While many would not believe me saying what the title says, after closely following various discussions on the so called white nationalist site, the poor bastards don’t even know that they their site might have been hijacked by the federal agents during sometime this year, possibly during Summer.  When the first proposals of various registrations came out, regarding  “right wing extremism” and now as the “hate crime laws” are signed by pres. Obama, the site was already under the control of various infiltrators coming from think-tanks,  FBI and other undercover agents.  In this part of this blog, I’m gonna tell you my own observation regarding Stormfront and Its members and how to gain access to the site and become a popular member on the site.

Their main purpose?

First and foremost, to gather intelligence, regarding extremism and extremists and keep a close tab on various nationalist and right wing organizations across USA and also Europe.

How would they do this?

Very easy. There are no real rules how to become a member on Stormfront.  You simply post in the “opposing section” which is heavily moderated, but  sympathetic posts to white nationalism will be allowed to go through as well as some ridiculous posts made by the “anti-whites” , or lets just call them people who write quite dumb things out of a gut reaction.

I’ll write about  later on FBI involvement and undercover agents on Stormfront.org, for now I’m gonna focus on members and membership on Stormfront.org

Those “guests”,  who are allowed and post something that is more of an outrage or even hatred,  the real  purpose of allowing  to redicule  everybody, who disagree with the site or the ideology behind Stormfront and Don Blacks’ creation of the white nationalist forum. I’m not sure, but it is a possibility, if some of these posts are actually made by -signed out- full members, posing as guests, perhaps with the help of a proxy server to hide their identity and whether they are or aren’t , we wouldn’t know for sure, not even by the members or the moderators would know it either, unless the moderators and the administration is involved as well.

The sympathetic ones stay on, regardless of who wrote it, it could be a Chinese or Japanese or even a black person. The forum members who respond to those, treat them as like some sort of a “ambassador” from another “tribe” or “race” and either will serve them as a reinforcement of their beliefs, but even them could fall victim of vicious racists who will try to pull some sarcastic racist jokes on them anyway, eventually they will be chased off the site by the real haters, for whom you can tell whatever you want, they will either respond with a noose or a satirical cartoon to ridicule them, completely destroying the credibility of what most of them would voice about “we just want separation between races”.

So, going back to how to become a member, how to reach the status of someone who is regarded as a “patriot” of white nationalism and gain support of others:

As long as you continue to post sympathetic thoughts to white nationalism, you will be soon granted a membership on the site and eventually your posts won’t be filtered by moderators anymore.  Once you reach that status, you are granted to post within all the forums and it’s time to collect your green dots.

The green dots, representing your status on the site; your reputation.   Many look upon the ones, who got many green dots comming from “repping” or “giving him a reputation, based on what he or she has posted and others agreed on his posts. It must be easy to collect those, as long as you blame the Jews or the Negroes one way or another, you lead or side track any discussions that will end up with a Jewish involvement or the “savage Negroes”.

The most active section of the site is the news site and it’s the busiest as well, visited by guests the most often and,  you’d find some pretty interesting linked articles coming from various sources, that you most likely won’t see being discussed on CNN or FoxNews.  Of course if you ever read it..you must take everything there with that spoon of antisemitism and racism added, usually by the commenting members replying below, and if you are really just surfing the web for info and you come across the site, you are better off reading the article and forget about the comments and disregard the rest of it, because 99% of the time it’s pure garbage, although you might find some intriguing thoughts, but few and far between and they must admit to the “cause” one way or another to knit in antisemitic/racist ideology or a sarcastic comment, otherwise the member might find himself being ridiculed or – my guess – suspended for being a suspcious “race traitor” or perhaps an “undercover Jew” and those are probably the biggest offenses you could commit on the site.

I’m not even sure if everybody is really a “WN” (White Nationalists) there,  I’m pretty good at analyzing people by what they write and i get the feeling, that many members – especially newcomers in the past few years- aren’t really  “white nationalists” but disgruntled everyday people, who feel being pushed over by either their employers or found themselves of being part of or being the witness of a crime, that might have been committed by a minority group.  I would say, they must submit themselves to the main ideology of what Stormfront was built upon, so whether they really mean it or not,  racism and antisemitism must be sewn into their posts and replies, otherwise pressure will be applied by other members and member can easily be pushed out and discredited without mercy.

….To be continued….

And now the Wall Street Journal admits it.

by Ian Mosley

A column by Peggy Noonan starts out “The new economic statistics put growth at a healthy 3.5% for the third quarter. We should be dancing in the streets. No one is, because no one has any faith in these numbers. Waves of money are sloshing through the system, creating a false rising tide that lifts all boats for the moment. The tide will recede. The boats aren’t rising, they’re bobbing, and will settle. No one believes the bad time is over. No one thinks we’re entering a new age of abundance. No one thinks it will ever be the same as before 2008. Economists, statisticians, forecasters and market specialists will argue about what the new numbers mean, but no one believes them, either.”

It’s good to see a conservative pundit stand up to all this recovery propaganda. Finally, someone in a major news outlet has said out loud what the whole media and the whole country know: Obama and the Democrats are just plain lying about there being some kind of “recovery.”

The column goes on: “The biggest long-term threat is that people are becoming and have become disheartened, that this condition is reaching critical mass, and that it afflicts most broadly and deeply those members of the American leadership class who are not in Washington, most especially those in business…This is historic. This is something new in modern political history, and I’m not sure we’re fully noticing it. Americans are starting to think the problems we are facing cannot be solved.”

A Congress full of Socialist Democrats and compromising weakling moderate Republicans is surely not going to fix the problems. Some of the problems such as the illegal alien invasion appear to be off-limits for both parties. The Republicans only serve up pro-Amnesty traitors like George Bush and John McCain on the highest level.
Peggy goes on to mention White flight from minorities and liberal madness, but see how she does it without mentioning race and multiculturalism. The article notes “This week the New York Post carried a report that 1.5 million people had left high-tax New York state between 2000 and 2008, more than a million of them from even higher-tax New York City. They took their tax dollars with them—in 2006 alone more than $4 billion. You know what New York, both state and city, will do to make up for the lost money. They’ll raise taxes… And here is the second part of the story. While Americans feel increasingly disheartened, their leaders evince a mindless . . . one almost calls it optimism, but it is not that…When I see those in government, both locally and in Washington, spend and tax and come up each day with new ways to spend and tax—health care, cap and trade, etc.—I think: Why aren’t they worried about the impact of what they’re doing? Why do they think America is so strong it can take endless abuse?”

The answer is simple: These politicians are liberal idiots They are too arrogant to admit that America is turning into a Third World nation thanks to their policies. It should be common sense that every nation is only as good as the people, who make it up. Up until the 1960s, the United States was about 90 percent White. Thanks to Ted Kennedy, the liberals and the Jews, US immigration law was re-written to allow a mass invasion from the Third World —people, whom the Founding Fathers never wanted as citizens.

I know, this Peggy Noonan article may seem mild. But for a senior columnist at the Wall Street Journal to question the basic competence and intelligence of those who control the Establishment, that’s unheard of. That rumbling sound you hear is the earth moving beneath the System’s feet.

by paulabowles

For the past few weeks the British media and public have hotly been debating the rights and wrongs of allowing the controversial British National Party [BNP] leader to appear on the BBC’s ‘flagship’ politics programme Question Time. Despite attempts to halt Nick Griffin’s appearance, the programme finally aired on Thursday 22 October 2009, with record viewing figures of 8 million.

Since the broadcast, media analysis has been at fever pitch in an attempt to make sense of the reality. Against the backdrop of debates over freedom of speech and right wing rhetoric, as well as accusations of Holocaust denial and racism, Griffin has announced he will be making a complaint over his treatment by the programme.

In essence, Griffin insists that the format of the programme was changed in order to focus purely on his party’s policies on immigration and race, leaving him facing little more than a ‘lynch mob.’ Although, many commentators have suggested that his appearance has irrevocably tarnished the limited credibility of the BNP, others have argued that he should never have been allowed to appear in the first place. Interestingly, the BNP insist that their membership has increased since Griffin’s appearance. Needless to say the debate will run for some considerable time, dragging the issue of freedom of speech once more into the spotlight.

Read more

Tanya Golash-Boza on A Confluence of Interests in Immigration Enforcement: How Politicians, the Media, and Corporations Profit from Immigration Policies Destined to Fail

Amir Saeed on Media, Racism and Islamophobia: The Representation of Islam and Muslims in the Media

Aforemetioned in the About Me section, I am a Graduate of Duke University’s Trinity School of Arts & Sciences Class of 2004.  I majored in Public Policy Studies and have a certificate for Policy Journalism and Media Studies.  Unlike many other universities, Duke has neither a communications major nor a journalism school.  Duke does, however, have a state-of-the-art and top-of-the-line documentary studies facility and a major to accompany it. 

Although I didn’t major in Doc Studies, the department is where I first got my hands on a camera and editing equipment.  And, in the same vein, it was my inaugural exposure to producership.  Green and largely untrained, I worked for an entire semester on the short, 10-minute documentary film below, which addresses the large influx of Latino immigrants into the state of North Carolina, and the impact it has had on a range of issues, including but not limited to politics, jobs, and social norms.

The documentary contains original material that I filmed with a Sony DSR PD-150 (with no additional lighting equipment, as a word of caution), as well as historical material that was obtained after hours of research in Duke’s Special Collections Library, the North Carolina State Archives in Raleigh, and local coverage of the famous David Duke anti-immigration rally held in Siler City, NC in 2000, shot by both a local ABC station (W-TVD) and the University of North Carolina’s own Doc Studies school.

The documentary, though my first attempt at filmmaking, received its share of accolades, and is stored among the records of Duke University’s Perkins Library. You can take a look at it below:

Latino Influx in North Carolina from Winston Wilde on Vimeo.

I was one of the many people last night slumped over my laptop, trying to debate with my flatmates, drinking some beer, whilst trying desparately to tweet, retweet, stop myself from laughing/shouting/crying, and watch Question Time. I was very cautious not to give it all away for myself by reading certain other members of the twitterati inform their followers of the events taking place outside and in. Though I did catch mention of the UAF protesters who had broken in, or engaged in scuffles with the police, followed by the twitter tag #thisisnothelpful, or something to that effect.

Everyone I had spoken to about it during this time had a favourite bit (mine was when Jack Straw, as Secretary of State for Justice, invited a wriggly, smirking Griffin to tell us the details of his change of heart on matters such as the holocaust, replying in an instant to Griffin that he’d sort the French and German’s out if they kicked up a fuss). And I should imagine a lot of naysayers changed their tune. Jon Snow on the news at 7 mentioned the many people who will boycott the event, but I really felt it wasn’t worth the trouble for them. There were fears that it could mirror Le Pen’s mainstream genesis, but Le Pen seemed to hold the audience hostage by making them give a minutes silence, a real showcase. Griffin is too uncomfotable with his disavowal, and that really came across last night, he was tripping all over himself, and often the real side slipped out, the KKK are non-violent, Europe holds my tongue but when asked to clarify squirms and rolls into a ball etc etc.

The first thing I did when I woke up at 7 this morning was watch it all again with my girlfriend, who couldn’t watch it the first time around. By this time I was able to point out before it happened ‘oh watch this bit, he says David Duke is a non-violent person’ and so on. On the tube to work I shared a nod and a raised eyebrow with a fellow commuter when we both realised we were looking at the same article in the free morning newspaper. And now at work the conversation has not entered anything else (apart from work matters, obviously). I’m even speaking to a colleague of mine who is on his day off over google. Now I’m taking 10 to write a brief entry on it. I’m consumed by the happenings of last night. Because it went so dreadfully wrong. Never have I ever felt so bad, about not feeling bad, about watching someone die on their arse, in front of his friends, family and followers. It was very backfoot telly.

A number of articles have been passed my way as well today, in particular the one of by David Cohen, that elaborated on Griffin’s claim that him and Greer got on fabulously. He’s nutty as a fruitcake. He tried to “beg pals” with her, I think I saw him pat her on the back, the constant faux laughing and uncomfort should normally evoke bum-clenching upon me, but it didn’t, I loved it, I wanted more, 1 hour was not enough and it seemed to go too fast. Watching the debate, and engaging with my own on a Thursday night normally sets me in the right frame for instant sleep, but last night was different.

Against all odds, thank goodness UAF failed to barricade the centre in White city, because that would only benefit Griffin and his claim to victimhood, thank goodness he wasn’t able to answer usual questions of the weeks events like the postal strike, potentially bringing him in agreement with other panellists and getting an unwarranted ish-clap. Thank goodness the audience asked hard questions without booing (too much, or over his pathetic answers), and thank goodness that the only new recruits that that performance will earn are pity recruits.

Lastly, if, as I had wished, an hour had been added, I would have wanted asked the following:

- why were a group of non-white people turned away from a meeting by Barnbrook the murder fabricator, on the day that the BNP were told to allow non-white members?

- why don’t you think global warming is man-made?

- why did Griffin [once] describ[e] British RAF pilots as war criminals and murderers. He wrote an article in The Rune, the antisemitic journal he edited, praising the “courage and sacrifices” of the Waffen-SS soldiers while claiming in another piece that “the Waffen-SS were undoubtedly no worse than the troops of other nations … ” including Britain!

- What is Mark Collett if not the Director of Publicity for the Party, like it says on wikipedia – the source of ALL knowledge!!

I enjoyed watching Nick Griffin flounder of BBC Question Time last night. David Dimbleby handled him beautifully, like an experienced barrister might toy with a petty rogue. He snared Griffin about 14 minutes in, using a speech the leader of the far-right British National Party made (alongside David Duke, leader of the KKK) in the US, where he said:

“If you put that [expelling non-whites from Britain] as your sole aim to start with you are going to get absolutely nowhere. So instead of talking about racial purity, we talk about identity. We use saleable words: freedom, security, identity, democracy. Nobody can attack you on those ideas.”

It was over 50 years ago that George Orwell (right) in Politics and the English Language remarked how such words were often used by politicians with the intention to deceive:

The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. 

share this
———————–

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

This is a “documentary” conversation about race in America – or at least race in Denver Colorado by filmmaker Craig Bodeker…

This one got added traction because of Carol Swain, a black conservative commentator and professor at Vanderbuilt’s glowing review of the film (Hat Tip – Booker Rising) -

Carol Swain, Vanderbilt University Professor, Comes Under Heavy Criticism for Backing Film that Calls Racism a Myth

Vanderbilt University professor Carol Swain, a black scholar who is known for her conservative positions on race and immigration, has been accused by the Southern Poverty Law Center of being an apologist for white supremacists and posted a blog commentary critiquing the documentary, “A Conversation About Race,” which stated that the complimentary comments made by Swain lent the film some credence. Swain, a professor of law and political science, responded by posting a blog commentary on the Huffington Post and told the Tennessean in an interview that she feels she is being attacked by the SPLC.

Carol got sucked in to supporting white nationalists – but that isn’t the entire issue I wanted to address today. So – this Blog wasn’t initially going to bash Carol as an official card carrying member of the black conservative “Tom Squad”, because she wasn’t – at least to the dozen or so articles I’ve read that she has written up until her defense posted at HuffPo. I’m not terribly sure how the Carol Swain who wrote this -

In addition, there is a pressing need for a national conversation about the continued job discrimination that many black men and women experience despite the existence of civil rights laws and statutes. Some of this discrimination occurs in low wage, low skill jobs where blacks find themselves at a disadvantage when competing with whites and immigrants. Racial preferences in employment and college admissions do almost nothing to address larger problems of societal discrimination that might be amenable to more creative solutions.

Got flipped into full Uncle Ruckus caricature. And – don’t get this wrong, Carol is arguing against “Affirmative Action” – but, what separates her from the Tom Squad so far in my view is recognition of the continuing discrimination issue, and the proposition of solutions. She unfortunately, like every other black conservative can’t define or elucidate those solutions, but like the X Files – “they are someplace out there”…

But here is Carol’s own defense -

I’m sure many of the SPLC staff endorsed some aspects of the Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine film. In doing so, they are likely comfortable separating their endorsement of a particular feature of that film from the unconditional endorsement of its maker. In their case, Bowling for Columbine could be valuable in a classroom setting, even if Michael Moore isn’t beyond reproach. Similarly, they probably appreciate the artistic value of some Roman Polanski films even though Polanski is a convicted child rapist. Yet, they seem to conflate my endorsement of A Conversation about Race with a comprehensive endorsement of Mr. Bodeker, and his newly exposed familiarity with racist thought.

