding said she was urging all EU states to swiftly transpose EU rules into their national laws.

Countries not in line with the 2008 rules by December 1 this year could face judicial action.

The Commission said 13 countries -- Austria, Belgium, Britain, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Hungary, the Netherlands and Sweden -- have no criminal law provisions governing the public condoning, denial and gross trivialization of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

And 15 nations -- Bulgaria, Britain, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden -- have no specific provisions criminalizing public condoning, denial and gross trivialization of crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity by major war criminals of the European Axis countries.

In a separate statement, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said Holocaust Remembrance Day was an occasion "to remind us all of the need to continue fighting prejudice and racism in our own time."

"We must remain vigilant against the dangers of hate speech and redouble our commitment to prevent any form of intolerance," she added.

Anti-immigration sentiment is on the rise across Europe, with extremist rightwing parties looking to make strong gains in elections for the European Parliament in May.
Old February 8th, 2014 #33
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
jewsign Should it Be Illegal to Hurt Someone's Feelings? Fordham Professor is Pushing to Criminalize Free Speech.

In placing limits on speech we privilege physical over emotional harm

Thane Rosenbaum.

His book: The High Price of Free Speech: Rethinking the First Amendment.
Old February 9th, 2014 #34
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
Default The “Protect Academic Freedom Act” is a Jewish Plot to Restrict Academic Freedom

Marxist liberation theory and anti-nationalistic equality dogma has been pushed, against the will of the people, through the university system. But when people look to Israel as embodying these things the Jews told them to be against, the Jew screams “wait, no, we didn’t mean us!”
It would be difficult to imagine a more flagrant demonstration of the total control Jews exercise over the American university system and American society as a whole than the recent passing of legislation to cut the funding of any school which has an element within it that desires not to support Israel.
The hilariously named “Protect Academic Freedom Act” is nothing less than an extremist attack on the basic concept of academic freedom.

The Orwellian-named “Protect Academic Freedom Act”
is not a defense of academic freedom; this is a total attack on academic freedom.

Now, you might think that it’s purely a symbolic law because no American college would ever endorse an academic boycott of Israel, and it doesn’t even apply to colleges that are institutional members of the American Studies Association (the wording requires that the organization be “significantly funded” by the institution, which the ASA and other associations clearly are not). Still, even if the proposed law was purely symbolic, it would deserve condemnation for the evil symbolism of allowing the government to dictate the policies of colleges with regard to global injustices.

But, in reality, the amendment would have a very real impact beyond mere symbolism. The proposed legislation would cut off federal funds under the Higher Education Act to all universities unless they violate the First Amendment by cutting off funding to student groups that support a boycott of Israel.

That’s because the proposed amendment would apply not just to the college itself joining a boycott of Israel, but also if “any significant part of the institution, or any organization significantly funded by the institution adopts a policy or resolution, issues a statement” supporting an academic boycott of Israel. So, what is an organization significantly funded by the institution? Well, registered student organizations receiving student fees are the clearest example of an organization funded by a university.

This proposed law would mean that if a campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is a registered student group getting most or all of its funding from the university’s student fees, then the entire university would lose federal funding under the Higher Education Act if that student group makes any kind of statement supporting an academic boycott. The only way to avoid these restrictions would be for all colleges in America to rescind any funding for any student organization that expresses support for an academic boycott of Israel, an act that would clearly violate the First Amendment at public colleges. If an academic department passed such a resolution, the college would be obligated to shut down the entire department in order to avoid the cut off in federal money.

The amendment is so broad that it would not just ban expressing support for an academic boycott, but any college putting limits on exchanges with Israeli institutions. If a university in any way restricts a student exchange anywhere in Israel (say, due to fear of terrorist attacks by Palestinians), it would violate this amendment. (Ironically, if the State of Israel is defined to include the occupied territories, then any college that rejects an exchange with a Palestinian university because of safety concerns or due to the travel restrictions imposed by Israeli authorities, would also be in violation of these rules and have all federal funding cut.)
Old February 23rd, 2014 #35
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
jewsign Harvard feminist says academic freedom should be abolished

A Harvard University feminist student writing in the campus newspaper The Crimson recently posited this:

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

The column was titled “The Doctrine of Academic Freedom – Let’s Give Up On Academic Freedom in Favor of Justice.”

