|November 30th, 2008||#21|
Feminists Seize Publishing
I have a couple of interesting personal observations to indicate which vicious little minority seems to be winning the culture wars within the left-wing elitist establishment, at least since the Clintons took power.
As some of you know, I also write fiction, and as a kind of hobby I try to market it, mostly to collect and analyze the rejection slips. Needless to say, all my stuff is far too politically incorrect to be published, but some of the responses are suggestive and revealing. The Jews, of course, maintain overall business and financial control of the world publishing industry through the five or six major conglomerates, but what I begin to find fascinating is the editorial aspect of it, where The Agenda is most visible.
My Civil War murder mystery novel has, of course, always been rejected, usually with great frankness by editors who admit that they cannot publish a book with a Confederate hero. (Perhaps significantly, they always say that they cannot publish a pro-Southern book, not that they will not.) But lately it seems as if the radical feminists have taken over the editorial boards of most publishers. The determination to publish or not has moved away from race to an author's politically correct (or otherwise) treatment of his female fictional characters.
One of the most immediately obvious results of this situation is something that has been noted by a number of literary reviewers and scholars, and that is the virtually total collapse, over the past fifteen years, of science fiction as a literary genre. Most 'science fiction' nowadays, as a quick trip down the aisles of your local Waldenbooks or Barnes and Noble looking at the covers will confirm, is actually 'science fantasy' involving mythical lands of dragons, elves, magic, and of course all kinds of fetching liberated female characters, witches or space princesses or Xena the Warrior Maiden types who spend the whole book doing down assorted evil males who want to dominate them and make them have babies or some such. (A good example is the last female captain of the Enterprise in the Star Trek series; White males have virtually disappeared from Star Trek since its inception 30 years ago.)
National Socialists generally being pretty omnivorous readers, I'm sure you will have some idea of the kind of drivel I'm talking about. There simply are no more Robert Heinleins, Ray Bradburys, Brian Aldisses, Philip K. Dicks, or Alfred Besters in sci-fi today. The whole once vital genre has been blanded down and PC'ed and feminized into mush. You can't even get any good old proper sword-and-sorcery fantasy – where is today's equivalent of Robert E. Howard or Clark Ashton Smith or John Norman? The closest we've got is Orson Scott Card, and frankly in my view he is only a pale imitation of earlier s-and-s glories.
A second indicator of the way in which radical feminism has seized control of English-language fiction in all media came to my notice only a few weeks ago. I picked up a paperback copy of a P. D. James murder mystery, A Mind To Murder, which was new to me, or so I thought. I was almost thirty pages into the book before I realized that I had actually seen this particular Commander Dalgliesh mystery dramatized on British television.
Or had I? Because while the names of the characters were the same and the overall plot was the same – a female bureaucrat in a private mental clinic is found done in with a chisel – there were puzzling differences. The television show opened up with Commander Dalgliesh's female partner, a woman detective sergeant, being shot and killed in a warehouse in some unspecified criminal investigation by a man in a ski mask and black jumpsuit; we later learn that this man is a renegade MI5 agent who is covered up for by the evil Conservatives of Britain and sent to a private mental hospital on an island off the coast to "recuperate". There the main murder takes place, and Dalgliesh shows up by helicopter with his new partner, also a "strong woman" copper. There is a whole long digression into the patients at the clinic, which consist of neurotic males, all potential killers, and women who have been driven to nervous breakdowns of various kinds by male persecution. Lunatics are people just like us, don't y'know, mustn't be judgmental and all that rot.
One male patient commits suicide and a second murder is attempted; finally the killer turns out to be a blond, blue-eyed young White man who is a genuine, working artist producing paintings as opposed to the neurotic quasi-Jew pseuds in the clinic. The evil White male MI5 guy also gets his, the female partner of Dalgliesh saves the day, and sisterhood is vindicated.
That's the TV show. The actual P. D. James novel A Mind To Murder, written in 1962, bears virtually no resemblance at all to the British television show, circa 1991 or so, I think. In the original book, the clinic is located in the middle of London, not on an island. There is no murder of a female cop by a spook gone berserk. Dalgliesh's partner is the stolid White male Sergeant Martin. There are no pseudo-intellectual psycho patients spouting politically correct drivel; all the suspects in the killing of the administrator are among the staff. Finally, in the book, the killer is a woman. The very ending and plot of the novel were altered by television to render the result politically correct.
This is the way these people will rape the fiction of P. D. James, possibly Britain's greatest living mystery writer – and a woman. So I suppose I shouldn't complain about what they've done to my work.
* * * * * * * * *
My first encounter with this phenomenon was in my historical novel Vindictus, which has as its protagonist a character who must certainly have existed at some stage in real history – the first gunfighter. It's set in the Cromwell period and features a former Royalist soldier who comes home and finds that he's been royally screwed (no pun intended) by his Puritan neighbors who chose the winning side, and he decides to return the favor. I had one female editor reject it on the grounds that my main character, Denzil, "...has a cavalier attitude towards women."
"Cavalier attitude." Get it? I don't think the silly woman realized the atrocious pun she was making. But the fact is that what she was demanding, essentially, was that I make a character who supposedly existed in the 1650s into a sensitive 90s-kind-of-guy, which is even more absurd. In other words, she wanted me to re-write history, which I won't do.
Some time ago I wrote a piece of pure hackwork, a ghost story along the Stephen King line. (I won't give the title because I've got another agent nibbling at it at the moment.) Without getting overly conceited, I am simply stating a fact when I say that as horror/supernatural stories go, this book is at least as good as 90% of the pure crap that is being published in that genre today. This book makes no pretense to be great literature and is chiefly interesting for the fact that it's the only one I have ever written with a female protagonist. About a year ago I had a very strong nibble from an agency, run by women of course, who claimed that they wanted to offer me a contract, but... there just had to be a few teensy-weensy changes made....
"Here it comes," I said to myself with a grin, reading their fax. "Always those few changes." Which I usually won't do because they always want to gut the whole novel, whatever it is, and make it stomach-churningly politically correct. I figured in this case the changes would involve the fact that my heroine, Amy, is a fundamentalist Christian. But no. Explained the head of the agency, I had to rewrite the whole ending of the book, because the female protagonist was perceived by their staff as being "Too much of a victim. Only fiction showing women as strong and independent people in their own right who control their own destinies and triumph over all odds is acceptable in today's market."
The lady didn't say acceptable to whom or why, nor did I ask. The fact that this is a horror story and the protagonist might reasonably be expected to come to a sticky end made no difference at all. Sticky ends in supernatural horror novels are apparently okay for all kinds of White males in the pulp paperbacks, on up to Stephen King's Jack Torrance in The Shining; I'm positive if my protagonist had been male there would have been no problem with my book's plot line.
But not for les femmes. The fact that the classic of the whole genre, Shirley Jackson's The Haunting Of Hill House, also has a female protagonist who comes to a sticky end is beside the point, apparently. Shirley Jackson was writing in 1960 under classical Judaic literary Stalinism, before this particular brand of political correctness had set in. It's ironic that Stalinist liberalism controlled by Jewish men of the day actually left American writers with more intellectual freedom than modern-day feminism controlled by Jewish women; in 1960 so long as you didn't criticize the Soviet Union you had a good chance of being published in New York.
My second encounter with literary feminism was more recent and an even sharper indication of the way the wind is blowing in the halls of the decrepit and PC-riddled publishing industry. After November 1996, I never even bothered to submit my anti-Clinton novel Fire and Rain to publishers or agents. We live in a nation of people who re-elected Bill and Hillary Clinton, knowing what they were full well, and there is obviously no point. However, I did try the one agent out in California who did me the favor of pushing my Civil War murder mystery like hell for almost two years, against all the anti-Confederate odds, purely because he liked the book. I came across his address and said, "Eh, what the hell?" I asked him if he wanted to look at Fire and Rain, warning him right up front that there was virtually no chance it would ever be published in today's political climate. He read the book, loved it, and sent it back to me in sad agreement.
A while later he actually called me on the phone, wanting to know what else I was working on. (I ended up half promising him a medieval murder mystery I've got about 40,000 words done on, but I doubt I'll ever have time to finish it once the NSWPP HQ gets going.) We went over all my other stuff, and he said something like, "Pity about Fire and Rain," to which I replied, "Yeah, but I know there's no market for something that's anti-Clinton and exposes the 1960s anti-Vietnam war movement as corrupt, etc."
"No, no," said the agent. "You don't understand. It's not that. If it were only the anti-counterculture and Vietnam stuff I'd at least take a crack at finding you a publisher. No, the problem is Heather."
"Huh?" I asked. Heather is my female lead in Fire and Rain, a single mother, Yuppie Barbie doll "professional" type who starts out very politically correct but gets disenchanted with PC when A) She gets the hots for a handsome Southern detective who is digging into a 26-year-old murder in Chapel Hill; and B) She becomes entangled in the plot and a hit team from the FBI and CIA try to murder her and her daughter in order to cover up the truth about the Vietnam era.
"Heather is a strong, independent woman with all the correct PC credentials at the beginning of the book," explained the literary agent. "Including your reference to her experimenting with bisexuality like a good PC White female is supposed to do these days. Not only do you have Heather rejecting political correctness with the Vietnam thing, but she also rejects feminism and lesbianism to end up marrying Matt. A conservative, White Southern male more or less rescues a modern 90s career woman from a life of feminism and lesbianism through honorable marriage, commitment, personal courage, and love. That's about as big a no-no as you can possibly commit in today's fiction. If I tried to send that manuscript to some of my editors I'd have a mob of lesbian feminist harpies down from San Francisco on my doorstep tomorrow with pitchforks and torches. They're already suspicious enough of me because of that Civil War novel of yours I tried to peddle, plus some other PI stuff."
There you have it, folks. You wonder why you can't seem to get anything but PC crap on TV and can't seem to find anything but PC crap by way of fiction to read except for stuff written over 30 years ago? This is how it works. The Jews won't put up the money or give an unapproved author the contacts to publish – it's always been like that, of course – but now they don't even have to exert the effort to suppress politically incorrect books. Such material not only doesn't make it past the editor's desk, it never leaves the agent's office, because the agents know full well what will sell and what won't and what will lose them every business contact they have in New York and get them blackballed if they even try to sell it.
"Oh, for a muse of fire....."
|May 8th, 2009||#22|
Do The Jews Own Hollywood And The Media?
By Texe Marrs
Do the Zionist Jews own Hollywood and the media? Are they using the media to mold and shape American opinion by constantly injecting Zionist propaganda and bias into news programs, movies, television shows, even children's cartoons and entertainment?
The answer is so blatantly "Yes!" that you wouldn't think these questions are even worth pursuing. But recently, the untoward comments of a patriot talk show host made me stop and rethink it. Are there people out there-even in the Patriot Movement-who really are that much in the dark, who deny Jewish influence in the media?
Recently, when a caller to a talk show on the Genesis Radio Network (GCN) suggested that the Jews control the media, the host went wild. He raged on and on, playing the race card. He branded the surprised caller and others like him who are weary of Zionist influence "Nazis" and "anti-Semites." Angrily, he denied Jewish involvement in any conspiracies and ridiculed those who had the audacity to suggest that Jews run Hollywood or the media. Then, in a real fit of spewed venom, the talk show host demanded that the caller and all others who believe like him should go out and hang themselves to promote population reduction.
As if that wasn't hateful enough, the pro-Zionist host then stated that all the "Nazis and Anti-Semites" who opposed Zionism and the Jews should plug in an electric toaster, hold it to their naked bodies, jump into a bathtub filled with water, and have a party." In other words, kill themselves. (http://vnnforum.com/blog.php?b=121 - jimmy)
Quite a rampage by the supposedly "patriot" talk show host. And all because the poor caller had dared to propose undue Jewish influence over the media.
Hearing the actual taped broadcast of this unbelievable tirade by a pro-Zionist advocate confirmed my resolve to inform good folks once again of the truly dictatorial grip that Zionist Jews have on the media. The best way to do this is not to rage and spew venom, but simply to present the facts, to document the truth of Jewish control of the media.
What Do Knowledgeable Jews Say?
How about going to top Jews in the media themselves and see what they say? Take Joel Stein, for example, columnist for the Los Angeles Times newspaper and regular contributor to Time magazine. In his column in the LA Times (Dec. 19, 2008), Stein says that Americans who think the Jews do not control Hollywood and the media are just plain "dumb."
"Jews totally run Hollywood." Stein proudly admits. He then goes on to provide a long, long list of Hollywood/media chieftains-all Jews!-to prove his point. On his list: Fox News President Peter Chernin; Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey; Walt Disney CEO Robert Igor; Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton; Warner Brothers Chairman Barry Meyer; CBS CEO Leslie Moonves; MGM Chairman Harry Sloan; and NBC/Universal Studios CEO Jeff Zucker.
That's just the top brass at the studios. Then there are the actors and entertainers-predominantly Jews, from Barbara Streisand and Gwyneth Paltrow to Tom Hanks and Ben Afleck. JewJewand Jew again. As Stein wryly remarks, even the head of the Actors' Union, the Screen Actors Guild, Alan Rosenberg, is a Jew.
"The Jews are so dominant," writes Stein, "I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies." "But lo and behold," Stein says, "even one of that six, AMC President Charles Collier, turned out to be a Jew!"
"As a proud Jew," says Joel Stein, "I want America to know of our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood."
ADL's Foxman Admits Jewish Control
Stein says he then called Abe Foxman, Chairman of the Jewish ADL, to ask him, why don't more Jews just come out and boast at this great accomplishment? Foxman responded by admitting that yes, it's true that most of the top execs "happen to be Jewish." In fact, Foxman told Stein, "all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish."
