Terrorist Jews in Early America

via The End of Zion

The venerable T.T. Timayenis

Below is the transcript of an interesting article that I found in the New York Times archive, about how terrorist Jews threatened and harassed the author T.T. Timayenis (picture above) simply because he published facts about them.
First, here is part of Timayenis’s bio from Metapedia:

Telemachus (Telemaque) Thomas Timayenis Ph.D. often T. T. Timayenis (1853-1918) was a Greek-American professor, novelist, playwright and one of the first published opponents of Jewish supremacism in the United States. Timayenis was also one of the first to formulate a discourse on the Jewish Question along racial lines in the United States, rather than considerations of religious doctrine.

Early life

Timayenis was born in Smyrna, Asia Minor and educated in the schools of Athens. He came from a prominent Greek family. He father Thomas Timayenis (died May 29, 1882) was a professor of languages at the University of Athens. His mother Cotine (Fotini?) Rodacanachi Timayenis was the sister to J. M Rodacanachi the consul of Greece in Boston.

Academic career

In 1874 Telemachus Timayenis taught at the Springfield Collegiate Institute, a preparatory school in Springfield, Massachusetts. In 1879 he was a professor of classical Greek at the New York Hellenic Institute and the Chautauqua School of Languages. In 1886 he was the director of the New York School of Languages. Timayenis taught the children of some of America’s richest families including the Rockefellers.

Opposition to Jewish Supremacism

In 1888 he left his academic work and established Minerva Publishing Company in New York. Minerva Publishing was the first company in American to publish books critical of Jews. Timayenis authored three book on the Jews: The Original Mr. Jacobs: A Startling Exposé, ‎The American Jew: An Expose of His Career‎, and Judas Iscariot: An Old Type in a New Form. In The Original Mr. Jacobs–a title used to explain the “real Jew”–Timayenis acknowledges the work of French journalist Edouard Drumont and his 1886 book La France Juive (Jewish France). The Original Mr. Jacobs sold over 200,000 copies and went into its thirtieth edition ‎with twenty printings. In The American Jew Timayenis provided several illustrations showing physical characteristics on how one might identify a Jew.

Timayenis also had planned to launch an anti-Jewish paper to be called The Anti-Semite which never appeared.

Jewish reaction was predictable. They first called for a boycott of the books and when that didn’t work they began to issue death threats by mail–at times six a day–against Timayenis, his wife and child. Others offered to pay Timayenis money to destroy the plates of the books and stop exposing the activities of the Jews. Timayenis steadfastly refused and said he only wrote the truth.

Anonymous Enemies
———–
The Troubles of the Writer of
“The American Jew”

New York Times, September 4, 1888

Telemaqua T. Timayenis is a Greek, and under his tuition many a New Yorker now prominent in professional and business life learned his Alpha, Beta, Kappa. Mr. Timayenis is also the author of a number of works, one of them being “The Original Mr. Jacobs,” in which he handled the Jews “without gloves.” Then his troubles commenced. The Hebrews boycotted the book and tried to suppress its circulation in every possible way, but nevertheless its sale ran up into the hundreds of thousands. Displeased with the persecution inflicted upon him by the American Hebrews, Mr. Timayenis then wrote and published in July a book dealing exclusively with them, “The American Jew.” Since its appearance Mr. Timayenis has received on an average six anonymous letters a day threatening him with death. All confidently predict that he will be a dead man before Christmas, and one letter includes both himself and his wife and child. The letters are malignant and coarse and apparently emanate from some Jews who are annoyed at the content of the book. Timayenis has communicated with the police, and now goes around armed to the teeth. He has offered an award of $500 for the detection of the writers of the letters, and the police are doing their utmost to discover the miscreants.

The American Jew: An Expose of His Career.

Mr. Timayenis is a member of the Minerva Publishing Company of 10 West Twenty-third-street and is at present residing at Fordham, where he was seen last night by a TIMES reporter to whom he gave the following narrative: “This trouble,” he said, “apparently commenced with the publication of my book ‘The Original Mr. Jacobs,’ claimed to be an expose of the doings of the Jew in various parts of the world, with the delineation of the lives of prominent Jews in America. I spent 10 years traveling in Bulgaria, Russia, the Orient and Europe generally obtaining the information contained in the book. I associated with the people at large to find out the cause of the persecution of the Jews, and having collected these facts I printed nothing but truth in ‘The Original Mr. Jacobs.’ The Manhattan News Company placed the book on sale on the elevated news stands, but it had only been there three days when a committee of prominent Jews visited President Jenkins and threatened that unless ‘The Original Mr. Jacobs’ was at once withdrawn the Jews of New York would boycott the newsstands. They finally persuaded him to remove the books, and he returned them to me in violation of his contract. This helped the book rather than otherwise, for the matter leaked out, and since then I have sold 200,000 copies, and am now on the thirteenth edition.

The Original Mr. Jacobs: A Startling Expose

“Feeling abused, I wrote ‘The American Jew,’ which was published in July. This dealt solely with the Jews of the United States, and described the career of the Jew in this country from his first arrival and the means by which he achieved financial success. While the Jews were very active in boycotting my first book and visiting bookstores and buying it up, they did not molest me, but when ‘The American Jew’ appeared, threatening letters began to pour in upon me. Then Aaron Kahn, a lawyer, called on me and threatened legal proceeding because, he said, reference was made to him in the book. As a matter of fact, I mentioned no names. I told him to go ahead with his suit, but up to the present time I have heard nothing of it.

“I am receiving about six threatening letters a day. One I received today was as follows:

You are a doomed man if you go out of your house late in the evening. Two men have sworn to kill you before Christmas, but for God’s sake do not say anything about it to anyone, for my own life is in danger if it became known that I wrote you this letter. I do this not to shield your life, you dog, but not to allow one dear to me to commit a crime.

“This letter was unsigned and was mailed at Station E in New York. Another letter warns me that unless I at once destroy the plates of ‘The American Jew’ a bomb will be thrown one evening into my house and will blow me into atoms, not only myself, but my family. Another letter is signed ‘A Russian Jew.’ The writer confesses himself to be a Nihilist, and says that the bombs he will throw at me ‘will do the work much more surely than those thrown against the d— policemen who attacked the Anarchists in Chicago.’ In another letter the writer requested me to announce in a daily paper the sum of money I will take to destroy the plates of ‘The American Jew’ and stop writing against the Jews. He is kind enough to tell me that at a meeting he reprimanded those advocating personal violence toward me, but unless I am willing to destroy the plates, for which the Jews are willing to pay, he is certain that before many months I will be a dead man.

“While I have not been unduly alarmed at the threats, they are exceedingly unpleasant. I appealed to the police today and now go about thoroughly armed, and as an additional precaution have engaged a man to follow me everywhere. I have no doubt these letters are written by Jews, for they evince a cowardly Jewish spirit. If I wrote anything against their race or against an individual why don’t they sue me in the courts instead of sending me cowardly letters? My life is made miserable. I have to employ men to guard me, and am obliged to go around armed to the teeth.

“This evening a man followed me from Twenty-third-street and Fourth-avenue to the Ashland house. From there he followed me to the Fifth-avenue Hotel. I then walked to the Grand Central Station, and to my amazement found the fellow still watching me. He had every appearance of a Jew. I want to ask the American people why I should be hunted down like a dog simply because I wrote two books exposing these people. I don’t profess to be a friend of the Jews, but I do maintain that I wrote nothing but the truth. The Jews may offer what they like, but can’t buy the plates from me.”

Monarchy, Tradition, and the Ugly Legacy of Revolution in America

via TradYouth

“I pray that the United States does not suffer unduly from its want of a monarchy.” -His Majesty King George III of Great Britain to Parliament, 1782

In the minds of nearly every American, the Revolution is regarded as the dawning of America and the birth of the American identity. There can be no question that this historic event forever changed the course of history for Americans as well as for the English-speaking peoples in general. And yet, so much of what Americans are told about this particular time and the subsequent war are based on lies and the legacy of rebel propaganda of the period. Our cousins in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and, most importantly, Great Britain, well understand the truth. But for most Americans, that truth seems to elude them generation after generation.