Its author, senior Sandra Y.L. Korn, a joint history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality major, called for the end of academic freedom and in its place “a more rigorous standard: one of ‘academic justice.’”

“When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue,” she wrote. “The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do.”

Uh huh. She went there.

The column has been circulated among conservative circles, including on Facebook’s Best of the Web, whose poster pointed out that “if college (or any level of school, for that matter) is no longer a place to discover truth, and is only extant for the purposes of opposing a list of -isms, what is the purpose of attending such a rotten, decrepit and decadent place?”
Old May 9th, 2014 #36
Bread and Circuses
RickHolland's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1

Kalmen Kaplansky is known as the grandfather of the Canadian human rights movement. He is a Jewish immigrant from Poland who established himself in Montreal in 1929.

From 1936 to 1938, he was the secretary of the Montreal-wing of the Labour Party of Canada and chairman of the Montreal-wing of the Workmen's Council (Yiddish trade union).

He ran, with no success, in the 1944 provincial elections in Québec for the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (the New Democratic Party's predecessor). He ran again the 1950 federal elections.

From 1946 to 1957, he was the national director of the Jewish Labour Committee and turned the JLC's repression of antisemitism into antiracism.

In 1947, the Canadian Congress of Labour passed a resolution calling to its affiliated unions for vigorous action to fight for full equality for all peoples, regardless of race, colour, creed, or national origin. This resolution was pushed by the Canadian-wing of the United Steel Workers of America, who were persuaded by Kaplansky to advocate such a measure. He also advocated the creation of a permanent committee on racial intolerance in the CCL (which was established in 1948). In the same year, with the help of Russia-born Jewish syndicalist Moishe Lewis, Kaplansky led the Workmen's Circle and Jewish Labour Committee's "Tailors Project" which brought Jewish immigrants from Europe to Canada to work in factories through the Federal governement's foreign workers program.

At the same time, he went to the side of the CCL's rival, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, to help write the Racial Discrimination Committee's report which advocated that the union must fight racial and religious discrimination and racist ideas. Still in the TLCC, he wrote a resolution, introduced by the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, advocating the establishement of "trade unions against racial intolerance".

Through Kaplansky, "Joint Labour Commitees to Combat Racial Intolerance" were organised, uniting the CCL and the TLCC in a fight against racism. These committees are credited for the establishement of anti-discriminatory laws in various provinces and the Ontario Fair Employement Practices Act in 1951.

He served as the CLC's National Committee on Human Rights chairman and as the first director of the CLC's Departement of International Affairs.

He helped draft the International Labour Organization's 1958 Discrimination (Employement and Occupation) Convention, where he served as Canada's representative - a help that will lead to the ILO earning the 1969 Nobel Peace prize. He was also one of the alternate members of the Canadian delegation to the UNESCO.

Kaplansky was president of the Douglas-Coldwell Foundation (Canadian-version of the Fabian Society) in the 80's.

He (finally) died in 1997.
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H.
Old October 25th, 2014 #37
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
Default European Rabbis Call For Laws Against Criticizing Jews

The Jews are starting to panic as anti-Jewish sentiment is sweeping Europe. European rabbis are now calling for the entire continent to pass laws against what they say is “hate speech” against Jews. In other words, they want to ban criticism of Jews throughout the entire continent by defining any such criticism as “hate speech.”

Perhaps these rabbis should move to Israel if they are so concerned with people criticizing them. What a bunch of cowards. Hopefully all European nations will tell these Jew rabbis to get bent.
From Times of Israel:

European rabbis called on governments throughout the continent to pass laws targeting hate speech against Jews.
The call was made in a resolution passed Thursday by the standing committee of the Conference of European Rabbis (CER), which convened this week in Tbilisi, Georgia.
“We call on additional countries to follow the example set by France and Germany, and devise legislation that targets hate speech against Jews specifically,” CER President Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt told JTA Friday.
Old April 7th, 2015 #38
Robbie Key
Senior Member
Robbie Key's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,915
Robbie Key

Nearly 100 jailed in France for ‘defending terrorism’ and other speech crimes


Since the Charlie Hebdo attack, which bore many hallmarks of a false-flag operation, nearly 100 people have been jailed in France for speech deemed to fall under the rubric of “defending terrorism.” Immediately after the attack, the French government passed draconian anti-terror laws which proscribed certain forms of speech that doesn’t suit the Paris regime’s neocon agenda. Among those arrested for “defending terrorism” have been children (an 8-year-old boy), alcoholics and mentally disabled people.