Ben Stein (no relation to Joel), the well-known Jewish actor, economic commentator and writer, when asked "Do Jews run Hollywood?" stared blankly at the questioner, then retorted, "You bet they do-and what of it?" Shahar Ilan, writing in haaretz.com, the internet division of Israel's top daily newspaper, commented, "The Jews do control the American media. This is very clear, and claiming otherwise is an insult to common knowledge."
Neal Gabler, also a Jew and a noted media researcher, wrote an entire book outlining Jewish control of Hollywood. It was entitled, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. But to really see how the Jews, in their own publications and press, view the reality of Jewish control of the media, all one has to do is take a look at a recent issue of the Jewish Daily Forward, which featured an article entitled, "Billionaire Boychiks Battle for Media Empire."
Billionaire Jews Battle For Media
This fascinating, look-see article discussed how the Jews had for decades owned the media and now were competing; that is, vying, to buy one of America's most powerful media companies, Tribune Company, which owns 23 television stations, a baseball team, and many major newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.
"However, it turns out," gloated the Jewish mag, "we'll have a Jew in charge of the (LA) Times, which was once one of old Los Angeles' most famous WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) institutions. What a great day for old LA Jews"
The publication noted that among the Jewish billionaires ("boychiks") vying for the Tribune media empire is "Liberal, Jewish, media mogul David Geffen."
And who, pray tell, is the current owner of the Tribune Company? Why, that would be Jewish billionaire Sam Zell. Zell is a major donor to Israeli, Zionist and Jewish causes. His own rabbi proudly reports that Zell is "a committed Zionist, a generous supporter of Israel, and a member in good standing of the synagogue."
Asked who his own favorite newspaper columnists were, Zell quickly answered, "Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Friedman, and David Brooks." Surprise! The trio are all ardent Zionist whack-jobs who clamor over each other demanding the U.S. attack Iran, provide billions more in foreign aid to favored nation Israel, and so forth.
Local Newspapers Owned By Foreign Agents
So powerful is the Jewish control over the media that Nathanael Kapner, a rare Jew who converted to Christianity and now is adept at reporting these things, asserts, that no longer can we trust our local daily newspaper. "Zionist Jews have taken over the 'local newspaper' in America," Kapner writes. Indeed he explains that there basically is no local newspaper anymore, because, "Most local newspapers are owned by companies controlled by Zionists whose offices are hundreds of miles away."
Kapner provides manifold evidence of Zionists' dominating control of the media at all levels. The Newhouse Empire of the Jewish brothers Samuel, Donald, and Theodore Newhouse, Kapner says, "illustrates the insatiable appetite for opinion control:"
"Today, the Newhouse Empire owns 40 local newspapers across the U.S.A. These include the Newark Star Ledger, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Portland Oregonian, and the St. Louis Globe-Democrat."
Then, there are the vast array of magazines run by the Jewish Newhouse family-including the New Yorker, Vogue, Golf Digest, Glamour, Gentleman's Quarterly (GQ), and the massively circulated newspaper insert, Parade magazine.
Jewish Media Spew Out Pro-Zionist Propaganda
The fact that Zionists control virtually every media outlet in America is no doubt why the American citizenry hears only one version of events in the Middle East-the pro-Jew, pro-Israeli side. This led Dr. Kevin MacDonald, professor at California State University, to write:
"In the contemporary world, organized American Jewish lobbying groups and deeply committed Jews in the media are behind the pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy that is leading to war against virtually the entire Arab world."
This Zionist bias and propaganda spin by the Jewish-owned American media is not new. As far back as 1978, the noted Jewish political writer Alfred Lillienthal, in his revealing book, The Zionist Connection, stated:
"The most effective component of Jewish connection is probably that of media control. It is well known that American opinion molders have long been largely influenced by a handful of powerful newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the St. Louis-Post Dispatch (All Jewish Families)."
To further illustrate the breadth of Jewish media control, we note that Jewish magnate Arthur Sulzberger's media empire today includes not only the New York Times (which, in Stalin's day, systematically covered up the genocidal crimes of Jewish commissars in Communist U.S.S.R), but also the Boston Globe, the Lexington Dispatch (NC), the Gainesville Sun (FL), the Ocala Star Banner (FL), the Tuscaloosa News (AL), the Spartansburg Herald Journal (SC), and the Santa Barbara News Press (CA). Each of the newspapers Lillienthal mentioned back in 1978, in turn, owned and still owns dozens of others. So tainted is the news because of this that almost every newspaper in America endorsed President George Bush's radically pro-Israel policies in the Middle East, including Israel's savage butchery of Lebanon and Palestine.
There can be no doubt. It is easy for us to document the massive dominance over the media by evil Jewish shills who are continually hostile to pure American interests while, everyday, unabashedly spewing out reams of misleading Zionist propaganda. Time magazine, Newsweek, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX-and many, many more are all owned or run by Jews and operated solely to further the aims of the traitorous, anti-American, ever-growing Zionist World Empire.
All America Under the Hidden, Red Iron First of Zionism
Of course, the media, even as important as it is to our culture, is only a bit piece of the whole that is now regrettably under the big thumbs of the Jewish Zionist elite. Our educational establishment, Wall Street, the banks, the Federal Reserve, our Congress, the White House (just consider Rahm Emmanuel, the Zionist Israeli freak who is Obama's White House Chief of Staff), and our judiciary-each and every one is infiltrated by Zionist radicals who put Israel and their own "Chosen People" first, to the detriment of everything sacred to honest, God-fearing, hard-working Americans.
So, the next time you hear some ignorant rube on talk radio or elsewhere shoving the race card in your face and ranting and raving about "Nazis" and "anti-Semites" who "claim" the Jews control the media, why don't you just reach out and turn that radio dial to another place. And please, don't forget to also let the radio network and station manager know of your displeasure.
The fact is that the dishonest Zionist shills out there promoting Zionist lies, drivel, and nonsense truly deserve our contempt.
The Truth Is Precious
As for Texe Marrs and Power of Prophecy, we have long pledged ourselves to telling you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And part of that truth, simply put, is this: That yes, absolutely, Zionist Jews do own and control Hollywood and the media.
So, beware of their lies and deceit. The truth is precious. Let us work together to protect and nurture it.
|June 3rd, 2009||#23|
Greg Reynolds on Christian Media Ecology
Posted by TJH on June 01, 2009
20th century, Agrarianism, Church, Judaica
This book (see biblio info at bottom) is an introduction to “media ecology” by OPC pastor Greg Reynolds, based on his D. Min. dissertation. It is an analysis of the media of communication and how these media shape, alter, and even become a component of the content of the message communicated. The thesis of the book is to make application of the insights obtained from this study to the nature of worship, especially preaching.
The subject is an analysis of the sociological constituting of our world, with a focus on the medium of communication. The world and our consciousness of it have changed by virtue of the technological changes making mass-communication possible. As an entry into thinking about this, consider the difference between watching a movie and “reading the book.” Even if the story conveyed is identical, reflection shows there are significant differences in what has taken place in having the story “communicated.” The movie presents images created by someone else; reading involves creation of images by the reader himself. In the movie, real time marches forward inexorably as the viewer sits passively; in reading, it is under the control of the reader — one pauses to reflect; one sets the book down to be continued later. Likewise, the fictional time-pacing within the movie is determined by the editor; in the book, it is at least partly determined by the imagination of the reader, not the invisible editor.
This aspect of the analysis — the “media ecology” proper — fits in nicely with the agrarian critique of modernity. There are analogies, for example, with transportation. Acquiring a horse meant that a round trip to the county seat might could be done in a single day rather than requiring an overnight. But the car allows sons to leave for a job in a distant city, never to come back. Once-bustling towns are now ghost towns, the only jobs left being the strip of fast-food joints along the interstate exit. Technology has brought a qualitative, not merely quantitative change to our way of living. We need to rethink whether the Amish have a true and valid insight, and not always write them off as having “stopped technology” at a merely arbitrary point.
A second major aspect of the subject Reynolds discusses is the study of mass communication by academics on the one hand, and by manipulators on the other. In turn, the latter category includes mass-marketing on the one hand, and political manipulation on the other. More on this below.
With the stage set, Reynolds is able to use the insights obtained to launch a strong attack on the methods of the church-growth movement, showing the inadvertent evils attendant upon the very fact that modern multi-media is used, in contrast to the methods of worship described in Scripture.
The Regulative Principle of Worship as defined by the Westminster Confession specifies that certain elements of worship are required by Scripture, elements not specified are forbidden, and a third category, “circumstances,” is subject to wisdom. Reynolds argues (303-305) that the result of his analysis is that modern multi-media cannot be put into that third, “neutral” category, and thus we should regard them as forbidden.
In evaluating the work, I proceed chiastically. The commitment to the Regulative Principle is encouraging coming from a bright star like Rev. Reynolds, who is a scintillating conversationalist and a preacher that is at once engaging and searching, combining the best of Francis Schaeffer’s broad cultural concerns with a stronger attachment to the vantillian critical method. I had the pleasure of “hanging out” with him a number of times during my sojourn in New Hampshire in 1996. Those of our readers that reside anywhere near Manchester, New Hampshire should visit Amoskeag church and become a member there if not already a member of a true church somewhere else.
Reynolds’ work on the Regulative Principle in connection with media ecology sheds new light on elements of our form of worship that at first glance may appear to be dusty relics of a bygone century. For example, though the focus of his study is the preaching of the word, a new insight is also gained into the “genius” if you will of the reading of the Word (381-3) as a distinct element of worship, the performance of which moreover is restricted by our standards to the pastor in his executive function as an agent of the holy catholic church manifested in presbytery. A naturalistic approach might suggest that an age of universal literacy and Bible dissemination might render that element superfluous, requiring instead that members read the word privately and dispense with the public reading. Not so, Reynolds’ research shows. There is a mode of receiving the word of God which is instantiated in that element indispensably. This book makes an important contribution in the area of worship theory.
Unfortunately, the evaluation of the secular role of mass-media falls a bit short due to the dots that are not connected. The threads are already confusing because the distinction between study of media as such must be combined with study of the deliberate use thereof to manipulate the masses toward an end hidden from those being manipulated. And this involves both the practitioner — the actual creator of propaganda — and the theoretician — who performs studies with human guinea pigs to determine the most effective methods. We need to take note of the fact that the names of the movers and shakers of the theory and practice of the manipulation of the masses using technologies both new and old look like an attendance list at the Convention of Hebrew Congregations.
We can begin the story with the massive, national full-court press that was put in place by the Chosen Tribe in 1913-15 to exonerate rapist-sodomite-murderer Leo Frank, just because he was a jew. Though newspapers – a medium invented in the 17th century — were at the heart of this campaign, their coordinated use for manipulating public opinion probably never reached such focused intensity before the Frank case. The mass-media campaign was led by Adolph Jew Ochs, publisher of the New York Times (though the murder took place in Atlanta). In addition to carefully-orchestrated press releases let out simultaneously by all the jew-controlled newspapers across the country, the services of Albert Jew Lasker (son-in-law of Sears and Roebuck chairman Julius Jew Rosenwald) were put into service. Lasker was an expert at national media “campaigns” to establish brand name recognition such as Quaker Oats and Budweiser Beer. Lasker came up with the slogan “the truth is on the march” which became, as if by magic, the rallying cry by the national media to get Frank off the hook. Likewise, allegations of Atlanta mobs chanting phrases like “Kill the jew or we’ll kill you” were simply made up out of whole cloth, without any factual basis. Newspapers that stood with the legal system against Frank were boycotted. William Randolph Hearst succumbed to the pressure and became a shabbes goy for the campaign, along with others hired for the purpose. Financing came from a variety of sources, especially from Jacob Jew Schiff, notable later as a major financier of the Russian Revolution. The goy detective William Burns was paid a pretty penny to “get to the bottom of the case,” arriving in town with lots of media fanfare to that effect, while in reality, his job was to spread walking-around money to bribe witnesses to recant their testimony. In the end, the men of Atlanta prevailed, and such was the jewish rage at one of their own being executed, that the so-called Anti-Defamation League was founded.
Reynolds missed this story, but the strands involving armchair academics and wartime “social researchers” he does pick up on are also part of the story, albeit less dramatic. It is a story that starts before the Frank incident with Karl Jew Marx and Sigmund Jew Freud. In the decade leading up to WW2, the story continues with studies of the effectiveness of radio in influencing public opinion and elections. Paul Jew Lazarsfeld invented the “focus group” and questionnaires to evaluate audience responses. “The Kate Smith War Bond drive, promoted by CBS in 1943, demonstrated the power of feigned personal concern in identifying with and manipulating a mass audience” (91). Kurt Jew Lewin was one of the founders of social psychology. “The one who controls the flow of information through a medium (‘channel’) dictates the shape and content of messages” (93). His disciple Leon Jew Festinger continued the social research. The story is peppered also with wry neo-con pop critics like Neil Jew Postman, Allan Jew Bloom and Joshua Jew Meyrowitz as well as explicitly destructive critics like Jacques Jew Derrida and Stanley Jew Fish. In between was the “Frankfurter School” consisting of men like Herbert Jew Marcuse who wrote arcane books making leftism appealing to young shickse and Theodore Jew Adorno who worked on rhetorically preempting Aryan push-back by creating and propagating the theory of the “authoritarian personality.” I am passing over various rabbit-trails like Shannon’s channel measure of information, which is properly an electrical engineering concept.
The jewish exploitation — and to large extent creation — of mass-manipulation by psychological study and marketing practice evidently has two main goals: personal or tribal enrichment, and neutralization of Christian civilization as a way to reduce the chance of harmful reaction by the goyish masses. It involved, in addition to the takeover of university sociology departments and creation of new ones, tireless agitation in favor of massive third-world immigration and the elimination of every trace of Christianity from public schools and the public square, as one can read about by surfing around on the ADL’s own website (click the story decade by decade and marvel).
