Peter Schaenk 4/22/2008

April 23, 2008

Pope Benedict XVI and FDLS

April 22, 2008

Bill Maher spoke on his HBO show ‘Real Times’ on 4-18-08 and insulted the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, the Catholic Church and the Pope.

The Jewish Community should be furious about this! They should excommunicate Bill Maher and Barry M. Meyer and every other executive connected to this filth and degradation. This incites people to HATE. Where is the Anti-Defamation League?

Maher went on to say the Catholic Church was “a child-abusing religious cult” and linked the Church to “organized pedophilia.”

HBO President Sue Naegle was flooded with letters and calls about Maher’s comments and in one letter crafted by several New York officials his comments were said to have “crossed the line of decency by insulting the Pope, mocking the Catholic religion and Catholics and diminishing the importance of the Catholic faith.”

This is NOT about an apology. It is way to late for that. It is about the fact Maher can SAY it and then maybe be excused by a mere apology. Isn’t that what they used to say about the Catholics, that they can SIN and then go to confession and sin again?

Imus was fired for saying “nappy-headed whores.” What Bill Maher did is far worst. His only purpose is to incite hate toward religions other than his own.

And who were the creeps laughing with him? Bill Maher is AESTHETICALLY INCORRECT and needs to be fired!! He is an example of how low American society has sunk and how corrupt the media is.

Jews of America UNITE and bounce this cad out on his ear!!

Author: subiesisters

Keywords: Jewish community Maher Catholic Pope FDLS sin HBO Naegle

Added: April 22, 2008

Aryan boxer clobbers bragging Negro

April 22, 2008

[b]“White boy” Calzaghe connects on openly racist “black man” Hopkins, on HBO Saturday[/b]

The Jewsmedia used to drum into us, ever since the 1960s, the athletic superiority of the black man. It was a given (and crowed-about in [i]Jet[/i] and [i]Ebony[/i] magazines) that the black man would always clobber the white man in basketball, football, baseball and of course, [b]of course[/b] in “the manly sport of self-defense,” boxing.

Howard Cosell on ABC Sports just about deified the “Black Muslim” Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) in the Sicko Sixties.


BUT I hear now that the white European basketball players regularly beat the American/NBA-manned “Dream Team,” and white boxers regularly knock black boxers out.

And so we see that the TV Jew’s myth of the superior black athlete is just that.


Subject: Calzaghe beats Hopkins (who said he’d never lose to a “white boy”)

Joe Kowalski’s Column

[b]Black Boy Loses to White Man[/b]


“I would never lose to a white boy,” crowed Bernard Hopkins to Joe Calzaghe at an event to promote their light heavyweight title fight. In fact, [red]he yelled it four times in front of a multitude of journalists.[/red]

There was no Don Imus or Michael Richards treatment for Hopkins, of course, due to his proper pigmentation.

But Calzaghe, who never lost his cool or responded in kind, doled out a more satisfying punishment on Saturday night. In front of an HBO audience and celebrities such as Katherine Zeta Jones, Tom Jones, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jay Z and Whitney Houston.

[b]Superior skill beats thicker skull.[/b]

Calzaghe won a relatively easy decision against Hopkins. The “Welsh Dragon” improved to 45-0 and cemented his status as one of the best fighters of all time. He will be ranked as the second best “pound-for-pound” fighter in boxing and perhaps the very best should Oscar Dela Hoya defeat Floyd Mayweather this fall.

[b]Calzaghe saves best for last[/b]

Isaac Brekken, Associated Press

Joe Calzaghe of Wales rallied in the later rounds to win his first bout in the United States.
After a slow start, he wears down Hopkins and wins a split decision.

By Lance Pugmire, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 20, 2008

LAS VEGAS — One of the first punches Joe Calzaghe faced from Bernard Hopkins knocked the Welshman down, but the questions that the moment raised about Calzaghe’s ability to fight a decorated champion outside of his native continent were answered in the following 11 rounds.

Calzaghe, throwing and landing a more consistent barrage of punches to defuse a sharp defensive effort by the 43-year-old former longtime middleweight champion Hopkins, claimed a split-decision triumph at Thomas & Mack Center on Saturday night.

Calzaghe defeats Hopkins
Photo Gallery
Calzaghe defeats Hopkins

Judges Ted Gimza and Chuck Giampa, by scores of 116-111 and 115-112, respectively, gave super-middleweight champion Calzaghe (45-0) the Ring Magazine’s light-heavyweight title as judge Adalaide Byrd awarded Hopkins a 114-113 advantage.

“It was the toughest fight of my career, [Hopkins] is very clever . . . he gave me some great shots,” Calzaghe said in the ring afterward. “A world title in a second division and victory in America is just icing on my career.”

Hopkins (48-5-1) was at his tactical best early, ducking down and sneaking in a straight short right that left Calzaghe on the canvas barely a minute into the fight.

Hopkins was well aware of Calzaghe’s reputation for throwing punches [i]en masse[/i], and said his game plan was based on countering that action.

“I wanted him to run into my shots, I think I did that,” Hopkins said. “He wasn’t really landing his shots. Maybe if he threw five or six and landed one or two, but I really felt I took the guy to school and made him fight my fight.”

Age appeared to be Hopkins’ biggest problem, however, as his energy waned after the fourth round. Gimza awarded Calzaghe rounds five through 10, and Giampa gave the Wales fighter rounds three through 10. Hopkins explained that he was instructed to “pace himself,” with an eye to winning late rounds.

“I was a bit rusty at the start,” Calzaghe said. “In training, I practiced not to rush it. . . . I had to let the punches go as the fight went on.”

Referee Joe Cortez had to insert himself into the battle often, breaking up several clenches and finally calling a fourth-round timeout to talk to the fighters.

When Hopkins pushed Calzaghe at the end of the sixth round, Calzaghe shot his opponent a look that riled the crowd.

Calzaghe certainly fought with more caution than he has in the past, but he delivered several crisp lefts that added to Hopkins’ fatigue. The punch statistic company CompuBox reported that the 232 punches that Calzaghe landed were the most against Hopkins in 21 fights the company has tracked Hopkins’ bouts.


The 10th round featured an extended delay, when Hopkins complained of severe pain from a punch below the belt that television replays showed landed above the typically sensitive area. Calzaghe held out his gloves in frustration, urging Cortez to resume what he thought was a stall tactic. “He totally faked an injury,” Calzaghe said. “What he did was cheat. He needed a rest.”

After Calzaghe landed some more lefts in the 12th, he leaped to his corner post, blowing kisses to his countrymen who helped boost attendance to 14,213.

