Nick Nightingale writes a letter

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 08 October 2008 23:27.

Today the Telegraph ran a mad Marxist horror story on an ambitious attempt by the equality tzars to control our tongues:-

Publishers and universities are outlawing dozens of seemingly innocuous words in case they cause offence.

Banned phrases on the list, which was originally drawn up by sociologists, include Old Masters, which has been used for centuries to refer to great painters - almost all of whom were in fact male.

It is claimed that the term discriminates against women and should be replaced by “classic artists”.

The list of banned words was written by the British Sociological Association, whose members include dozens of professors, lecturers and researchers.

The list of allegedly racist words includes immigrants, developing nations and black, while so-called “disablist” terms include patient, the elderly and special needs.

It comes after one council outlawed the allegedly sexist phrase “man on the street”, and another banned staff from saying “brainstorm” in case it offended people with epilepsy.

However the list of “sensitive” language is said by critics to amount to unwarranted censorship and wrongly assume that people are offended by words that have been in use for years.

Well, I’ve had a look at the website of the theologically marxoid British Sociological Association, and found three lists of “Words That Must Never Again Pass Our Sinful Lips”. Anyone who wants a good laugh can sample these links (at least one of which dates back to 2004, not that you would know it from the Telegraph report): Sex and Gender; Ethnicity and Race, Non-Disablist.

However, this encounter with a malignant academic tumour was but the first of my day. A little later I came across something called The Anti-Racist Toolkit, a basis, apparently, for “building the Anti-Racist HEI” (High Educational Institution). It’s dated 2002, and formed the centre-piece of a post-Lawrence Enquiry investigation of Institutional Racism. It was conceived by three Leeds University sociologists: Laura Turney, Ian Law & Debbie Phillips. It ventures onto some familiar ground for MR readers:-

Unpicking ‘Whiteness’
For many HEIs, the ‘whiteness’ of the institution goes unnoticed and is simply rationalised into a day-to-day perception of ‘normality’. The research we undertook at the University of Leeds indicated, however, that when forced to identify the ‘face’ of the institution, many people working there described it (with reference to staff) as not only predominantly white, but also predominantly white and male. For the most part, however, people don’t really notice the ‘whiteness’ of an institution and the implications that this normative whiteness has for those staff and students working and studying there. What is more, people tend to over-estimate the numbers of Black and minority ethnic people working and studying in a place and assume that equality policies of any kind work primarily in favour of Black and minority ethnic people, women and disabled candidates (both staff and students). In this way the whiteness of an institution is ignored and downplayed.

... It is only recently that the study of ‘race’, ethnicity and culture has also begun to specifically address questions of whiteness. The study of whiteness has been important for this project for a number of reasons, primarily because the acknowledgement or identification of ‘whiteness’ becomes a way of making unstable its position as the normalised, central space from which ‘others’ (racialised, ethnicised, etc, groups) are differentiated.

It may be that by naming and seeing whiteness that it becomes possible to dislodge or make unstable its power and privilege and to make visible that which has previously remained ‘un-named’. White people are often not conscious of the ways in which their whiteness accounts for their privilege and power, believing instead that all that we achieve or gain is due to our individuality and hard work. It is inconceivable to most white people that the reason that they have access to particular jobs, courses, nice residential areas or that they are treated politely and helpfully in a school or doctor’s surgery because they are white (Dyer, 1997: 9). It is this power that allows white people (who are usually not only unable to articulate themselves as white but not required to articulate their identity and experiences through an explicitly racialised framework), to:

construct the world in their own image; white people set the standards of humanity by which they are bound to succeed and others are bound to fail. Most of this is not done deliberately or maliciously; there are enormous variations of power amongst white people, to do with class, gender and other factors; goodwill is not unheard of in white people’s engagement with others. White power none the less reproduces itself regardless of intention, power differences and goodwill, and overwhelmingly because it is not seen as whiteness, but as normal (Dyer, 1997: 9-10)

