The Revolution of Kai Murros

Posted by Søren Renner on March 08, 2010, 11:06 AM | #

Hail Murros! Hail the incipient recrudescence of the palingenetic phoenix! Hail the Subject!

Posted by Norman Lowell on March 08, 2010, 12:08 PM | #

I met Kai Murros a couple of times in London;
He does not see a Jewish problem.
“In Finland Jews are so few”.

But what about the bigger picture?
When erudite White Leaders refuse to address the Jewish problem:
then, they are either incoherent or intellectually dishonest - or both.

I am astounded when I read of White Patriots wanting to include Jews.
That we should have them on our side; they never have been - and never will be.
Their eternal hatred is implacable and can never be satiated, whatever we do.

WHY! Should we stop the fight now?
When, at the zenith of their power and overweening arrogance,
The World Enemy is on the edge of a precipice, of losing everything.

For they are now at their weakest point, extremely exposed and vulnerable.
The more intelligent of them know this and want to make amends.
But it is to no avail – the Zionists know they cannot turn back now, they have gone too far.

1 billion Muslims are now their determined enemies, increasingly radicalized.
What the Muslims did not achieve under Nasser – they will certainly do in the name of Allah!
Israel is finished and will collapse suddenly, rapidly – as did South Africa.

The Jewish council of Germany has started moves to repeal Holocaust Denial laws.
They want to ingratiate themselves, become our friends –
in order that Europe will subrogate America and be their protector against the Muslims.

But why should we, of the RRRRR accommodate our eternal enemies? Why should we?
They started the fight; they threw the gauntlet 2,000 yrs ago and vowed to destroy us.
Now, we end the fight.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 08, 2010, 12:38 PM | #

Peter Singer, writing today on the website of the Council for Secular Humanism:

The Freedom to Ridicule Religion-and Deny the Holocaust

Freedom of speech is important, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people take to be offensive. Religion remains a major obstacle to basic reforms that reduce unnecessary suffering. Think of issues like contraception, abortion, the status of women in society, the use of embryos for medical research, physician-assisted suicide, attitudes towards homosexuality, and the treatment of animals. In each case, somewhere in the world, religious beliefs have been a barrier to changes that would make the world more sustainable, freer, and more humane.

So, we must preserve our freedom to deny the existence of God and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that billions of people regard as sacred. Since it is sometimes necessary to use a little humor to prick the membrane of sanctimonious piety that frequently surrounds religious teachings, freedom of expression must include the freedom to ridicule as well.

Yet, the outcome of the publication of the Danish cartoons ridiculing Muhammad was a tragedy. More than a hundred people died in Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Libya, Nigeria, and other Islamic countries during the ensuing protests and riots. In hindsight, it would have been wiser not to publish the cartoons. The benefits were not worth the costs. But that judgment is, as I say, made with the benefit of hindsight, and it is not intended as a criticism of the actual decisions taken by the editors who published them and could not reasonably be expected to foresee the consequences.

To restrict freedom of expression because we fear such consequences would not be the right response. It would only provide an incentive for those who do not want to see their views criticized to engage in violent protests in future. Instead, we should forcefully defend the right of newspaper editors to publish such cartoons, if they choose to do so, and hope that respect for freedom of expression will eventually spread to countries where it does not yet exist.

Unfortunately, even while the protests about the cartoons were still underway, a new problem about convincing Muslims of the genuineness of our respect for freedom of expression has arisen because of Austria’s conviction and imprisonment of David Irving for denying the existence of the Holocaust. We cannot consistently hold that it should be a criminal offense to deny the existence of the Holocaust and that cartoonists have a right to mock religious figures. David Irving should be freed.