“It wasn’t my best fight, but [b]I won[/b],” Calzaghe said.

Peter Schaenk 4/21/2008

April 22, 2008

Thinking About Nationalism

April 21, 2008

Over at the odessa-syndicate blog “Iceman” presents salient points about nationalism in general, and explains why “America” in its current format is no longer a workable container for nationalism for ANYONE. For those interested in “meta-analysis” of social problems and their solution, this blog is highly recommended.

Nationalism: My Approach (six points) | Odessa Syndicate

Nationalism: My Approach (six points)

1) Nationalism within racial nationalism

Being a Russian nationalist means being a Russian first. Being a British nationalist means being British first. Being a Spanish nationalist means being Spanish first. For nations that are reasonably racially homogeneous, nationalism must be defined this way. Each group should attempt to maintain its language, culture, and racial continuity. Likewise, being a Chinese Nationalist means being Chinese first, not yellow first, and being a Nigerian nationalist means being Nigerian first, not black first.

2) Pan-Nationalism

All nationalists, being loyal to their own nation, should work in collaboration. There should be an overreaching unity between different types of nationalists merely because they share ideological ground. Even nationalists of different races should respect each other.

3) Balkanization of America

America is too diverse for nationalism. In my opinion, it should be split among ethnic lines. A little land for blacks, a little for Chinese, a small amount of land for Mestizos, and some for different types of white immigrants.

4) Zionism

Zionists who respect nationalism should be respected. Zionists who disrespect nationalism should be disrespected. Being pro-Jew is no worse than being pro-French, pro-Irish, pro-Arab, or pro-Chinese. Disrespecting behaviors that are not proper is not anti-Semitism; neither is holding Jews to the same standards as anyone else.

5) Eugenics

Support of eugenics should not be a requirement to be a nationalist.

6) Religion

Support or opposition to a given religion should not be a requirement to be a nationalist.

Mark Faust 4/20/2008

April 21, 2008

The physical and psychological effects of television.

Mark Faust debuts Live, 9PM Eastern

April 20, 2008

FDLS, El Dorado, Texas. A hoax?

April 19, 2008

This is the last in a trilogy of videos documenting the abuse of power Texas used against a community they did not understand.

The state of Texas still will not let these people go. They are again violating their rights by taking their DNA.

There is no difference between this type of hate against this community and what happened in the 60s when white boys dragged a black man to his death.

Author: subiesisters
Keywords: FDLS El Dorado Texs violation of rights DNA courruption Children Services
Added: April 19, 2008

France Censors “Radio Courtesy”

April 19, 2008

When a great country bills itself as a protector of free speech and civil liberties, then proceeds to censor historical research and discussion, something is “Rotten in the State of France”.

The dissonance between the government’s stated ideals and what it actually does makes one wonder if they are truly representative of us. If not, then who are they?

(Statement by “Bocage”, April 11, 2008)

It was in greatest secrecy that Martin Peltier had invited Professor Faurisson to be on his monthly radio show’s April 9 broadcast on Radio Courtoisie. Both men had agreed to avoid any violation of the Fabius-Gayssot Law, not just to keep from being prosecuted themselves, but to keep from jeopardizing the radio station which, they knew, was under surveillance by the CSA (Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel) [Superior Audiovisual Council].

The program began at 7:30 PM. The two participants, extremely careful [not to violate the Gayssot Law], told of the persecutions which revisionists the world over have been subjected to. (Any interested readers can request a transcript of the broadcast.) But at about 27 minutes into the interview the broadcast was silenced … The immediate reason given was, “It is being terminated at the CSA’s request.”

Now, here’s what appeared at the website of the daily newspaper Le Parisien at 10:30 that evening:


Brutal interruption of Wednesday evening’s programming at Radio Courtoisie

As the station, which bills itself as “the all-conservative radio station,” was broadcasting a program on revisionism, transmission suddenly went dead. Without warning, the “Free Journal Show,” hosted by Martin Peltier, was suddenly replaced by classical music. The show never resumed.

As for the program by Paul-Marie Coûteaux, MEP, which was to have started at 9:30 PM, it was rescheduled to a later date.

We contacted Henry de Lesquen, station manager, who explained the broadcast had been interrupted “by the [government’s] Delegate for Editorial Matters, who considered some comments expressed by one of the participants unacceptable.” However, he didn’t say which comments, or why the programming never resumed.

It seems not only was there censorship of the broadcast itself, there was censorship of the above article announcing the censorship, since Prof. Faurisson’s name isn’t even mentioned!

2) Here is the transcript (thanks to “Bocage”) of Martin Peltier’s broadcast on Radio Courtoisie of Wednesday, April 9 at 7:30 PM:

Guest: Professor Robert Faurisson. The program had been scheduled to run an hour-and-a-half but was abruptly silenced after 27 minutes.

Martin Peltier: Good evening, Professor. I have to explain to the listeners why I decided to invite into the studio someone who’s been prosecuted for law-breaking. We’re different in every way: you’re a university professor, I was never a good student; you’re half-British, and Great Britain is my pet political villain; you’re an atheist, I’m Catholic. Why, then? Well, there are reasons, some perhaps not so valid – for example, stirring things up is always fun, and there are also frivolous motives: you like Nerval and you feel Isidore Ducasse cannot be taken seriously, and that’s very good.

And then there are two valid reasons: To begin with, I think of the Gospel where Jesus says: Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. [Matthew 25:40] Now, in today’s society “the least” isn’t the unemployed, or the illegal immigrant who benefits from the good will and support of all sorts of well-meaning organizations. “The least” is the revisionist, the naked mangy wretch who spreads the worst of plagues: that which affects the memory.

And there’s a second reason for this invitation: today we won’t be speaking about your ideas or your work, Professor Faurisson, because to speak of those has been forbidden to us by law. But the manner in which you have been treated by the media and government agencies is disgusting and shocking. One can very well understand that thoughts and their expression must be limited, must be guided — maybe it’s even desirable; does one ever know? But that a society which has made blasphemy a virtue and loudly proclaims its desire for unrestricted liberty represses “incorrect thought” with extreme ferocity is intolerable from the points of view of reason and morality, both. It is therefore necessary to denounce this situation specifically and vigorously: we cannot remain our whole lives prostrate before the diktat handed down by the powerful and the [inaudible] they impose. For the honor of the press and of the French people we must from time to time attempt to lift ourselves off the ground even if all we can manage is the tip of an ear.

So today we’re going to do history, a little history of revisionism. There will be absolutely no justifying of any claims whatsoever, only telling what has happened.

