Top

Answering Robert Thomas’ The Politics of Serbia in the 1990s

May 19, 2008

By Matt Johnson

Robert Thomas, former OSCE bureaucrat, wrote a book some time ago purporting to give an honest view of Serbian politics in the 1990s. The book, however, is largely a hackneyed account of Serbia from the point of view of that mythical entity, the “International Community,” which, to the extent it exists at all, is the summation of a series of elite opinions, converging on one main point: the chief evil of the world is nationalism, and more specifically, Christian Orthodox nationalism.

Whether Anglo-American or continental, Whether Democrat or Republican, whether capitalist or socialist, the same tune is sung: nationalism must end, and the people’s of the world must be “forced to be free:” forced into a single global economic order without borders, without culture, without identity. This is the official political position of what I have termed the “Regime,” or that nexus of private capital and the state, seeking to maximize market share and exploit the labor and resources of developing countries in the creation of a “new economic order.”

Soros - Evil, It has a face.

In order for a scholar or journalist to be “reputable,” he must parrot this line with minimal deviation. It is the official view of the U.S. State Department, and those entities that control academic research: the National Institute for Democracy, the Carnegie Institute, the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, the Open Society Institute, and their various underlings, usually foundations attached to large corporations such as the Shell Foundation and BP’s Foundation.

The evidence for this is not difficult to find, it is an “open secret,” if you will. The truth “hides in plain sight.” The webpage www.capitalresearch.org contains a database where all the major foundations reveal the people and institutions that benefit from their largesse. Each one, without exception, takes the above line as a given. Therefore, no one can build a career without pleasing those that hold the purse strings, and hence, one must spout the line in order to function an become part of the mainstream. It is, hence, institutionalized intellectual dishonesty.

In this brief paper, I’d like to poke a little fun at the foibles and intellectual dishonesty at the “Conclusions” section of this book, the section which brings together the more or less hidden agenda of its author, as a card-carrying member of the Euro-Bureaucrat establishment.

I will quote a brief passage, and then answer it briefly. This paper, then, simply gives another set of examples of the “mainstream” myths and half-truths that journalists and scholars are forced to accept in order to become “reputable.”

The reality is this: The west, that is, the System based on western corporate capital (including media and entertainment) and state power, was interested in Serbia/Kosovo for three reasons:

  • To have unhampered access to the trillions of dollars worth of gems, gold and other minerals under the surface of Kosovo and parts of Bosnia, as well as,
  • To have a “cooperative” Serbia in order to make way for an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea that would bypass Russia, as well as,
  • To provide a basically “safe” test case for future interventions in the future, largely due to public and, to a great extent, elite ignorance of the area. In other words, one could pretty much say anything about Serbs and it would be believed.

These reasons, and these reasons alone explain why suddenly, in the post-Cold War world, the System become so obsessively interested in a small and obscure part of their world.

  1. Thomas writes: “major inequalities existed between the ruling SPS [Serbian Socialist Party] and the newly created opposition parties. . .the SPS based its appeal as much on its capacity to dispense patronage as its ability to articulate a coherent ideology” (422)

Mr. Thomas has led a very sheltered life. Little does he know that all establishment political parties work this way. Patronage is its very lifeblood. The parties in question, at one time called the DEPOS group, are largely the creation of foreign powers with an agenda identical to the official stance of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. They are “opposition” parties only with respect to the ruling SPS. Globally, they are radically establishment parties, slavishly copying the line given to them by their financiers. Oddly, throughout this lengthy and fairly well-written treatment, Mr. Thomas refuses to give even a sentence to the sources of funding for the “opposition” parties. This is because Mr. Thomas is aware that the funding is largely from the Regime, i.e. the Soros (et al.) complex.

  1. “In particular, Slobodan Milosevic sought, through a trusted clique of security service operatives, to construct, within the framework of the police force, his own paramilitary private army. . .” (423)

Again, Mr. Thomas is no expert in Comparative Politics. Of course, the reality is that such behavior indeed took place, but it is to be expected in the context of failing statehood. Yugoslavia, always a dubious project, was falling apart–falling apart because of the fact that it was based on a personal, rather than institutional, authority. No Tito–no Yugoslavia. Who took over after the dead tyrant represented the worst element of the bureaucratic elite, an elite shared by all countries, regardless of political system or core beliefs. This is not the fault of Milosevic, but rather was built into the system after WWII, if not earlier.

  1. “With the SPS controlling the state apparatus it was able to determine the conditions under which elections were fought.” (423)

This is a major core argument of the book, and is designed to rationalize the often poor performance of the “opposition” parties, even in a context of a failing economy. Unfortunately, Mr. Thomas can’t seem to get his mind wrapped around Yugoslavia prior to Slobo. Yugoslavia was a one party state since World War II. There was no other bureaucracy, no other group available to run elections, unless Mr. Thomas suggests the SPS train an entirely new bureaucracy, one more congenial to Soros, and then give up all social power prior to the elections, putting it in their hands. The state itself was politicized, as are all states. In America, the media is controlled by three or four powerful families: Sulzberger, Graham, Redstone, Geffen, Levin. They decide who deserves attention and who does not, what issues are “important” and what are not; what arguments are “reasonable” and what are “extremist.” They are normally retiring, anonymous figures, but would no doubt be considered “independent media” by Thomas and his ilk. Having been involved in many third-party campaigns in America, I can personally attest to the institutionalized discrimination and organize resistance to the existence of third parties. But as always, “democratic” is a code word. It is a reference not to procedures, but to results: a result is “democratic” if the parties or movements who agree with the international system win. It is “nondemocratic” if my allies win.