This is, to a large extent, understandable. After all, the rebel faction of the war proved victorious and its legacy is apparent in nearly ever facet of American social and political life. Every endeavour the US has ever pursued, be it good or bad, has been done in the name of freedom. When the question is posed, ‘what was the American Revolution?’, almost everyone in the United States will probably give the same answer, irrespective of their political convictions.

In nearly every case, they will first tell you that it was a war between “the Americans” and “the British”. For those who are a bit more well-versed in history, they may compound their answers with the romantic aphorisms like that of Patrick Henry’s immortal “Give me liberty or give me death”, or Nathan Hale’s “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country”. Or, perhaps they might invoke the words and deeds of “The Founding Fathers”, rife with all the usual programmed buzzwords such as “liberty” and “rights” that we grew up hearing but were never taught the cultural and political context in which those words were used.

But the American Revolution was not a war between America and Great Britain, and the concept of liberty was not at all the reason behind the war, which the rebel population among colonials, not the British Empire, actively instigated. The truth is that it was a civil war, our first one, as a matter of fact. It was a war not between American and Britain, but one between rebel and Loyalist, Whig and Tory, and, more specifically, revolutionary and Traditionalist. American Loyalists, or, “Tories” as they were often called (as if this was supposed to even be a pejorative that would cause offence) fought to preserve their heritage and traditions in more than 150 fighting units. In the South, where loyalism was even stronger, there were 26 units that fought with distinction.

All of the rhetoric we were raised on was nothing more than the legacy of rabble, fueled by an assortment of violent upstarts, landowning opportunists, Freemasons, Deists, and radicalised egalitarian agitators who organised and directed illiterate crowds of thugs and tavern drunkards like the infamous Sons of Liberty to terrorise the ever larger population of their neighbours who wished to remain loyal to their King. Current history tells us very little of the burning of Loyalist homes, as in the case of royal governor Thomas Hutchinson, who, along with his family, narrowly escaped with his life after a mob of unruly miscreants surrounded his home and demanded that he denounce the Stamp Act, a fair and legitimate act to collect debt for military intervention during a time when our militias were at the mercy of French and Indian terror.

The Sons of Liberty succeeded in brainwashing large numbers of uneducated and mostly illiterate crowds from the scraps of society. Rarely, if ever, do American schoolchildren learn of Thomas Brown and the Loyalist cause in Georgia, and of the King’s Rangers, the Loyalist company that he commanded in the Siege of Savannah and the First and Second Battles of Augusta. Perhaps most importantly, we forget all of the horrors of the ghastly and barbarous practice of tarring and feathering, which the Sons of Liberty and their supporters employed frequently on innocent people for no other reason than that they would not denounce their King and rightful Sovereign.

How many of us are familiar with those who sadly fell victim to this brutal form of disgusting torture, those like Captain William Smith of Norfolk, Virginia, who was stripped naked, tarred, feathered, and mercilessly thrown into the harbour by an angry mob of drunken, radical social misfits. Smith survived, although barely. He was quoted as saying, “they dawbed my body and face all over with tar and afterwards threw feathers on me.” Current revolutionary history will tell us that these acts were carried out as a reaction to “British oppression”.

What they don’t tell you is that many of its poor victims were simply good-natured royal subjects that had notified the proper authorities of illegal activity happening among dissidents, usually in the form of smuggling, which many “Founders’ like John Hancock were notorious for taking part in. Other victims, like John Malcolm, were tarred and feathered more than once, and then threatened to be hanged and have their ears cut off. Malcolm, like so many other Loyalists, was eventually forced out of the colonies, making a new home in England.

Indeed, the very idea of separating from the Crown would have never crossed the minds of even the most dissenting colonists prior to the Seven Years War, or, as Americans know it, the French and Indian War. In fact, unbeknownst to today’s average American, separation wasn’t even on the agenda when the war broke out. That idea, as in all revolutions, grew out of a general wave of revolutionary fervour that began to snowball once the first shots were fired. In these cases, history has shown us, as in all revolutions that have occurred, mild pushes for change become simply not enough, and swiftly turn into rabid demands for social upheaval.

Freedom is not enough. Liberty is not enough. Ideas followed by radical action in the name of equality only grow more radical as time goes by, and, as history as also shown us, it doesn’t take very long for that to happen. That is, unless, a more moderate force obstructs its path and cuts it down to size, making it more sensible and easily digestible for the average working person, who simply wants to live and work with as minimal strife as possible.

And, despite all of the horrors, looting, and theft inflicted upon Loyalists in the colonies (something else Americans learn virtually nothing about), we were certainly blessed to have been spared the ugliest conditions of revolutionary terror, as was the case in Paris just a few years after our revolution had ended, a revolution, which, has been cited by many historians as being a sort of proto-communist one, and, rightfully so.

Make no mistake, the tragedies of the French Revolution were a direct result of the wave of radical hysteria that had taken hold of the Western world as a result of the American Revolution. It should be noted that Thomas Jefferson was in Paris during the Storming of the Bastille, and he played a significant role in drafting the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

Jefferson witnessed many of the atrocities of the gruesome Reign of Terror, and, although he is said to have not supported the violence, he certainly never spoke out against it as many of his colleagues did. And when the French ambassador, the notorious Jacobin, Edmond Charles-Genet arrived in the newly-formed republic and immediately began recruiting Americans to capture British ships and rearm them as privateers against the British, thereby endangering the neutrality between the U.S and Britain, Jefferson wrote to him requesting that he cease all endeavours, but only after President Washington demanded that he do so.

This is of no surprise, of course. Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican, the radical leftists of their day, and he viewed the concept of revolution in much the same way that later figures like Lenin and Trotsky did, in that it should be worldwide, permanent, and rabidly anti-aristocratic. This is precisely why he neither objected nor petitioned to intervene when Genet was forming Democratic-Republican societies all over the US and perverting its citizens with the vile, ultra-egalitarian, proto-Marxist ideals of Jacobinism.

This is not to suggest that Thomas Jefferson is in any significant way on the same level as Lenin or Trotsky. Jefferson, himself cut from aristocratic cloth, and a slave owner, could by no means be compared to the far more sinister Robespierre or Saint-Just. But the idea of separation from the Crown, and thereby separation from all ties to the Mother Country, laid the groundwork that would eventually separate Americans on an even deeper level from the parent state, one that would strip them of their old collective identity for generations to come.

It must also be remembered that, as a staunch Democratic-Republican and Jacobin sympathiser, he was fully aware of this, and thought it necessary. Jefferson, of course was not alone. Indeed, most of the Founders, save for a few, saw the revolution as a continuation of events, and this idea goes back at least a century before during the Glorious Revolution of 1688. When one begins to understand this and sees the Revolution the way it was seen during its time through the eyes of those who actually instigated it, and not merely through the lens of life in the current century, it is easy to see certain facts, ugly as they may be, that we can never shy away from. It begins to make sense why the Connecticut Navy had a ship named the Oliver Cromwell, or why the rebels had such ardent support from prominent Whigs in Parliament like Charles Fox, who was known for frequently wearing blue to parliamentary sessions to irk the Tories.

We should never disregard our pre-revolutionary history, for we were still Americans prior to the Revolution. We simply had a monarch, and, as every American colonial at one time understood it, monarchy represented authority, stability, and, above all, tradition. Republics were and still are breeding grounds for democratic mob rule. They rally the people but for a brief and all-too-often miserable duration under an official but seedy cabinet, lacking in the transcendence and lifelong tenure that monarchical societies offer.

And really, they are much more than mere “societies”. They are organically designed models of civilisation whereby the cultural symbol of the nation is a strong figurehead, the parent, and the people are its subjects who, on a cultural and national level, are bound by kindred blood, folkways, and tradition. This idea transcends all others because it is something that is naturally ingrained in us as human beings. For the monarch is a reflection of its people, the soul of the people, and they are not cycled through dirty elections where the only things delivered to its people are lies, national disservice, and economic turmoil.