With that said, let’s be clear that we are not going to talk about the gas chambers! The 1990 Gayssot Law forbids debate on the subject of “crime against humanity” as defined by the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946. And unless I’m mistaken, it even forbids the semblance of debate.

What is the law’s text exactly? Can you quote it from memory?

Robert Faurisson: That’s right, this law, passed July 13, 1990, which we’ve come to call the Fabius-Gayssot or Gayssot Law, forbids debate on crimes against humanity as defined, judged, and punished in particular by the international military court in Nuremberg in 1945-46. But this law of July 13, 1990 has come to be interpreted in such a way that there exists today a body of legal precedent saying you have neither the right to debate nor, to put it simply, the right to merely seem to debate. As a result, anything, or nearly anything, can be interpreted as debate.

MP: Of course. And it’s there that — if I may — it’s no secret, Professor, that you have raised questions about the existence of execution gas chambers in occupied Europe under Hitler and you revise considerably downward the generally accepted 6 million figure of Jews who died during the Second World War. Therefore I won’t ask you to comment on this subject and if you happen to stray onto it I’ll cut you off without hesitating or showing you the least courtesy, I warn you. You are here under surveillance, in a sense — it was the best I could offer, and we will limit ourselves to three subjects that were strictly defined prior to the broadcast. Furthermore, to be honest with you, even without the Gayssot Law I wouldn’t let you expand on your revisionist ideas: apart from legal penalties enacted by lawmakers and decided by judges there are others, spontaneously applied, no matter whether applied quietly or demanded loudly: these are the pressures on families, the negative comments in the workplace, the assaults against those who think wrong thoughts and those who make their expression possible. There are extra-legal forces in our country functioning with complete freedom; there are militias above the law and I admit I’m afraid of them; I’m scared of the more or less hidden power one sees busy at work around the memory of the years called the darkest of our history.

And the first thing I’d like you to talk about is precisely the persecution of revisionists in France and the rest of the world. You yourself were beaten up and left for dead by a bunch of thugs whom the police finally preferred to let go. You’ve lost your employment. Several legal proceedings have ruined you financially. But still, you consider yourself fortunate, because when all is said and done you’ve never gone to jail for revisionism. What is … how do you view
yourself where this whole business is concerned?

RF: To reply to your question: “to judge is to compare”; I compare my situation with that of many other revisionists, especially Germans and Austrians. I judge the legal system that has condemned me but I also compare it to the German, Austrian, Swiss, and British legal systems, the English-speaking Canadian legal system, the American legal system, and others — the Australian legal system, for example. And I feel I’m fortunate to live in the bountiful country called France. I’ll add that for me, the French government is fine when it’s not in a war or a civil war, overt or insidious. And finally, I must confess, I’m lucky.

MP:You’ve given a little summary of the situation. I’d like to return, point by point, to … Is … Exactly, one must teach. Already, the story of the various persecutions. Can you tell us the true situation in the different countries? Can you say, for example, what the situation is in Switzerland? What trials of revisionists have there been, and what persecutions have they been subjected to? I’m thinking perhaps of Amaudruz?

RF: Well, there’s Amaudruz who at age of 82, I think, went to prison for three months I believe — and there’ve been others. I admit this is a subject I don’t like getting into so much, because bringing up the persecutions revisionists have been subjected to is a way of complaining. The question is to learn whether, at bottom, we are right or not — but on that subject you’ve forbidden me to speak.

MP: Absolutely. On that I’m very clear. But by definition, one can’t speak of things one can’t speak of. It’s a tautology. But I love tautologies: they’re my favorite sport. And so I think it is nevertheless interesting — you don’t wish to speak about it but I want to make you talk about it because I believe the public, even the educated public, doesn’t … you, you’re immersed in it, a bit like Obélix, since you were small but the broad public, even educated, even informed, has not appreciated the extreme … I won’t say severity, but the extreme bizarreness of criminal penalties imposed on several individuals. All right, let’s look at Austria. I have two cases I’d like you to talk about: the case of Mr. Honsik and that of Mr. Frölich. I don’t ask you to talk about them for hours, but in two minutes you can do it justice — go ahead.

RF: Gerd Honsik is indeed a revisionist, who lives in Vienna; he was convicted of revisionism; he fled to Spain and, not long ago, Spain extradited him to Austria and so Honsik is in jail.

MP: They extradite people charged with that?

RF: They do!

MP: It’s a misdemeanor or a felony? It’s got to be a misdemeanor, no?

RF: Well, “misdemeanor” or “felony,” it all depends, doesn’t it; for example, in Anglo-Saxon law one speaks of “crime,” which can include misdemeanors; it’s a question of vocabulary — no matter. The fact, the important fact — you are right to underline it — is that they succeeded in extraditing someone. Now, in this regard, I’ll continue therefore to respond, since you spoke of Honsik but also of Frölich; I’ll quickly mention Frölich then I’ll come back to this business of extradition because, you’re right, it’s important. Frölich is an expert in gas chambers that are used for disinfecting, and he said the Nazi gas chambers were, in his judgment, impossible because …

MP: Yes but, there we’re really …

RF: Wait … that’s it. Therefore, for being a revisionist he was convicted and, I believe, has been sentenced to something like six years and five months in prison.


RF: Getting back to the question of extradition. You know, they stress that France has laws against revisionism.

MP: Yes.

RF: It’s also the case with Switzerland, Belgium, Spain, Germany obviously, and other countries. They stress that in the Anglo-Saxon countries there are no laws against revisionism. Pure hypocrisy! And that’s what I’m getting at with the question of extradition. Take the United States. It’s a country where, I must say, personally I felt free. It’s about the only country in the world where I felt free. Well, that’s finished. Because if we take the case of a prominent revisionist, Ernst Zündel, he lived in Tennessee and one fine day saw five burly cops arrive, put him in handcuffs, and take him to jail, whereafter he was delivered to Canada; Canada — listen to this — put him in prison for two years in the most abominable conditions …

MP: Meaning?

RF: Meaning: in his cell, where he froze in winter, had no right to a chair, no right to a pillow, no right to anything, was subjected continually to anal searches and intimidation with the use of dogs – they would put him down on the floor, and dogs – can you imagine? — drooling on him: that’s how he was treated for two years in Canada, then …

MP: A technical question, while it occurs to me: he had been brought to Canada from the U.S. on an international warrant, a request for extradition?