Of course, goyim also have their place in the story — some, that were in the wrong place at the wrong time (esp. WW2); some, of the “usual culprits” of the City of Man, that provided financing, most notably the Rockefeller empire (136); others, like Reynolds’ personal hero Marshall McLuhan, were properly critical.
But how did Reynolds miss the main thread of the story? Partly, it is because of his acceptance of the odious judeo-christian myth (77, 137) popularized by Francis Schaeffer. As a result, jews are repeatedly not distinguished from “Germans” (73, 79) or “Europeans” (69). Partly, it perhaps must be attributed to the very success of the mass-media manipulation that is the subject of the book!
In fairness, the “media ecology” and its relation to worship is the strength and the main purpose of the book: the rest could have been excised without loss to the thesis, and perhaps should be in a subsequent edition.
Nonetheless, the story of the manipulators is important in its own right, and I hope many of our people will get this book as an introductory survey, and then do further research to connect more of the dots. To know that one is being manipulated, and understand even a little about how, is already an antidote to its poisonous effect. Eliminating the parasites can follow when enough people wake up and get wise.
Greg Reynolds, The Word is Worth a Thousand Pictures: Preaching in the Electronic Age (Eugene: Wipf and Stock) 2001.
|June 3rd, 2009||#24|
Join Date: Aug 2006
How Jewish is Hollywood?
A poll finds more Americans disagree with the statement that 'Jews control Hollywood.' But here's one Jew who doesn't.
December 19, 2008
I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.
How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)
The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.
As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you'd be flipping between "The 700 Club" and "Davey and Goliath" on TV all day.
So I've taken it upon myself to re-convince America that Jews run Hollywood by launching a public relations campaign, because that's what we do best. I'm weighing several slogans, including: "Hollywood: More Jewish than ever!"; "Hollywood: From the people who brought you the Bible"; and "Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all."
I called ADL Chairman Abe Foxman, who was in Santiago, Chile, where, he told me to my dismay, he was not hunting Nazis. He dismissed my whole proposition, saying that the number of people who think Jews run Hollywood is still too high. The ADL poll, he pointed out, showed that 59% of Americans think Hollywood execs "do not share the religious and moral values of most Americans," and 43% think the entertainment industry is waging an organized campaign to "weaken the influence of religious values in this country."
That's a sinister canard, Foxman said. "It means they think Jews meet at Canter's Deli on Friday mornings to decide what's best for the Jews." Foxman's argument made me rethink: I have to eat at Canter's more often.
"That's a very dangerous phrase, 'Jews control Hollywood.' What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood," he said. Instead of "control," Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry "happen to be Jewish," as in "all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish."
But Foxman said he is proud of the accomplishments of American Jews. "I think Jews are disproportionately represented in the creative industry. They're disproportionate as lawyers and probably medicine here as well," he said. He argues that this does not mean that Jews make pro-Jewish movies any more than they do pro-Jewish surgery. Though other countries, I've noticed, aren't so big on circumcision.
I appreciate Foxman's concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.
"Microsoft is Israeli almost as much it is American"
—Steve Balmer, Jewish CEO for Microsoft
Last edited by Myles; June 3rd, 2009 at 01:26 AM.
|June 4th, 2009||#25|
Who Rules Sweden?
by Fredrik Haerne
June 24, 2002
CNN's website carried a headline yesterday declaring "Israel calls up reservists to fight terror," which means that the Israelis are going to occupy even more Palestinian territory. Do we even notice the distortion of the language anymore? I do, but I have a major advantage: I am not a U.S. citizen, and so the codewords used in American broadcasts haven't been hammered into my brain day after day. Instead I only see them when I access American newssites, and the codewords -- the Newspeak that George Orwell warned us about -- become more striking since we don't use them where I live. "Hate," for example, is still just one feeling among many to my fellow Swedes; it can be either good or bad, depending on what it is you hate - just like the value of your love or mistrust or anything else is dependent on the object of the emotion. Curious, then, to see "hate" being used as a Newspeak substitute for "pro-White" overseas. Would I notice the trick if it had been invented here in Sweden instead? I hope so.
This doesn't mean that we don't have Newspeak words of our own. Perhaps it is interesting to learn that we have our very own media oligopoly in Sweden, producing a result very similar to that in other European countries, and the United States. Perhaps some of you think that European media are freer than your own -- I used to think the same thing about the United States. The study Who Rules America? at the National Alliance website opened my eyes completely to the peril we face, and since then I have made a point of studying the media owners in my own part of the world.
When it comes to television the study is easy. Until the beginning of the nineties, the Swedish government had a complete monopoly on both television and radio, and they used this in a way you can expect from a socialist government - ruthlessly. I cannot emphasize enough how these media were used as a propaganda tool, enabling the Social Democratic Party to keep power nearly without interruption for seventy years. Decade after decade television hammered into Swedish minds the message that we lived in the best of nations, since we had the most socialist government of all Westerners, and therefore the best. The relative economic prosperity in the country was attributed to this, although our economy was in fact simply riding high on our being neutral in World War II (saving our industries from being blown to smithereens), combined with the natural result of the strong Nordic work ethic.
The consequences of this media control were sometimes appaling. During the Vietnam War, Swedes were whipped into an anti-American frenzy, and television's support for North Vietnam and communist dictatorships in general was hardly disguised at all. One scene especially comes to mind: the prime minister Olof Palme marching, torch in hand, together with a North Vietnamese representative in a pro-Viet Cong rally, causing the United States to close its embassy in Stockholm. Palme, this greasy, arrogant Estonian socialist, knew he could do whatever he wanted: television was his loyal cheering section every day of the year.
This doesn't mean people couldn't choose what to watch; oh no, they had Channel One and Channel Two! The difference between them was...err...well, they had different logos at least. Funnily enough, they both had their own news broadcasts, giving Swedes a delightful choice between two waiters serving the same dish.
And yet, nothing good lasts forever. The first satellite dishes struck fear into the hearts of all orthodox socialists, and the Party had serious discussions about how to deal with this new threat. The problem was clear: for the first time Swedes could listen to news from abroad! The horror! The children might even start watching entertainment that was not to fifty percent indoctrination (like the Swedish saying goes: it must be bent in time, that which crooked shall be). The possibility of banning the dreadful dishes was seriously discussed, and abandoned only with great angst, falling on its own absurdity.
The Party was in luck, however. The only other news broadcasts in Sweden today are found at the privately owned TV 3 and TV 4. TV 3 is owned by super-capitalist Jan Stenbeck, who to date has shown no other aspirations in life than to produce the trashiest entertainment possible. His news program is a joke, and the rest of the time the channel simply broadcasts whatever it can get at a cheap price from Hollywood. Stenbeck also controls ZTV, a Swedish version of MTV. Both are exactly the same, with the announcers at ZTV trying hard to look like their better-paid colleagues at Redstone's corporation.
TV 4, on the other hand, has some aspirations to quality, which doesn't help us much since this is the Jew's playground. Its main shareholders are the Jewish Bonnier Family and the Finnish media group Alma Media. A quick look at Alma Media's website reveals its largest shareholder by far to be - Bonnier, as luck would have it.
Finally, Channel Five, owned by the Belgian SBS Group, which owns TV and radio channels all across Europe. Its Chairman is Harry Sloan, a Gentile, but its Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer is Michael Finkelstein, a Jew and U.S. citizen.
If you pay for cable, you will have the privilege of watching Canal+. This movie channel and many other are owned by Vivendi, a Parisian-based entity that happens to be Europe's largest media corporation. Its largest shareholders are the Jews in the Bronfman family, and at least seven of its directors are Jews. It wasn't always like this, but it is now.
Now for a quick look at the radio business. The conservative parties won the election in 1992, because of the economic crisis that had started a year earlier, and they took the opportunity to auction off broadcasting rights before the socialists regained power. Unfortunately, most of these rights were bought by the large media conglomerates, so radio is basically a mirror of television.
A sidenote: the socialist media and the state-controlled schools worked non-stop at making it appear that the economic crisis was the conservatives' fault, and most people, having a memory like a goldfish, believed them after a while. Today very few remember that the crisis actually started a year before the conservatives came to power, and you need to show very precise evidence to convince people of this fact. A valuable demonstration of the power of television.
Perhaps television's power will be even stronger in the future. Let us have a look at the Ministry of Culture: its boss is Lena Hjelm-Wallén, a hard-core feminist and former communist turned Social Democrat who was one of the stubbornest opponents of legalizing satellite dishes in Sweden. She is now using taxpayers' money to buy propaganda aimed at making us buy the "digital box," a device that would make it possible to view digital broadcasts.
The whole point of her effort is that the Ministry of Culture gets to decide which channels can use the digital box, with those favoring socialism getting the nod. Commentaries from those involved in the project reveal that they long back to the days when Channel One and Two reigned supreme, and could fill the ether with socialist intellectualism.
Unfortunately for the Ministry of Culture -- which, come to think of it, would be more appropriately named the Ministry of Propaganda -- the digital box hasn't sold very well, and not many media corporations have expressed the wish to submit to Hjelm-Walléns' feminist and leftist criteria. Few channels, few viewers, lots of tax money wasted. This won't do at all. True to form our former communist has demanded the right to heavily subsidize the digital box, meaning that since Swedes don't want to pay for it, we will be forced to pay for it.
Before we leave the ether waves I would like to say a few words about the movies and TV shows being made in Sweden. These are not kind words, so I won't say them after all, but instead describe the business. Understandably, with such a small domestic market this industry does not lead an easy existence. Hollywood dominates the distribution completely, and as I switch on my TV now I see...on Channel One, an early-century documentary for the retired; on Channel Two, a Star Trek episode; on TV 3, a movie about a dancing Negro; TV 4, another Hollywood movie; Channel Five, actually Fawlty Towers with John Cleese; ZTV and MTV, more dancing Negroes.
The only Swedish work, then, is the documentary on Channel One; the rest is foreign, mostly American. No, the domestic movie industry does not lead an easy existence, but many of its bosses do; showered with money by the Ministry of Culture, they are able to produce any pet project they want without much fear of running out of cash. Witness Ingmar Bergman. If you have heard of this particularly boring and self-centered director, maybe you have been led to believe that Swedes enjoy his work. Let me assure you, we do not. In fact, we hate the guy who has given us a reputation of being more-boring-than-death intellectuals abroad. Practically the only ones who like these so-called intellectual movies are the ones receiving our tax money for making them!
Sweden has four newspapers that are sold nationwide: Expressen, Aftonbladet, Dagens Nyheter and Svenska Dagbladet. In a rough translation I am going to call these the Express, the Evening Post, the Daily News and the Swedish Daily. These newspapers have only three major owners: the Express and the Daily News belong to Bonnier, and the Evening Post and the Swedish Daily are owned by the large Norwegian media family Schibstedt. The Evening Post is also part-owned by the LO; more about that later.
Let us have a look at the Bonnier corporation's holdings. As I imagine this could be interesting to any North Europeans reading this, a list of Bonnier's newspapers and other companies can be found here:
Good news for Zion: not only do the Bonniers own the Daily News and the Express, they also own Sydsvenska Dagbladet and Goteborgsposten ("GT" in the link above). These are the two largest regional newspapers. We also find the country's largest business magazine, Dagens Industri, on the list, along with several other goodies.
Neighbors reading this, take note: The Bonniers are interested in expanding to other countries, preferably as much as possible (says Carl Bonnier jokingly). Their purchases include Tammi in Finland, Business a.m. in Great Britain, Cappelen in Norway, Delovoj Peterburg in Russia, Dienas Bizness in Latvia, and Putz Biznesu in Poland, to name a few.
The socialist Evening Post is owned to 49.9 percent by Schibstedt, who are responsible for the management of the newspaper. The other 50.1 percent belong to the extremely powerful Land Organization, the LO, which is a labor union with strong ties to the Socialist Party. It goes like this: they donate huge sums of the members' fees to the Party each year, and in return the Party gives an even larger sum from the public treasury to the LO. The Party members cannot give this money directly to themselves, according to law, but it is legal to give it to independent organizations.
Also, the LO gains the right to actually force workers to join them. If those working at a particular company do not want to sign on to the LO-regulated terms for wages and working conditions, and give money to the LO for the privilege of doing so, the company will be put in a "blockade," where no other company with LO members in it is allowed to do business with it. An average of fifty companies are driven to bankruptcy this way each year, while the LO has become the by far largest labor union in Sweden (which is the reason Sweden has the largest percentage of union members in the world). And this legal mafia, this subsidized racketeering entity, controls the contents in the country's largest newspaper, the Evening Post. Because, hey, it's very profitable for the Party.
Curiously the Schibstedt Corporation is the sole owner of the conservative Swedish Daily, at the same time as it owns half of the socialist Evening Post. This goes to show that it is concerned only with profit, not with following the voice of its heart in an effort to enlighten people. Right or left doesn't matter, as long as the newspapers yield a profit and keep within the Correct guidelines.
Interestingly, there are no major newspapers in Sweden owned by private Swedes. They are all owned by either Jews, the LO or foreigners. Jews dominate the scene, even though there are only 60,000 of the tribe in Sweden. I guess they are born that way. They don't dominate any other business in Sweden, but the media -- this they understand.
When you look at the privately owned TV channels and newspapers, it seems like it doesn't matter much anymore whether they are owned by Jews, the government or Big Business. The result is basically the same. It seems like the big capitalists have decided not to fight the Jews and the government in a cultural war, as it is more profitable if all are pulling in the same direction. The agents of Correctness move quite freely from company to company nowadays, as they all want basically the same thing. The Swedish Daily is supposedly conservative, but it seems their conservatism, like that of the parties it supports, is only concerned with economic policies. The social policies are just kosher Correctness all the way, if not by active pushing then by quiet consent. The Daily News was supposed to be "liberal," which here in Europe means libertarian; however, a few years ago Bonnier decided to color it redder, and fired its political editor because she wasn't "marching in lock-step" as it so eloquently put it.