With what lubricious readiness do the theologists of the social construct take to hatred of their own people. So far from the norms of humanity, from sanity, from love are they, it is almost inconceivable that they can be repaired as human beings. Their logic is too twisted, their values too flawed. But, one should always be prepared to have a go, so in his best academic style Nick Nightingale sent one of the Anti-Racist Toolkit’s authors a little MR toolkit of his own:-

Dear Dr Law,

I found your email address through the Leeds University website, following a piece about speech censorship in the on-line edition of the Telegraph today. I am mailing you because of your connection to the Anti-Racist Toolkit, which I have been reading today.

I am not a student or an academic, merely an interested party who turned his back long ago on a life of study and books for a more material pursuit, and occasionally experiences regret. Today, however, I am at least free to indulge a deep interest in the future of the world, and in the dispensation of the power to make that future. Part of that dispensation during my adult life has come about through a really quite pronounced shift leftwards among academics in the soft sciences, marked by the replacement of a pre-war idealist universalism and pacifism with a critique of European peoples that has no ideological stop, not even genocide if it is bloodless.

I understand, of course, that the attachment is to a radical individualist model of man. But that model has become so radical, it not only precludes Homo sapiens’ natural group connectivities and responsibilities but, in the case of Europeans, actively seeks to label them as constructions and impediments to a theological goal of global justice and freedom.

The most egregious element in this labelling exercise is the promotion of what, in America, is variously known as Whiteness Studies, White Privilege and, less often now, White Abolitionism. It was my hope that the profession of these highly offensive anti-white ramps would remain in American universities such as Delaware, where they are so widely professed by the faculty and wearily borne by the white student body. But I see from your Anti-Racist Toolkit that the contagion has found a point of entry to our house. This is deeply regrettable.

Now, that said, my reason for writing is not to get this off my chest, though heaven knows the catharsis makes a welcome change to political impotence. No, I write to enquire about, and to challenge, the constructed racial egalitarianism and its corollary, the denial of indigenous rights and interests, which plainly inform the Anti-Racist Toolkit. I wonder if you will be adventurous enough to answer the following perfectly incorrect questions in the same good faith in which they are asked:-

1. As a committed racial egalitarian, do your views incorporate human bio-diversity as, for example, revealed by the current techniques of micro-array DNA analysis?

2. If so - and it has to be so, really, if one is to remain intellectually serious - does that translate into an incorporation into your views of the uniqueness and distinctiveness of all the races and ethnies?

3. Do you grant the same right to life … to genetic distinctiveness and continuity in their homelands … for these races and ethnies that the UN General Assembly approved for archaic Third World Tribes in their September 07 approval of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

4. Do you grant that for Man in the collective or as an individual the right to life is an absolute - a categorical imperative, to use the Kantian formulation - which exceeds in justice and in good all other rights of a political, religious or philosophical character?

5. Is there a point … any point … say, any degree of English demographic replacement and marginalisation, or deracination, at which the social construction of your racial egalitarianism would be undone by the higher interest of life for the aforesaid English?

6. Do the English have the right today and in all days to express their interest in continuity (ie, their genetic interest) by politically resisting their own demographic replacement?

7. If your English students, when they are free from the ideological and guilt-inducing pressures of campus, do not naturally gravitate together and value their own culture, how shall they take to themselves their right to life? And is not your work, therefore, essentially a struggle against the English struggle for existence?

I hope you will not find these questions too millenarian or too unfamiliar in their terms to provoke your interest. I hope also that you will recognise some intellectual merit in them, at least, and answer them without extraneous references to reading material or cryptic one-word replies.

