The Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard published a pretty hard-hitting article today, filled with lurid references to nations in deep financial crisis.  Those I have heard so much of since September 2008, I am rapidly developing an incapacity to be alarmed.  No, the interesting thing about this article was the following stunning admission of where things will go:-

The sums needed are beyond the limits of the IMF, which has already bailed out Hungary, Ukraine, Latvia, Belarus, Iceland, and Pakistan – and Turkey next – and is fast exhausting its own $200bn (€155bn) reserve.  We are nearing the point where the IMF may have to print money for the world, using arcane powers to issue Special Drawing Rights.

Forget monetary reform of fractional reserve banking (which allows banks to create a nation’s money-supply as debt out of thin air).  You, Ron Paul and everyone who didn’t lose billions out of the crisis may think that restoring the right of democratic nations to coin their currency directly, as required in the US Constitution, is the answer.  But we are, Evans-Pritchard says, going to get a global fiat currency.  The EU agrees, and at the end of last month formally presented a case for a global currency system to the new American administration.

Now, at a time like this there should always be a gentleman born to Jewish parents who can be found leading the intellectual charge.  And, as it happens, there is.  The economist Joseph Stiglitz, a former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank and author of Making Globalization Work, has been the point man for the global currency.  Here he is being interviewed by some outfit named Share the World’s Resources:-

Q: Are you saying that we would need a “currency basket” in order to secure stability?

A: (What is needed is) Bringing all the currencies, like the SDRs (special drawing rights), but SDRs have only been periodic. Make this more permanent.

Q: At the famous international economic conference at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in 1944, which established a postwar global monetary and financial order, John Maynard Keynes, who represented Britain, proposed the creation of a world currency unit called the Bancor. Are you talking about a similar type of currency basket? Would that be the kind of “basket” you had in mind?

A: Exactly, in my book I argue that that’s what we need. It’s a multilateral system. We need to have a new institutional framework and that’s why I’m hopeful that there’s the beginning of a discussion to have an international meeting, and that’s one of the things I hope will come out of that.

Q: Do you think we need a second version of the Bretton Woods conference?

A: This is a “Bretton Woods moment.”

Of course, he means “This is a Stiglitz moment.”  It is also a moment when the nation state, upon whose political existence the defence of human bio-diversity depends, takes another long step towards dissolution.

Reviled by the media … ordered by the Pope to recant … sacked from his post as head of the the traditionalist Society of St Pius X Seminary at La Reja, outside Buenos Aires, the good bishop Richard Williamson is now facing possible prosecutions in three countries.  They are Germany:

Regensburg District Attorney Guenther Ruckdaeschel said authorities were investigating whether the remarks can be considered “inciting racial hatred.” Denying the Holocaust is a crime in Germany, punishable by up to five years in prison.

… Ruckdaeschel decided to launch his investigation in Regensburg because the Williamson interview was conducted at a seminar of the Society of Saint Pius X, of which Williamson is a member, in the nearby town of Zaitzkofen.

… Ruckdaeschel says he will attempt to question the two Swedish reporters who conducted the interview. He said it was unlikely Williamson would have to appear in court because he is currently in Argentina, but the bishop may be required to submit a written statement in the case.

Argentina:

Richard Williamson, the British-born bishop whose excommunication was reversed by Pope Benedict XVI in January, is now the subject of a complaint before an Argentine federal court. The 68-year-old bishop stands accused of denying the Holocaust, according to evidence presented before Judge Julian Ercolini. In addition to

Tuesday’s complaint, he may face further charges. The head of Argentina’s National Institute against Discrimination (INADI), Maria Jose Lubertino, said Williamson would also have to correct or confirm his claims. “He is obliged to clarify the veracity of his claims. We are going to make a formal legal complaint and he may face up to three years in prison,” Lubertino said.

The institute has asked for copies of a Swedish television interview in which Williamson negates the existence of gas chambers in the extermination of six million Jews, Roma, and others during the regime led by Adolph Hitler.

and France:

A French human rights group says it will press charges against a Holocaust-denying British bishop.