The first thing the Tom Squad conservative learn suckling between their Massa’s knees is the false equivalencies defense. Polanski fully deserves to spend the rest of his days behind iron bars for his reprehensible actions as part of his personal life. But even his most severe critics balk at any claim that his films promoted and defended pedophilia. As to Moore, she would have to let us in on the secret. However, a better choice might be Moore being a fat guy, making a movie about the excesses of fast Food in “Super Size Me”. That is about as close as it gets, which is still different from Bodeker where we have the accusation of  a racist, making a movie promoting racism.

So Swain isn’t defending the film’s content, she is criticizing her detractors – which is wholly counterfeit. She’s de facto admitting Bodeker is a racist, without offering up a mea culpa for not examining Bodeker’s background before endorsing his film. She is now denying that a racist making a film on race might not be intellectually “honest”…

And denying culpability for that through false equivalencies.

Notice, not one word defending the actual content of the film.

So to cover that accusation that Mr. Bodeker is a racist – Who is Mr. Bodeker – and does he have a “message” he wants to get across here beyond a rather superficial examination of race and racism?

The Southern Poverty Law Center did their homework, unlike Carol Swain. Bodeker frequently refers to black folks as “Monkeys”, and has even called President Obama’s election as “Monkeys in the White House”-

“…The only way an advanced culture can PROOVE [sic] it’s not ‘racist,’ is for it to elect MONKEYS as public servants…”

On Van Jones -

This is a TYPICAL BLACK MAN speaking!
He has a limited intelligence, but is CERTAIN of his Intellectual Superiority over us common-folk!
He’s been privileged all his life, yet he believes he’s PERSECUTED!
He HATES white men, but we don’t call it hate!
Wake-up America! Because these EVIL monkeys are DESTROYING the greatest nation ever built!”

What is wrong with the film?

It starts with the hypothesis expressed at the 2:40 mark -

“Who are the ’select few’ racists”? White people like me.”

At 3:20 Bodeker sets the bait with his plan to “Interview some of racism’s believers”. Any of you who have ever watched the old Jay Leno Tonight Show routine – “The Jaywalk All-Stars” should recognize the set up. You can construct a group of people, seemingly at random to pretty much believe anything you want. You want 6 people who believe Christopher Columbus is President of the United States – it’s all in the numbers.

As such, there is no validation of whether the folks selected represent the “Conventional Wisdom” claimed by Bodeker. Especially in light that he skillfully avoids asking anyone who might have expertise in the matter. Bodeker admits interviewing 50 people, but we only see a very small slice of the responses, only those which justify Bodeker’s racism.

At the 30:20 mark, Bodeker proposes a question “If any of the interviewees could come up with a name of a public figure who was racist.” He claims that none of the 50 or so interviewees could. A staggering claim 2 years into first the campaign, and second the election and office of President Obama, with charges and counter-charges of racism flying, and not ONE of 50 interviewees had any idea?

That is a setup for the next question – “Is Jesse Jackson a racist?“, for which we only see two responses – the second of which, a white lady who believes Jesse Jackson represents black people (he doesn’t, he’s an anti-racism activist who has been roundly, and righteously accused of racism because of his “Hymietown” comments), who when asked, “Can you name an advocate for white people“… Draws a blank.

To which Bodeker concludes -

“Get that, being an advocate for one’s racial group is a good thing, as long as the group is not white people.”

Sound familiar? Where exactly did this conclusion come from?

There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of “hating” another group. Blacks can join “civil rights” groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are “anti-white.”

Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.

Read the piece above from David Duke – after watching the film. You will understand where the argument came from – and who (and what) Mr. Bodeker is.

Which puts Carol firmly in the Tom Squad.

So the question becomes, how did the erstwhile  Professor Swain get suckered into giving (talking) head to  a white supremacist espousing the doctrine of David Duke’s KKK? The answer to that is even uglier. Much of the KKK Doctrine as defined by David Duke and other white nationalist organizations has become part an parcel of conservatism as practiced by the Republican Party. The Republican Party under the leadership of the Bushit was the “White People’s Party”. The fable of the white victim became so ingrained in conservative thought the Bushit DOJ spent 8 years and hundreds of millions of dollars searching for examples of reverse racism…

With not much better success than finding WMD in Iraq.

Black conservative reflex is to defend their fellow white conservatives – no matter how egregious their behavior. Swain probably couldn’t tell the difference between KKK Bodeker and your average white conservative southerner...

They are, after all – one and the same.

Constant observation of the legal framework is, as much as anything, the acid test with which to judge political concern. 2 days ago Andrew Dismore, MP for Hendon, raised a point of order (that was subsequently dismissed as a point of debate) on motion 52 which excludes Members of the European Parliament from gaining access to the House of Commons through passes, thereby making sure Nick Griffin can not be seen in or around the house.

All the while many established political figures and pressure groups alike pour scorn on the BBC’s decision to allow the BNP free air time on this coming week’s Question Time, it should be reminded of how much the BBC have attempted to forge the perfect oppositional panel to counter every last aspect of Griffin’s bile.

Nick Cohen in his Observer column today has noted the ways in which nervy producers have panicked about how to stage Thursday’s ‘car-crash television’ event. At first the BBC had booked Douglas Murray to oppose him, as he was only so happy to do so, but moments later the BBC cancelled his inclusion as Murray takes firm support for restricted immigration, something Griffin will not put up too much of a fight about, making him appear ‘like he was the voice of the consensus’.

For a voice on the right the BBC settled for Lady Warsi, who may not see eye to eye with Griffin on the subject of defining Britishness, but would certainly be able to share a quip o two on homosexuals, owing to Warsi’s claim that Labour allowed children to be propositioned for homosexual relationships, printed on her campaign material in the run up to the 2005 Dewsbury elections. The BBC, instead of coolly slotting strong voices from both the left and the right to pull the turf from beneath Griffin, they have ended up pulling their hair out and ‘hitting the phones as they began to realise the 1,001 ways the show could go wrong.’

Another recent aim at destabilising the BNP, gone awry, was the pressure put on them to change their all whites constitution by the Equality and Human Rights Commission

But this new core of legality and legitimacy only serves to benefit the BNP. Not only does it serve to obscure the hub of the BNP’s existence – to secure a white only Britain – but it also fragments the moral high ground of the other parities in the UK, who do not oppose non-white membership.

The same, I will suggest, goes for quotas in political parties. For example in Spain the Constitutional Court confirmed a 2007 law obliging political parties to have at least 40% female candidates on their electoral lists. This of course suited the leading Socialist party (PSOE), whose moral compass directed them in this direction anyway, recognising societal gender inequality, and taking the measures themselves to lead the way for a more egalitarian political structure. The point of failure for this measure was when the law obliged the opposition Conservative party (PP) to do the same. They of course appealed against the measure, preferring to maintain a majority of white male candidates to a mixed setting.

Until this law was established, PSOE, on the issue of gender equality, held the moral high ground over PP, and Spanish women who had previously felt vilified against, seeing the socialists as their natural friend and the conservatives as foe, now, because of the forced level of egalitarianism fostered upon PP, are no longer necessarily the nasty party, and have benefited in turn, not through any conviction, but have basked in the success of the socialists.

The same logic can be seen with the BNP now. Through no conviction of their own to redress their racism the authorities have offered them an olive branch of legitimacy, and as Sunny H recently tweeted, ‘Griffin…has always wanted to change the rules’ – for this very reason, not because at heart the BNP are a multi-ethnic, inclusive organisation, but because it takes the burden away from him to get party backing and change their constitution, all under the guise of modernisation (after all, the leaked membership list by a disaffected ex-member is enough to see why Griffin would see such a move as burdensome).

All this created fuss has done nothing at all to destabilise the BNP, in fact it has only further secured their main aim, to seem like a consensus party, when in fact they are an extreme party, employing seemingly successful methods to avert this fact, and being helped along the way by the very people who think they are taking measures to destroy them. Nick Griffin has said it himself on stage with the KKK’s David Duke in 2000:

Once we’re in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say, ‘yes, every last one must go’. But if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with, you’re not going to get anywhere. So instead of talking about racial purity, we talk about identity.

As many people are looking at why Lee Holloway compared Scott Walker to David Duke, a young Scott Walker in 1992 according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel called out on David Duke during a Milwaukee Public Television program when Duke ran for President in 1992.

During a 1992 episode of Smith and Company, then State Representative Scott Walker told to David Duke during a televised debate that Duke was not a legitimate candidate for President and should be not placed on the ballot in Wisconsin in 1992 as a Republican.

The Milwaukee County Executive furthered remembered the encounter saying:

“At the last minute, they (MPTV)  switched and put (on) David Duke himself. I argued that he was not legit. At the end of the show, I said that there was no place in the party for guys like Duke and he said, ‘Shame on you, Scott Walker, shame on you. ”-Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker on debating David Duke in 1992.

Before anyone on the left wants to use racial slurs against Scott Walker or any hard working taxpayer they should remember this statement.

If anybody wishes to respond to the following argument, try to deal with separate points, facts, details, rather than descending to inventive, slander, irrationality, or ad hominem attacks. In case anyone might think that I am in any way intolerant, I should clarify that I don’t endorse everything in this video. I admire Mexicans. I regard Protestants and RCs as more or less equally depraved. I have equal contempt for Mohammad and Henry VIII. I have no objections to multi-cultural, multi-”racial”, multi-ethnic or polyglot nations/empires/societies per se– in fact the Christian Roman Empire was the most successful multi ethnic society. My favorite novel is 源氏物語. My favorite writer is Фёдор Михйлович. I’d rather mate with a Persian than a Parisian.

Persians vs Parisians

My God is Ιησούς Χριστός. And I’m not racist and would hardly even notice “miscegenation” if it wasn’t being promoted ad nauseum by the powers that be as some sort of sacramental rite. I just agree with the video’s obvious and historically verifiable point that influential Jews conspired to open America’s borders and make America antichrist, and their iron grip on the infotainment industry and corruption of American politicians prevents the targeted population from responding effectively to their planned extermination.

“There are approximately 300 national Jewish organizations in the United States with a combined budget estimated in the range of $6 billion — a sum greater than the gross national product of half the members of the UN.”

– Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique

Kevin MacDonald, Professor of Psychology, California State University

Excerpts from Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s “Understanding Jewish Influence”:

Beginning in the ancient world, Jewish populations have repeatedly attained a position of power and influence within Western societies. I will discuss Jewish background traits conducive to influence: ethnocentrism, intelligence and wealth, psychological intensity, aggressiveness, with most of the focus on ethnocentrism. I discuss Jewish ethnocentrism in its historical, anthropological, and evolutionary context and in its relation to three critical psychological processes: moral particularism, self-deception, and the powerful Jewish tendency to coalesce into exclusionary, authoritarian groups under conditions of perceived threat.

Jewish populations have always had enormous effects on the societies in which they reside because of several qualities that are central to Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy: First and foremost, Jews are ethnocentric and able to cooperate in highly organized, cohesive, and effective groups. Also important is high intelligence, including the usefulness of intelligence in attaining wealth, prominence in the media, and eminence in the academic world and the legal profession. I will also discuss two other qualities that have received less attention: psychological intensity and aggressiveness.

The four background traits of ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity, and aggressiveness result in Jews being able to produce formidable, effective groups—groups able to have powerful, transformative effects on the peoples they live among. In the modern world, these traits influence the academic world and the world of mainstream and elite media, thus amplifying Jewish effectiveness compared with traditional societies. However, Jews have repeatedly become an elite and powerful group in societies in which they reside in sufficient numbers. It is remarkable that Jews, usually as a tiny minority, have been central to a long list of historical events.

…

Jews have also been central to all the important events of the twentieth century. Jews were a necessary component of the Bolshevik revolution that created the Soviet Union, and they remained an elite group in the Soviet Union until at least the post-World War II era. They were an important focus of National Socialism in Germany, and they have been prime movers of the post-1965 cultural and ethnic revolution in the United States, including the encouragement of massive non-white immigration to countries of European origins. In the contemporary world, organized American Jewish lobbying groups and deeply committed Jews in the Bush administration and the media are behind the pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy that is leading to war against virtually the entire Arab world.

…

I. Jews are Hyperethnocentric

Elsewhere I have argued that Jewish hyperethnocentrism can be traced back to their Middle Eastern origins. Traditional Jewish culture has a number of features identifying Jews with the ancestral cultures of the area. The most important of these is that Jews and other Middle Eastern cultures evolved under circumstances that favored large groups dominated by males. These groups were basically extended families with high levels of endogamy (i.e., marriage within the kinship group) and consanguineous marriage (i.e., marriage to blood relatives), including the uncle-niece marriage sanctioned in the Old Testament. These features are exactly the opposite of Western European tendencies.

Whereas Western societies tend toward individualism, the basic Jewish cultural form is collectivism, in which there is a strong sense of group identity and group boundaries. Middle Eastern societies are characterized by anthropologists as “segmentary societies” organized into relatively impermeable, kinship-based groups. …

Jews are at the extreme of this Middle Eastern tendency toward hypercollectivism and hyperethnocentrism.

…

A good start for thinking about Jewish ethnocentrism is the work of Israel Shahak, most notably his co-authored Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. Present-day fundamentalists attempt to re-create the life of Jewish communities before the Enlightenment (i.e., prior to about 1750). During this period the great majority of Jews believed in Cabbala—Jewish mysticism. Influential Jewish scholars like Gershom Scholem ignored the obvious racialist, exclusivist material in the Cabbala by using words like “men,” “human beings,” and “cosmic” to suggest the Cabbala has a universalist message. The actual text says salvation is only for Jews, while non-Jews have “Satanic souls.”

The ethnocentrism apparent in such statements was not only the norm in traditional Jewish society, but remains a powerful current of contemporary Jewish fundamentalism, with important implications for Israeli politics. For example, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, describing the difference between Jews and non-Jews:

“We do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather we have a case of…a totally different species…. The body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world…. The difference of the inner quality [of the body]…is so great that the bodies would be considered as completely different species. This is the reason why the Talmud states that there is an halachic difference in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews [as opposed to the bodies of Jews]: “their bodies are in vain”…. An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness.”

…

Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg of Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus/Shechem, after several of his students were remanded on suspicion of murdering a teenage Arab girl: “Jewish blood is not the same as the blood of a goy.” Rabbi Ido Elba: “According to the Torah, we are in a situation of pikuah nefesh (saving a life) in time of war, and in such a situation one may kill any Gentile.” Rabbi Yisrael Ariel writes in 1982 that “Beirut is part of the Land of Israel. … our leaders should have entered Lebanon and Beirut without hesitation, and killed every single one of them. Not a memory should have remained.”

…

A good discussion of Jewish moral particularism can be found in a recent article in Tikkun—probably the only remaining liberal Jewish publication. Kim Chernin wonders why so many Jews “have trouble being critical of Israel.”22 She finds several obstacles to criticism of Israel:

“1. A conviction that Jews are always in danger, always have been, and therefore are in danger now. Which leads to: 2. The insistence that a criticism is an attack and will lead to our destruction. Which is rooted in: 3. The supposition that any negativity towards Jews (or Israel) is a sign of anti-Semitism and will (again, inevitably) lead to our destruction…. 6. An even more hidden belief that a sufficient amount of suffering confers the right to violence…. 7. The conviction that our beliefs, our ideology (or theology), matter more than the lives of other human beings.”

The profound depths of Jewish ethnocentrism are intimately tied up with a sense of historical persecution. Jewish memory is a memory of persecution and impending doom, a memory that justifies any response because ultimately it is Jewish survival that is at stake.

…

In the Jewish mind, all criticism must be suppressed because not to do so would be to risk another Holocaust: “There is no such thing as overreaction to an anti-Semitic incident, no such thing as exaggerating the omnipresent danger. Anyone who scoffed at the idea that there were dangerous portents in American society hadn’t learned ‘the lesson of the Holocaust.’ ”

…

The schema is as follows: Criticism of Jews indicates dislike of Jews; this leads to hostility toward Jews, which leads to Hitler and eventually to mass murder. Therefore all criticism of Jews must be suppressed. With this sort of logic, it is easy to dismiss arguments about Palestinian rights on the West Bank and Gaza because “the survival of Israel” is at stake. Consider, for example, the following advertisement distributed by neoconservative publicist David Horowitz:

“The Middle East struggle is not about right versus right. It is about a fifty-year effort by the Arabs to destroy the Jewish state, and the refusal of the Arab states in general and the Palestinian Arabs in particular to accept Israel’s existence…. The Middle East conflict is not about Israel’s occupation of the territories; it is about the refusal of the Arabs to make peace with Israel, which is an expression of their desire to destroy the Jewish state.”