Yours faithfully,

Nick Nightingale

Tags: Cultural Marxism

Comments:

Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:50 | #

Wow. I guess we US citizens have not quite slipped as far into Orwellian horror as you over there in the EU bureaucracy. This sort of thing would still be a violation of the 1st amendment where I come from (although the de facto stigmatization of language is well advanced in academia - with consequences of ostracism or expulsion). This is horrid Marxism brought to new levels.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:52 | #

Nick Nightingale’s letter is an absolute gem (I bet his blog, if he has one, is first rate!).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:00 | #

“Unpicking ‘Whiteness’ ” (—from the log entry)

Is there some way to unpick Jewishness? God, that would be fantastic if there were! A real Godsend! (Something tells me, though, we’ll never be given a choice ... not in that. Ever.)

Posted by JTaverner on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:43 | #

I know I’m not the first person to notice the similarities between these word lists and Orwell’s speech codes. What also sticks out, though, is the resemblance of this socially acceptable cannon to Judaisms redundant, contradictory, and inane Talmudic codes. Both sets of laws are virtually unknowable by the people they’re perscribed for. This is similar to the current taxing system in the US, which needs an expert to navigate. The Jewish religion is the same; people need to contact an expert (rabbi) to determine the correct code of conduct for any given situation. The rabbis instill constant fear in their charge, should they ever stray from the unknowable laws. Common sense becomes rare. Hardly anyone speaks without hesitation, weighing their words so as not to entrap themselves.

Come to think of it, it seems Jews are really against “plain spoken” thought wherever they find it. It seems the hissing and sneers are most prominent around those that casually break social taboos. The current US and UK governments appear to be Talmudic organizations; they seek to inspire adherence through fear and use a litany of unneeded, unknown, and ever multiplying laws to repress thoughts of the masses of people under their control.

Could it be that Jews are just somehow (genetically or culturally) predisposed to creating societies based around anti-ethical legalism? They’re undoubtedly in power throughout the West, and the world seems to grow more paranoid and sociopathic by the day.

Perhaps a government isn’t a representation of a people so much as it is a representation of a people’s elite?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:40 | #

“They’re undoubtedly in power throughout the West” (—JTaverner)

I agree, and it’s mainly through their acquisition of power in the U.S., the center of Western power, although they’re independently in power in France and the U.K. and probably Canada, apart from the U.S. The resemblance of PC in the States (and thence in the rest of the West) to what went on in the Soviet Union is no coincidence: the Jews run/ran both places. It’s a typical characteristic of the way things are when Jews rule numerically superior Euros. Jews among Euros see themselves as dealing with something potentially unpleasant when it’s strong and healthy, so their main aim is always to weaken, sicken, and demoralize it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:50 | #

Today’s Quiz:

If they’re so strong and see Euros as the enemy, why don’t they just get rid of Euros once and for all, as soon as they have an opportunity to do so (especially if they can pull it off without too much mess)? Doesn’t the fact they haven’t yet done exactly that disprove this thesis that they’re so powerful?

Answer:

Come back in 2042 and we’ll talk.

Posted by the Narrator.. on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 06:56 | #

I wonder if White privilege is a problem in China or Saudi Arabia.
Are many Japanese institutions overly White?
Too many White faces on tv in India? Indonesia? South Korea? Pakistan? Ethiopia? Egypt? Turkey? Sudan?

I suppose it just demonstrates undeniable Machiavellian plots and maneuvers by White people that allowed them to come to power, dominance and “privilege” in nations that were, coincidentally, 100% White!

No doubt “Asian Privilege” accounts for the dramatic lack of Brazilian, Moroccan or Irish heads of state in China.

And I’m sure I’m not the first to notice that the social scene in Mongolia is blatantly prejudiced in favor of those who speak Mongolian!

And Colonialism and Conquest can be scratched as a retort as Europeans have endured as much (if not more) of that than they gave.

It is a problem for us that so many Whites just eat up guilt induced feelings.
Sadly, they love it.
And psychologically, this inclination seems to runs deep and is historic.
Is it any wonder that the religion Europeans so readily accepted has as its central figure a man who “took the sins of the world upon himself” and then allowed himself to be sacrificed for “the good of humanity.”