The International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism said Wednesday in a statement that it would charge Richard Williamson with “contesting crimes against humanity” and denying the Holocaust in an article published in the German der Spiegel magazine and in a television interview.

In an interview published Monday in der Spiegel, Williamson said he needed “proof” that the Nazis used gas chambers to murder Jews during the Holocaust, despite a recent request by Pope Benedict XVI that the rehabilitated bishop distance himself from such views.

The pope’s January reinstatement of Williamson after 20 years of excommunication caused a global outcry.

A Wednesday poll by the daily Le Parisien showed 70 percent of French respondents disapproved of the pope’s decision to reinstate Williamson and three other ultra-conservative bishops. Some 27 percent said they approved.

In search of “proof”, meanwhile, the Bishop has ordered a copy of Jean-Claude Pressac’s Auschwitz: Technique And Operation Of The Gas Chambers.  If that was seen by his persecutors as an emolient measure of a chastened man seeking a way out, they may be thinking differently following his latest posting at his blog, Dinoscopus, which I reproduce below the fold in full.

READ MORE...

My thanks to Bo Sears for this link to Larry - and, of course for that post he gave us on Michael Hart’s enormously Judeo-Christian, civilisation-saving and all-round Nazi-free conference

And whaddyaknow ... it was a success!  No one mentioned Jews or Israel.  No evil anti-Semites pressured the management of the Baltimore Sheraton to cancel on our heroes at the last minute.  No one complained that pork wasn’t on the menu at the Saturday night thrash.  No one mentioned that, actually, it isn’t about civilisation - sorry - it’s about European genes.

So now the big push to replace liberalism with Judeo-Christian tradition and give us poor European folks some racial confidence, damnit, can begin.

Oh yes, and here’s what Larry had to say about that - just his first thoughts, mind you.

At the close of the Preserving Western Civilization conference outside Baltimore which ended today, it suddenly occurred to me that the topics of Israel, Jews, and anti-Semitism had not come up at all during the two-day meeting, except perhaps for a passing reference to Islam’s attitude to the Jews, and Julia Gorin’s comedy performance at the banquet on Saturday evening. This, despite the fact that what had motivated Michael Hart to organize the conference in the first place was the desire to discuss the threats to Western civilization without having to deal with Israel-haters, anti-Semites, and Nazi types such as were predominant at the 2006 American Renaissance conference, where Mr. Hart, after a diatribe by David Duke, righteously told Duke that he was a Nazi who had disgraced the meeting, and then walked out. In the aftermath of that conference, and of Jared Taylor’s refusal to condemn the serious anti-Semitism that had been manifested there (which included standing applause, by between a third and a half of the attendees, for the prospective demise of Israel), Mr. Hart conceived the idea of bringing together speakers to address the related but distinct topics of immigration, Islam, and the suicidal white guilt that results from ignorance of race differences, at a meeting of Western patriots that would be welcoming to Jews and not welcoming to Jew haters.

But, as I said, despite the profound concern over anti-Semitism that had led to the conference, Jewish-related topics were not heard. Why? For the simple reason that the organizers and participants were focused, just as the conference title indicated, on the preservation of Western civilization. Their intention was not to explore specifically Jewish concerns or advance specifically Jewish interests, but to air the vital topics of immigration, Islam, and race differences in a civilized environment free of the vile poison of Israel hatred and anti-Semitism which so much of the paleocon and race-realist right tolerates, welcomes, and embraces.

No anti-Semites. Just right.

Well, let’s mark out a bit of territory here.

I don’t think of myself as a member of the race-realist right.  In fact, I don’t think there is a race-realist right.  Race-realism is, at best, a protest movement, not a philosophical and political position.

I am an ethno-nationalist.  I believe that my own ethnic group and, beyond them, my race share a commonweal of natural rights and interests, and these are completely and very intentionally excluded from the world of ideas in which we are presently immersed.  “Immigration, Islam, and race differences” are quite respectable subjects for discussion.  But relative to being and belonging, genetic conservation and national reclamation they are positively frivolous.  I ground my politics not in the importance of culture or civilisation or even faith, though all these have importance, naturally, but in an absolute and empirical certitude that my people are, as my family is, and these recepticles of my interests and my love must always be, for me, supreme.