  1. Speaking of Slobo, “He had created around himself a highly personal web of extra-institutional political, economic and coercive power (sultanism)” (424)

It’s odd that in our “multi-cultural” society, the only time it’s acceptable to refer to a third world people without organized worship is in reference to Slavic nationalism. Slobo did do what Mr. Thomas piously accuses him of, but again, this is to be expected in the context of a situation where institutions were always placed on the back burner in reference to charismatic, personal authority, invested in Tito.

Ironically, the fact that the “opposition” movement (such as it was) was itself based on extrainstitutional, indeed extra-continental sources of wealth and influence eludes our erstwhile author. Even if one is no fan of Slobo, the reality is that he faced the collapse of the already tottering empire of Yugoslavia. Such behavior, “sultanism” of whatever even more idiosyncratic label one wishes to use here, is fully expected and consistent with the context. Tito refused to build institutions independent of his influence, hence, when he died, they quickly collapsed.

  1. “By adopting such symbols, and particularly the Kosovo ‘master symbol’, Milosevic was able to transcend the normal, profane considerations of politics.” (425)

This is one of the odder statements in an already odd book. Indeed, it is a little strange for a socialist (of sorts) to return to the Middle Ages for legitimizing symbols, but, given the context, it is not strange at all. Kosovo is a defining moment for Serbia. A tiny people, normally under the thumb of an oppressive power, is slaughtered in large numbers against an overwhelming foe is no myth, but a historical fact. Serbia was then to become the colonial toy of the vicious Turk empire. The fact that Serbia’s history is usually a story of an exploited people, tools of larger political games, Mr. Thomas shows a shocking lack of sensitivity. For a groups of people deprived of dignity and identity, whether under the Turk, Hungarian, Bulgarian, German or Marxist occupations, it might be reasonable that they be a little touchy when Islamic fanatics are threatening their existence (again) in places such as Bosnia and Kosovo. It is unlikely that Mr. Thomas would use such dismissive language if Jews were making reference to Judas Maccabeus or Jacobinsky in their political life, but that he does so in reference to Serbs has more to do with global power and influence than morality or statecraft.

  1. Again, in reference to SM, “he became a super-political figure whose actions were not judged by normal political criteria. . . .”

Sigh. Nelson Mandela, Oliver Cromwell, Leon Trotsky, George Washington, Simon Bolivar, M.L. King, Vaclav Havel. . . .

  1. “The Zajedno [this is yet another foreign-funded, liberal coalition of westernized parties] coalition at the times of the 1996 federal elections (SPO, DS, DSS, GSS), appeared to lose votes as individual supporters of these parties apparently, judged the placing of the diverse groups on one electoral slate lacked credibility.”

A slightly convoluted sentence (though I’m prone to these as well), that says much of what Mr. Thomas does not want let out: “opposition” parties were voted for by an alienated, confused and patriotic population because SM had completely lost control of the economy and, most certainly, the money supply. They voted against a terrible handling of the economy, of course made much worse by sanctions, rather than any pro-European claptrap parroted by these Soros stooges. Inflation at this time was absurdly high (some say 100,000% a month, or even higher). How can any kind of vote, in any context, matter here at all? Are people registering opinions, or desperate cries under harsh circumstances? They are voting against something, not for it. Whenever Serbian interests were violently threatened, as in Bosnia or Kosovo, the nationalists won big, whether in a socialist or national-populist guise. The fact that SM was able to still do well even under these circumstances suggest that the DEPOS group or the Zajedno coalition had minimal support in Serbia, largely due to the odd fact that the “oppositionists” were speaking in a language of their tormentors, the “international community” and its well-financed mythos.

  1. “Even when the SRS (the Radical Party) was not publicly allied with the government and presented itself as instead as an ‘opposition’ party it continued to serve the interest of the ruling party by complicating the political situation and ensuring that there be no simple confrontation between ‘democratic’ opposition and the ‘anti-democratic’ regime.” (430)

This is the logic of the Carnegie Institute: If the Radicals are part of the socialist coalition, they, of course, are part of the coalition. If they oppose SM, they still are part of the coalition. Here, Mr. Thomas, in a veiled way, is admitting that his definition of “opposition” is, not the common sense notion of being opposed to the ruling party, but being “in communion” with international capital and its political arms.

The Radical Party, can not, ipso facto, be the opposition because Mr. Thomas and those he works for do not agree with them. Putting it very simply, the Radicals are largely social nationalists. The SPS was trying, to some extent, to imitate the charismatic authority of Tito (and failing). They represented the old, World War II era Partisan tradition. Thus, the SPS and SRS are very different politically. The SRS represents ethno-nationalism and the cetnik tradition. However, they both believe themselves to be assisting in the physical defense of Serbs against their well financed and led opposition: Albanian drug dealers, Islamic radicals and Croat nationalists, in short, the instant celebrities of the Rudder-Finn PR firm (who the Muslims hired just before their 1994 assault on the Republic of Serbia in Bosnia, and a firm largely behind the demonization of the Serbs).

Mr. Thomas is struggling here to link V. Seselj and Slobo, because he dislikes them both. Hence, the SRS can never be part of the “legitimate” opposition. This is blatant intellectual dishonesty. “Legitimate,” here means “democratic,” which, in turn means, “liberal” and “cosmopolitan.”