Today a great many Whites are all to happy to take upon themselves the “sins of the world” and then climb atop the multicultural cross and nail themselves to it.

It’s an inclination that can be curbed though, it’s just that today there is a well entrenched opposition who are stoking the fires of White societal suicide.

A generation of Jewish radicals looked to the Soviet Union as an idyllic place where Jews could rise to positions of preeminence and where anti-Semitism was officially outlawed while Jewish national life flourished. The psychoanalytic movement and the Frankfurt School looked forward to the day when gentiles would be inoculated against anti-Semitism by a clinical priest-hood that could heal the personal inadequacies and the frustrations at loss of status that gentiles murderously projected onto the Jews. And the Boasians and the Frankfurt School and their descendants would prevent the develop-ment of anti-Semitic ideologies of majoritarian ethnocentrism.
.....
Jewish interests are also served by facilitating radical individualism (social atomization) among gentiles while retaining a powerful sense of group cohe-sion among Jews—the agenda of the Frankfurt School. Gentile group identifi-cations are regarded as an indication of psychopathology.
-Prof. Kevin MacDonald, ‘The Culture of Critique’

...

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:39 | #

“They’re undoubtedly in power throughout the West” (—JTaverner)

Is that claim plausible? Ummm .... let’s see ... throughout the West you’re allowed to revise downward the number of Germans incinerated at Dresden without going to jail but not the number of Jews incinerated at Auschwitz — try that and you go to jail. You can shout from the rooftops that the Dresden numbers were lower and nothing happens; you try that with Auschwitz, you’re instantly arrested, tried, and imprisoned.

Now, using a sophisticated old deductive technique called (this is a bit complicated, but stick with me) “putting two and two together,” we come up with ... We come up with who’s in control of things ... Or did I make a mistake in my complex deductive reasoning? .....

You know, sometimes you can’t see things directly, like how the world is shaped, but certain clues tell you — remember in Columbus’ day, people on shore watching ships approach saw the topmost rigging and mast tips first, then gradually the rest of the ships appeared, or Magellan’s Spanish fleet, kept from sailing east to the Spice Islands by the Portuguese, sailed west and still got there, or the Earth’s shadow on the moon during eclipses was round — stuff like that. You put two and two together and, even when you can’t directly see the shape of the Earth, you can tell it’s round.

Likewise with who must be in power even when you can’t see directly who is. Unmistakable clues tell you.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:14 | #

“Do they control everything?”

No, they’d love to but sorry, their power isn’t infinite. They have to concentrate their huge but nevertheless limited resources on areas they deem most vital to themselves, such as securing the unwavering support of the United States for Israel: military, financial, diplomatic support, you name it, if it’s U.S. support for Israel they’re concentrating huge resources on securing it (resources which come out of the billions they’ve managed to extract as yearly tribute payments to Israel: the money for the ongoing lobbying effort that guarantees continued cash flow comes out of the money already secured thanks to last year’s lobbying effort, all paid for by you the taxpayer).

“Is prying Eurosphere borders open to the Third World and keeping them open another of the areas they concentrate on? Am I warm?”

Warm? How about red-hot.

“What’s the most fundamental interest of the Jews as they themselves see things, even more fundamental than their traditional intense love of Marxism?”

Getting Euros race-replaced. That’s their most fundamental interest as they see things. That’s why all these Jewish professors go around denying the existence of race, for example, most recently this Goldstein clown down at Duke. Getting Euros race-replaced is why Jews loved communism in the first place: communism held out the hope that might be accomplished, ridding the world of Euros by forcing a change of everyone in the world except Jews into the new raceless religionless nationless propertyless sexless soulless brainless Soviet Man.

“Does race-replacement have to be with Negroes?”

Negroes are best but the Jews running it will take anything they can get for the purpose.

“Would it be fair to call the Jewish drive to get Euros race-replaced the ‘Fundamental Law of Jewish-Euro Relations’ reigning today and since, roughly, the French Revolution?”

Yes.