“Survival of Israel” arguments thus trump concerns about allocation of scarce resources like water, the seizure of Palestinian land, collective punishment, torture, and the complete degradation of Palestinian communities into isolated, military-occupied, Bantustan-type enclaves. The logic implies that critics of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza also favor the destruction of Israel and hence the mass murder of millions of Jews.

…

We have identified the core Jewish conviction that makes Jews keep pushing relentlessly for mass immigration, even the mass immigration of their deadliest enemies. In the thought-process of Jews, to keep Jew-hating Muslims out of America would be tantamount to preparing the way to another Jewish Holocaust.

The idea that any sort of exclusionary thinking on the part of Americans—and especially European Americans as a majority group—leads inexorably to a Holocaust for Jews is not the only reason why Jewish organizations still favor mass immigration. I have identified two others as well: the belief that greater diversity makes Jews safer and an intense sense of historical grievance against the traditional peoples and culture of the United States and Europe. These two sentiments also illustrate Jewish moral particularism because they fail to consider the ethnic interests of other peoples in thinking about immigration policy. Recently the “diversity-as-safety” argument was made by Leonard S. Glickman, president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish group that has advocated open immigration to the United States for over a century. Glickman stated, “The more diverse American society is the safer [Jews] are.” At the present time, the HIAS is deeply involved in recruiting refugees from Africa to emigrate to the U.S.

…

[A] recent article on Assyrians in the U.S. shows that many Jews have not forgiven or forgotten events of 2,700 years ago, when the Northern Israelite kingdom was forcibly relocated to the Assyrian capital of Nineveh: “Some Assyrians say Jews are one group of people who seem to be more familiar with them. But because the Hebrew Bible describes Assyrians as cruel and ruthless conquerors, people such as the Rev. William Nissan say he is invariably challenged by Jewish rabbis and scholars about the misdeeds of his ancestors.”

…

Jewish hatred toward non-Jews emerges as a consistent theme throughout the ages, beginning in the ancient world. The Roman historian Tacitus noted that “Among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to show compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies.

…

The nineteenth-century Spanish historian José Amador de los Rios wrote of the Spanish Jews who assisted the Muslim conquest of Spain that “without any love for the soil where they lived, without any of those affections that ennoble a people, and finally without sentiments of generosity, they aspired only to feed their avarice and to accomplish the ruin of the Goths; taking the opportunity to manifest their rancor, and boasting of the hatreds that they had hoarded up so many centuries.”

…

In 1913, economist Werner Sombart, in his classic Jews and Modern Capitalism, summarized Judaism as “a group by themselves and therefore separate and apart—this from the earliest antiquity. All nations were struck by their hatred of others.”

A recent article by Meir Y. Soloveichik, aptly titled “The virtue of hate,” amplifies this theme of normative Jewish fanatical hatred. “Judaism believes that while forgiveness is often a virtue, hate can be virtuous when one is dealing with the frightfully wicked. Rather than forgive, we can wish ill; rather than hope for repentance, we can instead hope that our enemies experience the wrath of God.” Soloveichik notes that the Old Testament is replete with descriptions of horribly violent deaths inflicted on the enemies of the Israelites—the desire not only for revenge but for revenge in the bloodiest, most degrading manner imaginable: “The Hebrew prophets not only hated their enemies, but rather reveled in their suffering, finding in it a fitting justice.” In the Book of Esther, after the Jews kill the ten sons of Haman, their persecutor, Esther asks that they be hanged on a gallows.

This normative fanatical hatred in Judaism can be seen by the common use among Orthodox Jews of the phrase yemach shemo, meaning, may his name be erased. This phrase is used “whenever a great enemy of the Jewish nation, of the past or present, is mentioned.

…

Soloveichik could also have included Jewish hatred toward the traditional peoples and culture of the United States. This hatred stems from Jewish memory of the immigration law of 1924, which is seen as having resulted in a greater number of Jews dying in the Holocaust because it restricted Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Jews are also acutely aware of widespread anti-Jewish attitudes in the U.S. prior to World War II. The hatred continues despite the virtual disappearance of anti-Jewish attitudes in the U.S. after World War II and despite the powerful ties between the United States and Israel.

Given the transparently faulty logic and obvious self-interest involved in arguments made by Jewish activists, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Jews are often engaged in self-deception. In fact, self-deception is a very important component of Jewish moral particularism. I wrote an entire chapter on Jewish self-deception in Separation and Its Discontents but it was nowhere near enough.

…

Political columnist Joe Sobran—who has suffered professionally for expressing his opinions about Israel—exposes the moral particularism of Norman Podhoretz, one of the chorus of influential Jewish voices who advocate restructuring the entire Middle East in the interests of Israel:

“Podhoretz has unconsciously exposed the Manichaean fantasy world of so many of those who are now calling for war with Iraq. The United States and Israel are “good”; the Arab-Muslim states are “evil”; and those opposed to this war represent “moral relativism,” ostensibly neutral but virtually on the side of “evil.” This is simply deranged. The ability to see evil only in one’s enemies isn’t “moral clarity.” It’s the essence of fanaticism. We are now being counseled to fight one kind of fanaticism with another.”

As Sobran notes, the moral particularism is unconscious—an example of self-deception. The world is cut up into two parts, the good and the evil—ingroup-outgroup—as it has been, for Jews, for well over two thousand years. Recently Jared Taylor and David Horowitz got into a discussion which touched on Jewish issues. Taylor writes:

“Mr. Horowitz deplores the idea that “we are all prisoners of identity politics,” implying that race and ethnicity are trivial matters we must work to overcome. But if that is so, why does the home page of FrontPageMag carry a perpetual appeal for contributions to “David’s Defense of Israel Campaign”? Why Israel rather than, say, Kurdistan or Tibet or Euskadi or Chechnya? Because Mr. Horowitz is Jewish. His commitment to Israel is an expression of precisely the kind of particularist identity he would deny to me and to other racially-conscious whites. He passionately supports a self-consciously Jewish state but calls it “surrendering to the multicultural miasma” when I work to return to a self-consciously white America. He supports an explicitly ethnic identity for Israel but says American must not be allowed to have one… If he supports a Jewish Israel, he should support a white America.”

…

Jews recreate Jewish social structure wherever they are, even when they are completely unaware they are doing so.

…

Non-Jews run the risk of failing to truly understand how powerful these Jewish traits of moral particularism and self-deception really are. When confronted with his own rabid support for Israel, Horowitz simply denies that ethnicity has much to do with it; he supports Israel as a matter of principle—his commitment to universalist moral principles—and he highlights the relationship between Israel and the West: “Israel is under attack by the same enemy that has attacked the United States. Israel is the point of origin for the culture of the West.” This ignores the reality that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is a major part of the reason why the United States was attacked and is hated throughout the Arab world. It also ignores the fact that Western culture and its strong strain of individualism are the antithesis of Judaism, and that Israel’s Western veneer overlays the deep structure of Israel as an apartheid, ethnically based state.

It’s difficult to argue with people who cannot see or at least won’t acknowledge the depths of their own ethnic commitments and continue to act in ways that compromise the ethnic interests of others. People like Horowitz (and his parents) can’t see their ethnic commitments even when they are obvious to everyone else. One could perhaps say the same of Charles Krauthammer, William Safire, William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and the legion of prominent Jews who collectively dominate the perception of Israel presented by the U.S. media. Not surprisingly, Horowitz pictures the U.S. as a set of universal principles, with no ethnic content. This idea originated with Jewish intellectuals, particularly Horace Kallen, almost a century ago at a time when there was a strong conception that the United States was a European civilization whose characteristics were racially/ethnically based.

…

Consider…a press release of May 28, 1999, by the ADL:

“The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today lauded the passage of sweeping changes in Germany’s immigration law, saying the easing of the nation’s once rigorous naturalization requirements “will provide a climate for diversity and acceptance. It is encouraging to see pluralism taking root in a society that, despite its strong democracy, had for decades maintained an unyielding policy of citizenship by blood or descent only,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “The easing of immigration requirements is especially significant in light of Germany’s history of the Holocaust and persecution of Jews and other minority groups. The new law will provide a climate for diversity and acceptance in a nation with an onerous legacy of xenophobia, where the concept of ‘us versus them’ will be replaced by a principle of citizenship for all.”

There is no mention of analogous laws in place in Israel restricting immigration to Jews, or of the long-standing policy of rejecting the possibility of repatriation for Palestinian refugees wishing to return to Israel or the occupied territories. The prospective change in the “us versus them” attitude alleged to be characteristic of Germany is applauded, while the “us versus them” attitude characteristic of Israel and Jewish culture throughout history is unmentioned.

…

Robert Reich, Clinton administration Secretary of Labor, wrote that in his first face-to-face meeting with Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, “We have never met before, but I instantly know him. One look, one phrase, and I know where he grew up, how he grew up, where he got his drive and his sense of humor. He is New York. He is Jewish. He looks like my uncle Louis, his voice is my uncle Sam. I feel we’ve been together at countless weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. I know his genetic structure. I’m certain that within the last five hundred years—perhaps even more recently—we shared the same ancestor.”

…

I have compared Jewish activism to a full court press—relentlessly intense and covering every possible angle. There is considerable evidence that Jews are higher than average on emotional intensity. Emotionally intense people are prone to intense emotional experience of both positive and negative emotions. Emotionality may be thought of as a behavioral intensifier—an energizer. Individuals high on affect intensity have more complex social networks and more complex lives, including multiple and even conflicting goals. Their goals are intensely sought after.

…

Besides its ability to direct Jewish money to its preferred candidates, a large part of AIPAC’s effectiveness lies in its ability to rapidly mobilize its 60,000 members. “In virtually every congressional district…AIPAC has a group of prominent citizens it can mobilize if an individual senator or representative needs stroking.” When Senator Charles Percy suggested that Israel negotiate with the PLO and be willing to trade land for peace, he was inundated with 2200 telegrams and 4000 letters, 95% against, and mainly from the Jewish community in Chicago. The other side is seldom able to muster a response that competes with the intensity of the Jewish response. When President Eisenhower—the last president to stand up to the pro-Israel lobby—pressured Israel into withdrawing from the Sinai in 1957, almost all the mail opposed his decision. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles complained, “It is impossible to hold the line because we get no support from the Protestant elements in the country. All we get is a battering from the Jews.” This pales in comparison to the avalanche of 150,000 letters to President Johnson urging support for Israel when Egypt closed the Strait of Tiran in May 1967. This was just prior to the “Six-Day War,” during which the U.S. provided a great deal of military assistance and actively cooperated in the cover-up of the assault on the USS Liberty. Jews had learned from their defeat at the hands of Eisenhower and had redoubled their lobbying efforts, creating by all accounts the most effective lobby in Washington.

Pressure on officials in the State and Defense departments is relentless and intense.

…

Jews have always behaved aggressively toward those they have lived among, and they have been perceived as aggressive by their critics.

…

Elsewhere I have noted that a major theme of anti-Jewish attitudes throughout the ages has been Jewish economic domination. The following petition from the citizens of the German town of Hirschau opposed allowing Jews to live there because Jews were seen as aggressive competitors who ultimately dominate the people they live among:

“If only a few Jewish families settle here, all small shops, tanneries, hardware stores, and so on, which, as things stand, provide their proprietors with nothing but the scantiest of livelihoods, will in no time at all be superseded and completely crushed by these [Jews] such that at least twelve local families will be reduced to beggary, and our poor relief fund, already in utter extremity, will be fully exhausted within one year. The Jews come into possession in the shortest possible time of all cash money by getting involved in every business; they rapidly become the only possessors of money, and their Christian neighbors become their debtors.”

In early twentieth-century America, the sociologist Edward A. Ross commented on a greater tendency among Jewish immigrants to maximize their advantage in all transactions, ranging from Jewish students badgering teachers for higher grades to Jewish poor attempting to get more than the usual charitable allotment. “No other immigrants are so noisy, pushing and disdainful of the rights of others as the Hebrews.

“The authorities complain that the East European Hebrews feel no reverence for law as such and are willing to break any ordinance they find in their way…. The insurance companies scan a Jewish fire risk more closely than any other. Credit men say the Jewish merchant is often “slippery” and will “fail” in order to get rid of his debts. For lying the immigrant has a very bad reputation. In the North End of Boston “the readiness of the Jews to commit perjury has passed into a proverb.””

These characteristics have at times been noted by Jews themselves. In a survey commissioned by the American Jewish Committee’s study of the Jews of Baltimore in 1962, “two-thirds of the respondents admitted to believing that other Jews are pushy, hostile, vulgar, materialistic, and the cause of anti-Semitism. And those were only the ones who were willing to admit it.”

Jews were unique as an American immigrant group in their hostility toward American Christian culture and in their energetic, aggressive efforts to change that culture.

…

A prototypical example of Jewish aggressiveness toward American culture has been Jewish advocacy of liberal immigration policies which have had a transformative effect on the U.S.:

“In undertaking to sway immigration policy in a liberal direction, Jewish spokespersons and organizations demonstrated a degree of energy unsurpassed by any other interested pressure group. Immigration had constituted a prime object of concern for practically every major Jewish defense and community relations organization. Over the years, their spokespersons had assiduously attended congressional hearings, and the Jewish effort was of the utmost importance in establishing and financing such non-sectarian groups as the National Liberal Immigration League and the Citizens Committee for Displaced Persons.”

Jewish aggressiveness and their role in the media, in the creation of culture and information in the social sciences and humanities, and in the political process in the United States contrasts with the role of Overseas Chinese. The Chinese have not formed a hostile cultural elite in Southeast Asian countries motivated by historical grievances against the people and culture of their hosts. For example, despite their economic dominance, the Chinese have not been concerned with restrictions on their citizenship rights, which have been common in Southeast Asia. Whereas the Chinese have reacted rather passively to such restrictions, Jews have reacted to any manifestation of anti-Jewish attitudes or behavior with an all-out effort at eradication. Indeed, we have seen that the mainstream Jewish attitude is that even trivial manifestations of anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior must not be ignored because they can and will lead to mass murder. Not only have the Chinese not attempted to remove public displays of symbols of Indonesian nationalism and religion, they have not seriously attempted to change laws in place since the 1960s mandating that there be no public displays of Chinese culture.

Besides the normal sorts of lobbying typical of the political process in the U.S., perhaps the clearest examples of Jewish aggressiveness are the many examples of intimidation of their opponents—loss of job, death threats, constant harassment, economic losses such as loss of advertising revenue for media businesses, and charges of anti-Semitism—the last being perhaps the greatest sin against the post-World War II political order that can be imagined. When Adlai Stevenson III was running for governor of Illinois, his record in opposition to Israeli settlement policy and his statement that the PLO was a legitimate voice of the Palestinian people resulted in a whisper campaign that he was an anti-Semite. Stevenson commented:

“There is an intimidating, activist minority of American Jews that supports the decisions of the Israeli government, right or wrong. They do so very vocally and very aggressively in ways that intimidate others so that it’s their voice—even though it is a minority—that is heard in American politics. But it still is much louder in the United States than in Israel. In other words, you have a much stronger, more vocal dissent in Israel than within the Jewish community in the United States. The prime minister of Israel has far more influence over American foreign policy in the Middle East than over the policies of his own government generally.”

A common tactic has been to charge that critics of Israel are anti-Semites. Indeed, George Ball, a perceptive critic of Israel and its U.S. constituency, maintains that the charge of anti-Semitism and guilt over the Holocaust is the Israeli lobby’s most effective weapon—outstripping its financial clout. The utility of these psychological weapons in turn derives from the very large Jewish influence on the U.S. media. Historian Peter Novick notes regarding the importance of the Holocaust in contemporary American life:

“We [i.e., Jews] are not just “the people of the book,” but the people of the Hollywood film and the television miniseries, of the magazine article and the newspaper column, of the comic book and the academic symposium. When a high level of concern with the Holocaust became widespread in American Jewry, it was, given the important role that Jews play in American media and opinion-making elites, not only natural, but virtually inevitable that it would spread throughout the culture at large.