Before you accuse me of failing to understand the sensitivities of victims of the Holocaust or the nature of Austrian anti-Semitism, I should tell you that I am the son of Austrian Jews. My parents escaped Austria in time, but my grandparents did not. All four of my grandparents were deported to ghettos in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Two of them were sent to Lodz, in Poland, and then probably murdered with carbon monoxide at the extermination camp at Chelmno. Another one fell ill and died in the overcrowded and underfed ghetto at Theresienstadt. My maternal grandmother was the only survivor.
So, I have no sympathy for David Irving’s absurd denial of the Holocaust-which, in his trial, he said was a mistake. I support efforts to prevent any return to Nazism in Austria or anywhere else. But how is the cause of truth served by prohibiting Holocaust denial? If there are still people crazy enough to deny that the Holocaust occurred, will they be persuaded by imprisoning some who express that view? On the contrary, they will be more likely to think that views people are being imprisoned for expressing cannot be refuted by evidence and argument alone.

In the aftermath of World War II, when the Austrian republic was struggling to establish itself as a democracy, it was reasonable, as a temporary emergency measure, for Austrian democrats to suppress Nazi ideas and propaganda. But that danger is long past. Austria is a democracy and a member of the European Union. Despite the occasional resurgence of anti-immigrant and even racist views-an occurrence that is, lamentably, not limited to former Nazi nations-there is no longer a serious threat of any return to Nazism in Austria.

Austria should repeal its law against Holocaust denial. Other European nations with similar laws-for example, Germany, France, Italy, and Poland-should do the same, while maintaining or strengthening their efforts to inform their citizens about the reality of the Holocaust and why the racist ideology that led to it should be rejected.

Laws against incitement to racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, in circumstances where that incitement is intended to, or can reasonably be foreseen to, lead to violence or other criminal acts, are different, and are compatible with the freedom to express any views at all.

In the current climate in Western nations, the suspicion of a particular hostility towards Islam, rather than other religions, is well justified. Only when David Irving has been freed will it be possible for Europeans to turn to the Islamic protesters and say: “We apply the principle of freedom of expression evenhandedly, whether it offends Muslims, Christians, Jews, or anyone else.”

Posted by Metal Gear on March 08, 2010, 12:58 PM | #

Murros is now a self-designated “Marxist”

I would advise against applying Marx “literally,” embracing him religiously, or living in the 1800s,  but I would also point out that reading Marx is a mind-expanding experience.  I’m not “Marxist” but am less anti-Communist than others.  Whatever flaws Marxism has, liberal Democracy is worse.

The elite is blind. The state can’t be toppled by revolutionary masses of workers, but by capitalists blinded by greed. Information technology is the rope from which the capitalist will hang. The revolution will be fought on the terms of the middle classes. Liberals should be beaten every day!”

So he’s appealing to the “middle class” against the elites, instead of the proletarian class against the elites.  Hardcore Marxists would call this “revisionism.”  IE he’s not taking Marx literally, but adopting class conflict to a more modern setting.  The most hardline Marxists would look down on this.

Posted by mossydottir on March 08, 2010, 02:28 PM | #

He says that he wrote the book in earnest, with a post-modern twinkle in his eye

I take issue with this! Post-modernism and ardor are utterly incompatible.  Thus he cannot possibly be serious on any level.

Posted by James Bowery on March 08, 2010, 07:56 PM | #

Rather than merely repeating myself, I’ll try putting it another way:

What happens when the AI’s arise as a vast supply of slaves breeding other slaves from country rock?

Marx’s labor-as-value, absurd as it is on its face, becomes even more absurd in such a scenario.

There will always be resource limits, even when the gas giants are dispersed as solar powered nanotech slaves.

Until we get there a political economy which, in the limit, requires no human labor but still provides for the members of a body politic, is necessary.  That political economy distributes citizens dividends to all members of the body politic, harvested from the no-brainer sector of the economy:  The net liquidation value of assets taxed at the risk free interest rate (average interest paid by the body politic for short term loans).  As the entire economy approaches total automation, a total “no-brainer”, all of the product is harvested and distributed as citizens dividends.