  1. “The ‘boycotting tactics’ pursued by the Albanian leadership under Ibrahaim Rugova effectively played into the hands of Milosevic and the Socialist regime; withdrawal from public life consigned the Albanians tot he margins of public life were Milosevic could safely ignore them” (431)

This is in reference to the elections in Kosovo in the mid-1990s, which many Albanians refused to participate in. Mr. Rugova boycotted the elections because his politics was not about votes, but about money and, from his point of view, cultivating outside contacts, both in the U.S. and in the Middle East. The fact is that the terrorist sub-cult that Mr. Rogova ran was a crime syndicate, specializing in drugs and prostitution, with the sometime connivance of U.S. and British intelligence (similar to the “Northern Alliance” in Afghanistan).

The Albanian leadership had hired the New York based Rudder-Finn PR firm, which in turn planted stories and editorials in the world’s newspapers. The Albanian leadership was being advised, like the Bosnian Muslims, Croats and the DEPOS coalition, by the United States, and their sometime ally, George Soros (though Soros was a very public ally of Clinton/Albright/Burger and their policies in Serbia). They didn’t need elections. They were getting money, guns and a blind eye from the west and their friends in Europe. The elections, from their point of view, would have been an unjustifiable waste of resources.

This has been just a tiny sample of the nonsense being written about Serbia, in this case, under the cover of “objective journalism.” It is typical. It is a confrontation between ethnic nationalism and cosmopolitanism; between the local economy and the “new global order,” between sovereignty and exploitation. In Mr. Thomas’ mind, and nearly the entire scholarly establishment, it is between “democracy” and something-other-than-democracy. Slobo was far from an ideal ruler, but his actions do make a degree of sense in the context of semi-institutionalism or decaying institutionalism. Few would have done anything different.

Serbia faced yet another attack on their sovereignty: sanctions which crippled an already vitiated economy, threats by Islamic fanatics and Croat nationalist against Serbs, a well-funded opposition which viewed everything Serbian as “evil” and “tainted,” reaching a level of absurdity that it was mocked in Hollywood in the movie “Wag the Dog.”

What is more interesting is the sociological angle: why was it that the entire journalistic and academic establishment climbed aboard the hate Serbia bus at the same time, and in the same way, with minimal evidence from third party sources that Serbs were guilty of what they were being accused of: nothing short of genocide. This is a difficult question to answer: there is a built in bandwagon effect in academia, based on the fear of being called an “extremist.” This was evident at Bill Clinton’s trial, or The Libya bombing. Academics have a good gig: Summers off, high salaries, total job security, social prestige, and a captive audience. Few academics will risk this to defend a people few in western academic or journalistic circles know anything about.

Secondly, that both the Croat and Islamic movements were being supported by Rudder-Finn, which specializes in planting stories, “academic experts,” and image makers in the support of their clients. (It should be noted here that your author was a part of a movement to get SM to hire a competing PR firm to handle his case. He gave, dismissively, a blanket “no” to this idea, an answer that still puzzles this author to this day).

Serbia is easy to demonize by a global Establishment: a small, militant, armed, patriotic and very Christian people fighting “progress.” Really, Rudder Finn had it easy. There is nothing the academio-journalistic establishment hates more than elements of subject populations they can’t control: white American farmers, nationalists, Christian traditionalists, white blue-collar workers, agrarians, in short, anyone who “falls out” of their neat models and theories. Those who do not obviously see the goodness and wholesomeness in cosmopolitanism and a would order “without boundaries.” They are “subjects” to be “formed” and “processed” by the System: reeducated, if you will.

The creation of this wild mythos was the purpose of the Muslims hiring Rudder-Finn, and is the purpose behind Mr. Thomas’ book: the demonization of an entire people, one considered “backward” and “ignorant” from the hallowed halls of Columbia Journalism School, the OSCE or the NYC offices of the Rockefeller Foundation. This is the very essence of post-modern politics, and is the core definition, Orwellian as it is, of “democracy.”

Matthew Raphael Johnson, Ph.D. is a former history professor, a professional author, a priest of the Russo-Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and a VoR radio host. His Web site is The Orthodox Nationalist. Email him at fr_raphael yahoo.com.

Mark Faust 5/18/08 Kosher Food Tax Swindle

May 18, 2008

Bush more Zionist than Israeli President

May 18, 2008

After the US President, George W. Bush, gave a speech at the Israeli Knesset on Thursday, several right wing members of Knesset said that “Bush seems to be more Zionist the Olmert”, and that “it is better to have Bush as a PM instead of Olmert”.

Some of the Knesset members even said that “Bush appears to be the one person who will achieve the Zionist aspirations”, the Arabs48 news website reported.

During the Knesset session Olmert said that upon achieving a peace deal with the Palestinians, the agreement will be presented to the Knesset for approval , and that such an agreement will achieve the approval of the Knesset and will be supported by the Israeli public.

Knesset members: “Bush more Zionist than Olmert” | Sabbah’s Blog

Peter Schaenk 5/12/08

May 18, 2008

Reason and Reality 5-18-08 9pm est “Kosher Food Tax Swindle”

May 18, 2008

Did you know that you pay a tax to the Jew when ever you buy almost ANY prepackaged food item? It gets better, how about a tax for “Kosher” trash bags or “Kosher” household cleaners? These symbols or “Stamps” that are found on all of these products are well hidden for a reason. You don’t need to pay them! This Jewish swindle brings in BILLIONS each year to organized Jewry, and comes from the pockets of who else, NON JEWS. Join me, Mark Faust tonight at 9pm eastern time as I expose these Jew swindlers and give you a good dose of reason to help you see reality more clearly!

Jews Shutting Down Debate

May 17, 2008

A recent article in the JEWISHJOURNAL.COM entitled “The Professor the anti-Semites love,” is about the published works of Kevin MacDonald and is a good example of the techniques Jews use to ridicule and demean any publications they do not agree with.