“And, of course, the appeal to the Holocaust is especially compelling for American Jews. When the Mossad wants to recruit U.S. Jews for help in its espionage work, in the words of a CIA agent “the appeal is a simple one: ‘When the call went out and no one heeded it, the Holocaust resulted.’” “

Charges of anti-Semitism and guilt over the Holocaust are not the only instruments of Jewish aggressiveness on Israeli issues. Jewish groups intimidate their enemies by a variety of means. People who oppose policies on Israel advocated by Jewish activist organizations have been fired from their jobs, harassed with letters, subjected to intrusive surveillance, and threatened with death. Although there is a great deal of self-censorship in the media on Israel as a result of the major role of Jews in the ownership and production of the media, gaps in this armor are aggressively closed. There are “threats to editors and advertising departments, orchestrated boycotts, slanders, campaigns of character assassination, and personal vendettas.”

…

The history of Zionism illustrates a dynamic within the Jewish community in which the most radical elements end up pulling the entire community in their direction. Zionism began among the most ethnocentric Eastern European Jews and had explicitly racialist and nationalist overtones. However, Zionism was viewed as dangerous among the wider Jewish community, especially the partially assimilated Jews in Western countries, because it opened Jews up to charges of disloyalty and because the Zionists’ open racialism and ethnocentric nationalism conflicted with the assimilationist strategy then dominant among Western Jews. Zionist activists eventually succeeded in making Zionism a mainstream Jewish movement, due in large part to the sheer force of numbers of the Eastern European vanguard. Over time, the more militant, expansionist Zionists (the Jabotinskyists, the Likud Party, fundamentalists, and West Bank settlers) have won the day and have continued to push for territorial expansion within Israel. This has led to conflicts with Palestinians and a widespread belief among Jews that Israel itself is threatened. The result has been a heightened group consciousness among Jews and ultimately support for Zionist extremism among the entire organized American Jewish community.

…

The origins of Zionism and other manifestations of the intense Jewish dynamism of the twentieth century lie in the Yiddish-speaking world of Eastern Europe in the early nineteenth century. Originally invited in by nobles as estate managers, toll farmers, bankers, and moneylenders, Jews in Poland expanded into commerce and then into artisanry, so that there came to be competition between Jews and non-Jewish butchers, bakers, blacksmiths, shoemakers, and tailors. This produced the typical resource-based anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior so common throughout Jewish history. Despite periodic restrictions and outbursts of hostility, Jews came to dominate the entire economy apart from agricultural labor and the nobility. Jews had an advantage in the competition in trade and artisanry because they were able to control the trade in raw materials and sell at lower prices to coethnics.

This increasing economic domination went along with a great increase in the population of Jews. Jews not only made up large percentages of urban populations, they increasingly migrated to small towns and rural areas. In short, Jews had overshot their economic niche: The economy was unable to support this burgeoning Jewish population in the sorts of positions that Jews had traditionally filled, with the result that a large percentage of the Jewish population became mired in poverty. The result was a cauldron of ethnic hostility, with the government placing various restrictions on Jewish economic activity; rampant anti-Jewish attitudes; and increasing Jewish desperation.

The main Jewish response to this situation was an upsurge of fundamentalist extremism that coalesced in the Hasidic movement and, later in the nineteenth century, into political radicalism and Zionism as solutions to Jewish problems. Jewish populations in Eastern Europe had the highest rate of natural increase of any European population in the nineteenth century, with a natural increase of 120,000 per year in the 1880s and an overall increase within the Russian Empire from one to six million in the course of the nineteenth century.10 Anti-Semitism and the exploding Jewish population, combined with economic adversity, were of critical importance for producing the sheer numbers of disaffected Jews who dreamed of deliverance in various messianic movements—the ethnocentric mysticism of the Kabbala, Zionism, or the dream of a Marxist political revolution.

Religious fanaticism and messianic expectations have been a typical Jewish response to hard times throughout history. For example, in the eighteenth-century Ottoman Empire there was “an unmistakable picture of grinding poverty, ignorance, and insecurity” among Jews that, in the context of high levels of anti-Semitism, effectively prevented Jewish upward mobility. These phenomena were accompanied by the prevalence of mysticism and a high fertility rate among Jews, which doubtlessly exacerbated the problems.

…

The hypothesis pursued here is that Jewish population dynamics beginning in the nineteenth century resulted in a feed-forward dynamic: Increasing success in economic competition led to increased population. This in turn led to anti-Jewish reactions and eventually to Jewish overpopulation, poverty, anti-Jewish hostility, and religious fanaticism as a response to external threat. In this regard, Jewish populations are quite the opposite of European populations, in which there is a long history of curtailing reproduction in the face of perceived scarcity of resources. This may be analyzed in terms of the individualism/collectivism dimension, which provides a general contrast between Jewish and European culture: Individualists curtail reproduction in response to adversity in order to better their own lives, whereas a group-oriented culture such as Judaism responds to adversity by strengthening group ties; forming groups with charismatic leaders and a strong sense of ingroup and outgroup; adopting mystical, messianic ideologies; and increasing their fertility—all of which lead to greater conflict.

…

American liberalism has always drawn strength from Jews. They are among the largest contributors to the Democratic Party; they have brought a special perspective to any number of social-justice questions, from the advancement of blacks and women to free speech. They fostered multiculturalism…. The Holocaust continues to be the baseline reference for Jews when thinking about their relationship to the world, and the Palestinians. A couple of months ago, I got an e-mail from a friend of a friend in Israel about the latest bus-bombing. “They’re going to kill us all,” was the headline. (No matter that Israel has one of largest armies in the world, and that many more Palestinians have died than Israelis). Once, when I suggested to a liberal journalist friend that Americans had a right to discuss issues involving Jewish success in the American power structure—just as we examined the WASP culture of the establishment a generation ago—he said, “Well, we know where that conversation ends up: in the ovens of Auschwitz.”

…

An important mechanism underlying all this is that of rallying around the flag during times of crisis, a phenomenon that is well understood by social psychologists. Group identification processes are exaggerated in times of resource competition or other perceived sources of threat, a finding that is highly compatible with an evolutionary perspective. External threat tends to reduce internal divisions and maximize perceptions of common interest among ingroup members, as we have seen among American Jews in response to perceived crises in Israel, ranging from the Six-Day War of 1967 to the unending crises of the 1990s and into the new millennium. Jewish populations also respond to threat by developing messianic ideologies, rallying around charismatic leaders, and expelling dissenters from the community. Traditionally this has taken the form of religious fundamentalism, as among the Hasidim, but in the modern world these tendencies have been manifested in various forms of leftist radicalism, Zionism, and other Jewish intellectual and political movements. Throughout Jewish history, this siege mentality has tended to increase conflict between Jews and non-Jews. In the context of the intense ethnic conflict of nineteenth-century Eastern Europe, the conflict was exacerbated by an enormous increase in the Jewish population.

And in all cases, the leaders of this process are the more ethnocentric, committed Jews. They are the ones who donate to Jewish causes, attend rallies, write letters, join and support activist organizations.

…

As a European in a society that is rapidly becoming non-European, I can sympathize with Jabotinsky’s envy of the native Slavic peoples he observed in the early twentieth century:

“I look at them with envy. I have never known, and probably never will know, this completely organic feeling: so united and singular [is this] sense of a homeland, in which everything flows together, the past and the present, the legend and the hopes, the individual and the historical.

“Every nation civilised or primitive, sees its land as its national home, where it wants to stay as the sole landlord forever. Such a nation will never willingly consent to new landlords or even to partnership.”

Excerpts from “The Jewish Role in Immigration”, Chapter 13 of Dr. David Duke’s Jewish Supremacism (revised 2007 edition):

Give me your tired, your huddled masses,

Yearning to breathe free.

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

— Emma Lazarus

The influx of Europeans into North America led the Indian populations to displacement and eventually to consignation on reservations. Similarly, relentless Jewish immigration into Palestine was against the interests of the Palestinian people, but it was necessary for the Jewish takeover of the region. It laid the foundation for the Zionist State. Any tribe, race or nation desiring to preserve its culture, group interests and sovereignty must preserve its predominant status in the geographic region in which it dwells. Most nations have had a fundamental understanding of that fact from the time of the earliest civilizations, and every modern nation has sought strict control of its borders and immigration.

Most Americans view the Indian historical record of resistance to European colonization as morally justifiable, but in the skewed ethics of today, some find European-American attempts to preserve our unique genes and culture from non-European immigration – morally reprehensible. Nevertheless, despite pervasive propaganda promoting multiculturalism and the media-touted joys of diversity, opinion surveys in America show overwhelming opposition to unrestricted immigration. Similar public sentiment holds true in every European nation.

It was not until the 1965 Immigration Act that the U.S. Congress ignored the majority’s wishes and began a policy that discriminated against potential European immigrants, and encouraged massive non-European immigration. From that time forward, the federal government also showed less willingness to enforce our immigration laws and police our borders. These policies resulted in a flood of non-White immigrants, legal and illegal. Immigration and higher non-White birthrates have transformed the American population from almost 90 percent European in the early 1960s to less than 70 percent at the end of the century. The U.S. Census Bureau has predicted that by the middle of the 21st century, well within the lifetime of many reading these words, European Americans will be a minority in the United States. We are already a minority in most of America’s major cities and will soon be outnumbered in California and Texas. Policies similar to those enacted in the U.S. have introduced large numbers of non-Europeans into Canada; Negroes into Britain; North Africans and Asians into France; Turks into Germany; and a potpourri of alien races into Scandinavia, Spain, and Italy.

…

What groups had anything to gain from this demographic Armageddon? The individual foreigners who could benefit from the economic opportunities afforded by the Western societies had little political or economic clout while outside the Western nations. As I looked into the American fight over immigration laws during the last 100 years, the driving force behind opening America’s borders became evident: It was organized Jewry, personified by the poet Emma Lazarus whose lines I quoted to begin the chapter.

…

By the time I was a junior in high school, I had become convinced that massive non-European immigration poised the greatest short and long-term threat to the America that I loved. I saw that the Immigration Act of 1965, unless repealed, would eventually sound the death knell for my country. Much of the material I read pointed to a long history of organized Jewish efforts to radically change America’s immigration laws. I contacted Drew Smith, an elderly New Orleans attorney who had authored The Legacy of the Melting Pot, and who had already taught me a lot about the immigration issue.

Smith and I met one rainy day after school at the Citizens Council offices. He explained the history of American immigration law. After quoting the Lazarus lines from the base of the Statue of Liberty, he asked me, “Whose interest could have been served in having America flooded with ‘wretched refuse’?” He quickly answered his own question. “It was in the perceived interest of a cohesive people who use racial solidarity like a weapon, a weapon they want only for themselves. The efforts to change the American immigration law and ultimately displace the European majority has been led almost exclusively by Jews.”

Smith explained that Emma Lazarus — like many other immigration activists — was a Jewish partisan who supported the creation of an exclusively Jewish Zionist state in Palestine, but who supported “diversity” for America. He pointed out to me how Jews such as Lazarus have even changed the modern meaning of the Statue of Liberty. The beautiful jade-colored colossus had no original connection with immigration and predated the Ellis Island immigration center. It was a gift from France to commemorate the American Revolution, not to honor the arrival of “wretched refuse” on America’s shores. It is instructive to note that this beautiful statue of European Womanhood faces not to Africa, Asia or South America, but the land where she was born, France and Europe itself.

Emma Lazarus had been best known for her fulminations against Russia’s pogroms following the assassination of Czar Alexander II in 1881. The irony is rich: A Jewish supremacist dedicated to the creation of an elite Jewish State in Palestine was anxious to turn America into a refuge for the castoffs of the world.

…

Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Congress led (and still lead) the effort to liberalize American immigration and defeat restrictionist legislation. In 1921, 1924, and 1952, Congress passed legislation that simply attempted to maintain the racial status quo in America. Interestingly enough, even though Anglo Americans were in a vast majority of the American population as well as in Congress, they did not attempt to increase their own percentage of the American population, but simply sought to fairly maintain each group’s status quo. In the early legislative battles, Jews were the leading advocates of open immigration and vehemently opposed legislation that would maintain America as an ethnically European, Christian nation. In the House of Representatives, Adolph Sabath, Samuel Dickstein, and Emanuel Celler led the fight for unrestricted immigration, while in the Senate, Herbert Lehman and in later years Jacob Javits coordinated the effort.

…

Sociologist Edward A. Ross, in his influential 1914 book The Old World and the New: The Significance of Past and Present Immigration to the American People, quotes the famous pro-immigration leader Israel Zangwill as suggesting that America is an ideal place to achieve Jewish interests. Ross then bluntly writes about the Jewish influence.

“Jews therefore have a powerful interest in immigration policy: Hence the endeavor of the Jews to control the immigration policy of the United States. Although theirs is but a seventh of our net immigration, they led the fight on the Immigration Commission’s bill…. The systematic campaign in newspapers and magazines to break down all arguments for restriction and to calm nativist fears is waged by and for one race. Hebrew money is behind the National Liberal Immigration League and its numerous publications.”

…

“The last important congressional legislation passed to protect the status quo of America was the Walter-McCarran act of 1952. Congressional opposition was led by the Jewish troika of Celler, Javits, and Lehman. Every major Jewish organization (as well as the Communist Party USA) also lined up to oppose it, including the American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, the ADL, National Council of Jewish Women, and dozens of others. During congressional debate, Francis Walter noted that the only civic organization that opposed the entire bill was the American Jewish Congress. Representative Celler noted that Walter “should not have overemphasized as he did the people of one particular faith who are opposing the bills.” (Congressional Record, April 23, 1952.)

When Jewish Judge Simon Rifkind testified against the bill in joint hearings, he emphasized that in supporting breaking down U.S. immigration law, he represented “the entire body of religious and lay opinion within the Jewish group, religiously speaking, from the extreme right and extreme left.”

It thrilled me to read the courageous remarks of Mississippi Congressman John Rankin during the debate. Today such truthful comments by any elected official would bring a torrent of abuse that few could withstand.

“They whine about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The white Christian people of America, the ones who created this nation…. I am talking about the white Christian people of the North as well as the South. . . .

“Communism is racial. A racial minority seized control in Russia and in all her satellite countries, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia and many other countries I could name.

“They have been run out of practically every country in Europe in the years gone by, and if they keep stirring race trouble in this country and trying to force their Communistic program on the Christian people of America, there is no telling what will happen to them here.” (Congressional Record, April 23, 1952.)

Finally, in 1965, the goal first advanced by Jewish organizations in the 1880s came to fruition when Congress passed the Immigration Act. It has resulted in immigration becoming 90 percent non-European. America went from an immigration program meant to be proportionately representative to all groups in the United States to one that discriminated against Europeans. As with earlier legislation, Jewish representatives and senators as well as powerful Jewish lobbying organizations led the assault. It succeeded because during the 41 years since 1924, Jewish power had increased dramatically in virtually all spheres of American life.

In 1951 Senator Jacob Javits authored an article called “Let’s Open Our Gates,” that called for massive unrestricted immigration. Javits and Representative Celler figured prominently in the passage of the bill in 1965. Nine years before passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, the American Jewish Congress initially proposed the essential elements of the bill and praised President Eisenhower for his “unequivocal opposition to the national quota system.” In a 1956 editorial they praised him for “courageously taking a stand in advance of even many advocates of liberal immigration policy and embraced a position which had at first been urged by the American Jewish Congress and other Jewish agencies.”

…

Social psychologist Kevin MacDonald pointed out in A People That Shall Dwell Alone that major anti-Semitic movements are usually found in ethnically homogeneous nations and that “ethnic and religious pluralism serves external Jewish interests because Jews become just one of many ethnic groups… and it becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of Gentiles united in their opposition of Judaism.”

In his 1985 book A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today, Charles Silberman writes that,

“American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief, one firmly rooted in history, that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse “gay rights” and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called “social issues.”

…

Richard Arens, staff director of the Senate subcommittee that produced the Walter-McCarran Act, pointed out that the same Jewish forces which were the most avid promoters of open immigration, hypocritically opposed ethnic immigration they deemed unfavorable to their own interests.

“One of the curious things about those who most loudly claim that the 1952 act is “discriminatory” and that it does not make allowance for a sufficient number of alleged refugees, is that they oppose admission of any of the approximately one million Arab refugees in camps where they are living in pitiful circumstances after having been driven out of Israel.”

Organized Jewry not only wants to prevent Arab refugees from returning to their homes in Israel, they also oppose their coming to the United States. Do they see the displaced Palestinians as potential political opponents? Jewish groups clearly promote forms of multiculturalism that destroy Gentile cohesion, but not those which could threaten their own group power. So clearly, their dedication to multiculturalism is purely a strategic one; they want groups coming into the nation which can further pluralize American society and destroy its cohesion, but not those groups whom they see as political threat.