Americans since the Revolution have bought into the lie that our previous political structure was one of total subjugation, as if the constitutional monarchy of the British Empire were akin to the Saudi Dynasty. It is beyond absurd, almost to the point of laughter when one really thinks about it. Still, we fail to even question it, it is almost prescribed to us, force-fed to us as fact, as true as the sky is blue or water is wet. We forget all to easily that we have an entire history that preceded the Revolution in which we were once loyal subjects and fought for our Sovereign, our race, and our ways of life, forgetting that we still had a constitution and all the rights attached to it. And therein lies another ill of revolution, the whitewashing of history that always follows without fail.

It is drilled into the head of every American from the time they can form thoughts that we had no representation in Parliament. Yet again, this suggests that every single American colonial were out in the streets clamouring for “no taxation without representation!” Lies. All lies. They tell us that we had no rights before independence, as if we had been slaves to a maniacal order. That, too is a lie.

So-called patriots, educators, and national leaders paint for us a picture of economic strife, another lie. By the mid-seventeenth century, the American colonies enjoyed outstanding economic growth, so much, in fact, that the GNP multiplied several times in a period of less than one hundred years. Historians have even suggested estimate that American colonists may have enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world by the time of the war broke out. Contrary to what contemporary history teaches us, Americans had a far better standard of living than those in the Mother Country. And, if revolution and war were so necessary, why then did the other nations within the Anglosphere not follow the same violent course?

To suggest all of these things (which are all historical truths, whether one likes it or not) instantly brands one a traitor in the eyes of most Americans, be they liberal or conservative, left or right. The Crown was the bad guy, and we, the good guys. That is the story we’re forced to believe. They could not possibly conceive of an accurate analysis of our history, which revealed the American Revolution as a being an anti-traditionalist Masonic plot to sever our ties to our monarch and bind us to a real kind of slavery, one where the banks and enemies of morality were at the helm. There were fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence, and ten of them were noted Freemasons. Thirty-nine signed the Constitution and out of those, twelve were Freemasons. And let us not forget that there were around thirty rebel generals in the Continental Army who were also Freemasons. This, of course, opens up a whole other can of worms, and this piece is not dedicated to Freemasonry or its direct link to the revolution, despite its significance.

There are, naturally, certain cultural attributes which can never be broken, no matter how much revolution attempts to whitewash a people’s story. Our national anthem as well as countless other patriotic songs are British, with only the lyrical content altered. “The Star-Spangled Banner” is “To Anacreon in Heaven”, “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” is “God Save the Queen (King)”, the British national anthem, and there are numerous other lesser-known tunes, too many to even list. Our national colours are still red, white, and blue, the soul of our historic architecture is Georgian and Victorian, and, let us not forget the most obvious thing, our language, perhaps the most fundamental element, aside from race, that culturally binds a people. Language is more than just mere words that aid us in our communication. There is indeed a divine and very sacred component of language that all peoples share. We not only speak in English, we think in English, we see in English, we hear in English, we dream in English.

If we, as Traditionalists, can agree that our country is a ticking time-bomb waiting to go off, and that we are on the cusp of turning a major page in the story of our people, then we must begin to view our history in the context of a tribe and not solely a nation separate from the one we were birthed from. Bear in mind, when compared to other countries and their histories, ours is not very long; we are a very young country. Therefore, when we consider the bigger picture, we really don’t have much to be nostalgiac about, especially if we accept that our country is on the verge of balkanisation, and that we will doubtless enter a time when thinking tribally under the umbrella of folk, faith, and Tradition will be crucial to our survival.

We are members of the Anglosphere. We were born of it. In fact, we were, at one time, the Mother Country’s most favoured and adored child. Of course, none of this is to suggest that we should all rally to petition the Queen to reinstate us a series of Crown colonies, as one progressive malcontent recently did when he wrote a letter to Her Majesty asking just that, after having become disillusioned with the Republican presidential candidates. What I will urge our people in this country to do, however, is to begin to see ourselves, Americans, as we actually are, an Anglocentric people, a people bound by tribe, language, customs, and certain inescapable and undeniable traditions, people whose story, though unique, still exists as one within the Anglosphere, and a highly significant one at that.

If anything, we can agree that the British monarch is still a cultural symbol for us, and one that we should most definitely rally under, if only in symbolic terms. For the monarch is our true symbol, and representative of our natural state. The monarch is one who thinks in the long term, not the short term, which is what politicians do, and this is what real leadership focus is. One thing can be certain, should we begin to think in these terms, in reality, we will be that much closer to binding once more ourselves to Tradition, and therefore, to our true nature.

The Martian

via Radix

Conservatism, Inc. is a collection of white papers in search of a social base. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is a social base looking for a collection of white papers. Specifically, he seeks to defend those middle- and working-class White Americans that everyone else seems to hate. A few decades ago, they were called “Middle American Radicals” (MARs) and associated with the “New Right.” (No, not that New Right, or that New Right), or that one either.) The late Sam Francis wrote of the MARs mindset better than anyone else, and his observations hold up:

While there is much to be said for the renaissance of free market ideas led by Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Arthur Laffer, and others, it is doubtful that the MAR coalition and its allies in the Sunbelt’s entrepreneurial regions will continue to focus on this classical liberal principle. It is more likely that MAR-Sunbelt interests require a strong governmental role in maintaining economic privileges for the elderly and for unionized labor (where it now exists), that they will also require (or demand) subsidization of construction and perhaps of characteristic Sunbelt enterprises (energy, defense and aerospace industries, and agriculture).... [T]he classical liberal idea of a night-watchman state is an illusion . . . a MAR elite would make use of the state for its own interests as willingly as the present managerial elite does. MAR resentment of welfare, paternalism, and regulation is not based on a profound faith in the market but simply on the sense of injustice that unfair welfare programs, taxes, and stifling regulation have bred. The central focus of MAR-New Right political economy is likely to be economic growth, a value often confused with, sometimes encompassing, but not identical to the free market.

Clearly, economic growth involves the lifting of most legal and administrative restraints on enterprise—the demise of environmentalist legislation, OSHA, the sale of federally owned land in the Far West, etc. But it would also include government assistance to dynamic but underfed sectors of the economy—e.g., the space program and new technology forms. The role of government in stimulating growth is no less inconsistent with free market ideals than its role in retarding growth, and since the social forces of the New Right would have a strong interest in the former role, there is little value in their adherence to a strict laissez-faire ideology.

Kevin DeAnna, of the now-defunct Youth for Western Civilization (a MARs student group if there ever was one), used to complain that the American Right seemed hell-bent on lowering taxes on left-wing millionaires. More power to Trump if he were to build a wall on the Mexican border by using tax money plucked from the coffers of George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Michael Bloomberg, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, Hilary Clinton. . . .

Fear not your desire to eat the rich.

Sweden Is Under Social Mind Control

via The Alex Jones Channel

Paul Joseph Watson talks with The Angry Foreigner about Sweden's extreme liberal culture and how the migrant crisis is destroying the country.

Beneath the Mask of the Human Rights Industry: Prominent British Jews Advocate Increases in Refugees

via The Occidental Observer

As a former member of the Communist Party, Sir Stephen Sedley is an unlikely champion for human rights. Nevertheless it is an industry that has been good to him, so it was not surprising that his signature appeared on a letter  in The Times calling for Britain to admit thousands more “Syrian refugees.” (Sedley is a prominent posturer among those discussed in Tobias Langdon’s “They posture, you pay.”)

The retired court of appeal judge was one of more than 300 distinguished judges, senior lawyers and academics who demanded that Britain admit far more refugees than the 20,000 a year, currently planned. Sir Stephen himself says that “as a wealthy and prosperous country we should be doing more than we are.”

