by Alexander Baron

Imagine the following scenario; your nineteen year old daughter, the apple of your eye, announces with great fanfare that she has met the man of her dreams, and she’d like to bring him home to meet you and your good lady wife. You’re a bit surprised, because she has been a slow starter, but at the same time you are pleased. Yes, of course, you say, when? You arrange for her to bring home her first real boyfriend that weekend, and resist the temptation to ask her anything about him, like how old is he, what does he do for a living, etc. You trust in your daughter, she’s been raised correctly rather than politically correctly, and you know she doesn’t hang around with glue sniffers, junkies, binge drinkers or other undesirables.

The day comes, and you are sitting in the living room, laptop on knee, catching up with some paperwork, when the door opens, and your wife walks in. She is deathly pale. “John”, she says, “Susan is here with…him”.

You hadn’t heard the doorbell, but she has a key, and you were so engrossed in what you were doing that probably you wouldn’t have heard it ring in any case. Now though you are suddenly alert; there is something in your wife’s demeanour that warns you all is not well in the State of Denmark, and that very soon you are going to find out what.

You put aside the laptop, and as you stand up your daughter enters the room holding hands with…him.

You are confused, what day is it? June 1st, not April 1st.

“Daddy,” she beams, “this is Angus, and guess what, we’re engaged.”

This cannot be, you look at the guy, he’s white, but so is his hair. In fact he is not a day under eighty years old. You look at your wife, and smile uneasily. She shakes her head indicating that this is indeed not some sort of joke; your pride and joy really has brought home this old codger, and that what she says is true, they are indeed engaged.

How would you react? How would any parent react? You can’t be serious, my sweet. But she is. But he’s ... old. So are you, Daddy. But he’s older than me. Jesus Christ, he’s older than my father.
Can this be age-ism? Are you really so narrow-minded and bigotted? No.

What has age-ism to do with this sad state of affairs? Do you hate old people? Do you hate you own father? Do people usually hate their own grandparents, or anyone’s grandparents just because they are old?

But change the white hair to a black face, and you, Whitey, have become that most evil of creatures, a “racist”. Now answer me this, what has this to do with hate? Is it really so unreasonable, so terrible, so evil, that men should want their daughters to marry men of the same race anymore than it is that they should be horrified if the disparity in the ages of prospective marriage partners were something ludicrous?

How have we reached the situation where not only is the existence of race denied but where the slightest manifestation of race-consciousness or the desire for racial survival – by whites - is denounced by the mass media, all mainstream political leaders, and the ruling class, as evil?

There is no simple answer to this question; generations of brainwashing has something to do with it, brainwashing that predates the so-called Holocaust by several decades. But probably the major reason is that we have allowed people who hate us to define what is meant by hate. This includes but is by no means limited to members of our own race.

We - and by we I mean society as a whole – we have allowed Jewish hatemongers such as Gerry Gable and Abraham Foxman to smear with the innuendo of a particularly bizarre type of sex-shop Nazism the very concept of White Survival. We have allowed the loonies of the Socialist Workers Party and its popular front ANAL to do the same. Them and a dozen or a thousand similar campaigning groups, fronts and lobbies.

How have they done this? How have they been allowed to? Again, there is no simple answer, but one way is by moving the goalposts, by redefining the supposed evil of so-called “racism” until it means anything they want it to mean.

When I was at school – more years ago than I care to remember – the “problem” of obesity was all but unknown. Nowadays it is rife. The major reason for that is that obese used to mean not simply overweight but grotesquely overweight. There were several hundred kids in my school, and perhaps a handful were obese. Nowadays, a quarter, a third or even more of adults are routinely alluded to as obese. The goalposts have been shifted, and at the rate things are going, anyone who is not anorexic will soon be considered obese. Now apply that to “racism”. When the word was first coined – by Magnus Hirschfeld way back in the 1930s, it alluded to a belief in inate racial differences. For his own reasons, Hirschfeld considered this to be an unwise, even an evil belief. This may just have had something to do with his treatment at the hands of the Nazis. In October 1920, he was the subject of a violent attack that was so intense he was reported initially to have been killed.

It is of course one thing to believe in the existence of racial differences – in this case between Jew and Gentile – and quite another to attack a man violently simply because of these perceived differences. But by the same token, it is ludicrous in the extreme to claim such differences do not exist simply because they can be exploited by the bigoted or even the downright evil.

The most authoratative dictionary in the English language defines “racism” as “The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.” (1) This definition has no perjorative connotations, although it is slightly misleading, because clearly the characteristics and abilities of all human beings are determined by many factors besides race, the most obvious being sex.

Oxford English Dictionary aside, all manner of agenda driven special interest groups and like-minded individuals have perverted this definition for their own ends until merely to be accused of “racism” is akin to being accused of practising witchcraft in an earlier age; it is a charge that is all but impossible to refute – for those of us who are in the least bit bothered by it.