Jewish-dominated political and media institutions have long promoted the demographic invasion and dissolution of America. While the Jewish media demonize as “racists” those who oppose the flood of non-White immigration into America, Canada and all the European nations, Israel’s immigration policy that excludes non-Jews is condoned. A million Palestinians fled their homes in the wake of the Israeli blitzkrieg takeover of Palestine. They cannot return to their ancestral homeland, and many are forced to live in refugee camps that are little more than concentration camps of want and squalor.

A. M. Rosenthal is the long-time editor of perhaps the most influential newspaper in America, the Jewish-owned New York Times. A hawkish supporter of Israel, he only complains about the Zionist state when it is not Zionist enough for his taste. Yet, in a 1992 editorial Rosenthal feels obligated to criticize another country which desires to preserve its racial integrity and cultural heritage:

“They would do better to set a quota on immigrants and nurture a more pluralist society by adopting a formula for citizenship based on residence than blood ties.

“Equally distressing is Bonn’s failure to revise an outdated naturalization law rooted in ethnicity. Under the existing system, a Turkish guest worker who has lived in Germany for 30 years and speaks German fluently is denied the citizenship automatically granted a Russian-speaking immigrant who can prove German ancestry.”

Rosenthal likens current German immigration policies to that of the Nazis. Yet, is Israeli immigration law so different?

Not only Germany, but every White nation is a target of Rosenthal’s open immigration advocacy. Only Israel’s immigration policy — the most draconian of all — is immune from criticism.

…

[M]assive non-White immigration has been one of the most effective weapons of organized Jewry in its cultural and ethnic war against the European American. We cannot win this life and death struggle until our people realize that we are in the midst of a war — and our side is suffering great losses. To lose this war would mean the destruction of our American culture, heritage, and freedoms. It would mean nothing less than the destruction of the very genes that have made possible all the social, cultural and spiritual creations that distinguish our civilization. Our voices are muted by mass media that are in the hands of our enemies. Too many of us are silently witnessing the genocide of our people. The time is late. We must speak out now and defend ourselves. We must fight for the continuation of the magnificent culture bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We must take whatever action necessary to insure the future of our children and our generations to come. As is true for all living things, we must fight for our right to live.

America is in many ways already occupied similarly to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Jewish Supremacists control the news, publishing and entertainment media, they control our elections and politicians, and now they are orchestrating a massive immigration into our land that will make us a politically and culturally impotent minority in the same way that the people of Palestine have suffered that fate. They seek to make our country into a tower of Babel in which they will occupy the top floors.

Not only are Americans on the road to oblivion from immigration, but so are our brethren across Europe. Indeed, many nations are under the Jewish Supremacist drive toward globalization, and the destruction of any sort of ethnic or national pride and cohesiveness that could pose a threat to their hegemony. They seek to remake the world into an unremarkable mass of atomistic, deracinated individuals incapable of collective resistance.

If we remain silent in this critical time in our people’s history, our people will be extinguished and silent forever.

This maxim is not only true for Europeans and Americans, but for all the peoples of the Earth.

If Osama bin Laden is the man behind the attack that caused the death of thousands of Americans on September 11, I, like most Americans want to him to suffer the ultimate punishment for his crime. No person or nation that commits terrorism against America should escape punishment.

http://www.thevisionfoods.com

But now I am going to make a statement that may well shock you. If you agree that those who commit terrorist acts against America should be punished, then America should put Israel at the top of our hit list; for in this article, I will prove that Israel has committed deliberate acts of murderous terrorism and treachery against America.

Israel’s acts of terrorism and treachery against America have not only gone unpunished, but have been rewarded by politicians who have treasonously betrayed the United States.

I will show that Israel has committed more continuing terrorism in the last half century than any other nation on earth. Then, I will expose Israel’s terrorism and treachery against the United States of America. Finally, I will show the shocking facts proving that Israel deliberately sought the death of thousands of Americans on September 11.

Why was America attacked?

No one would argue that whatever his motivations, if bin Laden was behind the horror of the WTC attacks, he deserves punishment for killing so many innocent people. At the same time, it is vital that we know why bin Laden and millions of others around the world have come to hate America. Why are so many willing to risk or even sacrifice their lives to get at us? I certainly hope no one reading this is so naïve as to believe that the growing millions who hate America do so because we are “free.”; That canard has to be the most ridiculous notion ever sold to the American people since the pet rock.

To end the threat of terrorism against the American people, we must know the true reason why we are so hated. Modern technology makes mass murder and terrorism so ridiculously easy that just about anyone can do it. It cannot be stopped by military might. In fact, even the brute force we are using in Afghanistan supposedly to wipe out terror — already shows signs of whipping up enough world-wide hatred against America to give rise to a thousand new terrorists for every one terrorist we might kill.

I also wonder what the kill ratio is in Afghanistan. Perhaps 1 member of the al-Qaida network is killed for every 10 run-of-the-mill Afghan soldiers and civilians who are basically just trying to get through their own lives like the rest of us. Or maybe it’s 1 terrorist for a 100 Afghanis. I suspect the real figure is more like a 1000 non-terrorists dead for the life of 1 genuine terrorist who might ever bother America.

Perhaps we should have enough courage to consider the possible reasons why so many might hate us. Only when we have all the facts, rather than cute little clichés like “They were attacking freedom,” can we decide the best way we can protect our people in the future.

By the way, how do we define an “attack on American freedom?” I would say that a real “attack on freedom” is trashing the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States. The Ten Amendments are the very core of what American freedom actually is. George Bush and the U.S. Congress, armed with the newspeak U.S.A. Patriot Act, did infinitely more to take away our Constitutional freedoms than bin Laden ever could.

The real reason we have suffered terrorism

The real reason we have suffered the terrorism of the WTC attack is shockingly simple.

Too many American politicians have treasonously betrayed the American people by blindly supporting the leading terrorist nation on earth: Israel.

The American mass media and the government cannot have it both ways. If they are motivated to attack Afghanistan for giving aid and comfort to terrorists, then some Palestinians naturally find motivation to attack America for giving aid and even military support to Israel, a nation that has committed unrelenting terrorism against them.

Traitors to the United States have allowed a terrorist foreign nation to control the United States Government. Some readers might think it preposterous for me to assert that that a foreign nation controls America. But, consider the fact that the former head of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, William Fulbright, said precisely that. He asserted on CBS’s Face the Nation television program that “Israel Controls the United States Senate.”1 And, Senator Fulbright was no dummy; it is in his name that the brightest students scramble after the so-named “Fulbright” scholarships. Not only did Senator Fulbright make this powerful indictment, but the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, George Brown, as well as many others, have said essentially the same thing.

We can say we can’t possibly get the Congress to support a (Israeli) program like this. And they say don’t worry about the Congress. We will take care of the Congress. This is somebody from another country, but they can do it. They own, you know, the banks in this country, the newspapers. Just look at where the Jewish money is. – 2(General George S. Brown, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)

Of course, General Brown actually understated the Jewish control of the American media. It is true that they control the most influential newspapers in America, including the top three: The New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. They also own the top three newsmagazines Time, Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report. But, even more importantly, they thoroughly dominate the television and broadcast media, the two largest media conglomerates being Time-Warner and Disney, and their domination includes the network news executives of the main three networks: ABC, CBS and NBC. Control of the media by pro-Israeli partisans is another subject for another time; but if you would like complete documentation, please go to my website www.davidduke.com and pull up a chapter from My Awakening called “Who Runs the Media.” The extreme pro-Israeli partisanship of the media is why most Americans are woefully ignorant of Israel’s terrorist record. All this article needs to do is apply just a tiny pinprick into the balloon of Israeli propaganda, for it will take only a few good jabs to burst the balloon of lies surrounding Israel.

I will show you documentary evidence that during the last 50 years Israel has engaged in more murderous terrorism than any other nation in the world; and that by supporting its criminal behavior, America is now reaping the fanatical hatred of hundreds of millions of people around the globe. Support for Israel’s terrorism has directly led to the terrorism now going on against the United States. Most Americans don’t even realize the magnitude and scope of Israeli terrorism because of the Jewish media control mentioned by General Brown. A pertinent example of their incredible media power is their ability to propagate the Big Lie that the WTC attack had nothing at all to do with Israel; that the kamikaze attackers hated and attacked Americans because we are “free.”

The Big Lie

The Jewish-dominated American mass media and the Israeli-controlled politicians do not want the American people to fully realize the incredibly high price America pays for blindly supporting Israel. In the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001, even President Bush repeated the absurd lie, alleging the attack happened because they hate the fact that we are free. If, as the media says, bin Laden is behind the terrorism, then they know that the attack occurred not because he hates freedom. Just three years ago, ABC television and PBS Frontline interviewed bin Laden during the time of the Clinton administration. Bin Laden clearly stated why he opposed America:

They (Americans) have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, … it is Israel inside America. Take the sensitive ministries such as the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the upper hand in them. They make use of America to further their plans for the world …”

For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been (by the Jews) slaughtered and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed…This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious government that looks out for their interests and does not attack other people’s lands, or other people’s honor.” 3

Notwithstanding any of his alleged crimes, bin Laden has never in his entire life uttered a word against Democracy! The media invented the lie about attacking Democracy to hide the real truth; that America is being attacked in retaliation for the American government’s support of Israel’s terrorist policies in the Mideast. The unanimity of the media in propagating this huge lie without contradiction should make every thoughtful person suspect that Americans are not getting the whole truth from the media.

First, let’s take a look at Israel’s terrorism against the Palestinians.

Israel: a mass murderer as Head of State

Israel’s Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, is one of the world’s most bloodstained terrorists. He is responsible for the cold-blooded slaughter of at least 1,500 men, women and children in the Beirut refugee camps of Chatila and Sabra. Even a formal Israeli commission found Sharon personally responsible for the Lebanese massacres.4

In 1982, as Israel’s defense minister, Sharon directed Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and the carpet bombing and devastation of the city of Beirut (In Lebanon five times more women and children died than in the September New York attack). This terror bombing was carried out by Jews using jet fighters and bombs supplied by the United States.

After the Israeli military devastation and occupation, Sharon forcibly removed Palestinian resistance fighters from Lebanon. Many Palestinian women, children and old people were left behind in refugee camps near Beirut. The United States publicly guaranteed their safety and promised that they would quickly be reunited with their loved ones. When Sharon plotted their murder, he not only planned a bloody act of terrorism against the refugees; he knew it was an act of treachery against the United States that would raise intense hatred against America.

On the night of September 16, 1982, Sharon sent Phalangist murder squads into two Palestinian refugee camps, Sabra and Chatila. With Israeli tanks and troops closely surrounding the camps to prevent any of the Palestinians from escaping, the murder squads machine-gunned, bayoneted, and bludgeoned Palestinian civilians all that night, the next day and the following night; all while the Israelis surrounding the camps listened gleefully to the machine gun fire and screams coming from inside. Sharon then sent in bulldozers to hide as much of the atrocity as he could. At least 1500 Palestinian men, women and children were butchered, and perhaps as many as 2500. (An official Lebanese investigation set the figure at 2500) Even after the efforts of Sharon’s bulldozers, many Palestinians remained unburied, and Red Cross workers found whole families; including hundreds of elderly and little children, with their throats cut or disemboweled. Uncounted numbers of women and girls were also raped before they were slaughtered.

Ariel Sharon is sought for trial by the Hague Tribunal, the same body that succeeded in extraditing former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic for charges of crimes against humanity in Kosovo. Sharon will not travel to Belgium for fear of arrest by the International Court for the massacre.5

Although he is sought for his Chatila and Sabra murders, Sharon could be tried for any of a dozen other massacres committed during his sterling career, crimes against humanity that go back at least as far as 1953. The Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, recalls Sharon’s leading of a massacre in the village of Kibya in 1953, “The soldiers of Major Ariel Sharon killed 70 Palestinians in the reprisal raid, most of them women and children.” 6

America, which clamored for the Hague Tribunal to arrest and try Milosevic, pretends to be unaware of Sharon’s mass murder. Instead of handing Sharon an arrest warrant for mass murder and putting him in the shackles that he deserves, President Bush greets Ariel Sharon with handshakes and hugs! How the world must snicker in disbelief when Bush confers with Sharon on “fighting terrorism.”

If President Bush is truly serious about punishing nations that support or harbor terrorists, he will have to begin with Israel, a nation that elected one of the world’s worst terrorists and mass murderers as its the Head of State. Does America’s Israel-controlled Senate punish Israel for harboring terrorists? No, instead we supply their terrorists with billions of American taxpayer’s dollars and the very weapons with which they kill!

Israel’s murder of the Palestinian refugees after the United States had publicly guaranteed their safety was not only a crime against humanity, but also one of treachery against America. Sharon and the others involved were completely aware of America’s well-publicized promise of the refugees’ safety.

The Beirut Sabra and Chatila Massacre was the chief motivation of the Lebanese suicide bombing attack that killed 241 American Marines in Beirut less than a year later, and it clearly demonstrates how American support of Israeli terrorism leads to terrible consequences for the United States. The Los Angeles Times, in discussing a revealing book by a former agent of the Israeli Mossad (secret service), showed that the Mossad had foreknowledge of the terrorist attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, but treacherously did not warn America.7

Among Ostrovsky’s more shocking allegations are that Mossad failed to share with the U.S. detailed intelligence that might have averted the 1983 suicide bombing of the Beirut Marine barracks that killed 241 U.S. servicemen;…

Israel: founded by terror against the British and Palestinians

In their effort to wrest control of Palestine from British control, the Zionists waged a campaign of relentless terror, including the bombing of the King David Hotel, which killed 93 people. They ruthlessly murdered British officials and soldiers. The Zionists assassinated anyone in their way, including the world-respected U.N. mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, who dared to tell the world of the Zionist terror and murder campaign. A favorite tactic of the Irgun and Stern terrorist gangs was to kidnap British soldiers and slowly torture them to death. Israel was also the first nation to employ the modern terrorist technique of the letter bomb; and over the years sent out hundreds of them, killing dozens of their enemies and many bystanders all over the world. The current terrorism of mailing anthrax infected letters is simply a logical stepchild of the letter bomb.

The terror of Deir Yassin

The Palestinians, of course, have been the greatest victims of this half a century of Israeli terror. In fact, Israel carved its state out of Palestine through a deliberate policy of mass terror against the Palestinians. It was the method by which they drove 800,000 of them from their homes, businesses and farms9. In his book The Revolt10, former Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, boasts about his role in the massacre of the 254 Palestinians at Deir Yassin. (Most of the victims were elderly men, women and children who remained in the Israeli-occupied village) In his book, Begin points out that Deir Yassin and other massacres caused panic among the residents, causing them to flee in terror from their homes. This intentional mass terror enabled the Zionists to take control of Palestine. And, it should be noted that the refugees are still not permitted to return home after more than half a century!

What did the Zionist terrorists actually do at Deir Yassin and at other villages that caused the Palestinian people to flee in fear? A Red Cross doctor, Jacques de Reynier, chief representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Jerusalem gave a shocking account of the massacre in his official report.11

De Reynier arrived at the village on the second day and saw “the mopping up,” as one of the Israeli terrorists put it to him. It had been done with machine guns, then grenades, and was finished off with knives. The Jews decapitated some of the victims and fatally maimed 52 children in sight of their mothers. They cut open 25 pregnant women’s wombs and butchered the babies in front of them.

Israelis present at Deir Yassin have confirmed these atrocities. After his retirement in 1972, Israeli Haganah officer, Colonel Meir Pa’el, stated the following about Deir Yassin in Yediot Ahronot, a major Jewish publication:

The Irgun and LEHI men came out of hiding and began to `clean’ the houses. They shot whoever they saw, women and children included, the commanders did not try to stop the massacre…they were taken to the quarry between Deir Yassin and Giv’at Shaul, and murdered in cold blood… 12

The commander of the Haganah unit that controlled Deir Yassin after the massacre, Zvi Ankori, made this statement in the Israeli newspaper Davar:

I went into six to seven houses. I saw cut off genitalia and women’s crushed stomachs. According to the shooting signs on the bodies, it was direct murder.13

Have you seen any TV documentaries or any Hollywood movies about the Israeli terror of Deir Yassin or of many thousands of other Israeli acts of terror against the Palestinian people? You have heard plenty of violin music for Jewish victims of Hitler, but have you heard any violins for the women at Deir Yassin who had their babies cut from their wombs by Jewish Supremacists? Have you heard any violins for any of the other thousands of Palestinian victims of Begin, Shamir, Barak, and Sharon? Befitting Israel’s long record of terrorism against the Palestinian people, Israel has the nasty habit of electing its most notorious terrorists and mass murderers as its Head of State.