I won’t comment on most of the psuedoscientific objections as we have seen them all before. But I will make note of some of the most egregious errors and omissions that they surely are aware of when this was written. Foremost, as always, they are quite upset with MacDonald’s assertion that Jews have, innately, very high mental abilities. However, Steven Pinker a couple of years ago was giving lectures on how Ashkenazi Jews were genetically superior to all other races/ethnies and how proud Jews should be of this fact. Steven Pinker is a darling of the Jewish community and highly regarded.

Second, the paper published last year by Harpending, et al., discussed how Jews became so smart, and some of the recessive genes that correlate with Jewish intelligence. That paper did not seem to generate the hysteria that MacDonald’s publications have, but it does vindicate what MacDonald has asserted.

They make assertions about his scholarship, including selecting only material that supports his bias, and yet most of his data is based on Jewish publications. When trashing an author, the Jews invariably claim that material was left out; too much material was not relevant, etc. It is a constant accusation that cannot be resolved because every book published has to select to some extent what is included and what must be left behind or the work would never be completed.

I do know that in many books that I read, I will compare what MacDonald has written, and he is invariably vindicated. His work grows stronger as time goes on—remembering that culture does change. MacDonald shows how the Jews pushed for open immigration from about 1924 and leading to the 1965 immigration act, opening up the floodgates. Since then of course business and numerous other advocates for open immigration have come to support the program for various reasons other than the original intent of the Jews.

The Jews lament how MacDonald’s works are finding a place on the neo-Nazis’ bookcases. That’s strange—I thought most neo-Nazis were mentally perverted illiterates! But his work is most assuredly finding its way into the elite’s bookcases, as the works are scholarly and easily defendable as solid science.

Source: Majority Rights

Bud White 5/16/08

May 17, 2008

Peter Schaenk 5/16/08

May 17, 2008

Peter Schaenk 5/15/2008

May 17, 2008

Misnaming Ourselves

May 14, 2008

By Patrick Grimm

It’s quite obvious that the inchoate coup undertaken by Big Jewry is not fully finished, though it has been successful in many ways, both dramatic and incremental. One method we can use to scorn and undermine these alien usurpers and destroyers is to simply refuse to utilize the fraudulent language, the dishonest and inaccurate buzz words and politically correct names they have set out for us to use. Instead, we can implement the words, names and titles that Big Jewry’s media has thus far disallowed, as we pick up these hoary “handles” to swing at our foes like a pirate’s cutlass. In this way we can affect their apoplexy. This is a beautiful thing. It also fulfills another aim, that being the task of the philosopher, which is simply “naming things correctly.”

For this very reason I stopped using the term “Gentile” in my essays and articles some time back, partially at the request of my loyal readers, but also because I began to see the word as a Jewish supremacist construct designed to demolish the diversity of all peoples, but especially Europeans and European-Americans. The Jewish tribe leaders and the Big Jewry magnates have set themselves up as gods by separating themselves from all other life forms on planet earth. There are Gentiles and then there are Jews. There are Jews and then everybody else. Of course the Babylonian Talmud, criminal Judaism’s holiest book, admonishes Jews to see these “Gentile” Others as chaff, refuse, animalistic in both mental capacity and capricious violent tendencies. Jews are deigned to be gods, their DNA denoting holiness and perfection. I guess this explains Amy Winehouse.

When European and European-American activists choose to continually refer to ourselves as Gentiles, we are playing the game of the tribalist Judaizers, who have essentially erased our individual traits, our many ethnicities and nations and our potpourri of traditions, customs and beliefs. This only stunts our cause and purpose, which is survival, health, heritage and liberation. We DO NOT desire supremacy as world Jewry does. They have proven their supremacist attitudes by setting themselves against all humanity with their “us vs. them” labeling, creating a dichotomy where only Jews are accorded real worth. This then allows them to dehumanize others as they engage in ethnocentric banditry on their road to world control.

Do not play the game of the supremacist players in the internationalist Jewish game of domination. Demand that your heritage be respected and your diversity not be jettisoned by those who believe themselves to be the arbiters of who should and shouldn’t be recognized. If we all become “Gentiles” then we can be collectively silenced as second-class by the supremacists who have arrogantly decided that those of European descent don’t have the right to name themselves or to demand that their own traditions be accorded the same respect as every other entity. This is a right that every group should possess. When we (European peoples) become nothing more than Gentiles, we allow the Jewish extremist pigeon-holers to place us right where they want and need us to be. Plus we commit the disservice of misnaming ourselves. For the philosopher, this is the greatest sin.

Source: zionist watch

Note: For more information on how to fight back against supremacist bigots visit www.resistingdefamation.org. People or organizations who claim the right to name the diverse white peoples of America by lumping our incredible diversity into a single identity deny us the right to name ourselves, thereby expressing supremacy over us. Such behavior gives us permission to look into their minds and identify the source of their pathological thinking.

More on the “W” Word …

May 13, 2008

Richard McCulloch

Greg Johnson’s “The ‘W-Word” makes the point that Hillary Clinton is now actually resisting white dispossession — to the extent that it is her own dispossession — the only way possible by appealing to a latent but real white racial consciousness.

There is a certain irony to this situation, which we could enjoy more fully if our own interests were not the victim of the whole process. The Clintons assumed this election would be a cakewalk, and in their minds already saw themselves living another eight years in the White House. They took their victory so much for granted that they were not concerned when Florida and Michigan were disqualified.

Then this mulatto comes along and actually has the nerve to become a serious competitor, and then a real threat, and finally he upsets the whole apple cart. The Clintons figured the black vote was also theirs and never imagined until the last few months that something like this could happen.