“What was the Fundamental Law before the French Revolution?”

That’s for the next interview.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:57 | #

Our fathers thought they were fighting World War II for something better than this:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3582

As we now painfully know, our fathers thought wrong. But it wasn’t our fathers’ fault.

When a person is lied to, and he trustingly believes the filthy lies of the liar, is it his fault for thinking wrong?

Posted by torgrim on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:14 | #

“When a person is lied to, and he believes the filthy lies of the liar, is it his fault for thinking wrong?”—Fred

No, Fred especially with the men of WWII. The press in those days was very much bottlenecked by the “Establishment”. Newspaper cartels, with the corresponding radio ownership, was very much controlled.

Those that did speak out, like Charles Lindbergh were and to this day, are demonized by the cabal that runs DC.
And it has only grown worse, these last few decades, especially toward Mr. Lindbergh. It seems the same group that beat the “war drums” have a vendetta toward Lindy. He stood up, warned the country and paid the price.
Yet, he still stands above the little men, the backroom deal makers, those that want someone other to pay the price of war…like my father and his friends and shipmates, to bad, he has to see what has become of their sacrifice.

Posted by Desmond jones on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:29 | #

Our fathers thought they were fighting World War II for something better…

Soldiers fight for a variety of reasons and hold a variety of opinions regarding the legitimacy of their fight…the following piece of German “propaganda” eerily reflects the feelings of some Canucks about why they fought some 28 years after the slaughter at Beaumont Hamel/ the Somme.

“On August 19, 1942 Canadians took part in a failed raid against German defenders in Dieppe, France. The four hour raid numbers amongst the largest military blunders in the second world war, and was certainly Canada’s darkest moment. Green troops launching an ill-advised amphibious assault without adequate naval and air support is a recipe for disaster; 4,384 out of 6,086 participants in the raid were casualties (killed/captured/wounded) and no tangible objective was met.

Fast-forward to September 1944. In support of Operation Market Garden, Canada was tasked with securing the Scheldt (Belgium / Netherlands). One of the cities that had to be liberated before this could be accomplished was Dieppe. In advance of their invasion, the Germans bombarded the Canadians with the following pamphlets:”

Hello Boys of 2nd Canadian Division!

Here you are again, after those nasty hours at Dieppe where out of 5,000 brave lads of the Royal Regt., the Essex Scottish, the Mont Royal Fusiliers, the Camerons, the South Sasks, the Black Watch and the tank gunners of the Calgary Regt., only 1,5000 escaped death or capture.

Now your division is in for the second time.

First your pals - and now you.

It was a lousy trick they played on you that time, wasn’t it?

Why exactly were you forced to do it?

Every child knows now that the whole Dieppe affair was nothing but a big bluff.

First the Bolshies had to have their Second Front for which they so urgently clamoured.

Secondly the Brass Hats needed “Invasion-Experience” and quite naturally they wouldn’t think of sacrificing any Limeys in a job like that. Surely you understand…

Now joking aside - this thing is much too serious. We haven’t the slightest intention of poking our noses in your affairs. But we Germans honestly despise the idea of having to fight against decent fellows like you, inasmuch as we know you’re not fighting for yours truly or for Canada.

You know that only a few old scraps of paper bind you to England, an England that in its entire history has never done a damn thing for Canada that would help its future. Canada’s sole purpose has always been to fight and bleed for England.

In the next few days this God damn slaughter will start again. WE can’t help it, since we are, after all is said and done, fighting for our very existence.

But WE WARN YOU Hitler didn’t give up France for the fun of it.

