|
|
|
Making mothers of both sexes The Melbourne Age newspaper is on the warpath. It is a war against traditional, masculine fatherhood. In the past four days the Age has run three major articles calling for men to lay down their briefcases so that they might change more nappies. Why this special plea to men to do less paid work? As I outlined in some detail in my article on The Old Father, liberals don’t like the idea of traditional gender roles. Such roles are inherited, rather than being chosen by our own will and reason, and are therefore thought of by liberals as being an impediment to individual freedom. So liberals think it’s important that we throw off traditional fatherhood and motherhood roles. Instead there is to be one gender-neutral “parent” role, based on hands-on motherhood tasks. That’s why Sushi Das, in her Age article, asserts that, “In time, employers and governments will have to stop basing their decisions on the backward-looking model of man-as-breadwinner and woman-as-child-rearer, and move towards a new model where men and women are seen as workers and parents.” See - we are no longer to be fathers and mothers, but simply “parents” and “workers”. Our sex has been cut out of the picture. It is no longer meant to matter. Which is why it’s ironic that Sushi Das, in an attempt at emotional persuasion, appeals to Australian men’s sense of manhood to make the change. She ends with a special plea to men: “Now is the time for courage ... It’s time to be a man.” This is a fantastically ludicrous argument. We are being told that we can show our manhood by abolishing a most important facet of it, namely a distinctively masculine fatherhood. In the second Age article, Natasha Campo argues, in orthodox liberal fashion, that we will be liberated by the abolition of traditional sex roles. She defends the feminists of the 1970s as follows, The third article describes the views of Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Pru Goward. She so much wants to achieve an androgynous model of parenting that she thinks the Government should consider running special “relationship programs” to achieve it. Like Sushi Das, she also pulls out some emotional “persuaders” to bolster her case, including the claim that women work in total two hours a day longer than men, and that this is causing high divorce rates and low fertility rates. Her claim about longer female working hours should be received with some scepticism. I’ve seen quite a few survey results on this issue and they all showed that men and women worked very similar hours when paid and unpaid work was combined. Quite a few surveys actually show men working slightly longer hours than women. For instance, in 1993 an Australian Bureau of Statistics study found that among employed people with children women spent on average 40% of the day on paid and unpaid work compared to 42% for men. Perhaps this explains why most women are reasonably content with the division of household labour. For instance, in 1996 a researcher from the Australian National University, Dr Janeen Baxter, found that only 3.8% of women who did more housework than their husbands considered themselves “not at all satisfied” with the situation. Pru Goward seems to recognise this resistance of women to the idea of unisex roles within the home. She insists in the Age article that “Women also needed to change their belief that they were better at housework and childrearing than their partners”. Yet if women are stubbornly traditional, just like men, it seems unlikely that the male commitment to breadwinning is a major factor behind divorce and fertility problems. Ultimately, the call from the political class for motherhood and fatherhood to be abolished is an ideological one. It is an attempt to radically remake us so that we fit in better with an abstract concept of individual freedom. Comments:2
Posted by wintermute on Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:11 | # One of the smaller favors provided by your Labour Party to the nest of parasites ruling your nation, was the prevention on three occasions, of David Irving’s entry into your country, even though polls showed that four out of five Australians felt he should have the right to speak. http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/98/07/articles/Leibler100798.html
But then, when the wishes of Jewry and a host population collide, only one will emerge supreme. And the last time the host population won that contest, the armies of the whole rest of the world arrived in short order to put things to right. So capitulation was probably your best option. Didn’t the Jews once publish a list of everyone belonging to or having contributed to, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party? Ouch! And then off to jail with the poor girl . . . three years for a registration mistake? Those bought and paid for politicians must be very afraid of Jewish media and financial power, indeed. And so, now it has been decided that you, the putative ‘men’ of Australia, are going to be the ones changing the nappies. What can one say? You’ve done everything else for your masters, why balk at this? You strike me, sir, as a drone of a most ungrateful sort - indeed, as someone perilously close to being uncomfortable in his servitude. For an attitude adjustment, I would recommend participation in one of the Likud party’s new wars - I hear that one is coming up in Iran, soon, though there’s always room for mop up in Iraq. It is true, is it not, that Australia is part of the coalition of the willing? Given the financial and informational situation there, I can hardly see how this could not be the case. Good luck with the nappies, btw. I offer the following list for your contemplation, whilst you are breastfeeding your young:
Those are the Jewesses who invented ‘feminism’, the Race-and-Culture destroying ideology you are now at the business end of. It was not created or financed or internationally broadcast to the exclusion of all other points of view by Gentiles, though many here will balk at that fact. You however may keep the list in mind, whether you are marching off to make the world safe for Tel Aviv, or simply changing the nappies, as the Melbourne Age now suggests you do. In either case, the study of history will reward by directing the attention to those most responsible for the situations we now find ourselves in, and which most poor souls are completely ignorant of. IMO, there in simply no reason to remain ignorant anymore. As a final note, I would like to observe that you may be endangering what is left of your freedom simply by posting on this website. Your local Sanhedrin, the so-called “Federal Court of Australia” has already made it plain in Jones v. Toben, that: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/1150.html
For the ‘democratic’ status of the “elected representatives of the Australian people”, please see materials regarding Jewish ownership of said bodies, and simultaneous management of said bodies, via the very undemocratically owned and undemocratically operated Australian media. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:30 | # ... the last time the host population won that contest, the armies of the whole rest of the world arrived in short order to put things to right Britain declared war on Germany because she had no honourable way forward but to stand by her international obligations, having resiled from them once already (Czechoslovakia - “a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.”). After Dunkirk she fought for her survival. After the turning of the tide in the East she fought to free our friends, who were living under the fat arse of the Wehrmacht. Her dominions joined with her in this great fight because they were one with her. Jews meant nothing. There were many requests to Bomber Command’s CC, Arthur Harris, to bomb the rail lines to the camps, but he would not invest his aircrews’ lives in such a, from the point of view, meaningless operation. After Dresden, when Churchill began to disassociate himself from the Area Offensive, Harris responded that he did not regard “the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.” Quite right, too. A spirited and proper expression of particularism. We need more like that. 4
Posted by Mark Richardson on Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:58 | # Wintermute and I both seem to agree that the feminist agenda undermines Western society. However, I can’t agree with wintermute’s White Nationalist understanding of how this has come about. Wintermute seems to follow the basic idea that politics is just a cover for ethnic interests. Therefore, the main task wintermute sets himself is not so much to engage the poltics itself, but to reveal the Jewish face behind the politics. The problem is that this leaves white liberalism unchallenged on two levels. First, because the political ideas themselves aren’t responded to. Second, because Jews take the focus of blame, rather than white gentile liberals. Furthermore, the idea that Jewish interests are the main force determining things doesn’t work, especially in terms of Australian politics. It’s true, no doubt, that Jews have been disproportionately involved in radical liberal movements, and have a political and economic influence beyond their raw numbers. Even so, they have not controlled Western politics over the last 200 years. For instance, it was white gentile men and women who pioneered feminism, rather than Jews. If there was a “mother” of feminism it was the British writer, Mary Wollstonecraft. John Stuart Mill was another influential early proponent of feminism. And the most influential modern Australian feminist is a woman who attended a good Catholic school not far from where I grew up, namely Germaine Greer. It’s the same when it comes to the Australian press. The Age was built up by the Syme family and is now owned by the Fairfax family. Then there is the Packer dynasty and the Murdochs. None of these families, as far as I am aware, has much of a connection to Judaism (I’m not sure what wintermute means by Rupert Murdoch being a “mamzer” Jew. Note too that Gawenda is no longer the editor of the Age.) The Australian political class is 95% Anglo-Australian. The leading politicians are Howards and Beazleys, the leading intellectuals are Williamsons and Hugheses and Robertses and so on. To repeat: the Australian political establishment remains, even now, overwhelmingly Anglo and liberal. The point is not, therefore, to remove any masks to reveal a hidden Jewish influence. The liberalism of our Anglo establishment is out in the open, to the point at which it is almost taken for granted. It is this openly revealed, homegrown liberalism we have to argue against politically, if we are to begin to win over younger intellectuals. Blaming the Jews won’t provide intellectuals with an attractive alternative politics and will only make it easy for liberals to portray their opponents in negative terms. 5