The Clinton’s racial liberalism has now become nothing more than ballast, useless weight, or even a drag, which is being jettisoned to attract as many of the voters, i.e., white democratic voters, that they can get, as the black vote is not really in play for them. So Barack Obama — he whose very name increases the surreal feel of the whole all-too-real scene — has been racking up nearly 95% of the black vote, and supposedly most of the liberal white (i.e., the Jewish and ultra-liberal coalition) vote, while Hillary has been getting about 60% of the white Democratic voting base.

The money story is most telling. Obama is obviously getting the bulk of the financial support of the traditional big contributors (i.e., the Jews and their affluent white fellow-travelers) leaving Hillary to borrow money from herself to pay for her campaign. This is all enough to cause me to actually root for Hillary, something I would never have believed possible a few months ago.

What we are seeing here is part of the phenomenon Kevin MacDonald refers to as “implicit whiteness.” In politics it is usually associated with Republican presidential candidates typically getting about 60% or sometimes even a little more of the white vote. But it is something new to see it occurring within the Democratic Party at this level. And this is what it is. There are no real differences between Hillary and Obama on the substantive issues, or even on the symbolic issues, except for the symbolism related to her whiteness and his blackness.

It may be that in this presidential election cycle implicit whiteness will actually play a more important role, be more obvious and more strongly expressed, in the Democratic primaries than in the general election. This is largely because of the Democratic candidates’ lack of differences on the substantive issues, which enables implicit whiteness to play a greater role in the voter’s decision process.

In the general election there will be pronounced differences on substantive issues, on the Iraq war but much more importantly on the economy and basic pocketbook issues and fears, issues that strongly tend to work against McCain. These differences will weaken the role of implicit whiteness in the decision-making process, probably because by its very implicitness it lacks the coherence to take priority over explicit substantive issues.

And so far McCain has done nothing to strengthen implicit whiteness in his favor, in spite of its vital importance to his chances for victory. On the politically permissible substantive issues that would most effectively mobilize implicit whiteness — above all controls on non-white immigration, and after that, political and economic nationalism — McCain is taking the opposite tack. And even in symbolic gestures, such as his Selma bridge stunt, he seems to be doing his best to fatally weaken the one thing that could give him victory. Hillary now seems to see this in her own primary contest, but probably too late. It seems that McCain so far is not learning the lesson of her mistake.

His choice of a running mate will probably be his most important chance to mobilize implicit whiteness in his support. Mitt Romney’s early appeals to the populist concerns of implicit whiteness, such as non-white immigration and the outsourcing of jobs, actually had McCain on the ropes for a while after the Michigan primary. But then Romney went off-message (perhaps he got advice to back off the issues that center on white interests) and lost momentum, allowing McCain to recover and regain the lead. In the last few days before he bowed out of the race, Romney attempted a cautious return to the white-centered issues that gave him his only success, but by then it was too little and too late. Choosing Romney would provide McCain with some connection to issues that appeal to implicit whiteness, a starting point which he can develop further if he chooses to do so.

News Source: Occidental Observer

The Troll Scroll

May 13, 2008

This is Part II of the Troll Scroll. These are only a few of the hundreds of Trolls in YouTube that hack and tear down accounts they disagree with. Fight back. SubieSisters

Author: subiesisters
Keywords: Trolls Jews Zionists Marxists Communists videos
Added: May 13, 2008

Peter Schaenk 5/8/08

May 13, 2008

Playing Peter’s archive from 5/8/2008:

How they’ll sucker us into a North American Union

May 12, 2008

(Note: some potentially “hateful” terms have been modified or substituted with “fill in the blank” to make the original article more “family friendly” without affecting the author’s meaning.)

I’m sure the agents behind the (fill in the blank) Agenda don’t need any suggestions from a humble guy like Phaedrus to help them turn Americans on to the concept of the North American Union, so here’s a guide for the rest of us (the plebs, the proles, the sheeple) as to how we can expect them to try to sell us on the idea. In order to do this, they’ll have to contrive a macro-scale scenario in which such a move appears to be clearly and unquestionably the only sensible option open.

So It will be consequently necessary to provide some powerful impetus for economic, monetary and political union between Mexico, the US and Canada. This is being strategically engineered even as I write, by collapsing the value of the US dollar. First we had a methodically-engineered era of all-too-cheap credit. This was followed by the inevitable house-price boom and consequent bust. Then the resulting credit crunch. Phase 1 thereby completed successfully. Full marks to the banksters.

Next, something had to be done about the dire liquidity shortage in the markets and of course – ensuring that the banking system didn’t fail no matter what the cost to the American people might be. Massive reflationary measures were undertaken: massive cuts in interest rates, huge public spending announcements and bank-bailouts financed by printing more dollars – and a tax hand-back on top! Note this is all at a time when commodity prices around the world have been soaring – and therein lies the smoking gun of economic sabotage for all to see: vigorous reflation whilst prices are ALREADY rising is economic madness of a scale we have never seen before.

Now ‘they’ are telling us the worst is over! Unfortunately it isn’t, however – and ‘they’ know it! We now commence the super-inflationary stage, dear friends. Inflation is caused by ‘too much money chasing too few goods’ according to the classic definition. It boils down to paper money becoming worth less and losing its spending power as a consequence of too much of it being in circulation. In essence, the amount of food, clothing, fuel etc., which we can buy with our bucks grows less and less. As this process continues, the value of the US Dollar will increasingly approach that of the Peso.