RF: Not even. Yes, there was a request; it wasn’t international: it was Canada who requested and obtained him, it was an agreement between the U.S. and Canada. So, the United States, where they have the First Amendment, where you’re supposed to be able to express yourself freely, treats a revisionist like a gangster using gangster methods. And he was handed over. And he was tried in a special court, I repeat, special, called the Human Rights Commission. And I know from experience what that involves, and I think the listeners will be interested in this point.

MP: All right, what’s a “Human …

RF: This: some said when, in 1992, Zündel finally won the unbelievable trials of 1985 and 1988 by a decision handed down in 1992, certain individuals — I won’t name them — said this wasn’t acceptable; something had to be done. They said we need the Human Rights Commissions. And the good people said yes. Then the legislators said yes. Then came the second stage — but wait: it would need human rights courts, not ordinary courts, and they created special courts where the judges are appointed according to how sensitive they are to a particular problem — I trust I don’t need to spell it out — and one is called before these courts — it happened to me when I came forward to defend Ernst Zündel. They have you raise your right hand, they have you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and the next minute if you make the mistake of saying, “But Ernst Zündel has done nothing wrong because what he says is true, it can be demonstrated, and I feel confident I am able to demonstrate it,” the court interrupts and tells you, “Be advised that here, truth is no defense. It doesn’t matter to us whether or not what you say is true. All that matters to us is to know the pain you are liable to inflict on a segment of Canadian society.”

MP: All right, getting back to what you were saying – so, he was tried in Canada in this fashion …

RF: Then Germany wanted him, and he was handed over and tried under horrible conditions …

MP: A further extradition …

RF: A further extradition, and in Germany not only was he sentenced to five years in prison but they refused to take into account the two years he had spent in jail in Canada and, furthermore, one of his lawyers is now in jail …

MP: What’s her name?

RF: Sylvia Stolz. “Stolz” means “proud” in German. She’s being called “the German Joan of Arc.” And another of his lawyers is due to go on trial. His name is Jürgen Rieger.

MP: Wow, these people are busy!

RF: Right. But you know, if you consider the physical suffering inflicted on revisionists, this isn’t that bad!

MP: We’ll come back to that later …

RF: I don’t know how much good it’ll do …

MP: But at the moment we’re dealing with a purely judicial issue. There’s that case in Australia I think, a Mr. Toben; in Belgium there’s a former Vlaams Blok senator; there’s Costas Plevris in Greece … Apart from purely judicial questions, confining ourselves to punishments which are not brutal punishments or court-imposed punishments, there are disciplinary punishments or punishments by universities. I have in mind, in France, people such as Notin, Plantin, Bruno Gollnisch …

RF: Of course!

MP: Could you say just a few words about that? To me that does not at all seem insignificant.

RF: Take the case of Notin. For having inserted, in a genuinely confidential scientific review, a tiny reflection expressing skepticism to do with the question you do not wish me to talk to about, for doing that, Notin was put through hell. It began with the killing of his house pets: they killed his dogs …

MP: His cats.

RF: Yes, pardon me, his cats. Then they went after his wife, his children, himself, and then …

MP: Insults? Threats?

RF: Everything you can think of. To keep this brief I’ll tell you the outcome of his ordeal: his colleagues took it upon themselves, of course, to judge him and convict him. The unfortunate journal which had published his article got pounded: some people went around to all the libraries and confiscated every copy. Finally, he was unable to practice his profession of instructor at the University of Lyon-3; and thereupon, seeing himself condemned, and under the weight of a trial, he, well, had the misfortune of selecting a lawyer — who shall remain unnamed but who is not someone to be taken seriously — who had him sign a retraction. I should add that Notin — today he no longer hides from it, I believe — apologized to me for that retraction, saying he was advised to do it. It ended up serving no purpose: at one point, when he had hopes of obtaining a position abroad, and was under the impression he was going to get it, “they” found out and, naturally, that was no longer possible. It was to have been in Morocco. He finally wound up in Mexico and, of course, divorce: wife, four kids — finished. An example was made of him. [Translation note: or, “And that’s one example.”]

And you mentioned another case, that of Plantin. It’s unbelievable. Plantin was a very serious, prudent, reasonable man. He had presented a thesis defense [at university] which had gotten him a grade of “Very Good” from a professor named Régis Ladous. It wouldn’t be called “revisionist” but it did touch on it. Then the following year he earned another diploma. But that’s not important. Ten years passed. Someone remembered this episode, at a time when it had been quite a while since Plantin had been associated with the university, and no one particularly knew his whereabouts. Here’s what they had the nerve to do — get this, it’s absolutely incredible; I don’t think it’s ever happened before in in the history of the world yet it happened in Lyon, France: they concocted a fake thesis defense 10 years after the fact! What they did was oblige Ladous to come, they summoned Plantin — who, of course, didn’t show — and there they proceeded to pretend to do a thesis defense! It took I think 10 minutes; Ladous retired to deliberate, and came back declaring that the thesis, which had earned a grade of “Very Good,” now, ten years later, got a grade of … I don’t remember the adjective but it was something like “intolerable”!

Yes we have unbelievable examples. I’ll cite more if you’re interested …

MP: Yes, this subject interests me.

RF: I’m not particularly interested but if you are I’ll continue [translation note: in the original there was some banter here between the two men, which I didn’t translate]. Well, look what happened to me last year: a well-known Italian professor invited me to come give a brief series of lectures [in the original there’s more light banter in here, which I’ve left out], and so I went to the University of Teramo. If you picture Rome, on a straight line drawn from that city to the Adriatic you’ll find Teramo. I went to the University of Teramo and, as planned, I showed up in the morning early. And what did the university president do? I don’t know if the like has ever happened before. Well, he closed down the university!

MP: That was very Italian. They can be very sly, because a solution had to be found.

RF: (Laughing) You seem to approve!

MP: No, but one has to have imagination.

RF: And then, what follows is interesting: well, we found ourselves a hotel where we thought we’d be able to hold our little conference, and there I encountered a group of Italian reporters. Italians, you know, can be very subtle …

MP: I’ll say!

RF: … and it’s only human. I found myself at the door of the hotel — which was refusing me entry — right next to one of these beautiful Italian town squares. The reporters questioned me, I answered them but not the way I’m doing with you: right off, I brought out my big guns, namely, the 60-word sentence which I won’t say to you …

MP: No, don’t!