Posted by wintermute on Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:04 | # Britain declared war on Germany because she had no honourable way forward but to stand by her international obligations Brave Poland, whom she allowed to be swallowed by the Soviets without so much as a peep? Spare me. from The Forrestal Diaries, pg. 122
After Dresden, when Churchill began to disassociate himself from the Area Offensive, Harris responded that he did not regard “the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.” Quite right, too. A spirited and proper expression of particularism. We need more like that. Why? Is the West not perishing quickly enough to please you? 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:54 | # WM, This is a discussion I have had with a certain figure in WN. The heart of the matter is that war,which everyone knew was coming throughout the thirties, was forced on us. If not Poland, we would have had to act in defence of Denmark or Holland, Belgium, Norway ... It was not and could never be amenable to a nation whose historical role in Europe was the balance of power between Germany and France for one of these two to create a martial empire twenty-two miles from our shore. As far as Harris’s forthright sentiments are concerned, I only wish we were all a bit more like that today. His powerful focus would be a blessing. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. 7
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:00 | # Wintermute seems to follow the basic idea that politics is just a cover for ethnic interests…. The problem is that this leaves white liberalism unchallenged on two levels. First, because the political ideas themselves aren’t responded to. Second, because Jews take the focus of blame, rather than white gentile liberals. Politics is not *only* an inter-ethnic phenomenon. When ethnies collide in competition, however, the ethny that has the least intra-ethnic political conflict (i.e., that is the most cohesive) will—ceteris paribus—prevail in that competition. Generally speaking, “ideas” are relevant only in the intraethnic context, and even then “ideas” are not really political, a sthat term is now commonly understood. If we all seek the same end—the production of a maximally prosperous community of maximally prosperous individuals, with the prosperity at each level inextricably intertwined with that at the other, then we may have honest disagreements about the means to achieving that end. That is where the rational debate of “ideas” comes into play—and that is not generally defined as politics these days. Where, however, “ideas” are advanced in furtherance of a faction’s political agenda—that is to say, where a particularist agenda is advanced under cover of a universalist “idea”—the most direct (and most effective) manner of rebutting the idea is to expose the self-interest motivating the propagation of the idea. When you ascribe our downfall to “liberalism”, you identify the weapon but not its wielder. As citizens’ rights advocates say in the States, “Guns don’t kill people; people do.” The same holds true for ideas. And in investigating the origins of such memes (or “ideas”), whose propagation through our communities must be regarded as a crime of monstrous proportions, we would profit from asking the two questions asked by television detectives possessed of the most pedestrian intellect: who had the motive and the opportunity to perpetrate these crimes? For the “liberals”, where was the motive? Not now—when “liberal” intellectuals can make a pretty penny parrotting the dogma (incentivization, or the “carrot”); not now—when the rejection of the dogma of political correctness can cost one one’s livelihood (intimidation, or the “stick”); not now—when “liberals” have been conditioned to believe that the memes of political correctness are a legitimate moral code to be enforced by evolved altruistic punishment mechanisms (indoctrination). Not now, but at the time of the introduction of these “ideas” that *you* so easily discern to be false and harmful. Who, from the start, could expect to benefit from the injection of these ideas into the body of our community? Who had the opportunity to propagate these murderous memes? When Nixon and Billy Graham had that famous conversation in the early ‘70’s, *every* TV network in the US had *always* been under Jewish control, to cite just the most extreme example. Is it unreasonable to assume that liberal “ideas” that are so patently contrary to common sense and our self-interest must be helped along? That they don’t spread spontaneously through our communities? That pre-exisiting social controls would enable those who had *not* taken leave of their senses to guide those who *had* back to the fold? Could such opinions have taken hold if the apparatus of public opinion formation had not presented a false consensus to which we are naturally disposed to conform ourselves? How? How? How? By what mechanism could “liberal” ideas have gained currency in the US, in Britain, and elsewhere in the absence of the intervention of outsiders? Anomie may explain why the immune system was weakened (in Britain—the US was quite robust after the second war), but the liberal “ideas” you speak of did not take hold immediately after either war. Even if we concede that we were in a weakened state, we must still explain why elements within Western communities would advance such ideas at that time. Your question, GW, is issued in the context of a particular ideology—feminism. Our understanding of its origins and growth may be furthered by an examination of the growth of homosexualism, a host of memes that were incorporated into the dogma of political correctness within our lifetimes. We have been able to watch this phenomenon from its beginning. And we know that the phenomenon—which is acknowledged to serve Jewish interests—is wholly a product of the apparatus of public opinion formation. The universities, the Episcopal Curch, et al. followed the lead of the opinion shapers. Having seen this happen before our very eyes, why are we so sceptical of the proposition that the other poisonous “liberal” ideas had the same generator and propagator? 8