That’s when we experience a new “nature”—one in which AI slaves grow on celestial trees as we promenade with our mates, plucking one here and there.  Ultimately, however, the conflict arises if only over one’s mate desired by another—or over the fruits of a favorite celestial tree growing particularly valued variety of slaves.

A Brave New Rhinegold in which humans cease turning each other into the equivalent of zombie clones in a eusocial body politic.

Posted by Gorboduc on March 08, 2010, 08:57 PM | #

http://www.kolumbus.fi/aquilon/journal/

Well, I just look in here very occasionally, and finding Murros disporting himself here again, I just thought I should just enter a little caveat - above - about his favourite journal, a link I think he put here himself previously.

Revolutionary chic just ain’t in it!

I tried to draw attention to this aberration about Sept. 25, 2009.

Hail Murros, indeed!

Something is rotten in the state of Finland.

Posted by Søren Renner on March 08, 2010, 09:06 PM | #

Yes, Gorboduc, you are right. Something is rotten in Finland. What you smell is the still-twitching corpse of liberalism and political correctness.

Posted by Al Ross on March 08, 2010, 09:15 PM | #

Murros seems like the sort of Nordic political naif who might remark to his walking companion - “Look, what’s that bear cub doing alone in the forest”.

Posted by jamesUK on March 08, 2010, 10:16 PM | #

@Metal Gear

I would advise against applying Marx “literally,” embracing him religiously, or living in the 1800s, but I would also point out that reading Marx is a mind-expanding experience.  I’m not “Marxist” but am less anti-Communist than others.  Whatever flaws Marxism has, liberal Democracy is worse.

Trotskyite Communism which was originally intended to have some capitalist orientation is liberal democracy without the overtly violent/revolutionary international zeal.

Really what is wrong with liberal democracy and western culture today?

Say what you want about the US but for its size and its multi-ethnic make-up it is very well run and the best economic and political system.

Posted by Al Ross on March 08, 2010, 11:09 PM | #

JamesUK omitted five crucial words from the conclusion of his latest paltry thoughts, viz., “that Jewish money can buy”.

Posted by Jack Walker Pale on March 09, 2010, 12:00 AM | #

I find Kai Murros very useful especially when going after the intellectually primitive American Right.  Being in the ‘official Left’ has its uses.  I used it in being active with the John Brown Anti-Klan Committee.  I could argue for Black separatism before politically correct crowds to my heart’s content.  That’s something I wouldn’t be able to do as an open member of the National Renaissance Party.

The drawback in the USA in working within the ‘official Left’ is that hardly anyone comes out of working-class struggles.  In the main, they are petit-bourgeois ethno-masochists.  Having been both a United Auto Workers Committeeman and Mail Handlers Union Steward carries little weight.  But then that’s why I prefer working with real workers.

For people in the know:  The speeches of Kai Murros in London & Moscow are some of the best stuff I’ve read.  They are extremely useful in study classes.

I have all the respect in the world for Norman Lowell.  But sometimes a hat pin will do the trick better than a jack hammer.

Posted by Gorboduc on March 09, 2010, 06:43 AM | #

Well, since the Colherne pub in the Earls Court Road became less gay-friendly, I suppose the denim-and-leather-lot had to find somewhere else to gather.
If you click on the link I gave above - come on, be brave! - you’ll find a little precis of some recent issues of Murros’ fashion mag AQUILON.
It kicks off thus:
   

[ A PLEA ]

LeJournal/NTNL project
LeJournal/NTNL is a project to create an on-line fashion magazine and a fashion brand to promote 21st. century European fashion, design, art, architecture and lifestyle. We believe that the survival of the Western civilization requires that the European people reclaim their place in this world through pride and self-confidence.