Now it’s important to know that the Dollar and the Peso needn’t reach a 1:1 parity for a currency union to work. This is a popular misconception. When corporation A merges with corporation X of equal capital valuation, it is highly likely that their valuations will APPEAR totally different at first sight due to their respective share prices. The cover price is illusory and only gives an idea of the corporation’s underlying value when multiplied by the number of shares in circulation and debt is then subtracted from the resulting product.

We could see the Peso declared suitable to merge with the Canadian and US dollars at 1:5, 1:10, or 1:1000 WE simply have no way of knowing what the TRUE value of the Peso actually IS, any more than we know what the greenback is really worth. Thank God we have super-smart (fill in the blank) bankers to do the sums for us or we’d be completely lost! Without them out there, batting for us, such a MASSIVE merger between three large countries could cost us all TRILLIONS!

On the other hand, considering what happened with Europe’s single currency, precise valuation might not be so critical at all. Europe’s leaders abandoned TRUE economic and monetary convergence in the interests of political expediency. The pressure ‘from above’ for a political Union in Europe was so intense that the economies involved in the project were not properly harmonized. This singular failure provides proof positive that the whole business of political union has NOTHING to do with economic prosperity for the people, but rather EVERYTHING to do with TOTAL CONTROL of more and more of the world’s territory.

So how will they pitch the idea to us? It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out. It´ll be a combination of fear and inducement – but overwhelmingly FEAR. For a bit of humor, here’s a quirky look at how Bush or his successor might go about it:

“My fellow north Armenians,

“The recent economic turmoil and our embarrassing, abject failure to ride it out as we were once able to do before I took office, constitute a harsh wake-up call to us all that we can no longer survive as independent nations any longer in a world increasingly dominated by vast trading blocks like the EU, the AU, ASEAN and those slit-eyed yellow bastards in China and Taiwan.

“This world moves fast and we are being increasingly left behind due to our inherently insular nature; marginalized in fact, by international events. All around the planet, smaller nations are forging pacts with one another and by so doing, are enjoying an increasingly dominant position in world markets and along with that, enhanced clout politically, too. Ladies and Gennulm’n! We on this continent are losing our voice in this world and there’s only one way to regain it!

“We simply MUST remain competitive or die. If we do not take similar steps here in our part of the world; if we do not immediately form a similar Union here in north America between the US, Canada and Mexico to defend our industries and our jobs and our standard of living, we stand to slip to 3rd world status in terms of economic power in as little as 20 years from now. Yes, my friends, the situation really is that grave.

“I plead with you to share my vision of a North American Union: a place in which jobs, prosperity and a golden future for EVERYONE will replace the old chaos, decline and decay of the past 20 years for which Bill Clinton and my dad can justifiably be blamed! By mutually embracing our three, great, not-so-very-different cultures, we can assert our position as top dog in the world! No longer will our elderly have to dissipate their life savings just in staying alive! Everything will be cheaper! Wages will be higher!

“No longer will you have to queue to see a doctor – and worse yet, pay good money to see him/her! No longer will our black folks have to suffer the indignity of trying to pay for liquor, lottery tickets and cigarettes at gas stations with food stamps! The highest quality public schooling for ALL – and NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND TO LOOK STUPID even if it means keeping the rest in school for 40 years! As a strong, forward-looking Union of ONE people, we WILL be able to afford these programs! Ladies and Gennulm’n, I urge you from the bottom of my heart to vote YES to Proposition 666 and set in motion the steps needed to begin formalizing the NAU as a matter of the very greatest urgency!”

Source: Phaedrus

Bud White 5/9/2008

May 12, 2008

The “W” Word

May 10, 2008

by Greg Johnson

So there is a dirtier word than “Nigger,” and that word is “white.”

How else to explain the political establishment’s consternation over Hillary Clinton’s statement in a USA Today interview that she is more electable than Barak Obama because she has more support from working-class white people?

This, according to a Democratic Party leader quoted by Peggy Noonan, is “unleashing the gates of hell.” According to an Obama supporter quoted by Noonan, “Even Richard Nixon didn’t say white, even with the Southern strategy.”

Noonan herself adds, “To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical ‘the black guy can’t win but the white girl can’ is—well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.”

How dare you, Hillary? How dare you speak the dirty W-word?

Of course there is a glaring double standard here. Blacks, Jews, Mestizos, and other ethnic minorities are strongly conscious of themselves as distinct groups with distinct interests — interests that often conflict with those of the white majority. None of these groups have any compunction about pursuing their interests, even at the expense of the white majority. Moreover, they select their leaders based on the strength of their ethnic consciousness and their willingness to pursue their collective interests.

But, according to Noonan, “If John McCain said, ‘I got the white vote, baby!’ his candidacy would be over.” We whites, you see, are the only group that is not allowed to think of ourselves as a distinct group with distinct interests. We are the only group that is not allowed to select leaders based on their membership in our group and their commitment to our interests.

We whites are the race that dare not speak its name.

Instead, we whites are supposed to pretend that we do not exist as a people, but only as adherents of the abstract “color-blind” ideology of human equality. In the name of that ideology, we have to give away our wealth and power, debase our standards, corrupt our culture and institutions, and reduce ourselves to a minority. We have to do this any time members of selfish, race-conscious groups like Jews, blacks, Mestizos, etc. demand something from us, as long as they cloak their demands in the language of equality.

What kind of people has to surrender everything to others, upon demand? A conquered people. We whites have to behave as a conquered people in our own country. If we persist in this long enough, of course, we will physically cease to exist as a people. We will succumb to miscegenation, demographic collapse, or outright mass murder, as conquered and enslaved peoples often do.

