... Watch PBS from 9:00 pm to 10:30 pm on Wednesday, April 25.  That 90 minutes will actually save you time because you’ll never watch television news again - not even on PBS.

Four years ago on May 1, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln wearing a flight suit and delivered a speech in front of a giant “Mission Accomplished” banner. He was hailed by media stars as a “breathtaking” example of presidential leadership in toppling Saddam Hussein. Despite profound questions over the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction and the increasing violence in Baghdad, many in the press confirmed the White House’s claim that the war was won. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews declared, “We’re all neo-cons now;” NPR’s Bob Edwards said, “The war in Iraq is essentially over;” and Fortune magazine’s Jeff Birnbaum said, “It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context.”

How did the mainstream press get it so wrong? How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 continue to go largely unreported? “What the conservative media did was easy to fathom; they had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked. How mainstream journalists suspended skepticism and scrutiny remains an issue of significance that the media has not satisfactorily explored,” says Moyers. “How the administration marketed the war to the American people has been well covered, but critical questions remain: How and why did the press buy it, and what does it say about the role of journalists in helping the public sort out fact from propaganda?”

On Wednesday, April 25 at 9 p.m. on PBS, a new PBS series BILL MOYERS JOURNAL premieres at a special time with “Buying the War,” a 90-minute documentary that explores the role of the press in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.

From Bill Moyers journal.

BBC reports that:

A pamphlet by the group suggests that Britain may have reached a “tipping point” beyond which it could no longer be seen as a single nation.

Shadow home secretary David Davis has called on the government to put a cap on those coming to the UK.

Of course, it may be too late.  The Rivers of Blood may be upon my people’s ancestral homelands.

Steven is one of the most talented, perspicacious and downright interesting, not to mention determined guys to hit WN in America in years.  And I don’t think that’s just my opinion.  He has the knack of reducing arguments to their core, and the energy to plant them in all corners of the liberal universe.

GW

INTERNET ACTIVIST HANDBOOK

A compilation of original and (yes, especially) unoriginal thoughts and suggestions for the internet warrior.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Setting Up an Internet Activism Platform
2. Using the Internet Activism Platform
3. Advanced Activism - Stealth Operations
4. Advanced Activism - Psychological Warfare

Our children are being subjected to an ever increasing list of RACE LAWS designed to discriminate against them simply because they’re white.  In addition, recent demographic data shows white kids will soon represent a minority of new births nationwide.  The racial majority of the future will believe, as it believes now as a minority, that white-skins conceal hate-filled and irredeemable hearts, and a political cunning that leads directly to oppression, enslavement and genocide.  That is only what they are being taught today and every day.

But even if we take a less apocalyptic view, the prospect is grim:-

#  More affirmative action discrimination in education
# More no whites allowed race based private scholarships
#  More race quotas in private hiring
#  More race norming of employment tests
#  More separate pool executive hiring
#  More minority layoff protection
#  More sensitivity training
#  More minority promotion networks
#  More no whites allowed contract set-asides
#  More minority-only tax breaks

Add that up and you get an ever-increasing racist discrimination against them for being white - and only for being white.

Suffering this, along with all the bigotry and chauvenism that will accompany it, in silence is not the white way to live.  I expect they will ask us why we did this to them.  Why did we simply acquiesce while the power elite and their minority clients re-arranged our country’s demographics and maximized minority privileges.  They will also ask us whether we resisted or collaborated.

What will your answer be?

READ MORE...

UPDATE April 20, 1:30PM PDT:

The list of victims with photographs are now available and do not support the naive “Asian-chauvenist” raciosexual motive, although a raciosexual cause may still be supported given a higher vulnerability of east Asian men to sexually vicious multicultural environments—hence a higher level of stress. 

Moreover, an interesting fact is that it appears there are actually more “Asian” victims than one would expect by more than a factor of 2.  However, these are divided between East Asian victims (Henry Lee and Mary Read) and other “Asians”:  South Asian victims (G.V. Loganathan, Partahi Lombantoruan, Minal Panchal, Reema Samaha) and West Asian victims (Ross Abdallah Alameddine and Reema Samaha both Lebonese—and we might include the Egyptian Waleed Mohammed Shaalan).  There are a lot more dark skinned Asians among the victims than one would expect.  Moreover, the sole female East Asian victim was Korean, “born on an Air Force base”—meaning she was probably sired by a white military man with a Korean mother.  Given these nuances it is rather difficult to dismiss the raciosexual hypothesis altogether and indeed, it seems desirable to invoke a variant of the raciosexual hypothesis to explain the over-abundance of dark-skinned Asians among the victim list and the “coincidence” that the sole east Asian female victim was not only a conational of the killer but the product of an interracial marriage involving a Korean mother.

Here is a picture of Mary Read with her father Peter Read:

Today the Times ran a lengthy and entertaining interview of Nick Griffin.  It was conducted on the hoof by Martin Fletcher, and gives a generally fair flavour of the man, his views and his supporters.

Griffin has earned his £1,800-a-month BNP salary. The party won three council seats in Burnley in 2002. It now has 49 nationwide, and on May 3 Griffin expects to win many more in what he sarcastically calls “enriched” areas such as inner Essex, the Black Country, West Yorkshire and Lancashire.