The Express used to call itself liberal as well, but its latest political editor has decided that it should be more "center," meaning it should move more to the left. The Evening Post is outspokenly and aggressively socialist, and has chosen a clever strategy to reach its audience; to fill about fifty percent of its pages with images, and to use as simple language and as little facts as possible. You know the drill. Works with the simple-minded.
I read today an article in the Express online: Thorbjorn Larsson, formerly the boss at TV 4, becomes the new chairman at the Express. In his interview he laughs merrily at questions about his earlier active support of communism; during the Cold War he was a member of communist "cells," and a sympathizer of the Swedish Communist Party. It has later been revealed that this party received both funding and orders from the KGB. The main order: to support pacifism at all times. (This follows a pattern shown all across Europe: the French Communist Party received funding and the same order from the KGB. Curious how communists in the West were always shouting for less arms, while their bosses in the East were always producing more of them)
So, this communist, this traitor, has been in charge of our largest Jew-controlled television channel, and is now becoming the chairman of our Jew-controlled second-largest newspaper. Names flicker back and forth across the screen, switching places, but the main players and their agendas remain the same. Always the government, with its TV channels, its radio channels, its bought-and-paid-for servants in the movie industry and art. Always the Jews, ever expanding, buying more and rarely if ever selling to a non-Jew. The remains picked up by Big Business, caring only about money as you need to in order to reach the top these days, knowing fully well that if you can't beat 'em it is more profitable to join 'em.
Now, if anyone believes that the media don't try to affect people's opinions, I have only one thing to say: get to know the business. I have two acquintances who study journalism, and they both confirm that the media's role in shaping opinions is considerable. It is openly discussed in their seminars. It is studied by professors in journalism, and it is discussed by journalists in editorials. Pick up one of those editorials, and show it to those who say that "newspapers only give people what they want."
Tell them to think of the media as a magnet affecting a large piece of iron: if it moves too quickly, it loses the connection, and the iron remains where it is. If it keeps just close enough however, the magnet can make the piece of iron slowly follow its lead. And of course, if you have several magnets all pulling in the same direction in, say, matters of race, then you have a powerful accumulated effect indeed.
Need some proof? Look at the "corporate visions" available on the Internet. They don't say "Hey, there is nothing we can do to affect people's opinions, they would only buy another newspaper if we tried." Instead they state in what direction they are pushing, and the assumption that they are part of molding people's minds is taken for granted.
Witness the Jew-controlled Vivendi's corporate vision, as it discusses the company's "values":
"We recognize and value our multi-cultural background as a company. We draw on this wealth of diversity as a unique strength to preserve, promote and protect the rich cultural character of countries, communities and local regions. We value the variety of our dynamic content, which represents our heritage and the world's cultural diversity, and we strive to deliver competitively superior services to local markets."
Forget this part: "to preserve, promote and protect the rich cultural character of countries, communities and local regions." This is fog. They are selling Hollywood movies, nothing else, and I don't think many of those are made in Bavaria or Prague. The key Newspeak word here is "diversity," and it has nothing to do with preserving European culture.
Now let us look at the Jewish Daily News. At any given day you will find an interview with at least one Negro poet, Latino writer, or communist-feminist who has just received more of the taxpayers' money to produce her latest film. The Daily News specializes in anti-White editorials more than economic ones, reaching an unrivaled level of aggression in this matter. Today's chief editorial reads "They Give Us Our Jobs," and tells us how good it is to have more and more immigrants in the country. The Jews love this, as they get more allies. The socialists love this, as they get more votes. The "liberals" love this, as their doctrine demands open borders. The conservatives keep their mouths shut and nod, saving their energy for economic debates.
As with all European leftism, anti-Americanism is thrown in almost automatically. The second editorial is about how terrible the death penalty is in that hopelessly deranged country on the other side of the Atlantic, where people are stupid conservative racists in cowboy hats, the whole lot of 'em (there was a lot of cheering going on in Sweden after September 11, by those who reason the more dead Americans, the better). America symbolizes capitalism and White oppression. Needless to say, most Europeans have no knowledge at all of American domestic politics.
The "vision" for the Daily News is short: "During a time of great changes the DN will with new sharpness promote the open society's basic values, such as enlightened reason and a tolerant climate." Nothing about promoting Sweden's interests, nothing about finding out what is good for Swedes. The key Newspeak word here is "tolerance," meaning the same as "diversity." Some Newspeak is the same on both sides of the Atlantic; it is invented in the U.S., and then travels here via Hollywood. I expect editorials to start using "hate" any time now.
Friends from Finland confirm that parts of their media influenced by the Bonniers have significantly changed their tune, from pro-Finnish to anti-White. Fins are being told to feel guilt because of their low influx of immigrants, and the result is an increased darkening of the Finnish Fatherland. No matter where you look, the Jews have the same plans for all.
The other newspapers are pushing the same theme, more or less: whenever they discuss race relations, it is from the angle of what is good for the dark races, not what is good for Swedes. The most sinister journalists refer to non-Whites as "Swedes" simply because they live in Sweden, which is about the same thing as calling someone an Aryan just because he is living in Europe -- or a member of my family just because he is standing on my front lawn.
Perhaps we shouldn't pay so much attention to the written media, however. Studies show that most Swedes spend only eighteen minutes a day reading newspapers (a few minutes more than in the U.S.). This includes the time spent on sports pages and the TV section. Far more dangerous is the government control of Channel One and Channel Two. Every time I look at their news broadcasts I am amazed that people can watch this without realizing they are being fed propaganda. The dramatic wording, the choice of news, the assumptions and insinuations -- it is all anti-conservative and anti-White. This, combined with the schools, has shaped entire generations of Swedes, and kept us cut off from the rest of the world and from reality. And now we also have the choice of Jew News on TV 4.
Suppression of free speech
A few years back people could still wear any political symbols they wanted in Sweden. The Justice Department gnarled at this, complaining that conservatives were too adamant in their opposition to banning this free expression of political loyalties. Then it had a stroke of luck: someone found an old law from the thirties called the "uniform law" that banned political uniforms. Perfect! This was immediately put into new use, not only for uniforms, but for buttons and anything else.
The Minister of Justice was quick to explain, however, that we shouldn't regard this as an infringement on our right to free speech. The law would only be used against nationalist symbols. Police officials nodded and repeated: only those wearing symbols of the extreme right would be prosecuted, no one else. This may be difficult to accept, but it is true: our own politicians told us in plain Swedish that a law would be used selectively. There was no attempt to stealth: they said it without so much as flinching. And Swedes, most of them receiving their news from Government TV, never stopped to question this, since the reporters didn't.
This is nothing unusual in Europe, as the argument goes: Sweden was actually too slow at inventing infringements on free speech (only because of the government's television monopoly, which made such laws pretty much unnecessary). Remember the boycott of Austria when the Austrians dared vote for Haider's party? That is the European Union in action. Visit Germany, Belgium or France and speak your mind about things, and count how many minutes it takes for the police to reach you. The Minister of the Interior in France can actually shut down any newspaper he doesn't like. Although he doesn't have the power to close down the newspaper per se, he does have the power to prevent it from being printed. Very clever.
Usually the oppressive laws are like that, a patchwork that doesn't come right out and order you to obey the establishment, but that prevents dissent anyway. That way, when you discuss these matters you have to show a number of separate laws, bury yourself in details, and therefore lose the interest of your audience. It also keeps everybody on his toes, because no one is sure just what the law actually says, and which law says it. You only hear on TV of someone going to jail for doing something "racist," and you get the message.
Let us look at an example that perfectly expresses the climate in Swedish media. I will quote from an article in the Swedish Daily, written on March 7 this year. It begins: "The editor of the Evening Post's website was convicted today of instigation against ethnic groups. A court in Stockholm released him on probation and fined him 36,000 crowns [about 3,600 dollars]."
Perhaps I should have mentioned that we nowadays don't have freedom of speech in Sweden, not in racial matters or matters concerning the sexes, or homosexuals. You can be convicted, even sentenced to jail, for saying or writing something "racist," "sexist," or "homophobic." Also, we don't have trial by jury, and never have. A judge and his four advisers convict us, and the judges are not elected officials but appointed from above.
So, what was the crime? The article continues: "The newspaper's website has a debating forum for the public. In October 2000 four posts were made by anonymous writers [as if not everybody is anonymous on a message board] who among other things wrote positive comments about Adolf Hitler."
And for that the writers could be prosecuted, if they had been successfully traced. Inadequate message board, there. But what does this have to do with the editor? We read on: "A private citizen reported the website to the Justice Chancellor who prosecuted the editor for instigation against ethnic groups, a crime against the Constitution."
Yes, it is unconstitutional in Sweden to say anything pro-White, or "hateful" as it would be called in the U.S. It is "instigation against ethnic groups." Even to allow someone else to say it, like this editor did, is forbidden. The article goes on to say that the prosecuted editor agrees that the posts are criminal, he just hadn't seen them yet -- if he had, he would have deleted them, the way he does with all "racist" and "sexist" messages. He pleads his innocence and promises to repent, but the court is unsatisfied: "The court determines that the editor was aware that forbidden messages could slip through, but he was prepared to take the risk since he wanted a broad and public debate on the website."
He wanted a broad and public debate! Well, then, off with his head. Let us hope that this editor knows his place from now on.
Those who thought that free speech was safe on the Internet were mistaken. Another example: the Passage, found at http://passagen.se, is Sweden's largest chatsite. An odd feature here is that your IP-address shows up when you are chatting, and the Passage informs you that anyone writing "racist" messages in chat will be traced and charged with "instigation against ethnic groups." Chatters are actually encouraged to report thoughtcriminals to the site's owners. A quick look at the ownership of Passage informs us that it is part of the Eniro media group, which in turn is owned by Telia, which has the government as majority shareholder. (As a sidenote, the state-created Telia used to have a monopoly on phone services in Sweden, resulting in high costs and lousy service. The moment private entrepreneurs were allowed on the market the prices dropped drastically.)
Americans, do not think that this couldn't happen in your country. It has happened to everyone else in the West, so why not to you? Your Constitution? We have constitutions as well. Constitutions can be changed, as the socialists gleefully state in debates, "so they aren't any more important than any other law." The Evening Post, for example, has said many times that nothing must stand in the way of "the will of the people," which is their Newspeak word for the government. From my many hours spent debating in American political chatrooms, I know that your "liberals" would like to write the same thing, but so far it is taboo to say it out loud.
Besides, existing laws can be twisted and turned to your heart's content. Again, look at the way Austria was treated. The EU officials quoted laws in that case too, knowing fully well that they were distorting the meaning of those laws, in much the same spirit our Swedish politicians have given the order to use the uniform law selectively.
I have been visiting American news sites for many years, and never have I seen such blatant propaganda as what has been pushed after September 11. It is very clear to me that your government and media masters have a plan with this. The threats they paint in people's minds don't fit reality -- even European media have started to voice concern about what is happening overseas (they can't resist the opportunity to spit at the U.S. for silencing debate, even as they themselves do so at home). Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain and Italy have all faced domestic terrorism, but they have never restricted freedom because of it the way your government did the first chance it had. In Sweden it is "instigation against ethnic groups" that silences people, and even puts them in jail; in the United States I could very well imagine that it will be "instigation to terrorism."
You realize that the VNN website would be closed down, and everyone contributing to it fined or jailed, if it had been made in Western Europe instead of in the United States? This is what must not happen; it would end the last free speech in the Western world. Neither I nor any other Swede would know what the Jews are doing in the United States and here if we hadn't read it on the NA website. And such a website is only possible in America.
The media here not only approve of oppression, they promote it and help sustain it. In this they all work together. The depth of their partnership in crime was shown with all desirable clarity in November 1999, when all four major newspapers printed the same article: a multiple-page list of the names of active nationalists, complete with their photographs. The message was clear: resist, and we will harrass you any way we can. The desired effect was also obtained: several men and women on this list lost their jobs, or were suspended from university studies, and some were attacked and beaten by immigrant gangs. That they were socially ostracized by the ignorant and cowardly is something I take for granted, just as I know this was the purpose of the media assault.
It is to these patriotic men and women that I dedicate this article. Fully aware of the risks they take they are all spending their lives contributing to the defense of Sweden, and what they have sacrificed for me and other Swedes cannot be underestimated. I am still young, but seeing such courage I know it is my duty to follow their lead. The first step is to know our enemy; the second, to fight.
|June 4th, 2009||#26|
Join Date: Aug 2005
|June 15th, 2009||#27|
[About JournoList. Not directly on point, but most of these lefties are jews, so an example of working together semi-secretly to advance an agenda.]
For the past two years, several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics have talked stories and compared notes in an off-the-record online meeting space called JournoList.
Proof of a vast liberal media conspiracy?
Not at all, says Ezra Klein, the 24-year-old American Prospect blogging wunderkind who formed JournoList in February 2007. “Basically,” he says, “it’s just a list where journalists and policy wonks can discuss issues freely.”
But some of the journalists who participate in the online discussion say — off the record, of course — that it has been a great help in their work. On the record, The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin acknowledged that a Talk of the Town piece — he won’t say which one — got its start in part via a conversation on JournoList. And JLister Eric Alterman, The Nation writer and CUNY professor, said he’s seen discussions that start on the list seep into the world beyond.
“I’m very lazy about writing when I’m not getting paid,” Alterman said. “So if I take the trouble to write something in any detail on the list, I tend to cannibalize it. It doesn’t surprise me when I see things on the list on people’s blogs.”