The United States has a whole division of the Justice Department dedicated to hunting down Nazis who have committed crimes against humanity. While America doggedly pursues elderly suspected German war criminals, American Presidents have state dinners honoring Jewish ones!

Mr. Bush is fond of talking about wiping out evil terrorists, yet was not a massacre such as Deir Yassin clearly an act of consummate evil?

As Begin points out in The Revolt, terror against Palestinians was a crucial factor in establishing Israel. It established the Jewish state and it truly set the tone for a half century of ongoing terror against the Palestinian people.

52 years of Ongoing Terror against Palestinians

Since 1948, Palestinians have faced ongoing terrorism from Israel. Hundreds of villages have been obliterated and literally wiped from the map. Tens of thousands of homes have been bombed, bull-dozed or dynamited during peacetime! Tens of thousands of men, women and children have been killed. Even greater numbers have been blinded, crippled, disfigured and maimed. Hundreds of thousands have been imprisoned and/or tortured.

In going after Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation, Israel has never been shy about bombing refugee camps full of women and children. Israeli tanks, helicopters and even jet fighters are used to drop bombs or fire missiles into the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods and refugee camps packed with women and children. These weapons cannot discriminate between a supposed terrorist or an eight-year-old little girl. Such a weapon can kill a child as surely as it can kill enemies of the state.

Palestinians suspected of actively opposing Israel’s occupation of the West Bank or Gaza, have had their homes and families attacked by Israeli tank cannons, missiles or bombs. And after their suspect is killed or imprisoned, the Israeli army bulldozes or dynamites their family’s home. Thousands of homes have been destroyed in this fashion.

Israel has also killed hundreds of Palestinian leaders by assassination and terroristic attacks. These attacks often kill innocent bystanders. Many of those assassinated have never been associated with any terror or violence of any kind; they simply were poets, writers, or clerics who by their words have inspired in their countrymen the desire for freedom. The Israeli Prime Minister previous to Ariel Sharon was Ehud Barak. In 1972, during peacetime between Israel and Lebanon, he led an Israeli commando death squad into Beirut, Lebanon where he personally murdered Palestinian writer Kamal Edwan. In the middle of the night, using silenced submachine guns, he and his team slaughtered Edwan while he slept in their bed. When the newly elected Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, came to New York and Washington, the Jewish-controlled press treated this murderer, as though he was a conquering hero.

The double standards never seem to end. When an Israeli cabinet official, Rechavam Zeevi, was assassinated by Palestinians in October of 2001, Sharon and some U.S. officials denounced it as “terrorism.” If the shooting down of Zeevi is indeed terrorism, what should we call many years of Israeli assassinations of hundreds of Palestinian political figures, philosophers, clerics and poets? Why doesn”t the press point out that Zeevi was himself a Jewish Supremacist who described Palestinians living and working illegally in Israel as “lice” and a “cancer in our midst.14″ Zeevi himself was a terrorist who advocated the forcible expulsion of all Palestinians from the occupied territories and the assassination of all those who resist Israel occupation. He even publicly called for the assassination of Yassir Arafat. Yet, the same press that calls his assassination “terrorism” never calls the pro-assassination Zeevi a terrorist or even a Jewish Supremacist. The Zeevi assassination itself was in direct response to the Israeli assassination of a Palestinian leader a few weeks before.

In 1991, at an Israeli cabinet meeting, Zeevi said that President George Bush, by pressing Israel to peace talks, was “an enemy of Israel” and that “America was plotting a second Holocaust.15″ With a supposed “ally” like this, does America need any enemies?

The power of the Jews in the world media keeps many from fully grasping the terror of hundreds of Israeli assassinations. In fact, even before the WTC terror attack in September, the BBC instructed their reporters to call Israel’s assassination of their enemies as “targeted killings” rather than exactly what they are: assassinations.16 However, the BBC (which has a heavily Jewish executive staff) referred to the Zeevi killing as an assassination, and not a “targeted killing.” The public has been subjected to this kind of sanitized and distorted media treatment of Israel for years. It is no wonder that few Britons and even fewer Americans are little aware of Israel’s record of terrorism. It is for this reason that I cannot blame most Americans for their ignorance of Israeli terrorism.

The terror of Israeli torture: at least 150,000 victims

The brutal torture of thousands of one’s enemies must be classified as a particularly vicious form of terrorism. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been tortured in Israeli jails. A Jewish human rights group in Israel confirmed in a 60-page report that 85% of Palestinian detainees undergo torture while in custody.17 And make no mistake about it; many of the tortures endured by these Palestinian victims are the stuff of one’s worst nightmares. Israeli torture includes everything from choking victims with urine and feces soaked bags tied over their heads, to using electric cattle prods for anal rape and mutilation. Israel often doesn’t even admit to who they are holding, so if they decide to kill or torture a Palestinian to death while he is in custody, his body will simply disappear, or they will later claim that they died in a battle with Israeli police before capture. Many thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese have died while in Israeli custody.

A feature article by Joel Greenburg in the very pro-Israel New York Times stated matter-of-factly that Israel tortures 500 to 600 Palestinians every month.(18) That figure, which is probably too low as it comes from the pro-Israel New York Times, means that each year at least 6,000 Palestinians are tortured in Israel. Torture of Palestinians has been going on in Israel since 1948 (53 years to date). Even if one uses just one-half of the number of Palestinians that Mr. Greenburg says suffer torture each year — at least 150,000 human beings have been tortured in Israeli jails since the founding of the Jewish state.

Bowing to Israe’s public relations problems because of its legalized torture, in 1999 the Israeli Supreme Court made an intentionally vague ruling that torture is sometimes illegal, but Israeli and Palestinian rights groups offer much evidence that the ruling was just a public-relations veneer. They offer evidence that torture continues just as did before the ruling.19

Following Israel’s lead, Jewish journalists are now beginning to advocate the use of torture in America! A recent issue of Newsweek headlined an article entitled “Time to think about torture; it’s a new world, and survival may well require old techniques that seemed out of the question.”20 Even a supposed Jewish champion of civil liberties, Alan Dershowitz, now advocates it.21

Victor Ostrovsky, a former Israeli Mossad agent, wrote two books about Israel’s terror against their enemies. In one of them, he discusses the fate of Palestinians who illegally cross the border in search of work in Israel. Many thousands of these young men simply are never heard from again after being captured by Israel’s forces. Some of them are taken to the ABC research facilities where they endure the indescribable terror of chemical, nuclear or biological warfare.

… ABC standing for atomic, bacteriological, and chemical. It was where our top epidemiological scientists were developing various doomsday machines … should there be an all-out war in which this type of weapon would be needed; there was no room for error. The Palestinian infiltrators came in handy in this regard. As human guinea pigs, they could make sure the weapons the scientist were developing worked properly and could verify how fast they worked and make them more efficient.22

Terror against the Lebanese People

During the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon from 1978 to 2000, at least 15,000 civilians died. An example of Israeli terror was its intentional bombing of the UN center in Qana, Lebanon that occurred just five years ago. The following article was not written by a Palestinian, Arab or even a Muslim, but by Englishman Robert Fisk, one of the most respected British journalists working in the Mideast. He writes for the London newspaper, The Independent. If an American wants to understand the hatred that Israel is generating toward America, dare to read this gruesome account and dare to take a close look at the pictures showing the realities of Israeli terror.

Most Americans have read countless gory accounts Jewish Holocaust atrocities or even stories about the Israeli victims of Palestinian suicide bombers. They have seen dozens of the most gruesome movies or documentaries about Jewish victims, but most Americans have never read even one account like the one quoted here. You won’t read such accounts in American newspapers or news magazines.

The gory reality of Israel’s terrorism. Workers remove the victims (mostly women, children and elderly) killed in by Israeli forces in Lebanon, including the decapitated child shown above.

Qana, southern Lebanon – It was a massacre. Not since Sabra and Chatila had I seen the innocent slaughtered like this. The Lebanese refugee women and children and men lay in heaps, their hands or arms or legs missing, beheaded or disemboweled. There were well over a hundred of them. A baby lay without a head. The Israeli shells had scythed through them as they lay in the United Nations shelter, believing that they were safe under the world’s protection. Like the Muslims of Srebrenica, the Muslims of Qana were wrong.

In front of a burning building of the UN’s Fijian battalion headquarters, a girl held a corpse in her arms, the body of a gray- haired man whose eyes were staring at her, and she rocked the corpse back and forth in her arms, keening and weeping and crying the same words over and over: “My father, my father.” A Fijian UN soldier stood amid a sea of bodies and, without saying a word, held aloft the body of a headless child.

…When I walked towards them, I slipped on a human hand…

Israel’s slaughter of civilians in this terrible 10-day offensive – 206 by last night – has been so cavalier, so ferocious, that not a Lebanese will forgive this massacre. There had been the ambulance attacked on Saturday, the sisters killed in Yohmor the day before, the 2-year-old girl decapitated by an Israeli missile four days ago. And earlier yesterday, the Israelis had slaughtered a family of 12 – the youngest was a four- day-old baby – when Israeli helicopter pilots fired missiles into their home.

Shortly afterwards, three Israeli jets dropped bombs only 250 meters from a UN convoy on which I was traveling, blasting a house 30 feet into the air in front of my eyes. Traveling back to Beirut to file my report on the Qana massacre to the Independent last night, I found two Israeli gunboats firing at the civilian cars on the river bridge north of Sidon…

A French UN trooper muttered oaths to himself as he opened a bag in which he was dropping feet, fingers, pieces of people’s arms…

We had suddenly become not UN troops and journalists but Westerners, Israel’s allies, an object of hatred and venom. One bearded man with fierce eyes stared at us, his face dark with fury. “You are Americans”, he screamed at us. “Americans are dogs. You did this. Americans are dogs.”

President Bill Clinton has allied himself with Israel in its war against “terrorism” and the Lebanese, in their grief, had not forgotten this. Israel’s official expression of sorrow was rubbing salt in their wounds. “I would like to be made into a bomb and blow myself up amid the Israelis”, one old man said…23

If every American read the above article by Robert Fisk, it would help them to understand why America is so hated and why we now face terrorist kamikazes. If you would like to know the real motivations of terrorists like Osama bin Laden, The Nation magazine, did an interview with him on September 21, 1998. It describes his reaction to the Israeli Qana massacre.

When I last saw bin Laden, he was still obsessed with the Israeli massacre of 107 Lebanese refugees sheltering at the UN camp at Qana in April 1996. Israel claimed it was a ‘mistake,’ the UN conceded otherwise and President Clinton called it only a ‘tragedy’–as if it was a natural disaster. It was, said bin Laden, an act of ‘international terrorism.’ There must be justice, he said, and trials for the Israeli perpetrators. Clinton used almost exactly the same words about bin Laden and his supporters in August. But the deaf, as usual, were talking to the deaf.”24

Most Americans will never see any such accounts like the one by Robert Fisk about Qana. The Israelis tight grip on the American press and the American government has successfully suppressed much of the ongoing story of Israeli terrorism against Palestinians. I will now show that they have also been able to cover up murderous Israeli acts of war and terrorism against the United States of America.

Israeli terrorism against America

In 1954, the Israeli government launched a secret operation of terror against the United States called Operation Suzannah. It plotted to murder Americans and blow up American installations in Egypt. Their plan was to leave false evidence that the Egyptians did it, so as to make America go to war against Egypt on the side of Israel. Jewish agents succeeded in blowing up some post offices and American libraries in Cairo and Alexandria. On the way to blow up an American movie house, the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Theater, an Israeli’s agent’s bomb went off prematurely. Thankfully, for both Egypt and for America, the plot was then exposed and stopped in its early stages.

Because of the capture of the Israeli agents, the world learned of this Israeli treachery and the Israeli Foreign Minister, Pinhas Lavon, was later forced to resign. The whole episode became known as the Lavon Affair. Today, the Jewish-dominated American media and publishing establishment deftly cover up this Israeli treachery against us. Most Americans know nothing about it. For instance, only a slight mention of the Lavon Affair is found in the popular Encarta Encyclopedia. It is in an article about Ben Gurion authored by the pro-Zionist, Bernard Reich. By the way, the article’s author illustrates a typical media pattern. When Americans suppose they are reading unbiased Encyclopedia or news magazine accounts, they more often than not are reading distorted accounts written by ardent Jewish Zionists.

Ben-Gurion returned to politics in 1955 to replace Minister of Defense Pinhas Lavon-who resigned after a failed attempt to sabotage Egypt’s relations with the West.25

Note how the article meekly says, “a failed attempt to sabotage Egypt’s relations with the West.” What does this mean? “Sabotaging relations” sounds as though Israel might have just said a few nasty things about Egypt and America behind each other’s back. The intentional deception used in this article by its Jewish author is typical of the distortions that go on countless times in the mass media.

The line in Encarta should read:

” … who was forced to resign after Israel was caught committing terrorist bombings against the United States to treacherously incite America to war against Israel’s enemy.”

I am sure that ninety percent of those who read this have never heard of it. Some may think I am making this all up. Well, if you still might doubt that Israel has committed these terrorist acts against America in Egypt, here is a quote from a recent article appearing in the Jewish magazine Moment, written by Samuel Katz and meant for its small Jewish audience. It is more forward, yet still omits the provocative word terrorism, a word Israel uses when Palestinians blow up libraries and cinemas.

And the failures were as common as the spectacular successes. In the mid ’50s, A’man (the Jewish Defense Agency) suffered a serious setback during the infamous “Operation Suzannah,” when Israeli agents provoked Jews in Egypt to attack American and British targets and incite anti-Western sentiment. Many Jews were arrested, and some were executed. The bungled operation was a severe embarrassment for the government of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his defense minister, Pinhas Lavon26

So, in the Lavon Affair we learned how our so-called “best friend in the Mideast,” Israel, rewards the United States for its unconditional monetary and military support: by committing terrorism against us! Think about the fact that most Americans have never even heard about this Israeli terrorist attack against us.

If the Egyptian government had been behind this terror against America, we would have rightly considered it an act of war and we would have attacked Egypt right back, just as we have done against Afghanistan. And the press; they would have clamored for such attacks just as they demanded attacks against Afghanistan. In fact, we attacked Afghanistan on far less grounds than we have for attacking Israel. No evidence exists that Afghanistan approved of or even knew anything about the attack on the World Trade Center; but in the Lavon Affair, the Israeli government committed a direct act of war against the United States. We, of course, did not bomb Tel Aviv in retaliation. We did not sever our diplomatic relations. In fact, we did not even cut off our billions of dollars in monetary and military aid!

Any American government official who would have given aid to the Japanese after the attack on Pearl Harbor would have been prosecuted as a traitor to the United States.

Let me be perfectly blunt. Those Americans in government who continued our support of Israel after it had committed terrorist acts against the people of the United States — clearly committed treason against our country.

If America’s leaders, after Israel’s terrorist attack against us in the Lavon Affair, would simply have stopped their treasonous aid to Israel, there would have been no subsequent acts of terror against us such as the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

Israel’s terrorist attack on the USS Liberty

In 1967, during the Six Day War, Israel again committed a grievous terrorist act against the United States of America. On June 8, Israel used unmarked fighters and torpedo boats to launch an hour and one-half attack on the American Navy ship the USS Liberty, costing 34 American lives and 171 wounded.27 The Israelis first attacked the Liberty’s radio towers in an attempt to stop the Sixth Fleet from learning that the Israelis were the attackers. After unmarked Israeli fighters horrendously bombed and strafed the Liberty, Israel sent in torpedo boats to finish the job. They even machine gunned the deployed life rafts in an effort to ensure that there would be no survivors (witnesses) who could expose them.

Only by the heroism and ingenuity of the captain and crew of the USS Liberty kept the Israeli plan from succeeding. They were able to keep the ship afloat as well as contact the fleet and let it know that Israel, rather than Egypt, that had attacked the ship. Knowing that its plan had been exposed, Israel withdrew and meekly claimed that their attack was a case of mistaken identity. They said that they mistook the USS Liberty for an Egyptian ship.

The United States Secretary of State at the time, Dean Rusk, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Thomas Moorer, both say the attack was no accident, that Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty. For instance, it was clear day with a stiff breeze and the Liberty sported both a huge American flag and large international identification numbers on her hull. Israeli jets buzzed the USS Liberty long before the attack, flying so close that the members of the Liberty crew could even see their hand waves as they passed. Just as in the Lavon Affair, Israel hoped to blame this act of war on their enemy, the Egyptians. This time, only the courage and resourcefulness of the Liberty’s crew prevented a further compounding of the travesty.