The party will also be contesting seats in blue-rinse towns such as Harrogate, Bath, Windsor and Torbay. One recent poll suggested that 7 per cent of the electorate would consider voting for it.

Griffin says that membership has risen from 1,300 in 1999 to 10,500, boosted by home-grown Islamic terrorist plots, globalisation and his dramatic acquittal in last year’s race-hate trials.

... He is not racist, he argues. He does not believe that whites are superior. He believes that races are different and that multiculturalism is a recipe for disaster. He opposes miscegenation “because most people want their grandchildren to look basically like them”. If the liberal elite had its way, the world would become “a giant melting pot turning out coffee-coloured citizens by the million”.

...  In Ripon the meeting point is the town square, where the local BBC radio station interviews Griffin. Ripon and Harrogate are “lovely English towns and we believe they should stay that way. They can’t if there are high levels of immigration,” he says. On our way to the meeting we pass a painting of a black inmate outside the Workhouse Museum. Griffin splutters. It was poor whites who suffered in workhouses, he says.

READ MORE...

Hat-tip to Laban Tall for this sublime example of elite discomfiture, occasioned by the ruthless, knowledgeable Piers Morgan in an interview of Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger.  It was retailed in The Independent today.

PM: Do you assume that editing is a job for life?

AR: No, I assume that all careers must come to an end at some point.

PM: But Guardian editors, tend to have the professional lives of several elephants. What would it take to be fired?

AR: When you’re appointed, the only thing you are told is to edit the paper “as heretofore”.

PM: That seems suitably incomprehensible for The Guardian.

AR: I think it means that The Guardian is a liberal, progressive, intelligent, internationalist paper which operates to certain ethical standards. And that’s what I have to do. So if you betray that edict by backing UKIP in an election, for example, you would have to leave.

PM: I’m talking more about personal conduct. I read an interview in which you said that what mattered most between a paper and its staff and the readers was trust. Do you think you have to be as trustworthy privately as you are professionally?

AR: I think you have to be trustworthy in your professional life.

PM: Not personal life?

AR: [Silence for 10 seconds] I like to make a distinction between professional and private in everything we write about.

PM: But when David Blunkett admitted in his diaries that he couldn’t concentrate on the Iraq war dossier debate in Cabinet because he was in emotional turmoil over his affair, isn’t that where private and professional gets a little blurred?

AR: If that impacted on his life…

PM: A private or public matter?

AR: I wouldn’t, er… [pauses] go looking for this kind of thing.

PM: Really? Isn’t it a matter of public interest if the Home Secretary admits he couldn’t focus on a dossier that sanctions war because of the turmoil surrounding his affair?

AR: Well, I wouldn’t go looking into it, if that answers you.

PM: No, that wasn’t my question. I asked if it was a public matter or not. It strikes me that by his own admission, therefore, his private life is directly impacting on his public work.

AR: If that’s his own judgement…

PM: But The Guardian serialised his own book with that very admission. It doesn’t mean you read it, granted…

AR: It was 900 pages. I didn’t read it all.

PM: It amuses me when you “serious” editors claim you don’t do private-life stuff, because you do. You wait for the tabloids to do the work and then pile in, repeating the juicy bits while condemning the tabloid intrusion. If you feel that strongly about it, why repeat the original invasive material? Did you cover the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott’s dalliance with [his secretary] Tracey Temple?

We did in the end, yes.

PM: Why “in the end”?

AR: There isn’t a pat answer to that. There are very few of my broadsheet editor colleagues who, if someone came to them and said, “I’ve been shagging the Secretary of State for, er - I’m trying to think of a department that doesn’t exist - er, pensions and culture, are you interested?”, would say “yes”. None of us do that kind of stuff as original journalism. But, once stories are out, then if your job is to report what is going on in society at large then there comes a point when you can’t ignore them.

PM: I find that a totally fatuous argument. Either you believe that Prezza’s affair is in the public interest, or you don’t. If you think that the affair itself is not a public matter, the braver thing to do is not to report it all. The Independent used to have a policy of never reporting on the Royal Family, and I thought that was admirable and that it lacked the total hypocrisy of your position.

AR: It was brave, but in the end they looked stupid and stopped.

PM: If I gave you concrete evidence Charles and Camilla were splitting up, would you publish it?

AR: Yes, because that is about the relationship between future monarch and wife, the future King and Queen.

PM: And if I told you that Charles was leaving Camilla because he was having an affair with Victoria Beckham, would you publish that part of the story?

AR: Well, again, because marriage in monarchy is more part of the job, then it is more relevant; rather than the fictional minister I discussed earlier.

PM: Isn’t being Deputy Prime Minister a fairly important job?

AR: Yes, but the broad distinction that editors in my end of the market make is that what politicians do in private, consensually, is up to them.

PM: Literally, anything?

If it’s legal, yes.

PM: So if I showed you evidence of David Cameron snorting cocaine, you would publish that because it’s illegal, right?

AR: Yes, but I wouldn’t spend a lot of time going looking for it. I think illegal behaviour by a possible future prime minister is in the public interest.