Last April, criticism of ABC’s handling of a Democratic presidential debate took shape on JList before morphing into an open letter to the network, signed by more than 40 journalists and academics — many of whom are JList members.
But beyond these specific examples, it’s hard to trace JList’s influence in the media, because so few JListers are willing to talk on the record about it.
POLITICO contacted nearly three dozen current JList members for this story. The majority either declined to comment or didn’t respond to interview requests — and then returned to JList to post items on why they wouldn’t be talking to POLITICO about what goes on there.In an e-mail, Klein said he understands that the JList’s off-the-record rule “makes it seems secretive.” But he insisted that JList discussions have to be off the record in order to “ensure that folks feel safe giving off-the-cuff analysis and instant reactions.”
One byproduct of that secrecy: For all its high-profile membership — which includes Nobel Prize-winning columnist Paul Krugman; staffers from Newsweek, POLITICO, Huffington Post, The New Republic, The Nation and The New Yorker; policy wonks, academics and bloggers such as Klein and Matthew Yglesias — JList itself has received almost no attention from the media.
A LexisNexis search for JournoList reveals exactly nothing. Slate’s Mickey Kaus, a nonmember, may be the only professional writer to have referred to it “in print” more than once — albeit dismissively, as the “Klein Klub.”
While members may talk freely about JList at, say, a Columbia Heights house party, there’s a “Fight Club”-style code of silence when it comes to discussing it for publication.
But a handful of JList members agreed to talk for this story — if only to push back against the perception that the group is some sort of secret, left-wing cabal.
Several members volunteered that JList is unlike listservs such as Townhouse, the private, activist-oriented group formed by liberal blogger Matt Stoller.
“No one’s pushing an agenda,” said Toobin.
Toobin joined JList about a year ago, and he said that he had to get a new e-mail address just for JList in order to keep up with the sheer volume of commentary that appears there every day. The frequent disputes among members, he said, are “what’s most entertaining on the list.”
John Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic, described JList in an e-mail as “a virtual coffeehouse” where participants get a chance to talk and argue.
“There is probably general agreement on the stupidity of today’s GOP,” he said. “But beyond that, I would say there is wide disagreement on trade, Israel, how exactly we got into this recession/depression and how to get out of it, the brilliance of various punk bands that I have never heard of, and on whether, at any given moment, the Obama administration is doing the right thing.”
But aren’t there enough forums for arguing about domestic and foreign policy — or even for partaking in the more idiosyncratic JList debates about the merits of Bruce Springsteen and whether The New Republic is liberal enough? And do those debates really have to happen behind a veil of secrecy?
“It’s sort of a chance to float ideas and kind of toss them around, back and forth, and determine if they have any value,” said New Republic associate editor Eve Fairbanks, “and get people’s input on them before you put them on a blog.”
Indeed, the advantage of JList, members say, is that it provides a unique forum for getting in touch with historians and policy people who provide journalists with a knowledge base for articles and blog posts.
Yglesias, who writes an eponymous blog hosted by the Center for American Progress, noted that “the combined membership has tentacles of knowledge that reach everywhere,” adding that “you can toss out a question about Japan or whatever and get some different points of view.”
Alterman said it’s important that there are “people with genuine expertise” on the list.
“For me, it’s enormously useful because I don’t like to spend my time reading blogs and reading up-to-the-minute political minutia,” he said. “This list allows me to make sure I’m not missing anything important.”
POLITICO’s Mike Allen, Ben Smith and Lisa Lerer are on the list. “The roster includes some of the savviest authorities on everything from behavioral economics to Ben’s Chili Bowl,” Allen said. “It’s a window into a world of passionate experts — an hourly graduate education.”
Said another JLister: “I don’t know any other place where working journalists, policy wonks and academics who write about current politics and political history routinely communicate with one another.”
But what if all the private exchanges got leaked?
That’s been the subject of some JList conversation, too, as members discuss the Weekly Standard’s publication of a 2006 e-mail posted to the private China Security Listserv by diplomat Charles Freeman, who last week withdrew his name from consideration for a top intelligence job.
Michael Goldfarb, a former McCain staffer and conservative blogger who published the e-mail, was not part of the China list and therefore hadn’t agreed to any off-the-record rules.
Asked about the existence of conservative listservs, Goldfarb said they’re much less prevalent.
“There is nothing comparable on the right. E-mail conversations among bloggers, journalists and experts on our side tend to be ad hoc,” Goldfarb said. “The JournoList thing always struck me as a little creepy.”
Kaus, too, has seemed put off by the whole idea, once talking on BloggingHeads about how the list “seems contrary to the spirit of the Web.”
“You don’t want to create a whole separate, like, private blog that only the elite bloggers can go into, and then what you present to the public is sort of the propaganda you’ve decided to go public with,” Kaus argued.
But Time’s Joe Klein, who acknowledged being on JList and several other listservs, said in an e-mail that “they’re valuable in the way that candid conversations with colleagues and experts always are.” Defending the off-the-record rule, Klein said that “candor is essential and can only be guaranteed by keeping these conversations private.”
And then Klein — speaking like the JLister he is — said there wasn’t “anything more that I can or want to say about the subject.”
|June 17th, 2009||#28|
[Taki rehases his history with the Spectator, drops this, which shows you that kikes cannot stand any criticism anywhere whatsoever and go out of their way to get the writer fired and his career destroyed.]
What were some of the highlights throughout the years? Too many to list but a few come to mind. Alexander Chancellor, a married man falling in love with a book reviewer, Mary Furness, Suzy Chancellor slapping Mary in public and the Spectator losing its editor while he took a six week sabbatical in Cairo in order to recover from the ordeal. Yours truly getting busted at Heathrow for having cocaine in my pocket, ringing the Speccie in order to resign, and having Claire Asquith ask me whether I’d be filing copy from jail. Peregrine Worsthorne ringing the editor, Charles Moore, demanding he sack me, and Charles telling him that if “Taki were our religious correspondent, I’d sack him on the spot. In view of the fact he’s our high life writer, we expect him to be high at times.” Dominic Lawson receiving a call from the Israeli ambassador the first day as editor and being told in no uncertain terms he should fire me because I’m anti-Semitic. “He’s anti-Zionist,” said Dominic, “and his column is brilliant, and he’s staying. Finally, Frank Johnson warned by Rudy Giuliani, then mayor of New York, to fire me because I had insulted the Puerto Rican community, and Frank telling the dago mayor he was thinking of naming me ambassador to the island.
|December 2nd, 2009||#29|
Ventura says MSNBC nixed his show for not supporting Iraq War
Posted by Eric Roper
November 30, 2009
Conspiracy theorists awaiting Wednesday night's premiere of "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura" might take interest in a curious comment Ventura made in the Los Angeles Times this weekend.
Ventura, who has been doing the media rounds promoting his new venture on TruTV, told the paper that MSNBC cancelled his show "Jesse Ventura's America" in 2003 because he did not support the Iraq War. He said the network "in essence" paid him to be silent, which allowed him to purchase a house in Mexico.
This is not your first venture into TV hosting since leaving the governorship. What happened to "Jesse Ventura's America," which ran briefly on MSNBC in 2003?
It was awful. I was basically silenced. When I came out of office, I was the hottest commodity out there. There was a bidding war between CNN, Fox and MSNBC to get my services. MSNBC ultimately won. I was being groomed for a five day-a-week TV show by them. Then, all of a sudden, weird phone calls started happening: "Is it true Jesse doesn't support the war in Iraq?"
My contract said I couldn't do any other cable TV or any news shows, and they honored and paid it for the duration of it. So in essence I had my silence purchased. Why do you think you didn't hear from me for three years? I was under contract. They wouldn't even use me as a consultant!
When you live in Mexico, your houses all have names. I almost named my house Casa MSNBC because they bought it. I was paid like a professional athlete, and I got very wealthy. For doing nothing.
When Ventura's show was cancelled in 2003, a Star Tribune article noted that he was receiving "a reported" $2 million annually -- certainly enough to live comfortably in Baja. A source "close to the production" said at the time that the show was cancelled because of high production costs.
MSNBC did not respond to a request for comment this morning about the allegation, which has been re-reported on several media blogs. Though it seems like a fresh swipe at the network (and an odd one since they are considered liberal), a search of the Star Tribune archives - most of which is no longer available online - reveals that Ventura made the same claim in 2004.
[Ventura] said he no longer talks to news reporters partly because of media accounts of his son's parties in the governor's mansion and partly because of his exclusive contract with the cable-TV network MSNBC. Network spokesman Jeremy Gaines told the Associated Press that Ventura's contract only governs his television appearances.
"They won't put me on the air because I opposed the Iraq war from Day 1," he said of the network. "I honor my contract because they send me a check every two weeks."
|January 11th, 2011||#30|
From The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State by Benjamin Ginsberg
pgs. 22 - 25
“In Britain, Jews did not figure in the creation of the liberal state. However, Jewish politicians, publishers, and financiers helped to strengthen the liberal regime and expand its popular base between the Crimean War and the First World War. During the mid- and late nineteenth centuries, British Jews achieved considerable wealth, status, and political influence. The Rothschilds were one of the most important banking familiies in Britain. Other important Jewish financiers included the Sassoons, the Cassels, the de Hirsch family, and the Semons. By the First World War, though Jews constituted only 1% of the total population of Britain, 23% of Britain’s non-landed millionaires were of Jewish origin.”
“In the middle decades of the nineteenth century, Jews also came to be a major factor in British journalism. The Reuters News Agency, founded by Paul Julius Reuter (whose name was originally Israel Beer Josaphat) in 1848, was the chief purveyor of information on world events to the entire British press and, at times, the government as well. The Sassoons owned and edited the Sunday Times, Harry Marks founded the Financial Times, and Sir Alfred Mond controlled the English Review. Jews were especially important in the popular press. The Daily Telegraph, controlled by the Levy Lawson family, was London’s first penny newspaper and, in the 1870s, had a circulation of just under 200,000. The Telegraph appealed mainly to middle- and working-class audience and specialized in sensational coverage of both domestic and foreign events. Harry Oppenheim had a major interest in another mass circulation daily, the London Daily News. Sir Alfred Mond published the Westminster Gazette, a paper that provided its popular audience with dramatic coverage of the exploits of British military forces in the far-flung reaches of the empire.”
“During the same period of time, a number of Jews served as members of Parliament and rose to positions of considerable influence in the British government. Obviously, the most notable example is Benjamin Disraeli, a converted Jew who served twice as prime minister between 1868 and 1880, and along with William Gladstone was the dominant figure in British politics in the late nineteenth century. Other prominent Jewish politicians in the pre-World War I era include G. J. Goschen, who served as chancellor of the exchecquer from 1887 to 1892; Farrer Herschell, who was lord chancellor in 1886 and again in 1892-1895; Sir George Jessel, solicitor general from 1871 to 1873; Rufus Isaccs, who served as solicitor general in 1910, attorney general from 1910 to 1913, and lord chief justice in 1913; and Edwin Sameul Montague, who served as under-secretary of state for India.”
”These Jewish political and business elites helped to consolidate the liberal regime in Britain by reconciling conservative forces to democratic politics and by expanding the resources and popular base of the British state. The key figure in this process was Benjamin Disraeli.”
“In addition, Disraeli helped to fashion an imperialist program that, in the latter decades of the nineteenth century, bound together the aristocracy and the military and administrative establishments with segments of the financial community, the press, and the middle class in a coalition that would support his efforts to strengthen the British state. The Disraeli government’s policy of imperial expansion in India, the Middle East, and Africa yielded important political and economic benefits for the participants in this coaltion.”
”Jewish financiers and newspaper publishers were important participants in this coalition. In the late nineteenth century, more than one-fourth of all British capital was invested overseas. Long-established financial interests invested primarily in North America and Australia where property owners could rely upon the protection of local laws and authorities. New banking houses, a number of them Jewish, were more heavily invested in the Middle East, India, Asia, and Africa where local laws and authorities offered little security for foreign property. Here, British investors had to depend upon the protection of their own government and its military forces. This dependence gave Jewish financiers a stake in the creation of a strong national government able and willing to project its power throughout the world.”
”Jewish financial and business interests were important participants in the imperialist enterprise. For example, the Indian railroad network that the Sassoons helped to finance was closely integrated into the imperial administration, and Julius Reuter’s wire service functioned as the command and control mechanism of the colonial government. Upon occasion, the British government also turned to Jewish banking houses to finance imperial expansion. Disraeli’s purchase of the Suez Canal in 1878, for example, was made possible by Henry Oppenheim’s extensive contacts in Egypt and a four million pound loan from Lionel Rothschild. The role played by Jewish capital in the creation of Britain’s nineteenth- century empire was not lost on its critics. In his classic work, which became the basis of Lenin’s theory of imperialism, J.A. Hobson argued that ”men of a single and peculiar race, who have behind them centuries of financial experience,” formed “the central ganglion of international capitalism.”
This theme also was prominent in the work of Goldwyn Smith, a noted scholar and opponent of Disraeli’s imperialist policies. Smith frequently charged that the Disraeli government’s foreign policies were motivated more by Jewish than British interests.”
“For its part, the Jewish-owned popular press worked to rally public support for the government’s imperialist endeavors. The press depicted the conquest and subjugation of foreign territories as a great adventure. Generals like Kitchener and Gordon were portrayed as heroic figures. Journalists captured the popular imagination with accounts of the exploits of British forces in faraway lands.”
”The Reuters news service was particularly important in popularizing imperialism. Reuter’s specialized in the collection and dissemination of news from the furthest outposts of the empire. Its dispatches, upon which all British newspapers came to rely, emphasized the positive, “civilizing” aspects of British colonial administration and military campaigns. The steady diet of campaigns, battles, and raids in Reuter’s dispatches, along with news of the more mundane details of colonial rule, maintained popular interest in the empire and made it an accepted part of British life. The British popular press, like its American counterpart during the Spanish-American War, discovered that exciting tales of empire building gave an enormous boos to circulation and revenues.”