He is used to having his views heard with respect, but even he must have been surprised at the anger of the pushback from an exasperated public. For it was soon pointed out that many from this privileged, unelected group were overwhelmingly drawn from “human rights” industry chambers and law firms that have grown fat off defending asylum seekers in taxpayer-funded deportation cases that are dragged out for years. Not only would these lawyers profit from any further influx, but, living in their fancy neighborhoods, their families would never have to cope with the resulting overcrowded schools or hospitals.

But there is another aspect of that letter that has hitherto gone unmentioned — many signatories were drawn from the same clique of Jewish activist judges and lawyers who have been, for decades now, complicit in the opening of Britain’s borders and allowing a tsunami of foreign aliens to flood into the country.  At the top of the The Times letter, there is the most distinguished tier — the 12 retired judges. Of this group at least five — possibly seven — are Jewish. Moreover, it’s not as though these Jews are outliers from mainstream Jewish opinion. As noted in the previous link, the most important Jewish organization and the largest Jewish newspaper in the UK are also pushing for even higher levels of immigration. Hence, it is entirely appropriate to look at the ethnic commitments and political associations of these prominent Jewish figures. Think of it as a series of case studies illustrative of a wider phenomenon.

This is a story of covert ethnic agendas operating at the highest reaches of British society. Ultimately, it raises the interesting question — can the doctrine of human rights be seen as a universalist mask for Jewish ethnic aggression, in the same way that psychoanalysis or communism was? Certainly it seems that ‘human rights’ have allowed many on the far-left, especially communists, to reinvent themselves by earning handsome livings facilitating the displacement of the indigenous Brits. Once again we see that the war on Whites is massively incentivised.

The Left’s caricature of judges being elderly, choleric figures fulminating against modern Britain from the cossetted protection of their gentleman’s clubs is long out of date. Sir Stephen Sedley is part of a new cultivated and sophisticated judicial establishment that has been in place now for decades.

He was born into a Jewish family steeped in communist politics. Sir Stephen’s father was Bill Sedley, a lifelong Party member, From the 1930s onward, Sedley’s law firm Seifert Sedley represented a string of far-left clients, including the Communist Party, the Moscow-backed Daily Herald newspaper, and eventually the African National Congress. The firm’s clients included Paul Robeson and various Hollywood figures who claimed they had been “blacklisted.”  Sedley senior’s faith in Moscow and Stalin remained unshaken long after it was known that untold millions had been killed in purges and the Holodomor.

Sedley junior seems to have inherited the family politics.  After a private schooling and then Cambridge he joined the — very Jewish — Cloisters firm, once described as the most left wing barrister’s firm in Britain. It included notorious communist fellow-travellers, such as Denis Pritt (not a Jew),  who was awarded the Stalin Medal after attending the Moscow show trials in the thirties and submitting glowing reports about how above-board the proceedings were. (Pritt was described by George Orwell as the leading Soviet publicist in Britain).

Like his father, Stephen Sedley threw himself into left-wing causes célèbres, such as representing the International Marxist Group and the family of a Trotskyist teacher killed at an anti-immigration demonstration.  But he was not always the model of controlled detachment.  During one cross-examination of National Front organiser Martin Webster, Sedley’s face was described as “being ashen and contorted with hatred and rage.” He was regarded as the most left-wing judge that Britain has ever had, and spoke of how judges should correct politicians.

He seems to have tutored Communist summer schools in the seventies. According to one report, Sir Stephen Sedley was a diligent member of the Camden branch of the party although he is thought to have allowed his membership to lapse shortly before he became a High Court judge in 1992 when he was well into his fifties. (The CPGB was disbanded in 1991.)

In 1984 Stephen Sedley — then 45 — penned a sharp criticism of George Orwell’s Animal Farm in a collection of essays attacking the anti-Stalinist author, called Inside the Myth. Sedley claimed that Orwell had succumbed to fashionable anti-communism, so not surprisingly his essay was praised in a The Stalin Society review.  Post-communism, he has specialised in human rights law and became president of the Institute of Human Rights.

Another signatory to The Times letter was another retired Jewish High Court Judge with a communist family background. Sir Nicholas Stadlen’s mother, was from a wealthy Viennese banking family, and was a loyal globe-trotting Communist Party revolutionary through the 1930s and beyond.

Stadlen seems to have retained not only something of his mother’s politics, but also an acute sense of Jewish identity. He has recently made a radio programme for the BBC about one of his heroes — a  long-dead leader of the South African Communist Party who was himself heavily implicated in terrorism and who helped defend Mandela at his terrorism trial.

The most senior signatory is Lord Nicholas Phillips; a former President of the Supreme Court, former Lord Chief Justice and a former Master of the Rolls. In 2008 he caused outrage by suggesting that sharia law principles should be incorporated into the English legal system. Another notable contribution came two years later when Lord Phillips suggested that the Human Rights Act must be retained, otherwise the children of immigrants might attempt to destroy British society.

Lord Harry Woolf is another former Lord Chief Justice and seen as one of England’s most liberal judges.  He has resisted proposals to shorten the asylum seeker appeals process which allows expensive cases to drag on and on. Shortly after the Charlie Hebdo shootings, Lord Woolf criticised writers and cartoonists who used their press freedom to offend Muslims.  He said they “need to exercise self-restraint, particularly in sensitive areas where religion is involved.”

He says he is not religious. Nevertheless he is highly conscious of his ethnic identity and has spoken at length about being an Ashkenazi who married a Sephardi.  After some deliberation, he and his wife have chosen their plot in a Sephardi cemetery.
And then there is Lord Steyn, another South African born Jew, thought by many to be the most liberal on a bench full of liberals. Identity is close to his heart but not, apparently, White identity. He says he left South Africa because of his opposition to apartheid and a passion for human rights.

His memorable judgements  include a case where he judged that the Home Office were wrong to cut off the welfare payments to an asylum seeker who had been refused asylum, These are just the left-wing Jewish judges on the most senior level of that The Times letter!

Right from its inception in post-war Europe the human rights industry has been the product of a uniquely Jewish vision. René Cassin, the French-Jewish co-drafter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said: “Human rights are an integral part of the faith and tradition of Judaism.”  It has all the hallmarks of a Jewish intellectual movement such as psychoanalysis.

In Britain it was Jewish activist lawyers, marching under the banner of human rights, who drove through the legislation that has not only opened the UK’s borders to immigration but also served to prevent Whites from openly discussing the role of Jews in bringing this about.

A Labour figure called Lord Tony Lester is a good example.  He campaigned for thirty years to make the European Human Rights Convention directly enforceable in British courts and introduced two Private Members’ Bills on the subject which became models for the Human Rights Act 1998. This helped trigger a tsunami of immigration and made the deportation of illegals immeasurably more difficult.

Lester’s fingerprints are to be found in a number of laws which have undermined White Britain. In the sixties he was an advisor to Britain’s most liberal Home Secretary Roy Jenkins on race matters. Then he became a founder member of the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination and was one of a large number of Jewish lawyers working through other proxy bodies such as the Fabian Society, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the Institute for Race Relations and others, as well as, of course, the British Board of Jewish Deputies.

Against overwhelming public opposition, this group eventually succeeded in passing the Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1968 which removed the right of White people to serve, employ or mix with whom they liked. Lord Lester, incidentally, is a founder of Blackstone Chambers which contributed 32 signatories to the Times letter.

Sir Geoffrey Bindman is yet another. He became legal adviser to the Race Relations Board, renamed the Commission for Racial Equality, from 1966 to 1983. A “civil liberty and human rights champion” Oxford-educated Bindman is quite open about how his Jewishness has affected his outlook. In one interview, he cited his background as the son of East European Jews and his personal brushes with anti-semitism as being crucial formative experiences. Both Lester and Bindman, together with the Board of Deputies, worked together to push through the Public Order Act of 1986 which further criminalised  White speech opposing mass immigration. They were assisted by another two notable Jewish lawyers; Conservative government ministers and QCs Leon Brittan and Malcom Rifkind.