Let those who gain fight their own bloody battles.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:09 | #

Anti-racism, Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Little Rock, Arkansas, the deification of Martin Luther King by the Jews which they force on Euro schoolchildren, unremitting Jewish academic race-denial which began in the 1880s and is still going on in the year 2008, the NAACP, the ADL, the SPLC, the ACLU, the AJC, the non-stop Negro crime-wave against whites with no whites allowed to bring it up for discussion or defend themselves against it on pain of prosecution for hate, the Sixties, homosexual marriage, the complete suppression by Jewish organizations of any and all public manifestations of Christianity, the Jewish War on Christmas, the 1965 Guaranteed White Race-Replacement Immigration Law, the Jewish-engineered Diversity Lottery, Bill & Hillary, Both Bushes especially W, full-bore illegal-immigrant race-replacement on top of “legal,” homosexualism and the homosexual agenda, white flight, galloping race-replacement starting in 1970 and achieving top speed by 1985 with no end in sight in 2008 and only growing worse, the EU dismantling of the Ancient Nations of Europe, the draconian PC and “anti-hate” régime on both sides of the Atlantic mainly Europe, the pathetic-at-best, criminal-at-worst likes of Mona Sahlin, Tony Blair, the Hungarian Midget, and Chancellor Merkel leading Europe because the U.S.‘s wishes dominate that continent and the Jews who control the U.S. want race-replacement, want homosexualism, and so forth — had those soldiers known that that, all of that, was what they were fighting for, Desmond, would they have fought?

They would have turned their guns on Washington D.C.

Our soldiers were lied to. The other side’s soldiers weren’t. The other side’s soldiers got the truth from their leaders. It’s as simple as that. We were lied into the Iraq War. We were lied into World War II. We, the U.S., were lied into World War I. The manipulators behind the lies? To a large extent the same in all three instances.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:03 | #

...had those soldiers known that that, all of that, was what they were fighting for, Desmond, would they have fought?

In the Canadian situation, there was no choice. Fight or be interned. If they were at the front, there also was no choice. Fight or be imprisoned/shot for desertion.

Over 21,000 US military personnel were convicted and sentenced for desertion during the 3.5 years of American involvement in World War II. Of these, 49 were sentenced to death, but only one soldier, Eddie Slovik, was actually executed for desertion; he being the only one after the American Civil War

The ‘Lost Division’ was a term given to the estimated 19,000 U.S. Army soldiers absent without leave in France at the close of World War II.

Of the Germans who deserted the Wehrmacht, 15,000 men were executed.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:46 | #

“Deserters”? Desmond you know perfectly well what I was saying: whole armies would have mutinied had the men gotten wind of what even then, as they fought, bled, and died, was on the drawing boards in D.C.‘s back rooms as that era’s version of the New World Order, to be sprung on them starting the minute the war was over and they were mustered out, and that’s more or less what happened. Do you think it was an accident that the entire U.N. monstrosity was set up as some kind of Talmud Central, Inc., that long-standing loud-mouthed Jewish race-deniers of the force of Ashley Montagu were given carte-blanche powers over the writing of founding documents on race, while carefully excluding any participation by top academics in the field such as Carleton Coon and Henry Garrett who were snubbed totally (in favor of an unknown New Zealander, an unknown Brazilian, an unknown Negro, an unknown Mexican I think it was, and three race-denying Jewish fanatics who clearly ran the show), that Brown vs, Board came just nine years later, Little Rock twelve, favorite-of-Jews Gunnar Myrdahl was hyped to the skies in the West, and so on? Not to mention the post-surrender massacres of Germans in their millions, the handing over of half of Europe to Stalin, and so on.

Armies, Desmond, not individual soldiers, armies in their hundred of thousands and in their millions would have mutinied and marched on D.C. led by their own officers had the men gotten wind of that which the planners who got us into that war intended to do to us when we’d won it for them. Mona Sahlin was on the drawing boards already before the last shot of that war was fired and the last gun fell silent, and the Germans knew it, knew exactly what was on those drawing boards in D.C. and likely London as well, and fought with a savage ferocity accordingly. They lost and with them so did we whose fathers were lied to. But the war is not over. 1939 to 1945 was the opening salvo.