Pride, yes: but surely not Gay Pride. My accusation will justifiy itself if you read on down the page. Homosexualism, as Freud correctly remarked, is a death cult. It’s not going to lead to a renaissance or a revolution: it’s not going to add any evolutionary advantages, as those UK readers who noticed the sad fate of McQueen and Ray Gosling’s lover will agree.

I’m keeping my back to the wall on this one. No, Soren, I smell Magnus Hirschfeld:
http://www.stonewallsociety.com/famouspeople/magnus.htm

Oh, and btw, animal liberationist Peter Singer: his books, which equate humans with mere animals and recommend the legalised killing of any new-born child which isn’t to its parents tastes, are required reading on most nursing courses in UK universities. Hospital technical training libraries carry multiple copies.

Posted by jamesUK on March 09, 2010, 03:35 PM | #

@Al Ross

JamesUK omitted five crucial words from the conclusion of his latest paltry thoughts, viz., “that Jewish money can buy”.

So? Apart from the immigration issue which is coming to an end anyway what exactly would you prefer white countries to be that is different from today?

Why do you think Geert Wilder and Nick Griffin is given somewhat of a platform.

By their own racial reasoning of WN it is how it should be with Jews being the highest IQ group the masters at the top.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 09, 2010, 04:20 PM | #

JamesUK: By their own racial reasoning of WN it is how it should be with Jews being the highest IQ group the masters at the top.

I will answer you as if you wrote that in good faith, and your purpose was not simply to provoke.

If I haven’t said so before - and I think I have - you know nothing about the world of peoples, events, politics and ideas which we discuss here.  Nothing.  Your ignorance is total and shocking.

I don’t think there is a cure for you.  You are not going to experience an epiphany.  You are not going to climb over the obstructions to understanding that exist in your own mind, whatever they are.  You will always be making completely erroneous judgements and drawing utterly nonsensical conclusions.  It is sad to say so.  But sometimes there is simply no alternative, and your words leave me none.  I hope you will take my words to heart and at least begin to question yourself a little, hold yourself in lower esteem, and speak less ... or perhaps speak in places where the level of understanding is equal in impoverishment to your own.

Posted by jamesUK on March 10, 2010, 12:24 AM | #

@Guessedworker

If I haven’t said so before - and I think I have - you know nothing about the world of peoples, events, politics and ideas which we discuss here.  Nothing.  Your ignorance is total and shocking.

I know more than you on the global arrangement/agenda and how this is all connected to geo-politics but you and other can’t see outside the box and see things only in terms of immigration which is a senior crucial matter but is part of a greater whole.

Western culture is pretty much in the sewer and is completely dominated by the mass media and MTV party culture or low brow junk like East Enders/Shameless of a dumbed down society. 

So if you ran a political party and became President/Prime Minister what exactly would you change differently?

Posted by Captainchaos on March 10, 2010, 01:39 AM | #

So if you ran a political party and became President/Prime Minister what exactly would you change differently?

JaundiceUK once claimed that Stalin only killed a million people (LOL!).  And I’m sure JUK, shameless Russian chauvinist that he is, would approve of the way the British treated General Sikorski when Sikorski wished to complain about the liquidation of his officer corps at Katyn - they informed him that he was to shut his fucking mouth (and subsequently likely killed him).  Handing Poland over to be terrorized and enslaved by Stalin’s Jews was really an afterthought I guess.  But is was those Krauts that debased themselves, we must remember.

Posted by James Bowery on March 10, 2010, 03:59 PM | #

o if you ran a political party and became President/Prime Minister what exactly would you change differently?

That’s simple:

Tell the populace that the only tax should be on net liquidation value of assets, at the risk free interest rate, but only those net assets of a household beyond those protected by chapter 7 bankruptcy, and that they should be receiving, as citizen’s dividends, all of the money being collected in taxes so the market can construct the social support services.

Oh, and I’d tell them to organize into cantons and self-arm under the 2nd Amendment.