And of course we should not forget one of the most ubiquitous Jewish legal figures, former president of the British Board of Jewish Deputies and founder of the Holocaust Education Trust, Lord Greville Janner QC who, present legal difficulties notwithstanding, has had a prominent role in much legislation affecting immigration and the concept of “hate speech.” He too is quite open about how his Jewish identity has a pre-eminent role in forging his political outlook.

Of course any suggestion that these eminent Jewish judges act with anything other than Olympian detachment would be met with indignation. Indeed, we are invited to believe that this most ethnocentric of groups, so hypersensitive when it comes to their own group interests, somehow magically switch this facility off in court.

Jewish activist barristers and judges as colour-blind dispassionate dispensers of justice?  Let’s put that idea where it belongs — in the dustbin of history.

Retrotopia: A Question of Subsidies

via The Archdruid Report

Author's Note: This is the seventh installment of an exploration of some of the possible futures discussed on this blog, using the toolkit of narrative fiction. Our narrator visits a streetcar factory, asks some hard questions about the use of human labor in place of machines, and gets some answers he doesn’t expect.

***********

The phone rang at 8 am sharp, a shrill mechanical sound that made me wonder if there was actually a bell inside the thing. I put down the Toledo Blade and got it on the second ring. “Hello?”

“Mr. Carr? This is Melanie Berger. I’ve got—well, not exactly good news, but it could be worse.”

I laughed. “Okay, I’ll bite. What’s up?”

“We’ve managed to get everyone to sit down and work out a compromise, but the President’s got to be involved in that. With any luck this whole business will be out of the way by this afternoon, and he’ll be able to meet with you this evening, if that’s acceptable.”

“That’ll be fine,” I said.

“Good. In the meantime, we thought you might want to make some of the visits we discussed with your boss earlier. If that works for you—”

“It does.”

“Can you handle being shown around by an intern? He’s a bit of a wooly lamb, but well-informed.” I indicated that that would be fine, and she went on. “His name’s Michael Finch. I can have him meet you at the Capitol Hotel lobby whenever you like.”

“Would half an hour from now be too soon?”

“Not at all. I’ll let him know.”

We said the usual polite things, and I hung up. Twenty-five minutes later I was down in the lobby, and right on time a young man in a trenchcoat and a fedora came through the doors. I could see why Berger had called him a wooly lamb; he had blond curly hair and the kind of permanently startled expression you find most often in interns, ingenues, and axe murderers. He looked around blankly even though I was standing in plain sight.

“Mr. Finch?” I said, crossing the lobby toward him. “I’m Peter Carr.”

His expression went even more startled than usual for a moment, and then he grinned. “Pleased to meet you, Mr. Carr.  You surprised me—I was expecting to see someone dressed in that plastic stuff.”

“I’m not fond of being stared at,” I said with a shrug.

He nodded, as though that explained everything. “Ms. Berger told me you wanted to visit some of our industrial plants and the Toledo stock market. Unless you have something already lined up, we can head down to the Mikkelson factory first and go from there. We could take a cab if you like, or just catch the streetcar—the Green line goes within a block of the plant. Whatever you like.”

I considered that, decided that a good close look at Lakeland public transit was in order. “Let’s catch the streetcar.”

“Sure thing.”

We left the lobby, and I followed Finch’s lead along the sidewalk to the right. The morning was crisp and bright, with an edge of frost, and plenty of people were walking to work. A fair number of horsedrawn cabs rolled by, along with a very few automobiles. I thought about that as we walked. Toledo’s tier had a base date of 1950, or so the barber told me the day before, but I didn’t think that cars were anything like so scarce on American streets in that year.

We turned right and came to the streetcar stop, where a dozen people were already waiting. I turned to Finch. “The Mikkelson factory. What do they make?”

For answer he pointed up the street. Two blocks up,  the front end of a streetcar was coming into sight as it rounded the corner. “Rolling stock for streetcar lines. We’ve got three big streetcar manufacturers in the Republic, but Mikkelson’s the biggest. The Toledo system runs their cars exclusively.”

The streetcar finished the turn, sped up, and rolled to a stop in front of us. Strictly speaking, I suppose I should say “streetcars,” since there were four cars linked together, all of them painted forest green and yellow with brass trim. We lined up with the others, climbed aboard when our turn came, and Finch pushed a couple of bills down into the fare box and got a couple of paper slips—“day passes,” he explained—from the conductor. There were still seats available, and I settled into the window seat as the conductor rang a bell, ding-di-ding-di-ding, and the streetcar hummed into motion.

It was an interesting ride, in an odd way. I travel a lot, like most people in my line of work, and I’ve ridden top-of-the-line automated light rail systems in New Beijing and Brasilia. I could tell at a glance that the streetcar I was on cost a small fraction of the money that went into those high-end systems, but the ride was just as comfortable and nearly as fast. There were two employees of the streetcar system on board, a driver and a conductor, and I wondered how much of the labor cost was offset by the lower price of the hardware.

The streetscape rolled past. We got out of the retail district near my hotel and into a residential district, with a mix of apartment buildings and row houses and a scattering of other buildings: an elementary school with a playground outside, a public library, two churches, a couple of other religious buildings of various kinds, and then a big square building with a symbol above the door I recognized at once. I turned to Finch. “I wondered whether there were Atheist Assemblies here.”

“Oh, yes. Are you an Atheist, Mr. Carr?”

I didn’t see any reason to temporize. “Yes.”

“Wonderful! So am I. If you’re free this coming Sunday, you’d be more than welcome at the Capitol Assembly—that’s this one here.” He motioned at the building we were passing.

“I’ll certainly consider it,” I said, and he beamed.

By the time we got to the factory the streetcar was crammed to the bursting point, mostly with people who looked like office staff, and the sidewalks were full of men and women heading toward the factory gates for the day shift. We got off with almost everyone else, and I followed Finch down another sidewalk to the front entrance of the business office, a sturdy-looking two-story structure with MIKKELSON MANUFACTURING in big letters above the second story windows and in gold paint on the glass of the front door.

The receptionist was already on duty, and picked up a telephone to announce us. A few minutes later a middle-aged woman in a dark suit came out to shake our hands. “Mr. Carr, pleased to meet you. I’m Elaine Chu. So you’d like to see our factory?”

A few minutes later we’d exchanged our hats, coats and jackets for safety helmets and loose coveralls of tough gray cloth. “Just under half the streetcars manufactured in the Lakeland Republic are made right here,” Chu explained as we walked down a long corridor. “We’ve also got plants in Louisville and Rockford, but those supply the railroad industry—Rockford makes locomotives and Louisville’s our plant for rolling stock. Every Mikkelson streetcar comes from this plant.”

We passed through double doors onto the shop floor. I was expecting a roar of machine noise, but there weren’t a lot of machines, just workers in the same gray coveralls we were wearing, picking up what looked like hand tools and getting to work. There were streetcar tracks running down the middle of the shop floor, and I watched as a team of workers bolted two wheels, an axle, and a gear together and sent it rolling down the track to the next team. Metal parts clanged and clattered, voices echoed off the metal girders that held up the roof, and now and then some part got pulled from the line and chucked into a big cart on its own set of tracks.

“Quality control,” Chu said. “Each team checks each part or assembly as it comes down the line, and anything that’s not up to spec gets pulled and either disassembled or recycled. That’s one of the reasons we have so large a share of the market. Our streetcars average twenty per cent less downtime for repairs than anybody else’s.”

We followed the wheel assemblies down the shop floor from the team that assembled them into four-wheel bogies, through the teams that built a chassis with electric motors and wiring atop each pair of bogies, to the point where the body was hauled in on a heavily-built overhead suspension track and bolted onto the chassis. From there we went back up another long corridor to the assembly line that built the bodies. It was all a hum of activity, with dozens of tools I didn’t recognize at all, but every part of it was powered by human muscle and worked by human hands.