Posted by Geoff Beck on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:42 | # Repeatedly I’ve warned about Jewish involvement in political and intellectual movements which have hostile intentions toward gentiles. Yet, though I may be ignored or attacked, I can’t see how hammering some poor bloke that watches Foxnews and reads fre_e_republic, a person with no understanding of the issue, with what he can only see as Judenhass. Perhaps, among the contributors to MR, I am the most aggressive on this issue. Yet, if you’re not 100% and 24 x 7 in total excoriation of the Jews somehow you are worthy of contempt or mockery. Wintermute is certainly alienating me from any goodwill I may hold. 9
Posted by lurk on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:15 | # How? How? How? Stranger things have happened in history, my friend. For example, a religion that sanctifies celibacy and virginity becoming the dominant one in formerly ‘barbaric’ Northern Europe. How does that fit in with a worldview in which “ethnic evolutionary interests” are everything? It’s a strange and complex world we live in. Far too complex to short-sightedly blame all of one’s misfortunes on the over-achieving scapegoat. There are alternative explanations to the cultural events of the 20th century, which you will see are far more plausible - unless you are already prejudiced against them. 10
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:20 | # Geoff, I agree that Wintermute’s recent criticism of you was unfair—and unwise. 11
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:29 | # It’s a strange and complex world we live in. Far too complex to short-sightedly blame all of one’s misfortunes on the over-achieving scapegoat. What is your theory to explain why this “overachieving scapegoat” insists on living among those who he knows have a tendency to “scapegoat” him? And what is your theory of the mechanism of the spontaneous generation of the fatal malady identified as “liberalism”? Please offer something more than the “scapegoat” canard. 12
Posted by Effra on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:47 | # Guessed: On a point of information—did Britain in fact “resile” on a treaty obligation to Czechoslovakia in 1938? Had we given it any guarantee comparable with the useless one Britain and France gave Poland? Wintermute: Although it has long been rumoured that Rupert Murdoch’s mother, Elisabeth Greene, hails from an Orthodox Jewish family, I don’t know if that has ever been stood up. She is a lifelong Anglican. It’s true that one of the few political consistencies in Rupe’s career has been Zionism. Commercially nothing else would have made sense after he bought the Hymietown Post and Village Voice, but he has also invested heavily in Israeli infotech, which argues a commitment beyond opportunism. On US feminism: the prime instigator of the campaign for “Women’s Lib” in the 1950s was Betty Friedan, author of “The Feminine Mystique” and founder of NOW. She was secular-Jewish, but more to the point she was a crypto-commie activist who masqueraded as an ordinary bored suburban housewife when touting her dubious propositions about Rosie the Riveters being driven back to domestic servitude after WW2. In reality, most gals couldn’t wait to get the grease from under their nails! (By all accounts Friedan, far from being a downtrodden Rapunzel, wore the trousers in her marriage.) 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:13 | # Effra, “did Britain in fact “resile” on a treaty obligation to Czechoslovakia in 1938? Had we given it any guarantee comparable with the useless one Britain and France gave Poland?” No, you are right. France had a formal treaty with them. But Benes turned to us, which meant in effect that he sought to guarantee his borders against Germany. Chamberlain traded Sudetenland to Germany in exchange for Hitler’s promise to guarantee the Czech-German border. Thus what transpired was the exposure of a British incapacity to pursue the balance of power in Europe, not a scenario that could be repeated again. 14
Posted by Mark Richardson on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:48 | # Ben Tillman asks “By what mechanism could “liberal” ideas have gained currency in the US, in Britain, and elsewhere in the absence of the intervention of outsiders.” I would list the following in answer to this question. 1) Liberalism is not just a collection of political causes. It’s a general political philosophy which attempts to explain the nature of man and society. 2) This philosophy sounds appealing in its basic principles. It says that we have a special dignity as humans because we can create who we are through our own will and reason. The idea that the sphere of our own reason is unimpeded is especially attractive to intellectuals. 3) The destructive “fine print” of this philosophy only advanced very gradually. In other words, the logical consequences of liberalism did not unfold all at once: this certainly would never have been accepted. It took many generations to reach the more radical liberalism of the 1960s and beyond. 