Obama’s white supporters want to believe that his candidacy transcends race. They hope that by electing a black man president, they will absolve themselves of the burden of spurious “white guilt” that they have accepted. They hope that electing a black president will cause blacks to stop hating them and America. They hope that an articulate, intelligent black president will finally induce blacks to set aside their sullenness, resentment, and excuse-making and actually participate in American society. And, since deep-down most liberal whites are quite uncomfortable with the majority of blacks, they hope that president Obama will be the role model who will finally get the gangbangers, crack heads, and welfare queens to abandon the bad manners, foul language, cornrows, gold teeth, doo-rags, silly names, and criminal mayhem and become like the blacks they see on TV.

Obama and his black supporters have no such illusions. Although Obama is half-black and half-white, he makes it clear in his books and speeches that he is obsessed with blackness and black authenticity. And the arbiters of black authenticity are not the “Oreos” white liberals celebrate, but the “inner city youths” that haunt their nightmares. An Obama administration would not be about transcending race, but about black authenticity and black empowerment. It would be the corruption, chaos, and buffoonery of the black city governments in Atlanta, New Orleans, Washington D.C., and Detroit writ large. With nukes. And “color-blind” whites will hand them the button.

As long as whites, and only whites, are not allowed to think of ourselves as a distinct group with distinct interests, the ultimate result will be white dispossession. Imagine a card game where the whole country is the stake. Each ethnic group has a hand and a stack of chips, but only non-whites get a trump: the “race card.” No matter how huge the white pile of chips is at the beginning, as long as we play under those rules, we will eventually be left with nothing in the end.

Hillary Clinton is resisting white dispossession (well, just her own dispossession, but it is a start) in the only way possible: appealing to latent but real white racial consciousness and solidarity. And the establishment — and Republican lickspittles will trample and claw to take the lead on this matter — is in a frenzy to quash this insurrection.

The greatest threat to the establishment, after all, is frank discussion of white racial identity and interests along with the identities and interests of non-white groups.

The rule today is: If a black man wants something, whitey has to defer. Liberals were all for this, when the blacks only wanted those people’s wealth, power, and prerogatives. You know who those people are: White males, particularly Southern, rural, working or middle class white males; putative Republicans; the ungrateful, narrow-minded, backward peasants and cannon-fodder in “flyover country”; the “rednecks” who claim that they are losing their jobs and futures to “illegal aliens” and “less qualified affirmative action candidates.” Extra points off for having more than two children or being serious about Christianity.

But now that a black man wants to ascend to the pinnacle of power, to which Hillary Clinton feels entitled (and, let’s be honest, she is certainly much more qualified than Obama), Hillary will not quietly defer to the “less-qualified affirmative action candidate.” Hillary Clinton has revealed that she is one Honky who is not going to back down. You go, girl!

It only takes a change of consciousness to halt white dispossession. Once whites awaken to the fact that they are a distinct group with distinct interests in competition with other groups, with incompatible interests, everything changes. We will refuse to play a game that we can only lose.

As liberals are constantly lecturing us, disadvantaged groups need “role models” to change their way of thinking. Could Hillary Clinton actually become a role model for feisty, active white racial consciousness? There have been greater ironies in history.

Thank goodness Hillary Clinton is selfish, ambitious, and doesn’t really believe her professed liberal egalitarian multiculturalism. Thank goodness she has a self-righteous sense of entitlement that cannot be dissolved in the acid of “white guilt.”

This white woman will actually fight a black man for something valuable.

I wish more white people were like Hillary Clinton.

Peter Schaenk 5/9/2008

May 10, 2008

Peter Schaenk 5/7/2008

May 8, 2008

Peter Schaenk 5/6/2008

May 7, 2008

No Illegal Drugs, No Ruling Elite

May 6, 2008

(In this letter from father to daughter on her 18th birthday, a man describes the nature of the world she will be facing as an adult. Do you know any 18-year olds who would benefit from this knowledge?)

My dear daughter,

It’s your 18th birthday today, and you have probably worked out by now that not everything you were told by your parents, teachers, media and government is actually true. Anything you know about our world, politics, society, history and I mean anything, is most likely a lie.

This is a world of hoaxes. Democracy, drug prohibition, war on terror, feminism, social welfare, globalisation, even man made global warming, it’s all a hoax.

Democracy

There is no such thing as democracy. It’s like a horse-race where all the horses are owned by the same person. For a party to get the funding and the media support needed to have any chance of winning an election, they need to prostitute themselves to the ruling elite. The same applies to individual politicians. If any politician is remotely successful without selling out, he or she will get ignored, suppressed, ridiculed, vilified or – if everything else fails – killed. There is no way the ruling elite will let anyone to the top whom they don’t control.

Ruling Elite

Who is that ruling elite I am talking about. It’s a closely-knit network of century old European nobility intermarried with old money, such as the Rothschilds, Warburgs, Rockefellers etc. This inner circle, the so-called ‘Committee of 300’, is aided by a wider circle of about 5000 rich and powerful people who control anything worth controlling in this world, whether it is in business, media, entertainment, politics, religion, law, or science. I’m thinking of people like Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates and intermediaries between the inner and the wider circle such as Henry Kissinger. Nobody will make it into the wider circle of the ruling elite without the inner circle having total control over them.

The reason why the inner circle must have total control over the lower ranks is that these people are very rich and well respected. If anyone of them went public with what they know, it would do enormous damage to the entire system. They couldn’t simply be ignored, suppressed, ridiculed or vilified. And even if the ruling elite killed them, it would be too late. The damage would already be done.

The ‘Secret Government’

Protecting the ruling elite against whistle-blowers from within is one of many tasks of the ‘Secret Government’, a parallel structure to the official administration. The reason for having such a parallel structure is to avoid legal and budgetary control of its illegal activities. The activities of public and secret government are coordinated by key people within the official administration known as ‘political’ public servants, such as under-secretaries.