I think we’d been there for about two hours when we got to the end of the line, and watched a brand new Mikkelson streetcar get hooked up to overhead power lines, tested one last time, and driven away on tracks to the siding where it would be loaded aboard a train and shipped to its destination—Sault Ste. Marie, Chu explained, which was expanding its streetcar system now that the borders were open and trade with Upper Canada had the local economy booming. “So that’s the line from beginning to end,” she said. “If you’d like to come this way?”

We went back into the business office, shed helmets and coveralls, and proceeded to her office. “I’m sure you have plenty of questions,” she said.

“One in particular,” I replied. “The lack of automation. Nearly everything you do with human labor gets done in other industrial countries by machines. I’m curious as to how that works—economically as well as practically—and whether it’s a matter of government mandates or of something else.”

I gathered from her expression that she was used to the question. “Do you have a background in business, Mr. Carr?”

I nodded, and she went on. “In the Atlantic Republic, if I understand correctly—and please let me know if I’m wrong—when a company spends money to buy machines, those count as assets; that’s how they appear on the books, and there are tax benefits from depreciation and so on. When a company spends the same money to do the same task by hiring employees, they don’t count as assets, and you don’t get any of the same benefits. Is that correct?”

I nodded again.

“On the other hand, if a company hires employees, it has to spend much more than the cost of wages or salaries. It has to pay into the public social security system, public health care, unemployment, and so on and so forth, for each person it hires. If the company buys machines instead, it doesn’t have to pay any of those things for each machine. Nor is there any kind of tax to cover the cost to society of replacing the jobs that went away because of automation, or to pay for any increased generating capacity the electrical grid might need to power the machines, or what have you. Is that also correct?”

“Essentially, yes,” I said.

“So, in other words, the tax codes subsidize automation and penalize employment. You probably were taught in business school that automation is more economical than hiring people. Did anyone mention all the ways that public policy contributes to making one more economical than the other?”

“No,” I admitted. “I suppose you do things differently here.”

“Very much so,” she said with a crisp nod. “To begin with, if we hire somebody to do a job, the only cost to Mikkelson Manufacturing is the wages or salary, and any money we put into training counts as a credit against other taxes, since that helps give society in general a better trained work force. Social security, health care, the rest of it, all of that comes out of other taxes—it’s not funded by penalizing  employers for hiring people.”

“And if you automate?”

“Then the costs really start piling up. First off, there’s a tax on automation to pay the cost to society of coping with an increase in unemployment. Then there’s the cost of machinery, which is considerable, and then there’s the natural-resource taxes—if it comes out of the ground or goes into the air or water, it’s taxed, and not lightly, either. Then there’s the price of energy. Electricity’s not cheap here; the Lakeland Republic has only a modest supply of renewable energy, all things considered, and it hasn’t got any fossil fuels to speak of, so the only kind of energy that’s cheap is the kind that comes from muscles.” She shook her head. “If we tried to automate our assembly line, the additional costs would break us. It’s a competitive business, and the other two big firms would eat us alive.”

“I suppose you can’t just import manufactured products from abroad.”

“No, the natural-resource taxes apply no matter what the point of origin is. You may have noticed that there aren’t a lot of cars on the streets here.”

“I did notice that,” I said.

“Fossil fuels here don’t get the government subsidies here they get almost everywhere else, and there’s the natural-resource taxes on top of that, for the fuel that’s burnt and the air that’s polluted. You can have a car if you want one, but you’ll pay plenty for the privilege, and you’ll pay even more for the fuel if you want to drive it.” 

I nodded; it all made a weird sort of sense, especially when I thought back to some of the other things I’d heard earlier. “So nobody’s technology gets a subsidy,” I said.

“Exactly. Here in the Lakeland Republic, we’re short on quite a few resources, but one thing there’s no shortage of is people who are willing to put in an honest day’s work for an honest wage. So we use the resource we’ve got in abundance, rather than becoming dependent on things we don’t have.”

“And would have to import from abroad.”

“Exactly. As I’m sure you’re aware, Mr. Carr, that involves considerable risks.”

I wondered if she had any idea just how acutely I was aware of those. I put a bland expression on my face and nodded. “So I’ve heard,” I said.

Some Excellent Meme Graphics to Help Spread the Word

via The Political Cesspool

A listener sent me ten of the most powerful memes that I’ve ever seen. Scroll down to view them all and then spread far and wide!

Why Does "The Left" Want to Prevent White Men from Creating Art?

via Return of Kings

In the progressive sphere, there is a notion that a man cannot write about anything other than his own kind. That goes double for a white man author. How dare he fill his imaginary worlds with diverse characters…sometimes not even humanoid characters? He is not a lizard person…how can he truly know what a lizard woman thinks of the goings on of lizard kind?

You can see this type of mindset in Marvel Comics stunt casting of Ta-Nehisi Coates doing a twelve issue run on the Black Panther series. Surely many of Mr. Coates’ readers are also comic book fans? With his co-writers exaltation that the first issue “Won’t be a Superhero script” then what is this: cynical cash grab or tokenism?

Marvel Comics isn’t a stranger to this pandering, cash grab, stunt casting nonsense. In recent memory, they’ve made a female Thor to entice all those female social justice comic book readers out there that are under served by all these “dudebro” laden comics. Other comic book companies have fared no better.

No stranger to its share of problems with minority characters is The Walking Dead. Both the comic and television series, created by white man Robert Kirkman, has long come under attack for having poorly written female and minority characters. However, it’s not because of Kirkman’s limitations as a writer or creator, of course. It’s because he is a white man that this series is so unwatchable and devoid of any value to pop culture.

Exactly what this calls for…more women!

The SJW cure-all for this? Adding minority voices to everything from writer rooms to director chairs, and everything in between—regardless of talent or ability! Everything is elevated when you put someone besides a (white) man in charge. Except that’s not the case, and if anything else only goes to further dilute the product by unnecessary addition.

Why is this rubric only used on men? Why is no one going after Shonda Rimes and her parade of poorly characterized hunky steely gazed white dudes on her various programs? How about Lee Daniels’ Empire and its cliché riddled narrative nonsense? Hell, any creator that perpetuates and continues to fill our media with tired clichés and tropes, providing nothing of substance all in the name of the almighty dollar and diversity quotas.

“It was a dark and rapey night…”

A lot of this regressive ideology seems to be coming out of click bait sweatshops like The Mary Sue and the myriad of other concern troll sites that need to gin up some sort of “feminist outrage” in order to keep the views coming. It’s one thing to be take a piece of media to task for a being a little limiting in its characterizations or narratives. It’s quite another to demand that men step back from creating because of the preposterous belief that they can only write about violence, rape, farts, poop, and nothing else.

All this pandering to a tiny minority of progressives has lead to a constant stream of non-issues bubbling up out of the cesspit of social justice websites. The very nature of a click bait sweatshop is that authors must write up a lot of articles every single day, so they have to file many nonsense articles that are little more than “Tsk Tsk…shame on you!” baloney. You have to wonder if these people even believe what they write.

“And then he told her to get back in the

kitchen…and make him a sandwich…”

However, the notion that men perpetually think about rape and violence and therefore that is all they can truly create is also caustic. There have been plenty of male authors that have written great female characters. One example is Henry James, another white man who was nominated multiple times for the Nobel Prize in Literature and authored The Portrait of a Lady, a literary classic with a woman as a protagonist.
Creators cannot create interesting worlds in a vacuum devoid of differing characters and conflicting ideas. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it certainly can’t be too interesting.

“…then Tur Paug the Barbarian thrust his

mighty broadsword into the sunless sky…”

For people espousing “progressive” ideas, how is limiting one gender in favor of the other going to progress anything? More galling is the audaciousness of telling an artist what they can and cannot do. That flies in the very face of what Art…with a capital “A”…is…subjective. Does a man have any idea what a woman truly feels? By creating art he allows himself the artistic license to explore that idea, free from outside judgment while he does so. It doesn’t make what he finds objective fact, that is why it’s art.

To progressives and feminists, the ideal worlds that a man can create are barbaric hellscapes where women are bags of meat with tits that men spray their seed all over. Protagonists whose only narrative goal is to rape most things and kill those who stand in the way of that goal.