Many have pointed out the sheer hypocrisy of the French government which, in response to the murder of a dozen Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, declared itself a defender of “free speech.” French President Hollande led the ‘free speech’ march alongside a gaggle of hypocrite heads of state from dozens of countries which themselves have repressive anti-free speech laws.

Shortly after the Charlie Hebdo incident, the French government arrested wildly popular comedian Dieudonne for one sentence he wrote on Facebook: “I feel like I am Charlie Coulibaly.” The comic has faced dozens of charges in the past few years relating to his satirizing of Jews and Israel. Another Frenchman, dissident writer Alain Soral, has similarly been harassed by the French government for publishing material deemed offensive to the Zionists. He is currently involved in multiple court battles which aim to convict him of ‘hate speech’ offences.

The ultimate irony of the Charlie Hebdo fiasco was demonstrated on March 3, 2015, when a French artist, Zeon, was arrested and charged under ‘hate crime’ legislation due to his anti-Zionist, anti-Israeli depictions. The French state champions the anti-Muslim cartoons of Charlie Hebdo, whilst concurrently hunting down and prosecuting even the mildest critics of Israel or Jews.

Former French foreign minister, Roland Dumas, confirmed what many suspect is a Zionist-controlled regime in Paris. Dumas told a French television channel that France’s prime minister Manuel Valls is “under Jewish influence.”

As is the rest of the French establishment, who dutifully follow the dictates of France’s reprehensible Zionist lobby.
Old April 10th, 2015 #39
Robbie Key
Senior Member
Robbie Key's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,915
Robbie Key

#Freedomofspeech And #West

Posted on April 10, 2015 | 2 Comments

Last week, the UK’s Southampton University canceled a debate on Israel’s occupation under Jewish Lobby pressure.

Earlier this week, Toronto Symphony Orchestra (TSO) president and CEO Jeff Melanson probably a Jew canceled Ukrainian-born popular American pianist Valentina Lisitsa’s performance in Toronto for applying her ‘freedom of speech’ rights on her Facebook page.

In a Facebook posting this week, Lisitsa describes herself as someone who initially supported last year’s revolution in Kyiv, saying she hoped the so-called Maidan movement would rid Ukraine of its corrupt, oligarchic ruling class.

But, she writes, she soon became disillusioned when the same oligarchs commandeered the revolution and, in her words, started to turn Ukrainians against one another.

Her above views disapprove the US-EU installed government in Ukraine, which is supported by Harper government and the three major political parties. Paul Grod, president of Ukrainian Canadian Congress attended the swearing-in ceremony of US-EU installed president Petro Poroshenko.

UK journalist and filmmaker John Pilger, who produced a powerful documentary Palestine Is Still the Issue (watch below), a few years ago, told Media Lens via email on April 3, 2015 – how Jewish Lobby controls ‘Freedom of Speech’ in the West.

Israel is a gangster state. It holds the world record in the breach and defiance of international law. It regularly massacres and terrorises the Palestinian civilian population of Gaza, which even David Cameron has described as an “open prison”. Its courts uphold racism as state policy. It has re-elected a congenital liar as its prime minister. Its historians have long revealed the criminality of its beginning – the theft of land, the murder and brutalising of the indigenous population.

Then Pilger adds:

What Israel has, however, are powerful collaborators, who, even at the lowest rung, are able to intimidate institutional bureaucrats and others with the specious slur of anti-Semitism. In Britain, the Jewish Chronicle and the Board of Deputies operate this barely disguised smear as efficiently as a metronome. They, and others, have now helped silence a much needed conference on Israel at the University of Southampton. But they should not be wholly blamed. The collusion of the university authorities as they run up the false flag of “security concerns” is to blame; and the memory of every murdered child in Gaza is now their spectre. And along with the so-called Lobby, they cannot win.

Pilger concludes:

The rest of humanity has long recognised the truth about Israel, as every international survey shows. With exquisite timing, student unions across the UK are joining the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement that is sweeping country after country, including the United States. The craven decision of Southampton will speed its progress; nothing is surer.