4) Liberalism achieved a kind of monopoly on positions of influence in Britain from the early 1700s. So from this time on, the intellectual and political establishment was firmly liberal. Conservative dissenters were therefore at a considerable disadvantage. 5) There were a variety of liberalisms offered as part of the respectable political spectrum. Therefore, those dissenting from one form of liberalism would most likely give their support to another variety of liberalism, rather than to conservatism. 6) For a time, doubters might have had their liberal faith renewed by advances in science and the economy. The idea of human will and reason being limitless was connected by liberals to our capacity to understand and control nature through science and technology. For as long as the negative social consequences of liberalism were yet to fully unfold, this vision of “liberal progress” may still have had some prestige. 7) Conservatives did not think through their ideas well, nor did they organise well. Liberalism was therefore largely unopposed, despite its lack of penetration outside the political class. What all this means is that liberal first principles have dominated Western politics for several hundred years, forming a very powerful orthodoxy. Western intellectuals have been willing - “idealistically” - to follow through with these principles even when this harmed the existence of family life or their own ethnic tradition. They believed, in terms of their principles, that they were doing the right thing. So, we need to change the first principles of at least a section of our own political class. This won’t be easy. But we only have a chance if we take these principles seriously, bring them to the surface and identify them clearly, point out their negative consequences and also make clear their arbitrary origins (and present an alternative). If, instead, you simply blame Jewish self-interest, you won’t even begin to connect to people (which is nearly all intellectuals) who view things through liberal first principles and who therefore believe that European ethnic identity is morally illegitimate. In other words, saying that Jews are manipulating things to undermine European ethnicity, won’t cut too deeply with people who believe, as a matter of principle, that it is right that European ethnicity should be undermined. Nor will it seem a reasonable proposition to people in countries, such as Australia, where the Jewish influence has been relatively minor. It will come across as an improbable conspiracy theory. 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:25 | # ... saying that Jews are manipulating things to undermine European ethnicity won’t cut too deeply with people who believe, as a matter of principle, that it is right that European ethnicity should be undermined. Indeed, to the liberal mind there could be no better demonstration of why that social construct called whiteness must be abolished. One accepts that there is a particular Jewish interest, and that it conflicts with our interests. One accepts that there are Jews who organise to pursue that particular interest. But one sees, too, that the direct assault on organised Jewry by WNism is an aid to Jews in that it leads Europeans to self-alienation and a completely false and unnecessary sense of shame. WN’s make it all too easy for their political and racial opponents to consign them into a small holding pen marked, “Judenhass Macht Frei”. But the freedom is theirs - the Jews - not ours. They are free to think, speak and act as they please. Are you, ben? It is my personal conviction that the particularism which distinguishes White Nationalists must be saved for Conservatism, and the political lifeline which is Conservatism must be saved for particularising Europeans. Without them both, we are lost. 16
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:54 | # In other words, saying that Jews are manipulating things to undermine European ethnicity, won’t cut too deeply with people who believe, as a matter of principle, that it is right that European ethnicity should be undermined. It is not a matter of “saying that Jews are manipulating things to undermine European ethnicity”; it’s saying that Jews are manipulating *us* into believing (or at least encouraging us to believe) that the demise of European ethnicity is desirable, for purposes of advancing their own interests. Indeed, to the liberal mind there could be no better demonstration of why that social construct called whiteness must be abolished. That is quite an assumption. Do you have a “liberal mind”? Did you ever? I have found that the most shocking realization for a liberal is that he has been duped; that he has unwittingly furthered the particularistic interests of others at the expense of his own. Ask Wintermute. Or Kevin MacDonald. The old joke is that a liberal is a person who won’t take his own side in an argument. That means you can’t persuade him by appealing to his self-interest, and of course the problem with the ideas that you cite is that they are bad for him and his kind. You must appeal to a liberal value, like fairness—the sense of fair play. 17
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:19 | # ben, I don’t wish to persuade liberals of anything. Couldn’t care less about them. Goodnight Tony. Goodnight Bill. I really don’t want to change their minds (as perhaps Mark does). I just want to see them walk off into the night. I want to reclaim the political initiative from them. That means switching out of the liberal zeitgeist and into a polity reflecting the inate Conservatism of our European peoples. Such an ambition will be stillborn if anything remotely akin to Judenhass arises, since it serves only to pile up ammunition in the enemy’s arms. This is such a simple and self-evident point I wonder that it needs repeating. Perhaps pragmatism is one of the differentiations twixt White Nationalist and nationalist (or revolutionary) Conservative. 18