Sure that makes for a fine Saturday evening, if you’re a barbarian. But it certainly doesn’t make for compelling art.

Rainbow’s End: A New Philosophy Is Needed to Avoid Irreversible Catastrophe, which Is Happening as We Speak

via Darkmoon

Muslims who have stormed into Europe and deemed it mandatory to rape all women not wearing headscarves have done themselves a profound disservice by this fanatical attitude that has made them unwelcome in every non-Muslim country on the planet.

The preposterously bad behavior demonstrated by these faux refugees gives new meaning to the total ban Japan has erected against would be Muslim immigrants. Already the advisable idea of repatriating this unruly throng to their own homelands is being discussed, but unfortunately it is not being discussed by the politically correct leaders sabotaging their own nations who betray their own citizenry by welcoming these cynical psychopaths inside their borders.

The debilitating influx of crowds of predominantly young and brutal men over a wide stretch of Europe has caused everyone to wonder what motivates these deferential European leaders to enthusiastically endorse this tidal wave of indigent so-called refugees, when the cost of stability to their own countries is absolutely nation wrecking and the danger to all women is more than obvious.

The Islamic attitude is that they are not going to obey the laws of the country they have invaded, and yet, some leaders continue to welcome them and even evict some of their own citizens to create homes for these ungrateful wretches.

Particularly in Sweden and Germany — but you also might mention the United States — what is the purpose of severely damaging your own country merely to accommodate oppressed people from failed states and ruthless dictatorships at the expense of stalwart white citizens who for many generations have created stable societies now threatened, and in some cases overwhelmed, by these violent barbarians?

What power behind the throne is causing all these countries to preach political correctness and basically commit suicide? Just ask Barbara Specter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ

Yes, you’ve seen the video and you’ve heard the claim. No matter how hard Jewish media try to cover it up, it’s true. Jews control all the Western nations through their control of money and the bribes they pay to Western politicians.

Jews aim to flood white nations with African and Asian savages to hasten the arrival of police state martial law, to induce immigrants, bribed with alluring benefits and oblivious to a gentler form of oppression familiar to them, to vote for repressive governments, and to dilute the voting power of intelligent whites, making less likely the chances Caucasians can reverse these diabolical Jewish maneuvers and forestall their own demise.

So far these subversive Jewish tactics have been wildly successful, and wildly devastating to the white Western nations they have thrown into chaos.

The recent black riots in the United States are more of the same. Paid off black demagogues kindle senseless anger among disingenuous black malcontents, who promptly set fire to their own neighborhoods. True, government provocateurs play a large role in this, as they are paid by either the government or political action committees to amplify violence, thereby providing false justification for police crackdowns on innocent people and increasing restrictions on individual freedom.

As with the phony terror tactics stealthily generated by our own government, riots by people of color are all abetted by secret forces aimed at convincing the public more restrictive gun control laws are needed.

The one fact always missing from stories in the media campaign to demonize gun ownership is the practical necessity of having all people own defensive weaponry for one primary reason — to prevent an overaggressive government from turning a republic based on individual freedom into a gulag where all people are unable to resist the perverse abuses of a monolithic authority.

The American gulag is already in place, sadistic police, corrupt judges taking money under the table, and disingenuous politicians twisting the meaning of words to elevate perverts and harass psychologically stable people.

Chris Cantwell hit the nail on the head with his viral video: America doesn’t have a gun problem, it has a black problem. http://renegadetribune.com/disarm-black-males/

This realization that the powers which control governments are trying to dilute populations in the Western world with barely literate Third World savages by rights should signal an end to this proposed politically correct rainbow coalition of different races that is wrecking America and Europe with its tidal wave of crime generating savages.

With the illogical newspeak that has absolutely wrecked what formerly was a functional country, the Jewish lie that “diversity is strength” has been thoroughly disproven by the racial consternation currently wrecking all the white Western nations.

Unfortunately it is up to white people to forestall this sinister plot. But they face a difficult task to overturn these trends because they have been largely disenfranchised by Jewish media, Jewish universities and Jewish-controlled politicians. (If you object to this description, you are part of the inertia that has enabled the Jews to take power, which has now risen to the point of consigning whites to slave status in a country now governed by racial minorities and closet homosexuals.)

The rainbow coalition is a hoax. All countries would be far stronger if they were homogenous, devoid of interracial strife and on the same page with their chosen religion. Robert Frost’s phrase “good fences make good neighbors” applies here.

So does Adolf Hitler’s philosophy of treating his allies with genuine respect, which is far superior to the current Jewish mindlock on a majority of nations that involves blackmailing financially enslaved clients and then coercing them to commit crimes against the rest of the world, the way the USA is used by Israel as a club to smash opposition to kosher financial hegemony.

Abraham Lincoln’s original suggestion that black slaves should be returned to their African homes or deported to the Caribbean suddenly makes good sense given the chaos in Europe. The fact remains undeniable that black behavior in St. Louis, Baltimore and other cities around the country would be more appropriate in the persistent slums of the African continent than they have been in the society created by whites in the United States. It is simply uncivilized behavior.

The alternative is that the great white civilizations of the American and Europe will be destroyed.

One other aspect of this great color crisis now across the Western world is that blacks owe their freedom to whites. Civil rights laws in the U.S. were crafted by whites, but now the so-called refugees in Europe want more than just freedom. They want to be supported by whites without having to work. Thus, the freedom they have been given has led to an attitude where now they expected to be supported by whites who can barely support themselves.

However, although current events compelled me to apply the title of this essay “Rainbow’s end” to this sly invasion of Europe by a calculated tidal wave of unattached escapees from the war zone in the Middle East, it was not the original meaning I had in mind when the phrase first occurred to me.

The real end of the rainbow I wanted to talk about is what happens to each of us when we pass out of that hopefully magical time of our childhood and venture into that often painful realm known as adulthood, where we no longer have the protective umbrella of our parents and face the cold hard world in all its daunting gravitas.

It happened to me at this time of my life and it’s probably happened to many others who haven’t had a silver spoon in their mouths or due to thoughtful parents had their career track parked right in front of them. To find yourself on the street with no particular place to go has a funny way of stamping out whatever idealism you might have entertained in your sheltered past.

Those of us who have a career track to pursue generally don’t lose their idealism at this time, though many lose it later when either their careers don’t work out or they find only emptiness in the line of work they have chosen.

It is my contention that this crossover point, where the teenage idealism you have to leave behind in order to survive is exactly the point at which you become susceptible to the bribe, the choice you have to make to keep from starving on the street, that decision to live with that in order to survive you must do something in which you don’t really believe.

How much of the world follows this path? How many of these followers of false paths are in control of the rest of the world? And how much does the world lose by destroying the high ideals of the young and replacing them with the corroded manipulations of the business world, where people become just numbers and the ideals of young truthseekers spiral down the fetid drain of coercive capitalism.

Eventually this train of thought affects one’s choice of religion, and in almost every case, the choice of what to worship sabotages one’s ability to be honest and realistic. The belief in a magical survival over death necessarily confounds every decision you make about the conditions of life. And worst of all, these choices very often compel individuals to commit crimes and kill people for reasons that are less than sound.

We only need to turn back to the first sentence of this story to prove this point, that refugees escaping from war torn misery have the right to rape female victims because they don’t adhere to criminally barbaric Islamic customs.

Yet the story, and life, are not that simple.

In my years of investigating religious history and finding, especially with the Western monotheistic religions, that the historical facts of each are fabricated, plagiarized and generally twisted to suit the requirements of the priestly power structure that has invented all these convoluted myths, I’ve found that religion most often makes its adherents blind to reality and, most importantly, utterly intolerant of practitioners of other myths that, though in different languages, say the same things and make the same points as the religion doing the excoriating.

Even though simple study and perfunctory analyses can easily clear up most of these differences, this kind of understanding is seldom practiced because, by its nature, priestly power seeks primarily to maintain its own dominance at all costs. Any interest in historical accuracy and psychological legitimacy as a priority runs a very distant second.

Thus you have the countless wars of history, mostly triggered by minuscule semantic differences but really caused by egos insistent on political dominance, using their chosen religion as an excuse to crush their opposition.

So for many years I have taken a dim view of the holy craft, a view made even dimmer by my gradually acquired understanding of Judaism, which as a philosophy of living is unmatched throughout the world for its homicidal mania, total absence of conscience, and various other profound diseases of the mind. Jews are taught to be natural born killers and to make their money by making other people make wars against each other, an art Jews have mastered beyond perfection and practiced for at least two thousand years.

When you challenge any Jew on these matters, all you get is evasion and obfuscation. Jews are utterly unable to tell the truth about their own history, or, for that matter, their own present day behavior. After all, their job has always been the same down through history — to destroy countries, after a long period of pretending they are friends of these countries while simultaneously creating methods and tactics to sabotage and undermine these peoples with whom they pretend to be friends.

That’s how our curdled vice president Joe Biden can say to the world that Jews have had a wonderful effect on the United States even as the country is falling apart right before our eyes.

We lie to our children, every day, throughout their lives. We teach them everything is going to be alright when, especially nowadays, we know it isn’t.

Practically everyone in the world is taught by their parents that when they die they go to one sort of heaven or another, and this means by the time they become adults they’re hopelessly conflicted over wishful thinking and actual reality. The fanatical part of the population believes they have a duty to kill to defend whatever lie they have been told.

At least today, the Muslims are the champs of killing people for their god, although throughout history, the Christians have been equally bloodthirsty. The Jews have long ago established that they’ll kill anybody anytime anywhere, although their preference is to get other dupes, like the U.S. Army, to do their killing for them.

Though I can acknowledge, using the ruthless example of the Soviet Union, that atheistic societies are much more cruel than societies based on a belief system, the difference between them is not that great.

As a child I used to think that all humans had the potential for goodness and bravery, but as an adult, cynicism sets in and we begin to think everyone is evil. http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/36574/Survey-Says-Americans-Trust-No-One/?uuid=BA5E8D2E-5056-9600-1EBA7C62EFBE052D

There is a time in our lives when we have the highest hopes, and infinity seems within our reach. Then claustrophobic reality closes in, and our lives begin to turn to rust. The sweet days of youth turn unbearably bitter, and it takes either a lot of money or an unshakable family structure to wash the taste out of our mouths. This is why so many, particularly soldiers, commit suicide.

The way of the world brings a heavy load. If we are not careful, demons can overtake us. One way to avoid them is to cling feverishly to an image of the Almighty, to close our eyes against the world’s circus, which is awash in unjust death and disgusting diseases.

The other way is to look fearlessly at the bullshit, to genuinely see the locomotive of death that is headed straight for us and about to knock us six feet under, and simply say, I trust what the universe gives us. Nothing that has been as wonderful as actual life can ever be evil. Of course, innocents in Africa and Asia have a more difficult time accepting this philosophy as they are often tortured and abused as children and die much too soon to live a full life.

And then there is THIS question: Do you really believe, or do you just say you believe? (They say this is the disease of doubt that affects many long time priests.)

Believe it or not, there will come a day — and it always comes too soon — where you will have to actually believe. Just saying you believe won’t be nearly enough to enable you to cope with the colossal challenge of your own demise.

Religions have made a mess of the world by lying about our origins. Among the earliest words ever spoken were explanations of how we got here. There were stories of comets, dragons, giants, monsters and ETs, but ever since the Hebrews got involved and stole their script from the Egyptians, we’ve had nothing but competing dictators promising to mutilate the sexual organs of their followers and annihilate their enemies that has given us our world of perpetual bloodletting that we observe today.

These phonies have compounded their lies by constructing false magic formulas that convince us that we live forever if we only utter the proper prayer, sacrifice to the right god, behave the right way. None of these things is true.

It’s OK to say we don’t know things.

Instead of realizing we are the most powerful and potential the most beneficial of all the beings in the universe, we act out that we are the most destructive creatures who have ever lived. Just look at the degradation we have inflicted upon the planet. It’s all because we are afraid to admit that we die, and we don’t know what will happen to us then.

If an alien extraterrestrial species were to chance across our civilization and gauged our trustworthiness on the basis of what we have done to our fellow species, they would obliterate us immediately.

And we would richly deserve to have it done to us.

Killing others helps us maintain the fiction that we will never really die. Instead, we insist that we will return, or we will graduate to a higher reality. As Buddha so clearly stated, once we acknowledge that we die, our quarrels cease at once. Life then becomes a shared attempt to console each other that we do die, and then kindness, compassion and understanding begin to supersede cruelty, selfishness and depravity that are all based on the suppressed knowledge that we do die and our anger explodes from within that this is our situation.

Insisting that God has granted us special privileges is no longer acceptable in an evolving world that demands tangible and irrefutable proof of what we claim to be true.

The acknowledgment of the inevitability of death is ironically the only way we can guarantee a peace that works on Planet Earth. As we see the vegetation rise and fall in their seasons, and our fellow animals instinctively know how to nurse their young and live their lives fully and without fear, so too must we acknowledge the confining terms of our existences and stop trying to prove that we can live forever through magic words and formulas that turn out to be nothing but hot air that is intensely injurious and usually fatal to everyone and everything that is anywhere near it.

In our primal terror we must not object to nature’s formula that our lives, our incarnations, are temporary arrangements. We must give thanks for the gifts that we have been given and plan for the comfort and security of our children, who will do the same for their offspring.

But then we must think about something else. In our hubris, why have we separated ourselves from all the other living things on this planet, and isolated ourselves into a separate imaginary invention where humans are one kind of animal, and all the other animals are lesser species, even though they mostly have two eyes, two ears, and bleed red.

Doesn’t it sound kind of silly that we should worry about our own conditions of life apart from the conditions of life of every other living thing on the planet? Could we be more stupid and self-centered? No!

Which leads us to a radical new idea that allows us to grasp a greater understanding of ourselves and how we may yet survive and prosper with a greater understanding of life than we have ever had before.

How does this sound? “All living DNA today has been alive since the first life.” http://www.onelife.com/onelife2.html

Think about it. Because to replicate, DNA must be alive. You are descended from living DNA. So is every other living thing. Therefore, DNA has never died. Since the beginning of time. You are connected to the beginning of time, because DNA had to be alive to traverse all those many thousands of generation and finally to connect to you.

All living things today are alive by virtue of the DNA living in each cell in their bodies
One must understand that the life forms produced by life are conceptual and that it is life itself which permeates all living things, and all life is one and the same.

The human is a product of life, one of many products, not a separate entity apart from life.

We’re a bunch of fools thinking we are in charge of our own destiny. Life is in charge of our destiny, a life that created us, and all the other life forms on the planet. We all stem from the same source, and it is DNA that never dies.

There is only one life, and it is shared by all living things.

Listen, and understand.

It is not that the human needs to take care of all other life as a moral obligation, though that is certainly true, it is that the human is a small part of life, but one which possesses a characteristic (intelligence) which is valuable to the survival and well being of all life. It was life which developed that intelligence, not the human, therefore its service is for all life, not merely the human. The human is, in that sense, a servant to life, a caretaker in the service of life, the good shepherd for all of life.

There is only one life, and we are a part of it. Believe only provable statements and begin to understand that our obligations are much more important than our needs and wants.

Act in the service of life, and the foolishness of imaginary gods will disappear, the Earth will be restored to health, life will prevail, and we will thrive.

Study and understand the link, and the clouds of our division will part. Failure to do will result in an unprecedented social cataclysm, the signs of which are clearly confronting us today. Realize that in fighting against each other, we are fighting against life itself, because, in fact, there is only one life, and we are profoundly privileged to be a part of it.

This is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow we have always been looking for. Embrace it and most of the world’s troubles will disappear right before our eyes.