With that, the entire edifice of rent-seekers would terminate in both the public and private sectors and people would migrate to areas under mutual consent rather than government imposed “hospitality” laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 10, 2010, 05:18 PM | #

Tell the populace that the only tax should be on net liquidation value of assets, at the risk free interest rate, but only those net assets of a household beyond those protected by chapter 7 bankruptcy, and that they should be receiving, as citizen’s dividends, all of the money being collected in taxes so the market can construct the social support services.

It’s a much better deal than you offered before James. Risk free is what, 0.9%? It depends on the state but exempt assets range from $5,000 in Georgia to 160 acres in Florida. Even on a $3.25 million waterfront property in San Marcos the annual tax is only about $30,000. Whereas at 4% of non-exempt assets the tax for the same asset value would be ~$130,000 annually. This is for a broader base of assets, not just real estate? Can you afford it?

Is the citizen’s dividend less health-care costs?

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 10, 2010, 05:21 PM | #

Also, at what level of income do you start to claw-back the dividend?

Posted by James Bowery on March 10, 2010, 05:51 PM | #

Not only have I offered this before, but it has been my proposal from the start clear back in 1992, when my promotion of it in Washington, D.C. made me collide head-long into Jewish opposition and raise my consciousness.

And don’t let current risk free interest rates fool you.  Modern portfolio theory defines the risk free rate as the long-term average of the short-term Treasury borrowing rate.  That’s a lot higher than 0.9%.

The exemption should be standardized, regardless of geography, to be consistent with the original intent of homestead exemptions in bankruptcy:  allow individuals to retain the median price of a home plus the median capitalization of a family-supporting job.  That is a few hundred thousand dollars nowadays.

The primary problem with health care is rising insurance costs driven by government regulation in the presence of a system that insures people through their increasingly-insecure income streams (jobs).  The citizen’s dividend makes possible freedom in human capital investments.

Posted by jamesUK on March 11, 2010, 10:32 AM | #

@Captainchaos

JaundiceUK once claimed that Stalin only killed a million people (LOL!).

That’s right according to Soviet archive material which list full central NKVD execution orders during Stalin’s rule 1 million people where ordered to death. Professor Stephen Wheatcroft of Melbourne University has done extensive research on Soviet history.

For Wheatcroft’s research, begin with what appears in Europe-Asia Studies. For example, in “The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-1945”, EAS 48 (December 1996), 1319-1353, Wheatcroft attacks the facile, anti-Communist comparison of Stalin with Hitler. The abstract reads:

Repression and mass killings carried out by German and Soviet leaderships during the period 1930-45 differed in several respects. It appears that the German leader Adolf Hitler put to death at least five million innocent people mainly because of his antipathy towards Jews and communists. In contrast, Soviet leader Josef Stalin ordered the murder of some one million people because he apparently believed them to be guilty of crimes against the state. He was careful about documenting these executions whereas Hitler did not bother about making any pretence at legality.

http://www.history.unimelb.edu.au/about/staff/wheatcroft.html

And I’m sure JUK, shameless Russian chauvinist that he is, would approve of the way the British treated General Sikorski when Sikorski wished to complain about the liquidation of his officer corps at Katyn - they informed him that he was to shut his fucking mouth (and subsequently likely killed him).

How can I be a Russian chauvinist when I am not Russian?

Did the Soviets kill the officer corps at Katyn? The only evidence we have is a Beria document suddenly found in the archive. 

Take a look at this New York Times article from June 29, 1945. It states that Walter Schellenberg, head of Hitler’s SS intelligence service, told Allied interrogators that the Nazis had fabricated the whole issue, and that this account was independently corroborated by a Norwegian prisoner.

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/nytonkatyn062945.pdf

According to the study by Reinhard Doerries, a specialist in the Schellenberg interviews (Hitler’s last chief of foreign intelligence: Allied interrogations of Walter Schellenberg. London: F.Cass, 2003) records of this interrogation of Schellenberg have disappeared from the National Archives. Interesting!

In 1992 Eltsin finally turned over to the Poles some documents that, if genuine, would prove Soviet guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

However, the genuineness of these documents is in serious dispute.

Here is the bottom line problem with the Eltsin “documents”—there is no “chain of custody”  of the evidence.

For example the markings on the envelope containing these documents suggest they were shown to all First Secretaries of the Communist Party. But there are no markings to indicate they were ever shown to Gorbachev, and Gorbachev never referred to them.

Supposedly they were “discovered” in 1989. But Gorbachev denies having seen them, or knowing about them at all, at all until December 23, 1991, two days before he left office. (On these points see New York Times articles of October 15, 1992, p. A1 and October 16, 1992, p.A6, available from the Historical New York Times database).

Is it possible that they really existed, yet were never shown to Gorbachev? Who would have dared keep them from him?

There are a lot of internal problems with the documents that suggest they may have been forged. They’ve been thoroughly discussed in a number of books (all are in Russian).

Put the “chain of custody” issue—the fact that these documents were not made public until 1992 but marks on the envelope show that they were “discovered” in 1989—with the internal problems, and you have a set of documents of doubtful validity.

Furthermore, the central document was supposedly signed by Lavrentiy Beria. But other forged “Beria” documents have been published in post-Soviet Russia, including some that were “inserted” into the Archives after they were forged. So “Beria” documents are suspicious.
Also, any documents that suddenly “emerge” and purport to “solve” long-standing historical controversies are to be regarded with suspicion ipso facto.

However, I’m not convinced the documents are forged either.
________________________________________
In his recent book Stalin’s Wars British historian Geoffrey Roberts makes what I take to be some equivocal remarks about Katyn. Here’s my take on them.

Roberts summarizes the canonical, “the Soviets did it” view of Katyn, but in his footnote (n.27, p. 399) says that his accounts are based “mainly on two collections of documents from the Russian/Soviet archives: Katyn’: Plenniki Neob’yavlennoi Voiny,  Moscow 1997 and Katyn’: Mart 1940g.-Sentyabr’ 2000 g, Moscow 2001.”

Why tell us this? I assume the purpose is to say: “I’m just summarizing these authoritative accounts.” That is, “I’m not taking an independent position on this.”

THEN Roberts goes out of his way to quote Averill Harriman’s account from the still-private Harriman papers. He quotes Kathleen Harriman twice—she was invited by the Soviets to view Katyn’ while the Burdenko (Soviet) commission was there in January 1944.

In the footnote (n.29, p. 400) Roberts records Harriman’s summarizing his daughter’s conclusion that “from the general evidence and the testimony Kathleen and the Embassy staff member believe that in all probability the massacre was perpetrated by the Germans.”

In the TEXT (pp. 171-2)—not everybody reads all the footnotes, of course—there’s a much longer quotation from Kathleen Harriman.

First, she remarks on how “fresh” the bodies looked. This was a big issue with Burdenko. The Germans said the Soviets had shot the Polish officers in the Spring of 1940, which would have meant they’d have been in the ground during three whole summers, when the earth is warm and decomposition would be rapid.

The Soviets contended that the Germans had shot the Poles in the Fall of 1941, so they’d have been in the ground during only two summers (1942 and 1943). Logically, therefore, better preserved bodies would point towards German guilt.

Problem is: what’s the standard of comparison for the “freshness” of corpses buried in that soil and that climate? There isn’t one; so “freshness” is not a reliable indication of anything.

But Roberts then includes the following sentence from Kathleen Harriman’s account:

“Though the Germans had ripped open the Poles’ pockets, they’d missed some written documents. While I was watching, they found one letter dated the summer of ‘41, which is damned good evidence.”

Well, THAT’S useful information! Roberts simply does not comment on it further.