German professor Ludwig Watzal posted on his blog on April 8, 2015: “In Germany, the Zionist lobby also prevents events, and the German politicians cave in every time. In the US, the situation is worst. The US Congress is firmly in the hand of the Zionist lobby, and the US senators are working against their own president. Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is openly agitating against the US President. The rest of the world has long made up its mind about this “rogue state” as all opinion polls show.
Old April 19th, 2015 #40
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,083
Default Jews want “Anti-Semitism” made a GLOBAL CRIME

As more and more White people wake up to what the filthy subversive Jews have been doing to our lands, International Jewry has become increasingly desperate to find ways of shutting us up before it gets too widespread. It’s now glaringly apparent we got ourselves a bunch of backstabbing commie bastards who have long worked to silently destroy our race. [INCOG]

Earlier this year,
at the behest of the Jewish state of Israel, the organized international Jewish community, and traitorous politicians working for the Jews in the West, the United Nations held an informal plenary session on the alleged “rising tide of anti-Semitism” around the world.

Of course, all respectable mainstream politicians, journalists, and public policy makers agreed that “anti-Semitism” must not be tolerated anywhere in the world, that it should be immediately condemned, and that “anti-Semites” should be ostracized, shunned, and even criminally prosecuted for “hate crimes” and “anti-Semitic speech.”

However, some political commentators and international bureaucrats went a step further. They argued that “anti-Semitism” must be confronted and legislated against at the international level, with the German and French representatives openly calling for “a new legal framework at the European Union and internationally to address the diffusion of racist and anti-Semitic speeches and material,” The Times of Israel reported.

The tireless efforts of organized international Jewry and the Jewish state of Israel to have “anti-Semitism” acknowledged globally as a “thought crime” are once again making headlines. The Algemeiner, an online Jewish news outlet, recently reported:

Attorney Alan Baker, Israel’s former ambassador to Canada and a legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry wants antisemitism to be treated as an international crime. In a new Israeli initiative, Baker is proposing that international courts be used to combat global hate crimes against Jews.

Baker has drafted an international convention calling on the “Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Antisemitism.” The Convention, which is drafted in the manner of classical international anti-terrorism treaties and those for other crimes, will allow countries to cooperate and exchange information with others, in order to extradite those suspected of acts that meet the definition of antisemitism, Israel’s NRG reported in Wednesday.

“We need to set down clear rules on what constitutes antisemitism and to set up international codes to prevent it. We expect that the initiative will be thoroughly discussed among all entities and countries that are engaging antisemitism on a global scale,” said Baker.

Explaining the need for the Convention, Baker noted that, “everyone knows to condemn antisemitism, but they are not doing what is necessary in order to fight against it on an international legal level.” He added that, “on the other hand, international courts invite people from around the world to account for various crimes. We think that this is precisely the place to also work decisively and unambiguously against antisemitism.”

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, where Mr. Baker is now a fellow, intends to release a draft of the Convention, during a series of conferences at the United Nations, to other international organizations, international capitals, and among Jewish communities and organizations around the world.

This will be done in order to encourage countries to support the initiative and to submit a draft of the Convention to the appropriate UN organizations, in order to obtain international approval of the Convention.

Baker said that, “if the world really wants to work against this terrible phenomenon, the time has come to line up behind the measures that are necessary to be employed against it.”

Think about the severity of these recent developments folks: the Jews are pushing to have “anti-Semitism” (i.e., stating basic facts about the subversive, criminal nature of organized Jewry and the Jewish state of Israel) internationally recognized as a crime.
If the Jews get their way, “anti-Semites” will literally be arrested and extradited to stand trial at an “international court of justice.” If this isn’t the epitome of total Jewish tyranny implemented on an international scale, I don’t know what is.

And consider what the Jews did during the Bolshevik revolution almost as soon as they took over. They criminalized “anti-Semitism” and made it an offense punishable by death.

“As an expression of its radically anti-nationalist character, the fledgling Soviet government issued a decree a few months after taking power that made anti-Semitism a crime in Russia,” Mark Weber explains in his excellent treatise detailing the Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution
and subsequent Communist regime. “The new Communist regime thus became the first in the world to severely punish all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment.”

If you dared to criticize or expose Jewish criminality and treachery in the Soviet Union, particularly during and immediately after the Jewish engineered Bolshevik revolution, you’d be imprisoned, tortured, and/or murdered, oftentimes in the most depraved fashion. That’s exactly what the Jews are aiming to implement in the 21st century, only on a global scale.


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59 PM.
Page generated in 0.35393 seconds.