RF: And at that point I said to them, “But you know, what’s happening here is amazing. Because in France it would be unthinkable for me to discuss this subject, more or less right on a public street, in the company of reporters.” I told them, “Or, so far! Up to this point it’s gone all right.” No sooner had I said that, than I heard an uproar — it was a particular group of individuals whom I won’t describe further, who’d come by train from Rome, led by a very brawny butcher’s assistant who threw a punch — and I mean a punch which could’ve been fatal — at the professor who’d invited me, and …

[here the broadcast suddenly went dead “at the request of the CSA,” followed by uninterrupted music].

3) Message from Eric and Monique Delcroix to [radio host] Martin Peltier: [translation note: Eric Delcroix, a laywer, has defended Prof. Faurisson in court against charges of revisionism]

Dear friend,

It was a bit prematurely that we rejoiced at hearing your interview with Prof. Faurisson … Censorship of the most brutal sort, supposedly at the spoken request of the CSA, cut short one last illusion … And you had taken every precaution so as not to be in violation of the Fabius-Gayssot Law. The predictions of the late humorist Pierre Desproges are coming true. One is reminded of his “Tribunal des flagrants délires” [translation note: there’s a French play on words here which would be hard to retain in translation; the French means, literally, “Court of Outright Delusions”], where he has the court bailiff announce the prisoner as “Monsieur Faurisson,” eliciting the judge’s response, “No, not that name, it’s not permitted!” Soon we won’t even have names; we won’t exist. “Blow up”! Orwell warned us.

Best wishes,

Eric and Monique Delcroix

4) Heard on the news (Radio France, evening of April 12)

Martin Peltier has just received a letter from Henry de Lesquen informing him of the permanent termination of his radio program. To listeners who had called expressing surprise, Radio Courtoisie explained that the order to cut off the interview came from CSA. But it’s likely that at 7:30 to 8 o’clock PM the CSA offices are closed, with nothing working but phone message machines which the censors will play back the next day. In reality, the censorship decision seems to have been taken within Radio Couroisie by Madame Paoli, Delegate for Editorial Issues, after conferring with Monsieur Henry de Lesquen. In Radio Courtoisie’s favor it must be said that intolerance expressed through the media today is such that self-censorship is practically become a necessity. Martin Peltier forged ahead without reflecting; as a result he’ll be called irresponsible for jeopardizing an entire enterprise. “He should at least have asked other individuals than Faurisson to come and talk about repression of revisionism!” Which others?

Paul-Marie Coûteaux, MEP with views similar to Philippe de Villiers, was supposed to be interviewed at Radio Courtoisie at around 9 o’clock but he indicated that he refused to go on after Faurisson. Therefore he didn’t show up. For their part, Emmanuel Ratier and Alain Sanders volunteered to Henry de Lesquen that they didn’t know Faurisson was to come on after them. It’s unlikely E. Ratier will report anything about this affair in his next edition of “Faits et Documents.”

Breaking with usual procedure, Radio Courtoisie did not re-broadcast Martin Peltier’s interview with Robert Faurisson the next day. Further, it didn’t offer any explanation or apology to its listeners. It didn’t even acknowledge the significance of an event likely without precedent in its twenty years of existence.

The Universality of Anti-Semitism

April 18, 2008

News From The West: The Universality of Anti-Semitism

These days we hear a lot about increased anti-semitism. In order to understand this development, we need to know what anti-semitism is. If anti-semitism is a problem, information on its nature and provenance is essential for finding a solution.

In researching Jewish history, the investigator discovers a wide variance of written material. Work by authors expressly critical of Jews (and they include a surprisingly number of Jewish commentators, mostly “apostates” of one kind or another) is invariably labeled by today’s political conventions to be “anti-Semitic” in nature. There is a large body of such material extending throughout history, written by critics wherever Jews were to be found. Some of the criticism is ridiculous; the accusations of Hitler are absurdly exaggerated. But other observations about Jewish life by non-Jews is startlingly consistent over two thousand years. Consistently credible Gentile themes in attacks against Jews include Jewish elitism, their insularity and clannishness, their disdain for non-Jews, their exploitive and deceptive behavior towards those not their own, the suspicion of Jewish national loyalties and allegiance to the lands they lived in, excessive Jewish proclivity for money and economic domination, and an economic “parasitism” (the concentration of Jews in lucrative non-productive fields of finance — usury, money lending, etc. — at the expense of non-Jewish communities).
“Anti-Semitism,” remarks Oliver Cox, “is an ancient social attitude probably coeval with the rise of Jewish tribalism. It is thus an immemorial trait identified with Jewish culture … Anti-Semitism has been identified with Jewish behavior in the sense that it is a reaction of other groups to the Jews’ determination to assert and perpetuate their identity … Unlike race prejudice … anti-Semitism or intolerance is essentially an inherent social response — a retaliation [against] the Jewish determination to resist merger of their civilization with that of a host people” (Cox, 183-184).

West Banks Settlers Attack Palestinian Woman
Hebron, August 2001: A Palestinian mother, Samar Abdul-Shafti, is kicked by a Jewish boy while a Jewish woman rips off her Islamic headscarf.

“The Jews,” J. O. Hertzler writes, “… have been a supernation rather than members of a nation. More than any other people, certainly up to the time of the emancipation, they were innocent and irresponsible toward the national traditions and aspirations of the people among whom they lived” (Hertzler, 76).

“Hatred for the Jews,” Abram Leon writes, “does not date solely from the birth of Christianity. Seneca treated the Jews as a criminal race. Juvenal believed that the Jews only existed to cause evil for other peoples. Quintilian said that Jews were a curse for other people” (Leon, 71).

In 59 BC the Roman statesman Cicero criticized Jewish “clannishness” and “influence in the assemblies.” In the second century AD Celsus, one of Rome’s great medical writers, wrote that Jews “pride themselves in possessing superior wisdom and disdain for the company of other men.” Philostratus, an ancient Greek author, believed that Jews “have long since risen against humanity itself. They are men who have devised a misanthropic life, who share neither food nor drink with others.” (Cf. Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, I, iii.) The great Roman historian Tacitus (A.D. 56-120) declared that “the Jews are extremely loyal toward one another, and are always ready to show compassion [for their fellow Jews], but toward other people they feel only hate and enmity” (Morais, 46).

Centuries later Voltaire’s criticism of Jews, in his Essai sur le Moeurs, repeated many of the same charges: “The Jewish nation dares to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, and revolts against all masters; always superstitious, always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous — cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity.” Ironically, as Jacob Katz observes, “Voltaire did more than any other single man to shape the rationalist trend that moved European society toward improving the status of the Jew” (Katz, 34).