Posted by Lurker on Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:36 | #

Not wanting to derail the thread here but I suspect a great many WW2 deserters were, paradoxically, amongst the rear echelon rather than the fighting arms.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:05 | #

Just a brief update on Dr Law’s promptness in answering his mail.

He’s not prompt. In fact, he’s positively remiss. Doesn’t seem to realise that there are people here hanging on his reply ... just waiting to admire how he delivers the inevitable victory of lerve over this odious guy Nightingale’s ragingly obvious race-hatred.

Of course, it could be that it is so unpleasant to receive racist e-mails from someone with the name of a blind-folded blabbermouth musician in Eyes Wide Shut ... so offensive to the liberal sensibility, and so unpromising of any useful end-result ... it could be that the only possible, the only decent course of action is to ignore the damned thing. And hope it goes away.

Which it will. I have it on excellent authority that Mr Nightingale doesn’t plan to send Dr Law any more unsolicited little intellectual problems. The suspicion is, you see, that the Doctor would only claim his little patch of moral higher ground as he drops nasty Nick’s hate-mail in the bin because ... well, he can’t actually answer it.

But we knew that all along, didn’t we?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:23 | #

Law doesn’t even have the guts Kingsnorth had, who came here and showed himself. I’ll give Kingsnorth that much respect — he didn’t hide. Law’s likely quaking in his boots.

Posted by Bo on Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:39 | #

.
Fred is so right in his 10/9/08 remarks above. Plans were being made to tear us apart even as our fathers & uncles fought in WW II:

“...whole armies would have mutinied had the men gotten wind of what even then, as they fought, bled, and died, was on the drawing boards in D.C.’s back rooms as that era’s version of the New World Order, to be sprung on them starting the minute the war was over and they were mustered out…”

Besides the political machinations of the hate & loathing lurking in the shadows, we had great winds of media-based defamation that we call Hate Caricatures. Here are the two principal hate films being readied while our kin died during WW II.

Films

Two of the most prominent hate caricature films made right after World War II were produced in 1947. One was based on passive-aggressive psychology, and the other was based on an aggressive psychology. A bitterly ironic aspect of both films is that critics “fail” to notice the hateful, smearing, and left-wing racialist nature of the films.

One was “Gentleman’s Agreement” which had the sole purpose of smearing the diverse white American taxpayers, voters, workers, and leaders who maintained steadfastness in fighting in World War II. This film was a classic example of hatred manifested through a passive-aggressive psychology. It was a vicious thank you note to all the diverse white American peoples for their sacrifices in World War II, and it didn’t take long to deliver.

A second was “Crossfire” which had the sole purpose of smearing white American soldiers on their return to the USA after World War II. It was as vicious an application of aggressive psychology as can be imagined. By portraying returning diverse white American soldiers as evil creatures, it became a horrifying and hateful thank you note to all returning white American veterans.

Both films are classic agitprop examples of disrespect, deception, divisiveness, and disparaging artful anecdotes and negative stereotypes.

http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/caric9.htm

Posted by silver on Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:00 | #

One was “Gentleman’s Agreement” which had the sole purpose of smearing the diverse white American taxpayers, voters, workers, and leaders who maintained steadfastness in fighting in World War II. This film was a classic example of hatred manifested through a passive-aggressive psychology.

More likely, it was the subtle effort of an often disliked minority to cut a better deal for itself. That’s inevitable when practising multiethnic (“diverse white peoples”) coexistence.

Don’t let your disdain for them cloud your judgement. That leads to easily refuted (or at least challenged) statements like the above.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:41 | #

I’ve never seen either of those movies, Bo, though I’ve seen publicity spots on TV announcing showings of “Gentleman’s Agreement,” starring Gregory Peck if I remember right. But thanks for the warning — next time either movie is shown on TV I’ll be sure to miss it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:55 | #

Wikipedia has articles on both films:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman’s_Agreement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_(film)

Reading about them, I can see exactly what Bo means about them being a slap in the face of returning soldiers. They both sound like they’d be AGONY to sit through.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments