My father volunteered to join the nascent US Air Force, leaving a Quaker meeting near Beech, Iowa, in response to the press spin placed on this speech by Charles Lindbergh, when Lindbergh said that the US’s air power was weak and the German military was stronger than the US military.  The spin placed on Lindbergh’s speech by the press was that Lindbergh had said that the US could not prevail against Germany—which was not what Lindbergh had said.  Lindbergh made a rhetorical blunder, possibly motivated by his desire to strengthen the US Air Force, but the Jewish press took that blunder and turned it into a challenge to the honor of the US.

Guess what date the speech was given?

Captioned:

On September 11, 1941, (same day as the Pentagon’s ground-breaking ceremony) Charles Lindbergh appeared in Des Moines, Iowa, to speak on behalf of the isolationist America First Committee. The famous aviator criticized the groups he perceived were leading America into war for acting against the country’s interests.

PS: The above audio clip, interestingly, begins just after Lindbergh’s discussion of Jewish promotion of US intervention via media influence.  I have not been able to locate an audio source for the whole speech.  If anyone has located it let me know.

JERUSALEM: Raised on fear and depression, children of Holocaust survivors say the Nazi terror has crossed generations, and want the German government to pay for their psychiatric care.

On Monday, Israelis who call themselves second generation survivors are filing a class action suit in a Tel Aviv court against the German government to finance therapy.

Thousands of people from Holocaust families are incapable of working, live with an irrational fear of starvation and suffer incapacitating bouts of depression, said Baruch Mazor, the director of the Fisher Fund which is filing the suit.

Mazor said 4 to 5 percent of the 400,000 children of survivors in Israel require treatment. Since many cannot hold steady jobs, they cannot pay for their own treatment, and aid from the Israeli government and health insurance has been inadequate, he said.

The suit seeks to set up a German-financed fund to pay for biweekly therapy sessions for 15,000 to 20,000 people, or about US$10 million (€7.3 million) annually for three years.

About 4,000 people have joined the suit, Mazor said.

It was unclear what standing the Israeli court would have in a damages case against a foreign country.

Mazor said the Tel Aviv suit was a first step aimed at winning recognition that Germany should bear responsibility for the suffering of survivors’ children. Armed with that ruling, the plaintiffs would try to negotiate a settlement, or would take their case to a German or an international court, he said.

Since the 1950s, Germany has paid more than US$60 billion (€44 billion) in reparations to concentration camp survivors, families of the some of the 6 million Jewish victims, and to the state of Israel. Much of that money went to the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, a New York-based organization that negotiates with Germany and distributes the payments.

Mazor said money handled by the Claims Conference is earmarked for survivors, and their children did not want to detract from those funds.

Instead, they wanted “recognition and responsibility of the German government” for their problems, he said.

The German Foreign Ministry declined comment.

Source.

I am fast coming to the conclusion that, Jewish activists aside, the British political Establishment does not know what it is doing about race and the future ... does not know the real precondition for a victory over the blood of its own people.

I don’t mean that it is making this up, this attack by migrant proxy, as it goes along.  It is following the general policy of the global elite.  But it is not the global elite itself, merely the executive at national level.  To paraphrase Irving Krystol, it is operating under “truths appropriate for educated adults”, not the global elite’s “truths appropriate for highly educated adults”.

There is an inherent instability to this arrangement that it is our task and privilege to exploit.  The means to do that is a real debate about the blood-reality of Establishment politics.  As the extremis mounts, it should not be, must not be beyond us to organise to that end.

The desire of the Establishment, then as now, will be for guilt-avoidance.  It will evade the terrible meaning of its politics by sheltering behind the barrier of abstract thinking.  That way “race” is an abstract, and so nation, so tradition, so everything.  It works for them today: our arguing from realities declared abstract necessarily consigns us to frustration.  This pattern we must break.  The protective outer layers of liberal self-justification, the faux-moral public breast-beating about fairness, equalness, tolerance etc, must be winnowed away.  A real debate in this context is a debate solely about ethnic survival, about real life and real death.  It is a debate in which, for example, English advocates of race replacement must be forced to answer in terms which it is by no means unrealistic to call genocide.

For this is our ground, our frame of reference in which the Establishment must defend itself against our charge of blood betrayal.  We have understood that this is a blood issue.  We have always done so ...

We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

Enoch Powell, from his speech to the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre, Birmingham, April 20, 1968.  It remains the last occasion on which a major public figure speaking on race has used the words “we” and “nation” to mean “we the British, owners of these isles”.  There have been no greater British patriots since, and today no man more commands the respect and affection of the aware and the loyal.

READ MORE...

If I could ask Ron Paul only one question, and require an answer, it would be:

Since the value added by government to the state of nature is the existence of property rights beyond subsistence (subsistence property being homestead and tools which we possess through self-defense in the state of nature), why is it that I’ve never seen any of the Austrian School economists suggest that the primary source of government revenue should be a use fee for assets beyond subsistence assets?

Just an anecdote:

I was over at the house of some acquaintances last night when the hostess turned on the TV show “Law and Order”. I don’t have a TV hookup so I’ve never seen Fred Thompson in action. The show was basically about a preacher who “had many children to compensate for his repressed homosexuality” and then murdered a homosexual prostitute or something. Your typical Freudian PC sermon, and Fred Thompson was right there doing his “duty for God and Country” on the boob tube.  It was almost a parody of what I see him as really being: A tool of the corrupt elite.  Problem:  It wasn’t a parody.  It was real.

So after I had satisfied myself that my “prejudice” against Thompson was justified, I went over to the New Media station and looked up the video of my wife singing “The Audition Aria” from “De Fledermaus”. I interrupted Fred Thompson’s preaching about the evils of closet homosexual preacher murderers with many children, and told people to “Watch this!”. It was rude of me, of course, but I did it anyway. Everyone was happy to see it, as my wife was there in person, and Fred wasn’t.  Conversation continued for a while until someone turned up Fred Thompson’s PC sermon again. Then I went to another website and showed this video of some grease monkey motor heads who have done on $3M what NASA and its contractors haven’t been able to do with $500M,  which was, again, rude of me but so be it. Finally, after someone turned up Fred on the Old Media again, I interrupted again showing this clip of Giuliani and other tools like Fred Thompson, repeatedly saying “9/11” and “terrorism” to the mindlessly enthusiastic applause of animated characters.  Am I incorrigible or what? Well, not nearly as incorrigible as some Old Media tool like Fred Thompson posing as an alternative to Ron Paul, who has many children and who many of Thompson’s masters would, I’m sure, love to portray as a murderous “repressed” homosexual, with Fred as the “father figure”.
PS: Guess who the chick is with Wolfowitz?  Hint:  It’s not his secretary.

Wherein His Excellency Bishop Giuseppe Furioso, having required that I first kiss his ring, allows me to reprint for the flock here at Majority Rights, a letter with which food producers should be bombarded.  Who knows?  If the Hispanics and Hindus jump on this bandwagon, something like His Excellency’s mark “M” might appear next to the “K” on many food items—with the appropriate fees paid to men like His Excellency…

READ MORE...

So far, then, Britain has been treated to 7/7, 21/7, Bluewater, the Barot offensive, the West End poets and the inflammatory Glasgow doctors.  And let us not forget Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber.  But yesterday, our Prime Minister’s new head security guard informed us:-

We’re talking about such a big change in the way people behave that it’s inevitably going to take 10 to 15 years, and that’s if we’re lucky, and that’s what I hope we can achieve.

I think it would be wrong to pretend otherwise to the British nation.

He then went on to pretend that the Moslems currently domiciled in my homeland can be got to look beyond the palms of their hands and “snitch” on the AQ-intoxicated.  The real enemy, apparently, is a “disparate core” of “racist” people, often based abroad, who want power.  Elsewhere we learn that “these people are trying to destroy one’s entire way of life.”  And that life is, you know, “our” collective Moslem and non-Moslem MultiCult rainbow-dream thingy:-

Britishness does not normally involve snitching or talking about someone.  I’m afraid, in this situation, anyone who’s got any information should say something because the people we are talking about are trying to destroy our entire way of life.

“We’ll have to be a little bit unBritish, I think . . . and say something and tell something.

So let’s put the pieces together from a majority perspective.

READ MORE...

In our corner of philosophical life I seem to be the only person using this particular six-syllable word to characterise the mind of Man.  Now, that could be because it is a very bad characterisation.  Equally, it could be that I’m very bad at characterising my characterisations.  In the pitiful belief that it must be the latter, I am going to set forth precisely what these six syllables mean, and why they are important.

Readers who wish to live out the rest of their lives in peace and contentment look away NOW.

To the stoics who remain, my commiserations ... and the sincere hope that you will never be the same again.

There are a couple of much-used words - propositions really - that trouble me a lot.  They are, respectively, “freedom” and “will”.  These are the most dangerous ideas in the world.  They are the seat of a political fire that has been eating away at European Man’s existence for the last three hundred and fifty years and, if left unaddressed, will deliver him into a dispossessed, deracinated, dying individualism.  By any past or present measure in the life of Man, what is happening now to the most beautiful and creative of all his peoples is an event of incomprehensible scale.

Only those Europeans who cleave to that something called the radical right have noticed this, it seems.  We complain ceaselessly about it.  We point out that there is no place in the West where our people are not sick with freedom, or sickening fast.  So sick are they, we say, that the very ties of love that bind and bring meaning and beauty to their lives are being loosened with each passing day.  They are pursuing a vision of freedom that has as its method pure vandalism.

But none of it has the impact we desire.  Turning in on ourselves, then, we are haunted by two questions.  We return to them again and again.  How did it come to pass, and why?

READ MORE...