Posted by wintermute on Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:50 | # Nor will it seem a reasonable proposition to people in countries, such as Australia, where the Jewish influence has been relatively minor. From an unpublished letter to the Melbourne Age by Nigel Jackson. Readers interested in his book The Case for David Irving, which documents in greater detail the size and power of the Australian arm of Jewry are directed to http://www.alor.org
19
Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:09 | # Wintermute, it’s true that the Age is unlikely to publish letters from white nationalists attacking the Jewish lobby. But this doesn’t show a control of the Australian media by Jews. The fact is that the Age is, and always has been, a very orthodox and exclusivist liberal paper. It is notorious for not publishing letters from even the most mainstream conservatives on any topic. In fact, I went to a dinner last year and chatted to a most respectable member of the Liberal Party and even she, as a right-liberal, had given up submitting letters to the Age. The Age letters page is where Melbourne’s inner and middle suburban left-wing chattering classes get together to share their guilt complexes. It’s their little party, and none of the rest of us is invited. As for the Jewish lobby here, yes it exists, but it’s only had a significant influence from about the 1980s. The Jewish migrants who arrived here from the late 1930s were not wealthy. It was only in the 1980s that a number of Jews began to emerge in the wealthiest Australian lists. But Australia was being transformed by feminism and multiculturalism long before the 1980s. So it’s not possible to point to the Jewish lobby to explain the way that Australian politics has developed. 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:03 | # Wintermute, a certain segment of the Jewish Community—Christian-hating, Christianophobic, whatever its right name is—certainly seeks at almost every turn to weaken, indeed even to destroy if it can, white-Euro Christian society. But you don’t see gentile élites fighting back. In fact, in some cases you see Jews and Jewish élites (sensibly alarmed at the prospect of the demise of historical white-Euro Christian societies) fighting back against this segment of their brethren more vigorously than white-Euro Christian élites themselves are doing (which isn’t hard, since the latter don’t fight back at all—don’t lift a finger in self-defense). That a segment of the Jewish Community tries to weaken and even destroy white-Euro-Christian society is beyond dispute. That white-Euro-Christian élites who could easily fight back not only don’t lift so much as a finger, but seem positively to bask in the present state of affairs, seem positively to adore what’s going on, also is beyond dispute. Did Mel Gibson cave to the pressures exerted by this same segment of Jews in regard to his film (a film I didn’t like at all, by the way, but which I found completely devoid of anti-Semitism)? Obviously, the answer is no. Then why is Bush caving to the pressure this segment of Jews exerts in favor of replacing white-Euro Christians here with non-whites whom they hate less and are less afraid of? The answer is Bush isn’t caving to their pressures. He almost certainly couldn’t care less about them or their pressures. He and the gentiles he’s closest to are doing it entirely for their own reasons, whatever those might be. Incidentally, look at this by Prof. Paul Gottfried, one of the great scholars and thinkers of our generation, a Jew of course, and as good a friend as white-Euro Christians and their various peoples and historic nations ever had (and, needless to add, an equally good friend of his own Jewish people and their historic nation). In posting comments such as this in reply to Wintermute I do not in any way wish to overlook the harm done by this very harmful segment of Jews. I would, however, like to see from Wintermute more recognition of the obvious fact that the main culprit in most of this post-60s mess is gentile élites. Post a comment:
Next entry: Jihad Denial and the tragedy of moderate fascism
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by wintermute on Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:09 | #
It should be pointed out that the Melbourne Age, is under the directorship of a Jewish editor, Michael Gawneda, who has in the past removed cartoons seen as too critical of Israel.
The offending cartoon which Gawneda pulled from the Age, can be found here: http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/492/492p22c.htm
I think it would be prudent to assume that this incident does not mark the limit of Jewish power on your press, especially when one considers the rise of Murdoch, a mamzer Jew and almost fanatical Zionist. Doesn’t he still own the bulk of Australian broadcasting?
http://www.heretical.com/British/mindbend/read.html
At this point, it would be helpful to examine the ways in which Australian politicians, on both the right and left, are dependant on Jews for financial support, as well as for media favors. Some numbers:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Australia/Jews/AJN200203.html