If we exterminate termites because they destroy the foundations of our houses, how much more lenient should we be in our treatment of jews, who destroy the foundations of our society?
|May 27th, 2011||#31|
Join Date: May 2009
|June 3rd, 2011||#32|
From Amazon.com, a review of "A Hundred Little Hitlers," about Tom Metzger being tied to a skinhead who whipped an African nigger in Portland, which nigger ended up dying.
Powerful, insightful and accurate, October 22, 2003
Loren w Christensen (Portland, Oregon) - See all my reviews
This review is from: A Hundred Little Hitlers: The Death of a Black Man, the Trial of a White Racist, and the Rise of the Neo-Nazi Movement in America (Hardcover)
Eloquent, brilliant, insightful and fair, Elinor Langer's A Hundred Little Hitlers, published by Metropolitan Books is the true story of what really happened in Portland, Oregon on November 13, 1988 when three racist skinheads fought with three Ethiopians -- and one of the Ethiopians was beaten to death with a baseball bat.
I was a police officer on the Portland Police Bureau when this murder happened, working crime analysis at the downtown precinct, a job that included monitoring the growing number of racist and non-racist skinheads in the city. After the murder, the skinhead population and their crimes escalated as in no other city, so I was sent to the Gang Enforcement Team where I could monitor skins and investigate their crimes. I spent four years focusing on them, including working as a bodyguard for Tom Metzger during the two-week civil trial, which is covered so well in A Hundred Little Hitlers.
Though I was "the skinhead expert" and Public Information Officer for everything that was skinhead related, Langer's painstaking research and powerful, compelling writing kept me turning the pages, mumbling at least a hundred times, "I didn't know that."
This book is more than just a gripping tale of murder. Langer includes the history of the white supremacy movement; history of the various players; the politics in the movement, in the justice system and in the city; police procedure; and courtroom drama, all told from the standpoint of scholarly research, and profound analysis and conclusions. She shows great bravery as she paints a picture that isn't always politically correct in the delicate world of race relations. But she does so with truth, which wasn't always the case during this period (and still isn't today).
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, black gangs were shooting up neighborhoods virtually every night, Southeast Asian gangs were terrorizing their own community with high-tech, automatic weapons, and Hispanic gangs were killing each other and spraying innocent neighborhoods with bullets. Some of this made the news, but much of it didn't. But should a skinhead draw a swastika on a wall, it led at 5 o'clock.
I tried for two years to get a reporter to do a story that showed how black gangs often perpetrated more racially motivated crimes than skinheads. Finally, one reporter had the guts. The camera showed me holding 24 police reports of black on white crimes, but only six reports depicting skinhead crimes against minorities in the same four-week period. The next day, the reporter got in trouble at his TV station, and I was ordered by the chief's office to never, ever, do that again. The truth was not politically correct.
Langer doesn't mention this specifically, but she does discuss how the relationships between whites and blacks in Portland "required immediate vengeance for the death." She discusses how the police produced a politically acceptable case to the DA, rather than digging deeper into the facts of what really occurred the night of the murder. She talks about how the Justice Department had elicited the "racial motivation" plea bargain, which was the platform for all that followed. And she asks what would have happened if Tom Metzger had not been the "white supremacist of the hour," if Morris Dees had not had his "agency" theory all ready for his next target, and if the three skinheads had gone to trial and all the facts, the truth, had been brought out.
This is an incredible, courageous writing achievement, a definitive work about a murder, about hate, about our justice system, and about morals.
From a guy who was there, I highly recommend A Hundred Little Hitlers.
Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: A Hundred Little Hitlers: The Death of a Black Man, the Trial of a White Racist, and the Rise of the Neo-Nazi Movement in America
If we exterminate termites because they destroy the foundations of our houses, how much more lenient should we be in our treatment of jews, who destroy the foundations of our society?
|January 8th, 2012||#33|
This Is How Israel Runs The British Press
Sunday, November 6, 2011 at 11:34PM Gilad Atzmon
Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: The following is a glimpse into the Israeli Hasbara's/Mossad's/Sayanim's operation in the UK. It explains how Israel and its agents manage to dominate news coverage in Britain and beyond. It seems from the following leaked email as if BICOM (British Israel Communication & research Centre) runs the News desk for the BBC, Sky and the FT. I guess that last week the Guardian also joined the party. It is now an offical Israeli propaganda outlet.
Shockingly enough, not a single British paper was brave enough to report the story or publish the leaked email. Surely they know who their masters are. The message is pretty clear. British press is not trustworthy. It is as Zionised as our political system.
Bicom 'embarrassed' by misdirected email
There were red faces at Bicom this week when an email from its director intended for donors was in fact sent to the organisation’s media database.
The email, sent by Lorna Fitzsimons, the director of the organisation,“dedicated to creating a more supportive environment for Israel in Britain”, stated: “Throughout the weekend, Bicom staff were in contact with a whole host of BBC and Sky news desks and journalists, ensuring that the most objectively favourable line was taken, and offering talking heads, relevant to the stories unfolding.”
She added: “Bicom has one of BBC News’ key anchors on a bespoke delegation. When planning her very first trip to the region, Sophie Long got in touch with Bicom to see if we could help her out with meeting in the region. Sophie is now spending three days of her trip with Bicom Israel, taking a tour around the Old City, meeting [Israeli government spokesman] Mark Regev…as well as visiting Ramallah and Sderot.”
Most embarrassing, however, was the revelation that Fitzsimons – a former NUS president and Labour MP for Rochdale – had “briefed Jonathan Ford, the Financial Times leader writer for his upcoming leading article” in the paper.
She noted Bicom had “regular contact with the Editor at Large of Prospect Magazine, David Goodhart, helping to inform him about the forthcoming UN vote on Palestinian statehood”.
A Bicom spokesman told the Jewish News that this “administrative error” was “slightly embarrassing”. He stressed that Fitzsimons had not been “asked to resign or had offered her resignation”.
—–Original Message—– From: Lorna Fitzsimons [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Mon 12/09/2011 16:44 To:
████████████████ Subject: BICOM’s rapid response to events over the weekend and continuing work on September and the UN Dear████
Please find the correct analysis attached.
I thought you would be interested to hear of BICOM’s response to events overthe weekend in Egypt as well as ongoing issues in the region.
Events over the weekend
* Over the weekend, BICOM’s rapid response to the unfolding events in Egypt included distributing our analysis on Egyptian/Israeli relations to key UKMedia contacts, generated extremely favourable responses. Attached here is the link to today’s analysis on this subject.
BICOM Analysis: Israel-Turkey relations after the Palmer Report http://www.bicom.org.uk/context/rese...-palmer-report which details the events that took place, their aftermath and associated implications. In particular, the briefing examines the explanations for hostilities between Israel and Egypt, and the responses to the events in Israel, Egypt and internationally.
* Throughout the weekend, BICOM staff were in contact with a whole host of BBC and SKY news desks and journalists, ensuring that the most objectively favourable line was taken, and offering talking heads, relevant to the stories unfolding. BICOM’s Senior Analyst Dr. Noam Leshem, briefed the BBC World News Editorial Board on Saturday afternoon regarding the fall-out fromthe Israel Egyptian Embassy siege. After contact with the BICOM Media Team,SKY News changed their narrative in explaining the prior events in the region which lead up to this weekend, eventually acknowledging that both Egyptians AND Israelis were killed in Sinai a fortnight ago.
* BICOM has one of BBC News’ key anchors on a bespoke delegation. When planning her very first trip to the region, Sophie Long got in touch with BICOM to see if we could help her out with meeting in the region. Sophie is now spending three days of her trip with BICOM Israel, taking a tour around the Old City, meeting Mark Regev and Dr. Alex Yacobsen, as well as visiting Ramallah and Sderot.
* My second article for the Huffington Post UK entitled ‘How to make the next9/11 less likely: myth busting and truth telling,’ will be published today.It is a timely response, synthesising the messages which can be taken from 9/11 with the current, unnerving events unfolding between Egypt and Israel. The American version of the Huffington Post has 1.2 million readers in the UK,and 38 million in the U.S.
September & the UN
* I briefed Jonathan Ford, the Financial Times leader writer for his upcoming leading article in tomorrow’s paper.
* BICOM had regular contact with the Editor at Large of Prospect Magazine,David Goodhart, helping to inform him about the forthcoming UN vote on Palestinian statehood. The uniquely tailored BICOM Spotlight -http://www.bicom.org.uk/context/research-and-analysis/spotlight/un-vote-on-palestinian-statehood- has the most up to date news, as well as BICOM analyses and podcasts on the Palestinian drive to the UN.
I hope you find this of interest. Yours, Lorna
Background Sophie Long:- http://knightayton.co.uk/Women-Prese...ng-Sophie.html
Sophie Long is one of the main presenters on the BBC News Channel.
She has covered many big stories and can regularly be found anchoring the channel’s output on location.
During the last General Election she was on the road with Nick Clegg in that extraordinary campaign. Her coverage was acclaimed for its wit and insight.
She regularly presents bulletins on BBC1.
After graduating from King’s College London with a degree in War Studies, Sophie travelled extensively, including a period working as an election monitor in Cambodia. It was there whilst working as a researcher for Reuters she crystallised her ambition to pursue a career in the media.
The BBC of course are impartial. They say so themselves.
excerpt The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. But we go further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects.
If we exterminate termites because they destroy the foundations of our houses, how much more lenient should we be in our treatment of jews, who destroy the foundations of our society?
|January 12th, 2012||#34|
[libertarian complaints about Ron Paul 2012 campaign coverage]
Thoughts on New Hampshire
Posted by James Ostrowski on January 10, 2012 09:34 PM
To say that the mainstream media is extremely hostile to and biased against Ron Paul is not to allege a conspiracy but merely to acknowledge an obvious fact. A few examples will make the point. In Iowa, the MSM helped create a Santorum surge while giving him zero scrutiny and trashing Ron Paul. In New Hampshire, they did the same for Huntsman—promoting his nonexistent surge while trashing Ron Paul. There was zero scrutiny of Huntsman's record. As with Iowa, they kept insisting that Ron Paul was fading. In spite of that attempted self-fulfilling prophesy, Ron Paul beat Huntsman decisively.
Howard Fineman pointed out last week that Ron Paul has a tendency to "underperform" his polling numbers. Since Ron Paul outperformed his polling numbers by about seven points tonight, you would think that Howard and scores of others would point that out. Don’t hold your breath. The obvious historical comparison to what happened tonight was 1992 when another Southerner who was expected to do poorly, Bill Clinton, did well enough to be declared the unofficial winner against Paul Tsongas, like Romney, from neighboring Massachusetts. No mention of this no-brainer comparison.
Finally, the MSM repeats the Big Lie—a statement for which no evidence exists but which is repeated endlessly—that Ron Paul cannot beat Obama. That becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as many voters make their decision based on the Big Lie. In fact, the polls show that Ron Paul can beat Obama and that Romney cannot—if he faces a strong third party challenge which is likely. Ron Paul's perfo
If we exterminate termites because they destroy the foundations of our houses, how much more lenient should we be in our treatment of jews, who destroy the foundations of our society?
|July 5th, 2012||#35|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Jews DO control the media
We Jews are a funny breed. We love to brag about every Jewish actor. Sometimes we even pretend an actor is Jewish just because we like him enough that we think he deserves to be on our team. We brag about Jewish authors, Jewish politicians, Jewish directors. Every time someone mentions any movie or book or piece of art, we inevitably say something like, “Did you know that he was Jewish?” That’s just how we roll.
We’re a driven group, and not just in regards to the art world. We have, for example, AIPAC, which was essentially constructed just to drive agenda in Washington DC. And it succeeds admirably. And we brag about it. Again, it’s just what we do.
But the funny part is when any anti-Semite or anti-Israel person starts to spout stuff like, “The Jews control the media!” and “The Jews control Washington!”
Suddenly we’re up in arms. We create huge campaigns to take these people down. We do what we can to put them out of work. We publish articles. We’ve created entire organizations that exist just to tell everyone that the Jews don’t control nothin’. No, we don’t control the media, we don’t have any more sway in DC than anyone else. No, no, no, we swear: We’re just like everybody else!
Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the irony of this?
Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. Just about every movie or TV show, whether it be “Tropic Thunder” or “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is rife with actors, directors, and writers who are Jewish. Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews?
But that’s not all. We also control the ads that go on those TV shows.
And let’s not forget AIPAC, every anti-Semite’s favorite punching bag. We’re talking an organization that’s practically the equivalent of the Elders of Zion. I’ll never forget when I was involved in Israeli advocacy in college and being at one of the many AIPAC conventions. A man literally stood in front of us and told us that their whole goal was to only work with top-50 school graduate students because they would eventually be the people making changes in the government. Here I am, an idealistic little kid that goes to a bottom 50 school (ASU) who wants to do some grassroots advocacy, and these guys are literally talking about infiltrating the government. Intense.
Now, I know what everyone will say. That everyone tries to lobby. Every minority group and every majority group. That every group has some successful actors and directors. But that’s a far call from saying that we run Hollywood and Madison Avenue. That the Mel Gibsons of the world are right in saying we’re deliberately using our power to take over the world. That we’ve got some crazy conspiracy going down.
Okay. Fine. So some of that is kooky talk.
But let’s look at it a bit deeper.
Maybe it’s true: everyone lobbies. Maybe it’s true there are actors of every ethnicity out there. But come on. We’re the ones who are bragging about this stuff all the time. Can’t we admit that we’re incredibly successful? Can’t we say it to the world?
I’ll give my theory for why Jews don’t want to talk about their control of the media.