Still historically remembered (according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1994) “as a crusader against tyranny and bigotry,” Voltaire turned repeatedly and angrily against Jews who he believed to epitomize such “tyranny and bigotry.” Jews, he complained, “are … the greatest scoundrels who have ever sullied the face of the globe … They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and Germans are born with blond hair. I would not in the least be surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race … You [Jews] have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables, in bad conduct, and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny” (Gould, 91). On another occasion Voltaire charged that “the Jew does not belong to any place except that place which he makes money; would he not just as easily betray the King on behalf of the Emperor as he would the Emperor for the King?” (Katz, 44). Thirty of 118 of Voltaire’s essays in his Dictionary of Philosophy address Jews, usually disparagingly. Voltaire calls Jews “our masters and our enemies … whom we detest … the most abominable people in the world.”

With the coming of the Enlightenment, as David Sorkin notes, “Jews were roundly condemned for “their ritualistic religion, national character or economic situation which, separately or together, prevented them from being moral. Enlightenment thinkers almost without exception subscribed to this image of Jewish inferiority” (Sorkin, 85). “The ghetto,” Enlightenment intellectuals argued, “had produced an essentially unacceptable culture. Jews were utter strangers to Europe. Social isolation had created traits in need of drastic transformation: Jews harbored within them hatred of the Christian nurtured by centuries of Talmudic and rabbinic indoctrination, they were religious fanatics, parasitic in their economics and dishonest in their dealings” (Aschheim, 6).

“Know that wherever there is money,” said Montesquieu in his Persian Letters, “there is the Jew” (Krefetz, 45).

Even prominent and widely respected Jewish commentators echoed the same themes about their own people. Benjamin Disraeli, a Jewish convert to Christianity, and the most famous British prime minister of the nineteenth century wrote that “the native tendency of the Jewish race is against the doctrine of the equality of man. They have also another characteristic — the faculty of acquisition … Their bias is to religion, property, and natural aristocracy.”

Another Jew, the great philosopher Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza, was a bridge between Jewish medievalism and the Enlightenment. Spinoza commented: “At the present time there is absolutely nothing which the Jews can arrogate to themselves beyond other people … As to their continuance so long after dispersion, there is nothing marvelous in it, for they separated themselves from every nation as to draw upon themselves universal hate” (Levy, 93).

Similar complaints, reflecting consistently reccurring charges against Jews, have been echoed throughout history, in many languages and in many lands, including — even in the ancient past — “Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Syrians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and many others” (Hertzler, 62). But this disdain for Jews by critics (some of the most learned men of their times, including Jews and Jewish apostates, across the spectrum of humanity) is not accepted as historical evidence for anything in our own day, except for the strange tenacity of irrational “anti-Semites” and “self-hating Jews” to badmouth Jews.

So what was the real situation in bygone eras? What were Jews like, in relation to Gentiles? Popular Jewish dictate has one answer: look only to the Hebrew texts, ancient rabbis, and other Jewish chroniclers. They know what Jews were like. Their texts are reliable. The rest are all lies and exaggerations.

“How does one understand — not even forgive, simply understand!” exhorts Harvard law professor and well-known Jewish polemicist Alan Dershowitz,

the virulently anti-Jewish statements of intellectuals throughout history? Their numbers included H. L. Mencken (‘The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of’); George Bernard Shaw (‘Stop being Jews and start being human beings’); Henry Adams (‘The whole rotten carcass is rotten with Jew worms’); H.G. Wells (‘A careful study of anti-Semitism, prejudice and accusations might be of great value to many Jews, who do not adequately realize the irritation they inflict’); Edgar Degas (characterized as a ‘wild anti-Semite’); Denis Diderot (‘Brutish people, vile and vulgar men’); Theodore Dreiser (New York is a ‘kike’s dream of a ghetto,’ and Jews are not ‘pure Americans’ and ‘lack integrity’); T. S. Eliot (a social as well as literary anti-Semite, even after the Holocaust); Immanuel Kant (‘The Jews still cannot claim any true genius, any truly great man. All their talents and skills revolve around stratagems and low cunning … They are a nation of swindlers.’) Other famous anti-Semites include Tacitus, Cicero, Aleksander Pushkin, Pierre Renoir, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and, of course, Richard Wagner. This honor roll of anti-Jewish bigotry goes on, and included people of every race, religion, and geographic area, political leaning, gender, and age. The answer to the question why? probably lies more in the realm of abnormal psychology than in any rational attempts to find understandable cause in history, or economics. Anti-Semitism is a disease of the soul, and diseases are best diagnosed by examining those infected with them (Dershowitz, 113).
Nicholas de Lange, a Jewish scholar, joins Dershowitz in reflecting a virtually generic Jewish response about the constant complaint about their people throughout history and culture, saying: “Much of the ancient literature on the Jews … is devoted to explaining why the Jews have incurred the justifiable anger or hatred of ordinary peace-loving, law-abiding people … But no critical historian would consider taking their arguments at face value, and in fact they are likely to tell us more about their authors than their victims” (De Lange, 28).
A Jewish-Polish professor in Warsaw, Pawel Spiewak, speaks in similar terms:

We find the representatives of almost every ideological orientation [who were anti-Semites] … Enlightenment thinkers (Voltaire), arch-conservatives (de Masitre, de Bonald), socialists and communists (Fourier, Proudhon, Marx, Sobel), and the great Romantics (Goethe). These writers seem to differ in everything — their relation to religion, the idea of progress, authority, feudalism, and capitalism, the concept of knowledge and human nature — but they are united in a spirit of dislike and hostility towards that strange tribe, the Jews (Spiewak, 51).
While fascists on the political right like Hitler decried the Jews, 18th and 19th century leftists like socialists Charles Fourier, Alphonse Tousenel, Pierre Le Roux, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Johann Gottlieb Fichte were, according to Jewish analysis in our own era, also vehemently irrational anti-Semites. These men wrote tracts like this, by Proudhon: “The Jew is by temperament an anti-producer, neither a farmer nor an industrialist nor even a true merchant. He is an intermediary, always fraudulent and parasitic, who operates, in trade as in philosophy, by means of falsification, counterfeiting, and horse-trading” (Lewis, 111).
“I see no other means of protecting ourselves against them,” wrote Fichte, “[other] than by conquering their Promised Land and sending them all there” (Lewis, 111-112). Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin declared that Jews were “one exploiting sect, one people of leeches, one single devouring parasite closely and intimately bound together not only across national boundaries, but also across all divergences of political opinion … [Jews have] that mercantile passion which constitutes one of the principle traits of their national character” (Lewis, 113).