Larry can’t get that because, whilst he is famously NOT A JEW, he is far too Jewish to admit of my people’s unimpeachable right to live sovereign and free in our own land, and our life-interest in doing so.  And that must extend to the right to live without Larry.

You thought 1965 was bad?  Get a load of this:

Progress by Pesach is endorsed nationally by American Jewish Committee  (AJC), Anti-Defamation League  (ADL), B’nai B’rith International, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), Jewish Reconstructionist Federation (JRF), National Council of Jewish Women  (NCJW), The Rabbinical Assembly, Union for Reform Judaism, and Uri l’Tzedek: The Orthodox Social Justice Movement . Progress by Pesach is endorsed locally by Am Kolel Jewish Renewal Center  (Rockville/Beallsville, MD), Jewish Community Action  (St. Paul, MN), Jewish Community Relations Council of Southern Arizona (Tucson, AZ), Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington  (Rockville, MD), Jewish Council on Urban Affairs  (Chicago, IL), Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (New York, NY), Jews United for Justice (Washington, DC), MIKLAT! A Jewish Response to Displacement (Milwaukee, WI), and the Progressive Jewish Alliance (Los Angeles, CA).

We are witnessing Jewish virulence in the migratory stage.

The time will come for those who dream of a backlash against Jews but remember this:  The main failure of Hitler was his failure to be sufficiently supportive of the Zionists (and Palestinians to the extent they were displaced) via the Transfer Agreement.  Jews are not essentially virulent—it is their lack of a homeland that presses their evolution to virulence via horizontal transmission.  Do not attack the Jews who remain more or less locally identified and opposed to immigration.  Consider allies those Jews who help track down and prosecute the “spores” now carrying away our wealth to start the new cycle.  Then with the horizontal transmission contained and the pro-immigration virulence incarcerated or otherwise neutralized, help the non-virulent of Jewish-identified return home peacefully.

Defiance is a 2008 war film directed by Edward Zwick.  Set in the eastern regions of German Nazi-occupied Poland (now western Belarus) during World War II, the film is an adaptation of Nechama Tec’s Defiance: The Bielski Partisans, which is based on the true story of the Bielski partisans.  Tec’s book told how Polish Jews came together for common protection and to oppose the German occupation of their homeland.

That is how Wikipedia opens its entry on the Jewish action movie, Defiance.  It is pretty much the standard account of the film, which has appeared in media around the world.  The “true story of the Bielski brothers”, those heroic, admirable, justified Jews fighting for “the good” and for their lives against impossible odds and ultimate evil, is the only prism the world now has through which to view the motives and actions of these people. 

In response, a number of honourable and patriotic Poles have sought to provide another.  One such, a Polish-American reader of this blog, has thoroughly primed me on all this, and I am indebted to him.

I suppose it made a lot of sense to a director, basically, of action movies to secure for his lead in the most important film of his career the actor currently playing James Bond.  Could there be a more striking image of the alpha male at bay than Daniel Craig on a noble white stallion shot against a wintry backdrop of a deep and mysterious Lithuanian forest? 

Speaking of the film to the BBC, Craig said:-

“This came along, I read it and immediately said, ‘I want to make this movie. It’s a story I want to tell,’”

… The film does not shy from showing the brutal reality of what the group’s resistance involved - including in one instance the group murder of a German soldier.

And, suggests Craig, perhaps the difficulty of dealing with bloody memories has contributed to keeping the story buried.  “It was much more complicated than we can ever portray on screen. “They did commit gruesome acts and one of the reasons the story has not been told is because these people wanted to forget,” he says.

Perhaps the story was buried between Tuvia Bielski’s own account in 1947 and Tec’s in 1993 because, for the Bielski “survivors”, there was nothing but bloody memories, for which “the group murder of a German soldier“ can by no means stand in sole testimony.  Further, the “complicated” story to which Craig refers is, in fact, Polish history in all its terrible reality, and the version “we can … portray on screen” is nothing, nothing at all, but Jewish propaganda.