First of all, as much as Jews like to admit that so many of them are successful, and that so many of them have accomplished so much, they hate to admit that it has to do with they’re being Jewish. Maybe they’ll admit that it has something to do with the Jewish experience. But how many Jews will admit that there is something inherently a part of every single one of them that helps them to accomplish amazing things?
The ADL chairman, Abe Foxman, was interviewed in a great article about the subject and he said that he “would prefer people say that many executives in the industry ‘happen to be Jewish.’” This just about sums up the party line.
The truth is, the anti-Semites got it right. We Jews have something planted in each one of us that makes us completely different from every group in the world. We’re talking about a group of people that just got put in death camps, endured pogroms, their whole families decimated. And then they came to America, the one place that ever really let them have as much power as they wanted, and suddenly they’re taking over. Please don’t tell me that any other group in the world has ever done that. Only the Jews. And we’ve done it before. That’s why the Jews were enslaved in Egypt. We were too successful. Go look at the Torah — it’s right there. And we did it in Germany too.
This ability to succeed, this inner drive, comes not from the years of education or any other sort of conditional factors, but because of the inner spark within each Jew.
Now, the reason groups like the ADL and AIPAC hate admitting this is because, first of all, they are secular organizations. Their whole agenda is to prove that every Jew is the same as every other person in the world. I cannot imagine a more outlandish agenda. No, we’re different. We’re special.
Of course, people hate when anyone says this. They assume that if you’re saying that Jews are special, it somehow implies that they’re better.
To be honest, I’m not really sure what the word “better” even means. What I do know is that being special simply means a person has a responsibility to do good.
I think that’s the real reason most Jews are so afraid to admit that there’s something inherently powerful and good about them. Not because they’re afraid of being special. But because they’re afraid of being responsible. It means that they’re suddenly culpable when they create dirty TV shows that sully the spiritual atmosphere of the world. It means that things can’t just be created for the sake of amusement or fun or even “art.”
Suddenly, we can’t screw up the world.
The interesting thing is that Jews have done so much for the world in so many other ways. They’ve moved forward civil rights; they’ve helped save lives in Darfur, Haiti and just about everywhere else.
But that’s not enough. Fixing the world physically is only half the battle.
Our larger battle, the harder battle, is elevating the world spiritually. And this is what the people that fight with every inch of their soul to prove that Jews are just the same as everyone else are afraid of. It means that we can no longer just “express ourselves.” We’ll have to start thinking about the things we create and the way we act. It means we’ll have to start working together. It means we’ll have to hold one other, and ourselves, to a higher standard.
The time has come, though. We no longer have to change our names. We no longer have to blend in like chameleons. We own a whole freaking country.
Instead, we can be proud of who we are, and simultaneously aware of our huge responsibility — and opportunity.
|July 18th, 2012||#36|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Henry Ford about the Jewish influence on the News 
How far does Jewish influence control the Newspapers of the United States?
In so far as the use of the word “Jew” is concerned, the Press is almost completely dominated. The editor who uses it is certain to hear from it. He will be visited and told—contrary to everything the Jew is told—that the word “Jew” denotes a member of a religious denomination and not a member of a race, and that its use with reference to any person spoken of in the public prints is as reprehensible as if “Baptist,” “Catholic,” or “Episcopalian” were used.
The Jew is always told by his leaders that regardless of religion or country of birth, he is a Jew, the member of a race by virtue of blood. Pages of this paper could be filled with the most authoritative Jewish statements on this point. But what the Jew is told by his leaders, and what the Gentile editor is told by the Jewish committee are two different and antagonistic things. A Jewish paper may shriek to the skies that Professor So-and-So, or Judge So-and-So, or Senator So-and-So is a Jew, but the secular newspaper that should do that would be visited by an indignant committee bearing threats.
A certain newspaper, as a mere matter of news, published an excerpt from one of THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT articles. Next day a number of advertising accounts dropped for lack of copy. Inquiry developed the fact that the reticent advertisers were all Jewish firms and the cause of their action was the really unimportant excerpt which the paper published. It developed also that the advertising agent who handled all the advertising for those Jewish firms was himself a Jew who also held an office in a Jewish secret society, which office was concerned exclusively with the control of newspapers in the matter of Jewish publicity. It was this man who dealt with the editor. A lame editorial retraction followed which faintly praised the Jews. The advertising was returned to the paper, and it is just a question whether that editor was rightly handled or not. Certainly he has been made to feel the power. But the diplomacy of it was bad. The editor, along with hundreds of others, has only been given the proper background for estimating the Jewish power in its wider reaches.
This is not to say that every editor should enter upon a campaign to expose the secret power. That is a matter for personal decision. Every editor, however, is so situated that he can see certain things, and he ought to see them, note them, and inwardly digest them.
Jewish publicity in response to these articles is very easy to get in almost any newspaper. Some have fallen most lamentably for lying statements. Others have opened their columns to propaganda sent out from Jewish sources. That is all very well. But the Gentile interest in the question has been largely ignored, even in cases where the editors are awake to the whole Question. This too affords a vantage from which the average editor can view what is transpiring in this country.
If a list of the Jewish owners, bondholders and other interests in our newspapers should be published the list would be impressive. But it would not account for the widespread control of the Press as observed in this country. Indeed, it would be unfair in such a connection as this to list some of the Jewish-owned newspapers of the United States, because their owners are fair and public-spirited servants of the people.
Actual ownership does not often account for much in a newspaper. Ownership in the newspaper business in not always synonymous with control.
If you wish to know the control of the newspaper, look to its attorney and the interests he serves; look to the social connections of its chief editors; look to the advertising agents who handle the bulk of Jewish advertising; and then look to the matter of the paper’s partisanship or independence in politics.
Newspaper control of the Press by the Jews is not a matter of money. It is a matter of keeping certain things out of the public mind and putting certain things into it.
One absolute condition insisted upon with the daily Press is that it shall not identify the Jew, mention him, or in any but the most favorable way call the public’s attention to his existence.
The first plea for this is based on “fairness,” on the false statement that a Jew is not a Jew but a church member. This is the same statement which Jewish agents in the United States Government have used for years to prevent the United States Government from listing the Jews in any racial statistics. It is in direct contradiction to what the Jews themselves are told. A flabby “fairness,” a sloppy “broad-mindedness,” a cry of “religious prejudice,” is the first plea. The second is a sudden cessation of Jewish patronage. The third is withdrawal of patronage by every Gentile concern that is under the grip of Jewish financiers. It is a mere matter of brutal bludgeoning. And the fourth act, in a community thoroughly blinded to the Jewish Question, is the collapse of the offending publication.
Read the Jewish Encyclopedia for a list of some of the papers which dared open up the Question, and ceased!
When old Baron Moses Montefiore said at Krakau:
“What are you prating about? As long as we do not have the press of the whole world in our hands, everything you may do is vain. We must control or influence the papers of the whole world in order to blind and deceive the people.”
—he knew what he was saying. By “blinding” the people he only meant that they should not see the Jew, and by “deceiving” them he only meant that the people should think certain world movements meant one thing when they really meant another. The people may be told what happens: they may not be told what was behind it. The people do not yet know why certain occurrences which have affected their whole lives, should have occurred at all. But the “why” of it is very definitely known in certain circles whose news service never sees print, and sometimes not even writing.
Statistics as to the space given the Jews by newspapers concerning things they want to get into print would also be an eye-opener. A minority nation, they get more publicity than any ten of the important minor nations of Europe—of the kind of publicity they want!
The number of Jewish contributors to the Press of the United States makes another interesting statistical bit. It would be sheer prejudice to make objectionable mention of many Jewish journalists and writers, and they come within the scope of this study only as they have shown themselves to be the watchful agents and active servants of the System. This is what many of them are. Not the ambitious young Jewish reporter who runs around the streets gathering news, perhaps, but the journalist at the seat of the news and at the necks of those two or three important international runways through which the news of the world flows.
The whole matter, as far as extent of control is concerned, could be visualized on a map of the United States, by means of colored pins showing the number of Jewish-owned, provably Jewish-controlled papers, and the number of Jewish writers who are directing the majority thought of the various sections of the country.
The Jewish journalist who panders to unrest, whose literary ambition is to maintain a ferment in his readers, whose humor is sordid and whose philosophy is one of negation; as well as the Jewish novelist who extols his or her own people even while the story sows subtle seeds of disruption in Gentile social or economic life must be listed as the agents of that World Program which would break down society through the agency of “ideas.” And it is very striking how many there are, and how skillfully they conceal their propaganda in their work.
Here and there in the United States it is now becoming possible to print the word “Jew” in the headlines of an article, and tell the Jewish committee which calls the next day that this is yet a free country. Quietly a number of newspapers have tested the strength of this assumed control in their communities, and have discounted it.
There is no reason for fear on the part of the editor who has his facts. But the editor who backs down will more and more feel the pressure upon him. The man who courageously and fairly holds his ground will soon learn another thing that is not so generally known, namely, that with all the brilliance there is a lot of bluff, and that the chain of control once broken is felt throughout the whole system as a blow.
There is nothing that the International Jew fears so much as the truth, or any hint of the truth about himself or his plans. And, after all, the rock of refuge and defense, the foundation of endurance for Jew or Gentile must be the Truth.
[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 11 September 1920]
|July 22nd, 2012||#37|
Henry Ford's researchers on the jew controlling the press
If we exterminate termites because they destroy the foundations of our houses, how much more lenient should we be in our treatment of jews, who destroy the foundations of our society?
|August 10th, 2012||#38|
Disinformation: How It Works
by Brandon Smith
There was a time, not too long ago (relatively speaking), that governments and the groups of elites that controlled them did not find it necessary to conscript themselves into wars of disinformation.
Propaganda was relatively straightforward. The lies were much simpler. The control of information flow was easily directed. Rules were enforced with the threat of property confiscation and execution for anyone who strayed from the rigid socio-political structure. Those who had theological, metaphysical or scientific information outside of the conventional and scripted collective world view were tortured and slaughtered. The elites kept the information to themselves, and removed its remnants from mainstream recognition, sometimes for centuries before it was rediscovered.
With the advent of anti-feudalism, and most importantly the success of the American Revolution, elitists were no longer able to dominate information with the edge of a blade or the barrel of a gun. The establishment of Republics, with their philosophy of open government and rule by the people, compelled Aristocratic minorities to plot more subtle ways of obstructing the truth and thus maintaining their hold over the world without exposing themselves to retribution from the masses. Thus, the complex art of disinformation was born.
The technique, the “magic” of the lie, was refined and perfected. The mechanics of the human mind and the human soul became an endless obsession for the establishment.
The goal was malicious, but socially radical; instead of expending the impossible energy needed to dictate the very form and existence of the truth, they would allow it to drift, obscured in a fog of contrived data. They would wrap the truth in a Gordian Knot of misdirection and fabrication so elaborate that they felt certain the majority of people would surrender, giving up long before they ever finished unraveling the deceit. The goal was not to destroy the truth, but to hide it in plain sight.
In modern times, and with carefully engineered methods, this goal has for the most part been accomplished. However, these methods also have inherent weaknesses. Lies are fragile. They require constant attentiveness to keep them alive. The exposure of a single truth can rip through an ocean of lies, evaporating it instantly.
In this article, we will examine the methods used to fertilize and promote the growth of disinformation, as well as how to identify the roots of disinformation and effectively cut them, starving out the entire system of fallacies once and for all.
Media Disinformation Methods
The mainstream media, once tasked with the job of investigating government corruption and keeping elitists in line, has now become nothing more than a public relations firm for corrupt officials and their Globalist handlers. The days of the legitimate “investigative reporter” are long gone (if they ever existed at all), and journalism itself has deteriorated into a rancid pool of so called “TV Editorialists” who treat their own baseless opinions as supported fact.
The elitist co-opting of news has been going on in one form or another since the invention of the printing press. However, the first methods of media disinformation truly came to fruition under the supervision of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, who believed the truth was “subjective” and open to his personal interpretation.
Some of the main tactics used by the mainstream media to mislead the masses are as follows:
Lie Big, Retract Quietly: Mainstream media sources (especially newspapers) are notorious for reporting flagrantly dishonest and unsupported news stories on the front page, then quietly retracting those stories on the very back page when they are caught. In this case, the point is to railroad the lie into the collective consciousness. Once the lie is finally exposed, it is already too late, and a large portion of the population will not notice or care when the truth comes out.
Unconfirmed Or Controlled Sources As Fact: Cable news venues often cite information from “unnamed” sources, government sources that have an obvious bias or agenda, or “expert” sources without providing an alternative “expert” view. The information provided by these sources is usually backed by nothing more than blind faith.
Calculated Omission: Otherwise known as “cherry picking” data. One simple piece of information or root item of truth can derail an entire disinfo news story, so instead of trying to gloss over it, they simply pretend as if it doesn’t exist. When the fact is omitted, the lie can appear entirely rational. This tactic is also used extensively when disinformation agents and crooked journalists engage in open debate.
Distraction, And The Manufacture Of Relevance: Sometimes the truth wells up into the public awareness regardless of what the media does to bury it. When this occurs their only recourse is to attempt to change the public’s focus and thereby distract them from the truth they were so close to grasping. The media accomplishes this by “over-reporting” on a subject that has nothing to do with the more important issues at hand. Ironically, the media can take an unimportant story, and by reporting on it ad nauseum, cause many Americans to assume that because the media won’t shut-up about it, it must be important!
Dishonest Debate Tactics: Sometimes, men who actually are concerned with the average American’s pursuit of honesty and legitimate fact-driven information break through and appear on T.V. However, rarely are they allowed to share their views or insights without having to fight through a wall of carefully crafted deceit and propaganda. Because the media know they will lose credibility if they do not allow guests with opposing viewpoints every once in a while, they set up and choreograph specialized T.V. debates in highly restrictive environments which put the guest on the defensive, and make it difficult for them to clearly convey their ideas or facts.