PM: Don’t you think that Cameron should have been honest on whether he’d broken the law?

AR: I’d have been happier if he’d come out one way or another. But we all knew what he was saying by refusing to answer it.

PM: Did we?

AR: Didn’t we?

PM: Would you answer that question? Are you a public figure?

AR: Not really, no. I am accountable to the Scott Trust [owner of the Guardian Media Group], and I make The Guardian’s journalism more publicly accountable than any other editor in this country.

PM: I only ask, because I remember The Guardian treating me as a public figure when I encountered various scrapes as an editor. Do you think that your own life would stand up to much ethical scrutiny?

AR: In terms of the journalism?

PM: No, I mean privately. Do you consider that infidelity is always a private matter for public figures, for instance?

AR: I think what people do legally and consensually is private.

PM: If I asked you if you had ever taken illegal drugs, would you feel compelled to answer?

AR: No, I’d say to you to mind your own business.

PM: What’s your current salary?

AR: It’s, er, about £350,000.

PM: What bonus did you receive last year?

AR: About £170,000, which was a way of addressing my pension.

PM: That means that you earned £520,000 last year alone. That’s more than the editor of The Sun by a long way.

AR: I’ll talk to you off the record about this, but not on the record.

PM: Why? In The Guardian, you never stop banging on about fat cats. Do you think that your readers would be pleased to hear that you earned £520,000 last year? Are you worth it?

AR: That’s for others to say.

PM: Wouldn’t it be more Guardian-like, more socialist, to take a bit less and spread the pot around a bit? We have this quaint idea that you guys are into that “all men are equal” nonsense, but you’re not really, are you? You seem a lot more “equal” than others on your paper.

AR: Er… [silence].

PM: Do you ever get awkward moments when your bonus gets published? Do you wince and think, “Oh dear, Polly Toynbee’s not going to like this one.”

AR: Er… [silence].

PM: Or is Polly raking in so much herself that she wouldn’t mind?

AR: Er… [silence].

PM: Are you embarrassed by it?

AR: No. I didn’t ask for the money. And I do declare it, too.

PM: But if you earned £520,000 last year, then that must make you a multimillionaire.

AR: You say I’m a millionaire?

PM: You must be - unless you’re giving it all away to charity…

AR: Er…

PM: What’s your house worth?

AR: I don’t want to talk about these aspects of my life.

PM: You think it’s all private?

AR: I do really, yes.

PM: Did you think that about Peter Mandelson’s house? I mean, you broke that story.

AR: I, er… it was a story about an elected politician.

PM: And you’re not as accountable. You just reserve the right to expose his private life.

AR: We all make distinctions about this kind of thing. The line between private and public is a fine one, and you’ve taken up most of the interview with it.

PM: Well, only because you seem so embarrassed and confused about it.

AR: I’m not embarrassed about it. But nor do I feel I have to talk about it.

READ MORE...

Here is one of those cases where reality appears to be satire:

Laws that make denying or trivialising the Holocaust a criminal offence punishable by jail sentences will be introduced across the European Union, according to a proposal expecting to win backing from ministers Thursday… Offenders will face up to three years in jail

I think its time to have a contest to identify the most offensive mockery of the crucifixion of Christ ever put on public display in Europe.  This is only appropriate as a demonstration of the fact that the theocracy of Christianity has been replaced by the theocracy of Holocaustianity.  The days of incarceration for heresies and blasphemies questioning Christian canons or mocking Christian deities/saints are long gone now replaced by incarceration for questioning Holocaustian canons or mocking Holocaustian symbols.

In the US, we have a history of many Jewish art critics praising works like Piss Christ if not producing mockeries of Christianity for major motion picture release.  I’m sure there must be many counterparts in the EU.

My thanks to a seriously untangled guy named Smith for this hard-to-find story from The (Glasgow) Herald:-

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission of Equality and Human Rights, said there was a clear choice facing communities who are witnessing an influx of migrants.

Speaking at the STUC annual congress in Glasgow he said the choice was between welcoming people or fearing newcomers.

He urged people to turn their backs on racists in communities and at the ballot box and showed his contempt for the British National Party by saying they should be treated as “less than human”.

He said: “We will see communities standing up for asylum seekers who want to live as part of that community. We will see the Scottish government welcoming them as part of the fresh talent initiative.

“But we will also see the ugly face. We will see those who will assault a woman and baby simply because they are foreigners.

“We as a society have a choice. In England we have the BNP. The path is to keep them out.  We need to change in an inclusive way.”

I haven’t heard about any dramatic breakthrough yet in the search for those who will assault a woman and baby simply because they are foreigners.  But let that pass, because the big news is that Mr E has pulled off another of those smooth political hip wriggles for which he is so famous.  “Less than human” he says, is how BNP members should be treated.  A real headline grabber, one would think.  And surely that was what Trevor was hoping.

But, was he legal?  Can you imagine Nick Griffin and Mark Collett getting away with such a statement about Pakistanis?  If they were worth twice prosecuting for calling Islam “a wicked, vicious faith”, surely they would have been lynched for saying what Phillips just did.

READ MORE...