Learn more about the attack on the USS Liberty by reading
“The Attack on the Liberty and the War on Freedom”
by David Duke.

The Jewish-dominated American media expressed no outrage for the attack and supinely accepted the specious Israeli excuse for it. Even though our own Secretary of State and our own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the Israeli attack was deliberate, the Jewish Lobby was even able to prevent a formal Congressional inquiry into the attack. In contrast, the USS Liberty’s sister ship, the USS Pueblo, was captured by North Korea the following year (1968) with the loss of only one life, yet within a year the U.S. Congress launched a formal inquiry into that attack. There still has been no formal inquiry into the attack on the USS Liberty. The Liberty’s commanding officer, Captain William McGonagle, was awarded America’s highest honor, the Congressional Medal of Honor, for his splendid courage during the Israeli attack. But, he was given the award in a quiet ceremony in the US Navy Yard, rather than the White House (as is customary), so as not to hurt the image of the very enemy who killed 34 of his comrades and wounded him and 174 more Americans on the Liberty!

How did the political leaders of the United States respond to this Israeli act of war against it? Did America bomb Tel Aviv as it did Kabul, Afghanistan? No, the Israeli-controlled American government along with the Jewish-controlled media committed a clear case of treason against America by covering up this vicious terrorist attack, and continues to send billions of American tax dollars to Israel in military and monetary aid.

Again, I invoke the example of Pearl Harbor. Any American government official who would have given aid or comfort to Japan after the attack in 1941 would have been prosecuted as a traitor to the United States. I charge that those American government officials who collaborate with the Jewish Lobby and media in continuing to support Israel after its attack on the USS Liberty – are traitors against the United States of America!

If, after Israel’s treacherous attack on the USS Liberty, we would have simply stopped treasonously supporting the Israeli terrorist state; we would surely not have suffered the terrorism of September 11, 2001.

Israel: A nation that spies on America and sells our secrets to our worst enemies

In the 1980s, Israel recruited an American Jew, Jonathan Pollard, to spy against the United States. After his apprehension, Israeli officials at first claimed he was a “rogue agent,” but later they admitted that Pollard was working for them from the beginning. Other than the Jewish spies, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, who gave our atom bomb secrets to the Soviets, probably no spies have ever done more damage to our country than that which was done by this single Israeli spy: Jonathan Pollard.

Israel’s use of Pollard’s information not only destroyed our intelligence operations in the Mideast; it practically destroyed our intelligence apparatus in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc.28 Many of America’s most loyal and best agents in the Communist world were executed because Israel sold or bartered Pollard’s stolen information to the Soviets.29 As the article below by Eric Margolis shows, our “wonderful friend and ally” Israel would not even allow the United States to debrief the Mossad agents who handled the Pollard spying so as to help determine the full extent of the damage done to the United States and the dangers posed to American agents overseas.

Some of the enormously sensitive secrets stolen by Pollard may have been either sold, or bartered, by Israel to the Soviet Union.

A number of key CIA agents in the East Bloc were allegedly executed as a result of Pollard’s spying. The KGB likely gained access to top-secret U.S. codes – either directly from Israel, or through spies in Israel’s government. In short, Pollard’s treachery caused one of the worst security disasters in modern U.S. history…

So, Israel, which receives billions of American aid, has treacherously spied on and harmed the very security of the United States. To further demonstrate their contempt for us, they even bartered the top secret information they had stolen from us – to America’s worst enemies. Even after Israel’s public relations apologies for the Pollard spying, it has continued to spy on us. The Los Angeles Times in 1997 reported that an American Jew named David A. Tenenbaum “admitted to divulging secrets to Israel.?30 To quote the Los Angeles Times, “A civilian engineer working at an Army command facility near Detroit has admitted divulging classified military information to Israeli officials over the last 10 years.?

Even after Israel proved its willingness to spy on us and critically damage America’s intelligence operations, President Clinton appointed a dedicated, Zionist Jew to Chairman of the National Security Council, the highest intelligence position in the White House. Even the Israeli daily Maariv referred to Berger as a “warm Jew,�? meaning that he is devoted to Israel first.(31) Appointing Berger as National Security Council chief after the Pollard Spy Case is pure insanity.

The fact that Israel could commit these outrages against the United States without suffering scathing media attacks or even the end of aid to Israel, shows their extreme power over us and the treason that reaches into the highest echelons of the American establishment. It is no wonder that Ariel Sharon could make the following statement to Simon Peres when he suggested that Israel might lose American aid if it did not pull back recent Israeli incursions. Sharon responded:

Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it. —Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001 32

It is not only Jonathan Pollard who has committed treason against America. All those in the American government who would continue to monetarily and militarily support a foreign nation that spies on us and severely damages our intelligence operations (along with causing the deaths of American agents) have committed treason against the United States of America. In response to these ongoing acts of treachery against the United States, a truly patriotic American Government would have (at the very least) ended our support for Israel. Supporting a foreign nation after it willfully commits such acts of treachery against America is nothing less than treason.

The World Trade Center Attack

So, the record is clear. Israel is the worst terrorist rogue state on earth. Israel and its terrorist leaders such as Begin, Shamir and Sharon have committed a half-century of relentless ethnic cleansing, bombings, shootings, torture and murder against the Palestinian people.

Israel has also committed numerous acts of treachery and terrorism against the United States of America as I have clearly shown in documenting the Lavon Affair, the Pollard Spy Scandal and the Attack on the USS Liberty.

Because of overwhelming Israeli power in media and government, traitors to the United States continue to support, with little fear of punishment, this rogue terrorist nation.

In fact, these traitors to the United States supplied to Israel the very weapons it used to commit the terrorist attack on the Liberty!

Through the efforts of Jewish and other traitors to the United States, the American government has embarked on a foreign policy that has repeatedly betrayed America’s true interests. Massive American military and monetary support has enabled Israel to continue its relentless terrorism against the Palestinians. American treasonous support of Israel’s terror has thus caused tremendous hatred against the United States, greatly hurt American economic and strategic interests, and ultimately spawned the terrorism now rising against us.

The traitors who sold out America to Israel are as guilty of causing the loss of 5,000 American lives on September 11 as those who actually hijacked and crashed the planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Israel wants Arabic terrorism against Western nations

Over the last two years, Israel has suffered the worst public relations disaster in its history. The election of mass murder Ariel Sharon as Prime Minister was the last straw for millions of decent minded people the world over. The UN Conference on Racism, which labeled Israel an “Apartheid state,” also signaled growing disapproval of Israel.

Then, suddenly, the attack on the World Trade Center changed the world’s mood back to Israel’s favor. Was this just a fortunate coincidence for Israel?

As I have shown in this article, Israeli leaders have launched terrorist attacks on America disguised as Arab attacks, because they knew that any Arab terrorist attack on America advances their own aims. They are fully aware that the bigger the attack against America; the more carnage, the better it is for Israel. Ariel Sharon learned an important lesson in Beirut. Rather than to directly commit atrocities against America as it did in the Lavon Affair and the attack on the Liberty, it is much easier and safer for Israel to continue to commit atrocities, such as Sabra and Chatila against Arabic people, so as to drive their Islamic enemies to terrorism against the West. That’s precisely what occurred in the retaliatory bombing of the American Marine and French Paratrooper contingent in Beirut, and it is continued Israeli terror that has motivated the Trade Center Attacks.

What was Israel’s role in the WTC attack?

The Washington Times ran a story on September 10, 2001 about a 68-page study issued by the U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies (SAMS). The study, issued by the elite Army officer’s school, detailed the dangers of a possible U.S. Army occupational force in the Mideast. Here is the article’s comment about the study’s view of the Israeli Mossad:

Of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”

Ironically, within 24 hours of the story’s publication, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was attacked. Could the “ruthless and cunning Mossad,”; as the U.S. Army officers describe it, covertly have been behind the attack?

The Mossad is the most ruthless terrorist organization in the entire world. It is also one of the largest and most sophisticated intelligence organizations. No other nation comes even close to its scope and power in the Mideast region. It prides itself on infiltrating every sizable militant Palestinian and Arabic organization on earth. Knowing these facts, there can be little doubt the Mossad has deeply penetrated one of the oldest, largest and what is considered the most dangerous Arabic terrorist organization on earth; bin Laden’s al-Qaida.

Furthermore, the FBI and the CIA have clearly stated that the attack on the WTC and Pentagon was a huge covert operation using an international network of at least a hundred terrorists, spanning three continents. Could Mossad agents in al-Qaida as well as the rest of Mossads vast network of thousands of infiltrators and informants, not have known about the most extensive and ambitious Arabic terrorist operation in history?

It is, of course, extremely difficult to prove the precise role of a secretive, foreign intelligence organization, such as the Mossad, in a terrorist act; they dont brag about their exploits on the Internet. But, powerful evidence is mounting that Israelis had foreknowledge of the September 11th attack on America. And, if indeed they had foreknowledge of these murderous acts of terrorism – and then had the cold-blooded mentality not to warn the United States because they saw a horrendous massacre of thousands of Americans as good for Israel – it follows that they would have felt no restraint from actually instigating and covertly aiding this terrorist plan through their own agent provocateurs. Lets look at the hard evidence indicating the Mossad had foreknowledge of the September 11 attack.

Evidence of Mossad Treachery in the WTC Attack

The day after the attack on the World Trade Center, the Jerusalem Post, the most respected and famous Israeli newspaper in the world, reported that 4000 Israelis were missing in the attack on the WTC. The Foreign Ministry compiled the number from Israeli relatives, who in the first few hours after the attack, contacted the Israeli Foreign Ministry and gave the names of Israeli friends and relatives who worked in the WTC or who had business scheduled in it or its adjacent structures. Even without seeing the article in the Jerusalem Post, logic alone would tell you that there would be many hundreds, if not thousands of Israelis in the World Trade Center at the time of the attacks. The international Jewish involvement in banking and finance is legendary. For instance, two of the richest firms in New York are Goldman-Sachs and the Solomon Brothers; and both firms have offices in the Twin Towers. Many executives in these firms regularly commute back and forth to Israel. New York is the center of world-wide Jewish financial power, and the World Trade Center is at its epicenter. One would naturally expect the Israeli death toll to be catastrophic. The Jerusalem Post certainly thought so on September 12, 2001. Here is the beginning of its article:

Thousands of Israelis missing near WTC, Pentagon

The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack. (The headline and first sentence of the Jerusalem Post article) 33

When George Bush made his speech before Congress, it turns out that he made a significant error other than saying that the WTC attackers did it because they “hated freedom.” Bush made a point to say that in addition to thousands of Americans, 130 Israelis died in the WTC. The implication was to say that Israel shared in our suffering, and that we and Israel are in this thing together. Upon hearing the number of 130 Israeli dead, it seemed suspiciously low to me. If 4000 Israelis were at the WTC and the WTC death toll was about 4500 (about 10 percent of the 45,000 people normally in the buildings at that time), the Israeli toll should have statistically been around 400 and not 130.

As a place for doing business and for employment, the world Trade Center was not a minimum wage or a MacDonald’s kind of place; it had highly paid, high tech and high level jobs and executive positions primarily in international finance, banking and stock trading. I asked myself how there could be only 130 Israelis dead, while there were an estimated 199 dead from Columbia and 428 from the Philippines?

In previous articles I wrote on the September 11 terror, I did not allude to these suspicions, because I have always taken pride in not writing anything I could not firmly substantiate. But, while researching this article on Israeli terrorism against Palestine and America, I discovered the most shocking fact I have ever run across in all my years of research and writing. I discovered a simple fact that has enormous ramifications in regard to the September terror attack.

Searching through hundreds of articles trying to track down the true Israeli death toll, I found a New York Times piece that clarified the precise number of Israelis who died in the World Trade Center attack. It turned out that of the 130 Israelis President Bush claimed had died in the World Trade Center, 129 of them were still alive. Only one Israeli had actually died. I was incredulous. “Good God,” I said to myself, “only one Israeli!” Here is the pertinent excerpt from the NY Times:

But interviews with many consulate officials Friday suggested that the lists of people they were collecting varied widely in their usefulness. For example, the city had somehow received reports of many Israelis feared missing at the site, and President Bush in his address to the country on Thursday night mentioned that about 130 Israelis had died in the attacks.

But Friday, Alon Pinkas, Israel’s consul general here, said that lists of the missing included reports from people who had called in because, for instance, relatives in New York had not returned their phone calls from Israel. There were, in fact, only three Israelis who had been confirmed as dead: two on the planes and another who had been visiting the towers on business and who was identified and buried. (New York Times, Sept. 22)34

The very low death toll of 130 suggested that a number of Israelis at the Trade Center had been warned before the attack. When I found out the truth that only one Israeli had died, there could be no doubt that there had been a prior warning for many Israelis. Having only one Israeli casualty among the 4500 dead at the WTC is simply a statistical impossibility. Even if the Israeli Foreign Ministry and the Jerusalem Post had grossly overestimated the number of Israelis in the World Trade Center by say 3,000 (400 percent), there still should have still been 1,000 Israelis there at the time of the attacks. Again, even if only a few hundred Israelis were present at the time of the attack, only one Israeli death occurring there is statistically absurd. Either September 11 had to be a big Jewish holiday, or a number of Israeli citizens had some advance warning of the impending attack.

Prior Warning to Israelis

The next thing I researched was to see if there were any confirmed warnings to Israelis prior to the attack. I quickly found an article in Newsbytes, a news service of the Washington Post, titled “Instant Messages To Israel Warned of WTC attack.”35 The Israeli daily, Ha’aretz, also confirmed the prior warnings to Israel and confirmed that the FBI is investigating the warnings.36 The articles detailed that an Israeli messaging firm, Odigo, with offices in both the World Trade Center and in Israel, received a number of warnings just two hours before the attack.

Instant Messages To Israel Warned Of WTC Attack

Officials at instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York landmarks.

But Alex Diamandis, vice president of sales and marketing, confirmed that workers in Odigo’s research and development and international sales office in Israel received a warning from another Odigo user approximately two hours prior to the first attack. (From the Washington Post’s Newsbytes)

So now we have powerful and convincing evidence from impeccable sources that Israel had foreknowledge of the attack. First, without a prior warning, there could not have been only a single Israeli victim at the World Trade Center. Secondly, there is clear confirmation that a company with offices in both Israel and the WTC received warnings immediately prior to the attack.

Who would have warned Israelis of the impending attack, if not Israel’s Mossad? The fact that Israel’s government had prior knowledge of the pending attack and had warned potential Israeli victims, but then deliberately let thousands of Americans die – makes the Israelis just as responsible for the carnage as the Arab attackers of the WTC.

What’s good for Israel is bad for America

You can be sure that joy rose in the hearts of all Israeli terrorists as they witnessed the smoke plume from the twin towers. The FBI even arrested five Israelis on a rooftop nearby the twin towers, videotaping and cheering the entire event.37 They knew that American and world resistance to Israel’s Supremacism and terrorism plummeted right along with the collapse of the towers of the World Trade Center. Perhaps the most telling statement was when a NY Times reporter questioned the former Israeli, Benjamin Netanyahu, a man every bit as radical as Ariel Sharon. Here are the words of the excited former Israeli Prime Minister:

Asked tonight what the attack meant for relations between the United States and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, replied, “It’s very good.” Then he edited himself: “Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.38

The World Trade Center Attack was obviously very good for Israel; in fact, Israel is the only nation who benefited from it. Israel’s fifty-year record of unrelenting terrorism became completely overshadowed by the horror and the visual magnitude of this one spectacular terrorist attack. When the Jewish-dominated American media repeatedly showed a few, long-suffering Palestinians celebrating the attacks, Palestinians became unfairly painted as behind the Trade Center terror, even though every Palestinian organization condemned it, and not a single Palestinian was proven to be involved.

Of course, it was America that suffered most of all, with almost 5000 dead, a wrecked economy, and the worst restrictions against Constitutional liberties in American history. The Lavon Affair, the Attack on the Liberty, and the spying of Jonathon Pollard, and the murder of 5000 Americans on September 11th — were all good for Israel, but terribly bad for the United States.

When will America come to finally understand that what is good for the terrorist state of Israel is destructive and even deadly for the United States of America.?

When will we get the backbone to put a stop to the Israeli agents and American traitors who have orchestrated fifty years of support for Israeli terrorism and fifty years of treason against our own country?

My life is dedicated to a free, secure and sovereign America, an America dedicated to our own people and our own interests; not the criminal purposes of a foreign, terrorist nation.

Whatever the cost to me personally, I will continue to pursue that path.

I urge you to join with me. I beseech you not to purchase your security at the cost of your freedom and your honor.

Courageously share the information of this article with other Americans and the rest of the world. Let us tell the truth about the worst terrorist nation on earth: Israel. In doing so, you will help save not only the Palestinian people, but the lives and freedom of the American people as well.

By David Duke
National President
European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO)

Source: www.davidduke.com

The last few days I have run a series of posts about names, or tags that we put on people. Have you noticed a common bond or connection there? Racist. Fascist. Sexist. They all have ist on the end. They all describe an action or belief system. But the common bond they have for me is that I have been called all these things at one time or another. I’m not proud. Or ashamed. I’m human.

Chairman Zero came out and said that he doesn’t feel that the criticism of him is racially motivated. He’s right. It’s not that we hate him for anything he is. I don’t hate him, I don’t even know him. I’m just dissatisfied with his performance in his current (and past) positions. The criticism of him that I’ve heard is focussed on socialistic policies that he would like to enact. I have stated my position on this many times but perhaps candidly so here it is. I am not against the gubmint getting in the health care business because they will screw it all up, I’m against it because the gubmint should not be in ANY business for ANY reason. It’s not their function to be in business.

But back to the point. It seems that every time one political party gets the lead over another they want to call the others all these names when their policies are criticised. They try to distract the people from the issue with the ultimate evil of racism. This is especially a liberal tactic. I for one, have grown extremely tired of it. I have never been or owned a slave. None of my tracable ancestors have been or owned a slave. Yet if I disagree with Chairman Zero I must be a racist according to this tactic? NO!

Here’s what I know. People like Jesse Jackson, David Duke and Al Sharpton make their living playing off racism and organizations like acorn, the kkk and the arien nation are part and parcel of the whole racism business. The well meaning but uninformed enable them by not taking the time to be informed and blindly following the ill advice given by their “leaders”. Can anyone tell me why the gubmint should fund an organization like acorn in the first place? Are they funding these other “fine organizations” and we don’t know about it? I think they’ve got way too much of our money.

So one day I was peacefully sitting in my office, when the FBI walked in.  My first reaction was, Holy Shit!  What have I done now?  This isn’t about that parking ticket I refuse to pay, is it?  You know, the one I got parked in front of my own house, but supposedly less than 8 feet from the corner?  Like who knew that was a rule, anyway?  And how do you know it was less than 8 feet?  Are the parking enforcement people carrying tape measures around with them now?

But fortunately, they weren’t there for me.  They had come to let me know that on Saturday they would be setting up a sniper team in the garage just outside my office door.  Just outside the garage was a statue called the  Liberty Monument, which is a bit like Orwell’s 1984 Ministry of Truth, which was responsible for propaganda.  The Liberty Monument commemorates the massacre of black citizens by white police.  Every year, the Klan holds a ceremony at the Libery Monument, and on this particular occasion, David Duke was scheduled to speak.  The FBI was there to protect him from assassination and to protect everyone in general from any violent acts.  Plus, I think they were kind of hoping they would catch David doing something arrestable, like inciting to riot.  So I said what anyone would in my situation:  Can I watch?  Sure, they said, Come on down! 

I arrived maybe an hour before his speech.  In addition to the snipers in place in the parking garage, there were others on the roof of the aquarium across the street.    Once the crowd started to gather, they had undercover agents mingling with them.  It was a pretty disappointing turnout, I doubt there were even as many as 50 people there, and most of them were from the Alabama Klan.  The snipers’ boss was there with binoculars and he was pointing out to me several attendees from Alabama which he knew by name.  Now that is kind of scary. 

The speech contained the usual drivel, but it was very short, and Duke hightailed it out of there as fast as he could go when it was over.  He seemed nervous, maybe it was all those rifles pointing in his general direction?  In any case it was all very anti-climactic.  I was kinda hoping for one of those scenarios like in the movies, where someone shouts “Gun!” and then everybody bites the dust, but alas, it was not to be. 

Its the year that the far-right party gained 2 MEPs and therefore should be one to celebrate for them, but the BNP are having severe problems regarding friends, namely that they cannot find enough in Europe, and the ones that they do have are a nasty bunch indeed. For me as for most, the BNP are a nasty lot, so it is unlikely to be of much surprise that their friends are too, but it is particularly damaging for them since they for a while now have been trying to appear a more moderate force, family oriented and not connected with the grit of international politics.

Who the BNP makes friends with has come to the fore in the press again as one Preston Wiginton, an American white nationalist, was refused entry to the UK “under laws to keep out “undesirables”.

The Mail also noted that “The BNP’s deputy leader Simon Darby said of Mr Wiginton: ‘He came to last year’s Red, White and Blue and was coming to this year’s but they wouldn’t let him in for some reason. He wasn’t coming to speak.”

Wiginton is an outspoken critic of immigration, has been documented blaming Jews for economic problems, has strong links with ‘murderous’ neo-nazi groups in Russia, and organised BNP leader Nick Griffin’s anti-Islam tour of three US universities at the end of October 2007.

Wiginton is not the first controversial American friend of the BNP’s in recent times. It had been reported that James W. Von Brunn, the neo-nazi who murdered a security guard at the doors of the Washington Holocaust museum in June this year – when he was at the age of 88 – was also a regular attendee at meetings held by the American Friends of the British National Party in Arlington County.

A further strong linking the BNP had with the American far-right was with David Duke, the former leader of the Klu Klux Klan who called President Obama a “visual aid,” which this picture certifies. It was on the stage with Duke that Griffin showed the true colours of his attempts to gain parliamentary influence by appearing to modernise the party, which can be seen on this video;

A list of the International friends of the BNP can be found here that include the usual suspects like France’s National Front. Though, in spite of the links which the party has with a cell known as the European National Front, the BNP, along with the Hungarian anti-gypsy party Jobbik, have failed to make a proper right-wing bloc in Europe (perhaps the Tories have stolen possible links with the creation of the ECR!). A video – here – also shows the party’s attempts at securing unpalatable support in Europe, and who can forget the time that Simon Darby was greeted to fascist salutes in Milan.

It doesn’t get any prettier online. Harry’s Place has created a profile of one BNP supporter on YouTube anda shortlist of his friends which include a supporter of American neo-nazi terrorist David Duke, a Serbian neo-Nazi who approvingly quotes David Lane, and a supporter of the neo-nazi party the British People’s Party – who are committed to the fourteen words.

Any attempts by the BNP to distance itself from groups and individuals that may ruin their attempted image change, is constantly pushed to the backfoot by loyal supporters themselves. The current issue with Preston Wiginton is testimony to this.

Antes de que me tachen de facho dejen les explico la portada de Reagan Youth, si, es cierto, son los del Ku Klux Klan, si, Reagan Youth significa “La juventud de Reagan” y si, dice que esta patrocinado por David Duke  ex-gran mago del K.K.K., nacionalista yanqui y ex senador de Luisiana, pero todo esto (y el librito interior del disco) es una forma de expresar su odio en contra del racismo, del nacionalismo chovinista gringo, de la religion y mas.

La primera vez que vi la portada me impacto, y conforme fui viendo el librito mas me asustaba y pensaba “¿que estoy escuchando?”, sin embargo después de ponerle atención a las letras me di cuenta que Reagan Youth es todo lo contrario.

Sus letras hablan sobre el racismo que se vivia (o se vive) en los 80 en E$tados Podridos, sobre el ultranacionalismo, la sociedad conservadora y la conexión política-religión.

Mas de un amigo se sorprendia al ver la portada y rapidamente tenia que explicarles que no era lo que parecia ser jajaja.

Este disco puedo presumir estupidamente que entre mi hermano y yo lo hemos comprado 3 veces y bajado como 4 veces del internet, pero por alguna razon no podemos conservarlo, jajajaja.

Una de las canciones que mas me gusta es la primera, no solo por la exelenta musica punk, sino por la buenisima letra, sobre todo en el pedazo que dicen :

Want another war?
Forward to El Salvador!
Gonna kill some communists!

Ahora que ya saben que Reagan Youth no son ni nazis, ni fachos, bajense su disco y disfrutenlo.

Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 01 – Reagan Youth
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 02 – New Aryans
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 03 – (Are You) Happy
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 04 – No Class
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 05 – I Hate Hate
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 06 – Degenerated
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 07 – Go Nowhere
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 08 – U S A
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 09 – Anytown
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 10 – In Dog We Trust
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 11 – It’s A Beautiful Day
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 12 – Jesus Was A Communist
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 13 – Urban Savages
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 14 – What Will The Neighbors Think
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 15 – Get The Ruler Out
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 16 – Brave New World
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 17 – Miss Teen America
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 18 – Heavy Metal Shuffle
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 19 – Queen Babylon
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 20 – Acid Rain
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 21 – One Holy Bible
Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics – 22 – Back To The Garden (Parts I-IV)

Reagan Youth – A Collection Of Pop Classics (bajar/download)

Letras de Reagan Youth

We are the sons of Reagan …Heil!
Gonna kill us some pagans …Heil!
The right’s your sacred mission
Start an inquisition
Gonna purge the heathen minds!

We are Reagan Youth! …Heil! Heil! Heil!
Reagan Youth …Sieg Heil!

We are the sons of Reagan …Heil!
We are the godforsaken …Heil!
The right is our religion
We’ll watch television
Tons of fun and brainwashed slime

We are the sons of Reagan …Heil!
We are the unawakened …Heil!
Want another war?
Forward to El Salvador!
Gonna kill some communists!

we are Reagan Youth! …Heil! Heil! Heil!
Reagan Youth! …Sieg Heil!

Don’t be fooled!

The Jew Alan Colmes interviews David Duke. Listen to the part where Mr Duke suggests that if Mr Colmes were to be outwardly supportive of South Africa instead of Israel, he wouldnt have his job. Haha!

Pat Buchanan:

White men were 100% of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100% of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country built basically by white folks, who were 90% of the nation in 1960 when I was growing up and the other 10% were African-Americans who had been discriminated against.

Original movie poster.

Tom Coburn (addressing Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor):

You’ll have lots of ’splainin’ to do.

Lindsey Graham (Samuel Alito confirmation hearing, January, 2006, referring to Democrats’ questions about Alito’s membership in the now-defunct group, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which opposed women and minorities being admitted):

GRAHAM: If you don’t mind the suspicious nature that I have — it’s that you may be saying that because you want to get on the Supreme Court; that you’re disavowing this now because it doesn’t look good. And really, what I would look at to believe you’re not — and I’m going to be very honest with you — is: How have you lived your life? Are you really a closet bigot?

ALITO: I’m not any kind of a bigot. I’m not.

GRAHAM: No, sir, you’re not. And you know why I believe that? Not because you just said it — but that’s a good enough reason — because you seem to be a decent, honorable man. … Judge Alito, I am sorry that you’ve had to go through this. I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this.

Lindsey Graham (Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearing, July, 2009):

Judge, I — I may be wrong, but every case I’ve seen by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund advocated against restrictions on abortion, advocated federal taxpayer funding of abortion for low- income women. Across the board when it came to the death penalty, it advocated against the death penalty. When it came to employment law, it advocated against testing and for quotas.

I mean, that’s just the record of this organization. And the point I’m trying to make is that whether or not you advocate those positions and how you will judge can be two different things. I haven’t seen in your judging this advocate that I saw or this board member. But when it came to the death penalty, you filed a memorandum with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund in 1981 — and I would like to submit this to the record — where you signed this memorandum.

Jeff Sessions:

Judge, there was a — apparently, unease within your panel. I — I was really disappointed. And I think a lot of people have been that the opinion was so short. It was pro curiam. It did not discuss the serious legal issues that the case raised. And I believe that’s legitimate criticism of what you did.

But it appears, according to Stuart Taylor, a respected legal writer for the National Journal — that Stuart Taylor concluded that — that it appears that Judge Cabranes was concerned about the outcome of the case, was not aware of it because it was a pro curiam unpublished opinion. But it began to raise the question of whether a rehearing should be granted.

You say you’re bound by the superior authority. But the fact is when the re — the question of rehearing that 2nd Circuit authority that you say covered the case, some say it didn’t cover so clearly — but that was up for debate. And the circuit voted, and you voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit.

And, in fact, your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of — of — of Puerto Rican ancestry — had you voted with him, you — you — you could have changed that case.

Bay Buchanan:

Sonia Sotomayor is a gift to conservatives. But we must find the guts to exploit it. Sonia Baby needs to become the poster child of the Left. With her as point, we can strip away the scab hiding the real identity of those in power: anti-white male racists who support a radical agenda of massive illegal immigration, reverse discrimination and gun control. It is time we showed Americans we are ready to fight for them against the likes of Sonia Sotomayor and her pals.

Todd Tiahrt:

If you think of it in human terms, there is a financial incentive that would be put in place, paid for by tax dollars, that would encourage…single parents, living below the poverty level, to have the opportunity for a free abortion. If you take that scenario and apply it to many of the great minds we have today, who would we have been deprived of? Our President grew up in those similar circumstances. If that financial incentive was in place, is it possible that his mother might have taken advantage of it? Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Justice, if those circumstances were in place, is it possible that we’d have been denied his great mind?

Tom Tancredo:

If you belong to an organization called La Raza, in this case … which is from my point of of view any way … nothing more than a … Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses. If you belong to something like that in a way that’s going to convince me and a lot of other people that it’s got nothing to do with race. Even though the logo of La Raza is “All for the race. Nothing for the rest.” What does that tell you?

Zell Miller:

Our globe-trotting president needs to stop and take a break and quit gallivanting all around. I think Rahm Emanuel ought to get some Gorilla Glue and put it in that chair in the Oval Office and say ‘Sit here awhile.’”

Rush Limbaugh (on Sotomayor):

The real question here that needs to be asked — and nobody on our side, from a columnist to a TV commentator to anybody in our party has the guts to ask: How can a president nominate such a candidate? And how can a party get behind such a candidate? That’s what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive.

Glenn Beck (on Sotomayor):

They’re just like, “Hey, Hispanic chick lady! You’re empathetic?” She says yep. They say, “You’re in!” That’s the way it really works.

Lou Dobbs (responding to remarks from Condoleezza Rice that slavery was America’s “birth defect”)::

We’re living with the issue of race. We’ve gotta be able to talk about. And I can guarantee you this. Not a single one of these cotton-, ah, these just ridiculous politicians should be a moderator on the issue of race.

Jon Kyl (Sotomayor confirmation hearing):

[...] when you made the statement that’s now relatively famous. “I would hope a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion.”

So here you’re reaching a judgment that not only will it make a difference but that it should make a difference. You acknowledge that they made a big difference in discrimination cases but it took a long time to understand — it takes time and effort. “In short, I accept the proposition that difference will be made by the presence of women and people of color on bench and my experiences will affect the facts that I choose to see. I don’t know exactly what the difference will be in my judging but I accept that there will be some based gender and my Latina heritage.” You said that you weren’t encouraging that. And you talked about how we need to set that aside, but you didn’t in your speech say that this is not good. We need to set this aside. Instead you seem to be celebrating it. The clear inference is it’s a good thing that this is happening.

Nick Griffin’s reflections on Barack Obama and “virtually all black people”.

Nick Griffin is might be pretty coy but he is still a divisive figure. I watched the video below where Griffin (besides whom David Duke – the former leader of the KKK- was sitting) describes selling ‘their ideas’ differently. “Instead of talking about racial purity we talk about identity”. Essentially, he repackaging the divisive racial argument to increase the British National Party’s voter base.

BNP chairman Nick Griffin speaks to an audience of American Nationalists alongside convicted fraudster David Duke of the blatantly Nazi American terrorist group the KKK, who have been responsible f…

It would be better if he were repackaging it with the aim of being a force for inclusion but I don’t get that impression of Nick Griffin. As he says he is not selling out “their ideas”.

This repackaging is sort of like repainting a house with the latest fad colors of security, freedom, democracy, identity. The structure is still the same. It is built on race and in a multi-racial society going around saying that “the modern world is ours” as Griffin does in the first video buttresses the point that his racial message is still dangerously divisive.

There is no one in America that I know who politicizes race as much as Griffin. Britain might remain far from getting its own Obama if this guy continues to be a political leader having even some clout. But of course from angle on the world it is not as if Britain gains from having it own Obama anyway, right?