Apart from maintaining a pool of highly trained assassins, the secret government deliberately entraps people groomed to join or serve the ruling elite in critical positions. For that purpose, the secret government maintains paedophile networks and satanic cults in which those future leaders are seduced to perform highly compromising activities that – if they became public knowledge – would completely destroy them.

Drug prohibition

Of course, such parallel structures cost money. The way the secret government finances itself is by selling illegal drugs. All around the world, more than 90% of illegal drugs are sold by government agencies. This explains why after decades of prohibition it is still easier to buy heroin than a decent second hand car. If the drug addicts can work out where to buy drugs, then the police can too. Drug prohibition is nothing but a tax payer funded, law enforced government monopoly for the purpose of financing the secret government. The secret government sell the drugs, and the official government keeps the competition out.

Information war

Another effective way of silencing potential whistle-blowers is by employing a whole army of disinformants and gatekeepers. Disinformations are used to spread wrong information designed to confuse people and make them disbelieve anything that isn’t in line with the official version of the truth, spread by government and corporate media. Gatekeepers are a bit like moles. They infiltrate and dominate politically sensitive media and discourses as a means of steering them away from topics that could seriously harm the interests of the ruling elite. People like Chomsky and Finkelstein are classic gatekeepers.

War on terror

Why should you be worried about old fart merchant bankers bribing politicians and rogue police officers selling drugs? Because you are paying for all that corruption. It’s not like the bankers are paying the politicians out of their own pocket without getting back more from tax payers or consumers.

There is another reason, a far more serious one. We have reached a point in human history, where the ruling elite is close to completing the implementation of a New World Order (NWO). If you read George Orwell’s ‘1984’ you will know what I mean. I wrote about hoaxes before. September 11 was one of them, a false flag attack performed by the Israeli Mossad with inside help of the Bush administration. Why would they do so? To implement important mile stones on the way to the NWO under the pretext of fighting terror. And don’t forget about the spread of black box voting. If we don’t act soon and decisively, we will pass the point of no return.

Feminism

What has feminism and social welfare to do with all of this. Feminism as a political movement has nothing to do with giving women equal rights or opportunities, and all with destroying families. For over a century now, the ruling elite has done everything in her power to destroy all structures that weaken its power, especially the institution of the family. One way of doing that is by destroying the power the husband traditionally had in the family. But it didn’t stop there. Divorce, spousal and child support laws, in conjunction with liberally available non-marital sex, have made more and more men think twice whether they want to get married. At the end of this all is a society of single parents, dependent on the government for their financial survival.

Social Welfare

Family power has also been deliberately undermined by social welfare. Family members no longer depend on each other for their financial security but on the state. This loss of mutual dependency did a lot of damage to the coherence of Western families. I’m not saying single mothers should have to resort to prostitution to survive. I’m saying, there shouldn’t be that many single mothers in the first place. If the government didn’t make it so easy for them, there wouldn’t be so many single mothers. They would think twice whether to leave their parents’ home before getting married. They would think twice whether to have pre-marital sex. They would think twice whether to leave and divorce their husbands.

Globalisation

Globalisation is another one of those hoaxes. On a micro-economic level, it has nothing to do with improving efficiencies as the economist monkeys claim, but with investor greed and environmental vandalism. On a macro-economic level, globalisation is a smoke-screen for a deal, the ruling elite has made in 1975 with the communist leadership of China. In that deal, Henry Kissinger agreed with chairman Mao to move the bulk of Western manufacturing jobs to China in return for opening the country to the international merchant bankers.

Man made global warming

All that hysteria about global warming is about preparing us mentally for the ‘big cull’. We are all made feel like a pest that’s destroying the planet. The ruling elite has fantasised for year about reducing world population by 90%. AIDS, SARS and bird flu are field tests of methods secretly developed for the planned big cull. Once they go ahead with their genocidal plans, those who survive will be made believe that it was sad for those who died, but good for ‘Mother Earth’.

Of course global warming is not caused by men but by the sun. There is a direct and immediate link between the number of sun spots and temperatures on earth. An increase of temperatures leads to increases plant growth. More plant growth leads to increased CO2 production. More than 95% of C02 production is caused naturally through decomposing plant leaves.

Holocaust

And last but not least the mother of all hoaxes, the Nazi Holocaust. What amazes me most about it is how otherwise intelligent people can be blind to the fact that if the arguments of the Holocaust revisionists were as false as claimed, there wouldn’t be a necessity for systematically destroying and even imprisoning anyone who engages in Holocaust revisionism. And since when do the sensitivities of a tiny minority outweigh the freedom of expression of the rest of us? It’s a joke.

The motivation for the invention of the Holocaust, apart from humiliating a beaten enemy, was to destroy all resistance against the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine and the genocidal treatment of the Palestinian people.

What interest did the ruling elite have in the Jewish state? Apart from the fact that many – if not most – members of the ruling elite have a Jewish background, the Zionist project was always about controlling the Middle-Eastern oil reserves.

What can you do?

There are so many other things I could write about, but I’m sure you already got the message: This whole world is just a sick joke. The uneducated masses are kept dumb with a modern version of the Roman ‘bread and games’. And educated people are disinformed with terrabytes of lies. What can people like you and I do to stop the New World Order?

Switch off its life support. For the ruling elite to maintain its iron grip, it needs to sell illegal drugs to pay for the ‘secret government’. No illegal drugs, no ruling elite. It’s that simple.

All the best for your 18th birthday.

Love,

Dad

Source: ziopedia.org

Bottom