READ MORE...

In ‘The Gods Themselves’ by Isaac Asimov, a very didactic story plays out.  Humanity has invented some new gizmo, a space pump that can pump in energy from an alternate universe.  Soon enough this device is powering the whole world, it’s cheap, clean, boundless, practically magic.  One day a scientist is studying the device and realizes pumping in energy from an alternate universe is also pumping in the alternate laws of physics from that universe.  The chaotic mix of the two laws of physics will unravel the universe, once enough of the ‘alternate’ mass has reached a certain threshold.  He goes to the newspapers, he goes to the talk shows, he goes to the president, with dire warnings that we must stop using the space pump immediately.  Nothing is done, people don’t believe him, call him a nutcase, question his science, and go on using their cheap plentiful power which they have become used to.  In despair, the scientist thinks to himself, “In the face of human stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.”

Then the scientist gets a new idea, if our universe has a laws of physics ph level of 7, say, and we are introducing an acidic ph level alternate universe law of physics, all we need is a base level ph laws of physics from a third universe to cancel it out.  Using his masterly scientific knowledge, he soon invents a new space pump, which connects us to a third universe, and the world is saved.  Individually, he came to a solution everyone could agree with, as it required no effort and no sacrifice on their part.  Even though there was an easy, technologically feasible, political solution to the problem—-the problem was never solved by politics, ie, by collective power.

READ MORE...

By The Narrator

There is today probably not a more destructive presumption, even faith, than the notion of Equality.  For its sheer baselessness and capacity to harm, and be it racial, cultural, societal, gender, etc, the modern notion of intrinsic or inherent “equal-ness” among human beings resides in a historical class by itself.  From a racial perspective, pondering why Whites and non-Whites are not civilizationally, morally or temperamentally equal or why there is a socio-economical gap between the races, is about as necessary (and forced) as asking why dogs make better household pets than Grizzly bears.

All about us we see inequality as a natural condition and reality.  Within sets and subsets, disparity in quality and ability is the norm.  Be it among men or animals, fowl or fish, we see systems where this normative condition is nature’s engineering, and obviously not the outcome of prejudice or bigotry.

Of course, when we look at groupings of distinct classes of Man, animal or plant we can instantly recognize similar qualities distinct to each group or sub-group.  We observe, for example, that fish swim and birds, by and large, fly.  We can test this for the validity of labelling them by their distinctiveness.  Yet not all fish are the same or equal, nor are birds without a variety of differences.

Even when similarities are more relevant (yet still greatly divergent in degrees), differences in quality, ability, adaptiveness and so on, are undeniable … such as, for instance, the fact that flight is a quality common to both butterflies and eagles.  Yet the ultimate and distinguishable inequality between the two, in any given circumstance they may happen to share, is self-evident to all but the wilfully blind.

And so we come to the unnecessary predicament that the wilfully blind Equalitarians create with their presumption for Equality and their grievous vexation by the lack of it.  If the races are equal, then it is unfair that some live in squalor while others live in skyscrapers.  If men and women are equal, then it is unfair that women do not hold as many positions of power as men.  If all men are equal, then it is unfair that some live longer, healthier lives than others.

READ MORE...

Genes have loose correlations to all sorts of things.  Personality, behavior, beliefs, ideals, emotional tendencies, and of course the mother of them all IQ.

However, none of these correlations are 100%.  Many are as low as 20%.  What would become of a society that accepted genetic differences, good and bad, and concentrated solely on developing everyone we can to their fullest potential?  For instance, suppose someone has a genetic predisposition to alcoholism.  If raised correctly, and with enough force of will, this person can avoid drinking and thus never become an alcoholic.  Here we have genes weaving their nefarious webs, and culture cutting right through them.  How many other victories could we as a nation, and we as individuals, score over our genetic default?

Is there really no hope of progress, no chance at a better life?  Are we doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over, we as individuals and we as groups, just because we have certain tendencies, or correlations, or predispositions, towards those things?  There are no 100% correlations between genes and anything else.  This means nothing is decided, no one is past hope, we can always change people for the better—if only we try hard enough.

READ MORE...