“For one [reason] or another,” Daniel Pipes observes, “virtually every major figure in the early history of socialism — including Friedrich Engels, Charles Fourier, Ferdinand Lasalle, Marx, and Joseph Proudhon — showed a marked antipathy to Jews” (Pipes, 88).

Jewish author William Korey notes the same mystifying omnipresence of anti-Jewish animus among disparate peoples in interviews (at a Harvard archive) with 329 refugees from the Soviet Union in the early 1950s: “A detailed examination of the background information of those who registered hostile attitudes to Jews reveals that they were of various age, national, educational, and status groups, and that they left the USSR at different periods” (Korey, 11). The top six “anti-Semitic” assertions by this diverse group of people included assertions that

(1) Jews occupy a privileged and favored position in Soviet society. 2) Jews are business- and money-minded. 3) Jews are clannish and help each other. 4) Jews are aggressive and ‘pushy.’ 5) Jews are sly, calculating, and manipulative, and know how to ‘use a situation.’ 6) Jews are deceitful, dishonest, unprincipled, insolent, and impudent (Korey, 5).
When investigating the history of Jewish relations with Gentiles across history, there are obviously only two possible sources for information: Jews and non-Jews. There were no unbiased Martian observers watching with telescopes, none — in any case — that left us records. So why, one might wonder, should we, following Prof. De Lange’s advice, judge Jewish accounts categorically more reliable than historical accounts by non-Jews, when all varieties of critical commentators about Jews across history, class, language, and culture have basically said the same thing?
“However uncomfortable it is to recognize,” says Albert Lindemann, “not all those whom historians have classified as anti-Semites were narrow bigots, irrational, or otherwise incapable of acts of altruism and moral courage. They represented a bewildering range of opinion and personality types” (Lindemann, 13). And why is this “uncomfortable [for Jews] to recognize?” Because, by even a child’s exercise of logic and common sense, the common denominator of all such disparate people can only be the enduring truths about Jews as each observer experienced them in varying historical and cultural circumstances.

The French Jewish intellectual (and eventual Zionist), Bernard Lazare, among many others in history, noted this obvious fact in 1894, long before the Nazi persecutions of Jews and resultant institutionalized Jewish efforts to deny, or obfuscate, crucial — and central — aspects of their history:

Wherever the Jews settled [in their Diaspora] one observes the development of anti-Semitism, or rather anti-Judaism … If this hostility, this repugnance had been shown towards the Jews at one time or in one country only, it would be easy to account for the local cause of this sentiment. But this race has been the object of hatred with all nations amidst whom it settled. Inasmuch as the enemies of Jews belonged to diverse races, as they dwelled far apart from one another, were ruled by different laws and governed by opposite principles; as they had not the same customs and differed in spirit from one another, so that they could not possibly judge alike of any subject, it must needs be that the general causes of anti-Semitism have always resided in [the people of] Israel itself, and not in those who antagonized it (Lazare, 8).

Tonight: Best of Shanktalk World-Wide

April 18, 2008

Listen Here

Anti-Jewish Sentiments

April 18, 2008

Zionist Watch: The Writings of Patrick Grimm

By Patrick Grimm

Anti-Jewish sentiments are a natural and healthy reflex amongst those peoples who wish to survive. Hence “anti-Semitism” is not only a necessary attitude, but laudatory, and if pursued heartily, capable of staving off annihilation, dissolution and moral decay, decadence and revolution. Should the patient celebrate the expulsion of a virus or a pathogen from his body? Indeed he would be considered insane not to. In the same way the non-Jew should celebrate the expulsion of the parasite of Jewry from his nation, his government and his community. Only then will some semblance of health return.

Anti-Jewish sentiments are the sign of health amongst any race or people. Only by the use of subterfuge, speech, thought and media control can Jewish tribalism and the hatred of the Jew towards his host (any non-Jewish host) be concealed from the majority. The Jew is surely aware of this and thus hides his true nature from the eyes of the populace. Why does he so assiduously guard and shroud the truth, the simple truth that could fit easily on several pieces of notebook paper, from the public? Because it would explain the disdain felt for his tribe historically and make the travails and persecutions of the Self-Chosen seem justified and finally, trivial and forgettable footnotes. Or worse yet (in the minds of organized Jewry), these persecutions would actually be celebrated by those who have fallen victim to the Jews and who finally managed to free themselves from their parasitic hold. A simple list of information related to Jewish extremism, as aforementioned, could be explained succinctly, yet there is not one university in the United States and not one piece of curriculum that will reveal these simple facts as part of an educational corpus. Because of this dearth of truth, our job and our task is made all the more crucial, for our survival depends on it.

Anti-Jewish sentiments are the norm rather than the exception historically. Yet our children are taught in school that “anti-Semitism” began in Germany and that Jews were made a simple scapegoat for economic and social problems whose causes lay elsewhere. This is patently false and can be proven so, but it plays well to those who only obtain their information from Jewish gatekeepers. Truth be told, Jews are the most hated people on the face of the earth and have been driven out of every country which had the misfortune of taking them into its unsuspecting arms. In 586 BC they were expelled from Babylon by King Nebuchadnezzar. Since that time they have been run out of a variety of “anti-Semitic” locales around the world, countries as diverse as Syria, Belgium, Hungary, Italy, Libya, Poland and also countries in Africa. They were expelled from Jerusalem in 70 AD on threat of death. After their eventual return, Constantine finally issued an edict to expel them again in 324. Jewish history is very much a history of expulsion and enmity. Yet to feel sorry for the Jews is to be foolhardy when one understands their machinations, their “nation within a nation” self-concept, their usury, their treason and the economic strangulations against non-Jews that preceded their forced exits. Yet the benighted public seems innocent of these historical realities. They have been beguiled by these same Jewish machinations of old.

Anti-Jewish sentiments are the antithesis of multiculturalism, multiracialism, diversity and all that they entail. These prettily-packaged poisons are ALL Jew creations, every one of them finding their origins in the minds of those belonging to only one tribal entity. That entity is rabidly anti-European and hates every manifestation of our people, whether it be American, Canadian, Croatian, German, Irish, Italian, French, Greek, Hungarian, Polish, Scandinavian, Spanish etc. They loathe the diversity of European mankind and seek to bury this diversity behind the amorphous label of “white”. This unending hatred has persisted for many centuries, if not thousands of years. The mercuries, leads and aluminums causing the atrophying and the collapsing of the body of all European nations are Jewish and now bring us to the edge of annihilation and existential oblivion. These enervating agents must be chelated out of us. Yet this will prove exceedingly difficult, for our numbers have dwindled downward and those numbers remaining have been cowed into tongue-holding avoidance patterns. Open non-European immigration, counterfeited currencies, speech codes, fines and modern day gulags for dissenters guarantees that Jewry stays ensconced at the top of the heap and that the iron curtain of silence remains implacable and inviolate. In this sense, a large portion of the power we once took for granted has been wrested out of our hands, this usurpation arriving in incremental wallops of carefully applied power. Despite this reality, or perhaps because of it, anti-Jewish sentiments not only need to be spoken, but uttered without abashment or shame, for the only shame we should have is that born of complicity, inactivity or the lingering ghost of cowardice that falls like a dark shadow over the visage of our people. To stand opposed to organized Jewry is identical to the very rational and understandable opposition to disease or criminality by sane moral actors. This opposition deserves no explanation, and only a brainwashed or compromised soul would demand one.