Probably the most all-encompassing definition was given by the gullible Sir William Macpherson in his ludicrous White Paper (which very appropriately is actually pink). According to him: “Racism in general terms consists of conduct or words or practices which disadvantage or advantage people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin.” To which he added the rider: “In its more subtle form it is as damaging as in its overt form.”  (2)

One might reply to this: damaging to whom? And exactly how is a fatal knife wound every bit as damaging as a “more subtle” racial epithet? Perhaps Doreen Lawrence can answer that question?

The definition of “racism” has not only been widened but new forms have sprung into existence, so we have, in no particular order, meta-racism, benign racism (that’s a great one, people can be horrible by being nice), scientific racism (used to smear anthropologists as bigots when they don’t tow the “anti-racist” line), institutional racism (see Macpherson again), and my personal favourite, statistical racism, by which any perceived racial disparity is used by the loony left to prove the existence of the all-pervasive and insidious racism. (3)

Many of the same hatemongers are at work and have been for decades redefining a more specialised form of alleged racial hatred: anti-Semitism. Our old fiend Abraham Foxman – no, that is not a spelling mistake – includes anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism. Here he is ranting about the new anti-Semitism:

“We tend to assume that most conflicts involve opposing parties who take extreme positions and that truth and justice are to be found somewhere in the middle. This may be true in many cases. But the logic of split-the-difference doesn’t apply to the conflict between Zionists and anti-Zionists. The harsh but undeniable truth is this: what some like to call anti-Zionism is, in reality, anti-Semitism - always, everywhere, and for all time. Therefore, anti-Zionism is not a politically legitimate point of view but rather an expression of bigotry and hatred.” He concludes “This is a strong claim, but I believe it’s a just one.” (4)

Well, he got the first part right, it is of course ludicrous to claim that the truth must always lie in the middle of two extremes, so Abe, either the shrunken heads found in Buchenwald were of prisoners murdered by Ilsa Koch, or they were planted. Which was it? (5) And here’s one for Gerry Gable, either the Mesifta fire – in which a trainee rabbi died – was arson, or it wasn’t. If the latter, you did not bring his killers to justice. Which was it? What did the coroner say? More to the point Gerry, what did you tell the police when after years, decades, of lying about this case, you were finally forced to put up or shut up? (6)

Returning to Foxman, if one accepts the self-serving rantings of this demented crypto-Jew, the Neturei Karta – including its rabbis – are anti-Semites. Men who pray in a synagogue three times a day are Jew-haters? Those anti-Zionist Jews (most of them committed “anti-racists”) (7) who call for the dissolution of Israel and the formation of a democratic Palestine in which Jews and Arabs have equal rights, they too are anti-Semites in his eyes.

If the Abraham Foxmans and Gerry Gables of this world were marginalised cranks whom no one took seriously, there would be no problem. The sad fact though is that although they are indeed crankish, they are influential if not powerful. Foxman is the spider that sits atop an organisation which has an income of seventy million dollars a year, and which boasts that it lobbies successfully to alter legislation and social policy in the United States. Gable, although heading a far smaller organisation, has been personally responsible for much of the lying anti-Nazi propaganda spewed out in Britain over the past three decades and more; his Searchlight Organisation is and has been regularly quoted by the mass media and employed by not only the media but arms of government including on occasion the police as consultants on race and related issues. Is it, then, any wonder that when it comes to race, the true meaning of hate has been turned on its head, and that those who hate the white race are painted as beacons of tolerance, even heroes struggling against the forces of evil, those whose only – and very reasonable – demand, is White Survival?

Notes And References

(1) Oxford English Dictionary, Volume XIII, page 75.
(2) THE STEPHEN LAWRENCE INQUIRY, Cm 4262 - I & 4262 - II (Revised), published by HMSO, London, (February 1999), Volume 1, page 20.
(3) This one is often applied to crime statistics; the fact that there are more black men in gaol than white men per head of population is used as proof positive of police “racism”. The more prosaic explanations such as blacks are more violent than whites, or that black criminals are dumber than white ones, are also dismissed as “racist”.
(4) Never Again? THE THREAT OF THE NEW ANTI-SEMITISM, by Abraham H. Foxman, published by HarperSanFrancisco, (2003), pages 17-8.
(5) This nonsense was actually exhibited at Nuremberg together with a phony narrative. These heads – which are obviously not of European origin – were probably plundered from the anthropology collection of a German university.
(6) The answers to these questions and more can be found at following urls:
http://www.archive.org/details/TheBiggestLiarWhoEverWalkedTheEarth
http://www.archive.org/details/MurderSquadExposeGableAsLyingFilth
(7) In other words, enemies of the white race, and no friends of ours.