TV pundits are often trained in what are commonly called “Alinsky Tactics.” Saul Alinsky was a moral relativist, and champion of the lie as a tool for the “greater good”; essentially, a modern day Machiavelli. His Rules for Radicals were supposedly meant for grassroots activists who opposed the establishment and emphasized the use of any means necessary to defeat one’s political opposition. But is it truly possible to defeat an establishment built on lies, by use of even more elaborate lies, and by sacrificing one’s ethics? In reality, his strategies are the perfect format for corrupt institutions and governments to dissuade dissent from the masses. Today, Alinsky’s rules are used more often by the establishment than by its opposition.
Alinsky’s Strategy: Win At Any Cost, Even If You Have To Lie
Alinsky’s tactics have been adopted by governments and disinformation specialists across the world, but they are most visible in TV debate. While Alinsky sermonized about the need for confrontation in society, his debate tactics are actually designed to circumvent real and honest confrontation of opposing ideas with slippery tricks and diversions. Alinsky’s tactics, and their modern usage, can be summarized as follows:
1) Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
We see this tactic in many forms. For example, projecting your own movement as mainstream, and your opponent’s as fringe. Convincing your opponent that his fight is a futile one. Your opposition may act differently, or even hesitate to act at all, based on their perception of your power. How often have we heard this line: “The government has predator drones. There is nothing the people can do now…” This is a projection of exaggerated invincibility designed to elicit apathy from the masses.
2) Never go outside the experience of your people, and whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
Don’t get drawn into a debate about a subject you do not know as well as or better than your opposition. If possible, draw them into such a situation instead. Go off on tangents. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty in your opposition. This is commonly used against unwitting interviewees on cable news shows whose positions are set up to be skewered. The target is blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address. In television and radio, this also serves to waste broadcast time to prevent the target from expressing his own position.
3) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
The objective is to target the opponent’s credibility and reputation by accusations of hypocrisy. If the tactician can catch his opponent in even the smallest misstep, it creates an opening for further attacks, and distracts away from the broader moral question.
4) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
“Ron Paul is a crackpot.” “Gold bugs are crazy.” “Constitutionalists are fringe extremists.” Baseless ridicule is almost impossible to counter because it is meant to be irrational. It infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. It also works as a pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
5) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
The popularization of the term “Teabaggers” is a classic example; it caught on by itself because people seem to think it’s clever, and enjoy saying it. Keeping your talking points simple and fun helps your side stay motivated, and helps your tactics spread autonomously, without instruction or encouragement.
6) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
See rule No. 5. Don’t become old news. If you keep your tactics fresh, it’s easier to keep your people active. Not all disinformation agents are paid. The “useful idiots” have to be motivated by other means. Mainstream disinformation often changes gear from one method to the next and then back again.
7) Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. Never give the target a chance to rest, regroup, recover or re-strategize. Take advantage of current events and twist their implications to support your position. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
8) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
This goes hand in hand with Rule No. 1. Perception is reality. Allow your opposition to expend all of its energy in expectation of an insurmountable scenario. The dire possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.
9) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
The objective of this pressure is to force the opposition to react and make the mistakes that are necessary for the ultimate success of the campaign.
10) If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
As grassroots activism tools, Alinsky tactics have historically been used (for example, by labor movements or covert operations specialists) to force the opposition to react with violence against activists, which leads to popular sympathy for the activists’ cause. Today, false (or co-opted) grassroots movements and revolutions use this technique in debate as well as in planned street actions and rebellions (look at Syria for a recent example).
11) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. Today, this is often used offensively against legitimate activists, such as the opponents of the Federal Reserve. Complain that your opponent is merely “pointing out the problems.” Demand that they offer not just “a solution”, but THE solution. Obviously, no one person has “the” solution. When he fails to produce the miracle you requested, dismiss his entire argument and all the facts he has presented as pointless.
12) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.
Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. The target’s supporters will expose themselves. Go after individual people, not organizations or institutions. People hurt faster than institutions.
The next time you view an MSM debate, watch the pundits carefully, you will likely see many if not all of the strategies above used on some unsuspecting individual attempting to tell the truth.
Internet Disinformation Methods
Internet trolls, also known as “paid posters” or “paid bloggers,” are increasingly and openly being employed by private corporations as well governments, often for marketing purposes and for “public relations” (Obama is notorious for this practice). Internet “trolling” is indeed a fast growing industry.
Trolls use a wide variety of strategies, some of which are unique to the internet, here are just a few:
1. Make outrageous comments designed to distract or frustrate: An Alinsky tactic used to make people emotional, although less effective because of the impersonal nature of the Web.
2. Pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement: We have seen this even on our own forums – trolls pose as supporters of the Liberty Movement, then post long, incoherent diatribes so as to appear either racist or insane. The key to this tactic is to make references to common Liberty Movement arguments while at the same time babbling nonsense, so as to make those otherwise valid arguments seem ludicrous by association. In extreme cases, these “Trojan Horse Trolls” have been known to make posts which incite violence – a technique obviously intended to solidify the false assertions of the think tank propagandists like the SPLC, which purports that Constitutionalists should be feared as potential domestic terrorists.
3. Dominate Discussions: Trolls often interject themselves into productive Web discussions in order to throw them off course and frustrate the people involved.
4. Prewritten Responses: Many trolls are supplied with a list or database with pre-planned talking points designed as generalized and deceptive responses to honest arguments. When they post, their words feel strangely plastic and well rehearsed.
5. False Association: This works hand in hand with item No. 2, by invoking the stereotypes established by the “Trojan Horse Troll.” For example: calling those against the Federal Reserve “conspiracy theorists” or “lunatics”; deliberately associating anti-globalist movements with racists and homegrown terrorists, because of the inherent negative connotations; and using false associations to provoke biases and dissuade people from examining the evidence objectively.
6. False Moderation: Pretending to be the “voice of reason” in an argument with obvious and defined sides in an attempt to move people away from what is clearly true into a “grey area” where the truth becomes “relative.”
7. Straw Man Arguments: A very common technique. The troll will accuse his opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if he does not, and then attacks that point of view. Or, the troll will put words in the mouth of his opposition, and then rebut those specific words.
Sometimes, these strategies are used by average people with serious personality issues. However, if you see someone using these tactics often, or using many of them at the same time, you may be dealing with a paid internet troll.
The best way to disarm disinformation agents is to know their methods inside and out. This gives us the ability to point out exactly what they are doing in detail the moment they try to do it. Immediately exposing a disinformation tactic as it is being used is highly destructive to the person utilizing it. It makes them look foolish, dishonest and weak for even making the attempt. Internet trolls most especially do not know how to handle their methods being deconstructed right in front of their eyes and usually fold and run from debate when it occurs.
The truth is precious. It is sad that there are so many in our society who have lost respect for it; people who have traded in their conscience and their soul for temporary financial comfort while sacrificing the stability and balance of the rest of the country in the process.
The human psyche breathes on the air of truth. Without it, humanity cannot survive. Without it, the species will collapse, starving from lack of intellectual and emotional sustenance.
Disinformation does not only threaten our insight into the workings of our world; it makes us vulnerable to fear, misunderstanding, and doubt: all things that lead to destruction. It can drive good people to commit terrible atrocities against others, or even against themselves. Without a concerted and organized effort to diffuse mass-produced lies, the future will look bleak indeed.
August 10, 2012
Brandon Smith [send him mail] is founder of the Alternative Market Project (www.alt-market.com) as well as the head writer and co-founder of Neithercorp Press. He specializes in macroeconomic analysis as well as studies in mainstream media disinformation, and is now focusing on the creation of a national network of barter markets designed to insulate and protect local economies from the inevitable collapse of the current unsustainable fiat system.
If we exterminate termites because they destroy the foundations of our houses, how much more lenient should we be in our treatment of jews, who destroy the foundations of our society?
|December 1st, 2012||#39|
Finnish politician says jews control media in USA
If we exterminate termites because they destroy the foundations of our houses, how much more lenient should we be in our treatment of jews, who destroy the foundations of our society?
|January 27th, 2013||#40|
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
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.
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. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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. (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.
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).
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.”
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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). 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. 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. 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). 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’.”
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. 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). 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).
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. 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.” 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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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). The same was true of journalist Tony Koch’s original exposé in the Weekend Australian (April 28–29). 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. 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).
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. 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, 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). 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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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 (franksalter.com) 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.
 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. http://www.authorstream.com/Presenta...al-psychology/.
 Kaufmann, E. (2004). The rise and fall of Anglo-America. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
 Boas, F. (1912). "Changes in bodily form of descendants of immigrants." American Anthropologist 14(3): 530-562.
 Sparks, C. S. and R. L. Jantz (2002). "A re-assessment of human cranial plasticity: Boas revisited." Proceedings of the National Academy of Science www.pnas.org 99(23): 14636-14639.
 Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., P. Menozzi, et al. (1994). The history and geography of human genes. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
 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.
 Alan Jones Show, Radio 2GB, 9 July 2012.
 Cochran, G. and H. Harpending (2009). The 10,000 year explosion: How civilization accelerated human evolution. New York, Basic Books.
 Insight, 20 April 2012, first interview; http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episod...Not-Racist-But..., accessed 23 April 2012, at about 12 mins.
 Skinner, Q. (1998). Liberty before liberalism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
 Salter, F. K. (2002). Risky transactions: Trust, kinship, and ethnicity. New York, Berghahn Books.
 Patrick Smith, “White man’s game could show Woods some respect”, The Australian, 9 Nov. 2011, Sport, p. 33.
 Ruth Ritchie, “Crossing the racial divide”, SMH, 26-27 Nov. 2011, Spectrum, p. 18.
 Angela Shanahan, “An intellectual to learn from and a fraud to recoil from”, SMH, 24-25 Dec. 2011, p. 18.
 Peter Gebhardt, “Nation’s day a chance to shine a light into the darkness”, SMH, 26 Jan. 2012, online.
 Mary Kostakidis, “A diversified media can tell humanity’s myriad stories”, SMH, 3-4 March 2012, New Review, p. 16).
 Germaine Greer, “Women’s struggles go beyond one day”, SMH, 3-4 March 2012, p. 18.
 Insight, SBS Television, 20 March 2012. Transcript at: http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episod...Not-Racist-But.
 Anne Susskind, [Interviews Helen Szoke], Law Society Journal, May 2012, pp. 20-22.
 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.
 Wilkinson, P. (2007). The Howard legacy: Displacement of traditional Australia from the professional and managerial classes. Essendon, Australia, Independent Australian Publishers.
 Dan Harrison, “Calls for federal law to criminalise racial abuse”, SMH, 30 Aug. 2012, p. 5. http://www.smh.com.au/national/calls...829-2512p.html.
 Coleman, P. (2012). “Australian notes”. Spectator Australia. London, The Spectator Ltd., p. vi.
 Noel Pearson, 2011, Up from the mission: Selected writings, Collingwood, Victoria: Schwartz Media, p. 337.
 “Christian lobbyist sorry for gays, Islam tweet”, The Australian, 26 April 2011.
 “Diversity the answer for boardrooms”, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 May 2012, p. 11.
 http://www.abc.net.au/tv/dumbdrunkracist/, accessed 30 Aug. 2012.
 http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/...nk-and-racist/, accessed 30 Aug. 2012.
 The Weekend Australian, 7-8 July 2012, Sport, p. 39.
 Nicole Hasham, “Politics of prejudice as cultural cowboys court xenophobic vote”, SMH, 21 Aug. 2012, p. 3.
 George Megalogenis, “Reform blues stem from parliament’s monochrome demography”, Weekend Australian, 21-22 July 2012, Inquirer, p. 22.
 “Carr takes Abbott to task on Anglo outlook”, Weekend Australian, 28-29 July 2012, The Nation, p. 6.
 Phillip Adams, “Wrecking crews”, Weekend Australian, 4-5 Aug. 2012, Life & Style, p. 46.
 Jane Cadzow, “Cape crusader”, SMH, 25 Aug. 2012, Good Weekend, pp. 12-17.
 Tony Koch, “Pearson yet to learn lessons of leadership”, Weekend Australian, 28-29 April, Inquirer, p. 18.
 Noel Pearson, “Constitutional reform crucial to indigenous wellbeing”, Weekend Australian, 24-25 Dec. 2012, Inquirer, p. 20.
 Marcia Langton, “Why I continue to be inspired by Pearson”, Weekend Australian, 5-6 May 2012, Inquirer, p. 20.
 Gracelyn Smallwood, “Self-belief a matter of survival for indigenous people”, SMH, 7-8 July 2012.
 Paul Sheehan, “Mundine sentiment missing the mark”, SMH, 26 April 2012, p. 11. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...425-1xlil.html, accessed 30 Aug. 2012.
 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.
 National Observer (2005): http://www.nationalobserver.net/2005_winter_ed1.htm, accessed 30 Aug. 2012.
 Paul Sheehan, “Monuments to honesty and deceit”, SMH, 16 Feb. 2009, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/monume...0215-881s.html, accessed 30 Aug. 2012.
 Kaufmann, The rise and fall of Anglo-America.
 Ibid., pp. 293, 295.
 “New civics curriculum calls for students to be citizens of the web”, SMH, 5 June 2012, p. 3.
 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.
 Maxine McKew, who defeated Howard in the 2007 elections, won partly because the Labor machine targeted the Asian vote: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...135558234.html, accessed 1 Sept. 2012; see supporting comments by Asian community leaders in the Bennelong electorate: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...tm?site=sydney, accessed 1 Sept. 2012.
If we exterminate termites because they destroy the foundations of our houses, how much more lenient should we be in our treatment of jews, who destroy the foundations of our society?
|Bookmarks & Social Networks|