Question is: Why did Roberts put this in at all? There can be only one reason: to signal to the attentive reader that he is not taking a position of his own on Katyn’. He’s just putting the evidence down, leaving the reader to infer that it is contradictory while not explicitly saying so himself—that would get him into trouble with the “right-thinking” anticommunists—and moving on.

That’s the way I read Roberts’ remarks, anyway.

Perhaps this paper was “planted” by the Soviets, to dupe Ms Harriman? Sure—and perhaps all the similar papers found by the Germans were planted by them, to fool the Polish Red Cross and other observers in 1943.

Or, maybe none of these documents were “planted”—which would mean that the Soviets had shot some of the officers, and the Germans shot others. But nobody wants to hear that! Certainly not the Polish nationalists and anticommunists, because it would ruin a perfectly good “communist atrocity story.”

There is lots of other tantalizing stuff. For example, the German Report itself, Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von Katyn (Berlin: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, Franz Eher Nachf. G.m.b.H., 1943) reproduces on p. 330 a very poorly-preserved document from a body at Katyn.

You can’t read the date on the reproduction, but the caption says the document is from “October 20, 1941.” I’ve put a PDF copy of this page on line here. Check it out! (The underlining of the date on this page is by me).

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/amtliches_300.pdf

A mistake? Sure, any way you look at it, the Nazis would not have wanted a date after Spring 1940 in their report!

But is this a “misprint”? Or is it a German clerk back in Berlin reading the original document and simply putting down the date he saw, which then gets through some German proofreader?

In general, all the “Soviets-Did-It” accounts rely heavily on this German, i.e. Nazi, report. It is amazing that “scholars” are so ready to believe this Goebbels propaganda report.

And there are lots of other problems with the report too. For one thing, the Captain (Hauptmann) named in the above document is not on the list of bodies given in the German report. So where did this document come from?

And they were not Stalin’s Jews every country had a Communist or underground Communist party that the Soviets utilised during WW2. Stalin’s Jews who defected to the west when in 49 he carried out a so called “second purge” of Jews in the Soviet system which in reality was stripping Jews of power that committed crimes.

@James Bowery

Yes actually clear policy that I have heard other than just talking about immigration.

I would go one step further though and have an overall banking reform.

But like in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Serbia or any other country that is not in line with the US/British/Israeli agenda the Soros/Rothschild and other billionaires as well as think tanks like AEI, Olin and Jamestown foundation as well as CIA affiliated organisations like NED and USAID would finance various front organisation to undermine your agenda so how would you deal with that?

The best and only organisation who has real solutions of how to fix this economic situation is Lyndon LaRouche’s LPAC who tells us the scam of what these international bankers controlled by Jacob Rothschild and his inter Alpha group are dong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pif5ZwLSHN4

And the only one to seriously attack George Soros.

Your Enemy: George Soros

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98fUyrzDyek

Posted by James Bowery on March 11, 2010, 08:25 PM | #

would go one step further though and have an overall banking reform.

Its obviated by the shift in the tax base plus the homestead exemption.  The whole game of these guys is rent-seeking.  They’d be toast.

would finance various front organisation to undermine your agenda so how would you deal with that?

All I’d need to do is keep an open line of communication with the People and you let me assume I was the commander in chief of the military in this little fantasy.  Did you forget that?

Posted by Al Ross on March 12, 2010, 10:45 AM | #

Soros is an amusing fellow. He once engaged (1997?) the Jew -aware (and, more importantly, not-afraid-to say-so) ethno-nationalist Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamed, in a heated debate about international currency speculation. Mahathir was called a moron, Soros a vampire and honours declared even until Soros turned up a few years later in Davos to inform the Bilderbergers and Bohemian Grovites that a New World Order must be ushered in and currency speculation should cease.

Of course, any sensible serial - killer hunting gal like Clarice Starling would have recognised the plea of the old Kike, Soros, as being a close variant of ” Stop me before I kill again”.

Going to hear Blair in KL next month - corporate invitation. Can’t wait.