Anti-Jewish sentiments are, more often that not, the innate or subconscious sentiments of most learned or semi-learned people anyway. A solid majority of Americans (probably at least 60%) distrust the Jewish-owned media, and at least 40% of Americans are growing cold towards the Israeli state. Most sane citizens now see the Iraq war as the colossal package of lies that it is and George W. Bush as one of the worst presidents in our nation’s history. His bankrupt neo-conned Jewish administration is the nadir of corruption, treason and perfidiousness and has garnered only disgust from all but the most wild-eyed True Believers. Almost all European-Americans oppose the Jewish-led invasion of non-white immigration flooding our shores and darkening our streets and schools. More and more voters see both political parties as equally worthless and two sides of the same dirty coin that always manages to turn up. Now folks in the United States are beginning to shut off the Jew tube and are switching on their computers to link up with the blogosphere. They are drawing a couple lines between the last remaining unconnected dots and the Zionist scales are falling from their eyes. These kinds of awakenings don’t make headlines, because people change their minds not in public, but in private. We must be the instruments that usher in those awakenings and the mediums through which this paradigm change, this shifting of sentiments occurs.

Peter Schaenk 4/17/2008

April 18, 2008

lovely Brigitte Bardot: indicted for criticizing Islam!

April 17, 2008


Now this from the slick Jew-rag called “Time magazine”:

She may be better remembered as the revolutionary sex kitten of 1960s French cinema, but these days Brigitte Bardot is better known as a standard-bearer of the anti-immigrant wing of France’s political spectrum. Bardot went on trial Tuesday charged with “inciting racial hatred,” and in view of her four previous convictions on similar charges, prosecutors sought exceptionally stiff penalties of $22,000 and a two-month suspended sentence.

“I’m a bit tired of trying Madame Bardot,” admitted assistant prosecutor Anne de Fonette, as she urged the court to impose “the most striking and remarkable” punishment in the case. A verdict is expected on June 3.

The current charge against Bardot was lodged by the Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples (MRAP), citing a letter Bardot wrote to French officials in 2004 in which she alluded to Muslims as “this population that leads us around by the nose, [and] which destroys our country.”

The former actress-turned-animal rights crusader had written that letter to protest the ritual slaughter of sheep during the Muslim festival of Eid-al-Kabir. Her missive, whose contents were later leaked to the media, had been sent to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, whose rising popularity was based in part on his hard line on immigration and tough stand against troublesome youths from immigrant backgrounds.

Lawyers for the 73-year-old Bardot, who did not attend the trial, argued the offending sections of the letter had been taken out of the context of her militant defense of animal rights over the years, a cause in support of which she has raised and spent millions of dollars.

Her work in the area has been hailed by French political leaders and organizations around the world, although more recently French courts have interpreted some of her statements as Islamophobia.

Bardot’s defense Tuesday was that her passionate denunciation of the ritual slaughter of Eid-al-Kabir had been misinterpreted as an attack on Islam in France. A similar defense had failed to spare her from conviction in four earlier trials. In 1997, for example, Bardot was first convicted on the charge of “inciting racial hatred” for her open letter to French daily Le Figaro, complaining of “foreign over-population”, mostly by Muslim families.

The following year she was convicted anew for decrying the loss of French identity and tradition due to the multiplication of mosques “while our church bells fall silent for want of priests.” Darkening Bardot’s public image in both cases was her marriage to an active supporter and political ally of French National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Photobucket width=500
Village of Preux-aux-Bois, watercolor by A. Hitler during World War One

In 2000, Bardot was again convicted — this time for comments in her book Pluto’s Square, whose chapter “Open Letter to My Lost France” grieved for “…my country, France, my homeland, my land is again invaded by an overpopulation of foreigners, especially Muslims.” And in 2004, another Bardot book, A Cry In the Silence, again took up the question of immigration and Islam — ultimately running afoul of anti-racism laws by generally associating Islam with the 9/11 terror attacks, and denouncing the “Islamization of France” by people she described as “invaders”.

The prosecution has called for the [b]harshest possible punishment[/b]in the hope of getting through to Bardot the seriousness of her transgressions of French law. MRAP implored the judge to “take note of this refusal by (Bardot) to learn the lessons of previous convictions and cease using racist language”. The court will make its decision by June, although the repeat convictions on similar charges suggest that Bardot has not exactly been chastened by previous court rulings.

John De Nugent 4/16/2008

April 17, 2008

Peter Schaenk 4/16/2008

April 16, 2008


So, what?s everyone waiting for

April 16, 2008

Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel – Haaretz – Israel News

“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Ma’ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.” </blockquote

Netanyahu: 9/11 good for Israel

April 16, 2008

Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel – Haaretz – Israel News

The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.

“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Ma’ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.”

Peter Schaenk 4/15/2008

April 15, 2008

A ground-swell of support for Dr. Kevin MacDonald at CSLB blog

April 15, 2008

posted 4/15/08 @ 8:03 AM PST
There are numerous “tenured radical” professors who have made comfy careers bashing America and bashing white people, without a fraction of the footnotes that Dr. Macdonald uses. Moreover, the anti-white professors mostly refer in their footnotes to other anti-white professors. Dr. Macdonald’s footnotes are largely sourced from Jewish sources themselves!

As Ben Stein said in his book, “The View from Sunset Boulevard” — “Sure the Jews control Hollywood, so what?”

Why is it OK if a Jew says such things, but not OK if a Gentile says the same thing? There is a double standard of power in this country. For so many years, Hollywood (aka Jews) has been criticizing white America to death. Did they think the shoe would never go on the other foot? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Well, the tidal wave of reaction to Jewish behaviour in the United States is just beginning.

Daily 49er

In case they pull the link or make it subscription-only, it is mirrored here.