Peter Schaenk 7/30/08 The Unnecessary War

July 30, 2008


Peter interviews Mark Weber from the Institute of Historical Review.

In this interview:

  • Peter and Mark discuss WW2 and Pat Buchanan’s new book “The Unnecessary War”
  • Also presented are all the latest news and “This Day In History”

Peter Schaenk 7/29/08 SAY IT AIN’T SO TIM!

July 30, 2008


Tim Donaghy is facing time in jail for “fixing” NBA games and giving inside info to gamblers. The story that should be making headlines is the revelation from Donaghy, that the Jewish controlled NBA league;

“routinely encouraged refs to ring up bogus fouls to manipulate results, while discouraging them from calling technical fouls on star players.”

This is solid evidence that the NBA games are fixed and the mechanism is in place to use professional sports as a social engineering tool for the masses.

In this program Peter also discusses:

  • The Jews who have made family fortunes pushing drugs, prostitution and slavery for over 500 years in the West
  • All the latest news and “This Day In History”

Joys of Diversity: Bullet-proof Jackets in London

July 29, 2008

For the English socialite worried about getting shot, oversize paramilitary gear simply won’t do. Fortunately, London’s superrich can now maintain their security without sacrificing style. On July 14, Miguel Caballero, the world’s only producer of “designer bulletproof fashion,” started selling his high-security garments at posh London department store Harrods. His new collection includes blazers, raincoats and suede jackets, some replete with a comforting stab-proof lining. Customers get to select from three levels of ballistic protection. For instance, a polo shirt that can withstand a slug from a 9-mm revolver costs roughly $7,500; a version for about $9,800 protects wearers from automatic weapons, including mini-Uzis.

The Colombian designer began producing high-security fashion 16 years ago while studying at Bogotá’s Los Andes University, where his classmates–many of whom were the children of politicians–wore protective vests that were heavy and nondiscreet. Fast-forward to his latest leather jacket, which weighs a trim 2.6 lb. (1.2 kg) and doesn’t scream bulletproof.

Caballero, who has expanded into 16 countries, says he does not operate “exclusively in dangerous places” but admits that “they don’t need us in Switzerland.”

CNN / Time

You Know You’re An Anti-Semite If …

July 29, 2008

You Know You’re An Anti-Semite If……

by Mark Farrell

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if you realize the last several heads of Federal Reserve were Jewish, know why, and are cognizant of the fact that there is nothing “federal” about the Federal Reserve.

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if you remember the numerous bombings that Israel has done against the U.S. and its friends, such as the USS Liberty, the LaVon Affair, the King David Hotel, etc.

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if you realize what the (K) and (U) symbols mean on food products and metals, and you try to avoid purchasing such products so that the rabbis who make tens of millions of dollars on these products through their kosher excise tax won’t get your money.

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if you question why Israel bombs Lebanon when Lebanon apprehends Israel’s soldiers in Lebanon, but Lebanon never bombs Israel when Israel grabs Lebanese or Palestinian citizens.

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if there are no pictures of you saying the pledge of allegiance with Israel’s flag in the background.

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if you’ve never worn a Jewish beanie, and scratch your head when someone calls a beanie that y-word.

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if it saddens you when you hear that Israel has done its routine bombing of an apartment building or farm in an effort to kill someone it suspects of being a “terrorist,” and know that Israel’s definition of a “terrorist” is typically someone who refuses to believe that Jews are God’s special “Chosen Race.”

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if you’ve heard of either the Catholic’s St. Simon of Trent or the Orthodox’s St. Andrei Youshchinsky, and know what caused their deaths.

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if you wonder when the government will actually DO something about AIPAC’s virtual plutocratic dictatorship over American politicians.

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if you recognize the clearly Jewish names in Tyco’s falling, and Enron’s, and a host of other companies.

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if you question why Israeli criminals are consistently allowed to flee to Israel, where they stay secure in the thought that Israel’s high courts have specifically stated that a Jew should have to stand trial before non-Jews.

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if you can’t understand how Israel is allowed to build its Wall of Separation right through the homes of non-Jews without just – even any – compensation.

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if you don’t think non-Jews should go to jail for their religious beliefs, as many Christians currently do in Canada and in parts of Europe if they cite the Book of John.

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if you watched the online video “Understanding Anti-Semitism” online and said, “I knew that.”

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if you wonder how 6 million Jews reportedly died in the “Holocaust,” yet, according to Jewish sources, there was actually a slight increase in population of the Jews at the end of the war.

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if you you’re tired of watching the Holocaust-propaganda videos Jews make on an average of 1 every 10 days–60 years after the war’s end–and also wonder when they’re going to make a film about the 60 million Russians who were murdered by mostly Jewish bolsheviks in the former Soviet Union, such as by NKVD/KGB head Kaganovich.

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if you’re aware of the Jewish influence to get the U.S. involved in Iraq, and are knowledgeable of the Israel-firsters quickly pushing America towards Israel’s next enemies, Iran and Syria.

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if you put America’s interests before that of Israel.

You Know You’re an Anti-Semite if you breathe and aren’t Jewish.

Peter Schaenk 7/28/08 The Reality of Morality

July 29, 2008


The destruction of the “existing order” or “Old Roman Order” is paramount to creating a New World Order. Our civilization’s moral code is based in Christianity, so this must be erased along with our “White, heterosexual, male dominated society”. With our moral code erased, the Dionysian festival may begin. The hangover will be a doozy…death, destruction and a “new and improved”, world order.

In this program Peter also discusses:

  • FLDS members arrested for child abuse, but is it correct to put these men in the same category as pedophiles?
  • Obama introduces his choice for agricultural secretary; Pete Greene.
  • All the latest news and “This Day In History”


July 29, 2008


Peter Schaenk is on the air live, Monday-Friday, 7-9pm EST, on the Voice of Reason Broadcast Network.

Here is a great cartoon drawn by a listener, Josh in Kentucky.  Thanks Josh, your hardwork is appreciated!



The Patriot Dame

July 28, 2008

This documentary was done by a college student. He was asking the question, ‘How does a person’s life change after something like this happens?’ I believe he answered it.

Author: subiesisters
Keywords: documentary ADL Civil Liberties Union AIPAC Columbus Police Department
Added: July 28, 2008

Anti-Inclusiveness FAQ

July 28, 2008

Anti-Inclusiveness FAQ

by Jim Kalb Source: Turnabout


Social policies promoting inclusiveness have great moral prestige and enjoy powerful political support, Nonetheless, some people oppose them. These questions and answers are intended to present reasons for opposition in a way that depends less on economic considerations than the usual libertarian arguments against coerced association. They concentrate instead on the social and cultural consequences of efforts to implement inclusiveness by force of law. The issues presented here can be discussed in our forum, and your participation is welcome.


  • What is inclusiveness?
  • What is wrong with inclusiveness?
  • Isn’t the sort of equality referred to as “inclusiveness” a limited one?
  • Why is coercion a necessary part of inclusiveness?
  • Isn’t discrimination based on fear and hatred of “the other,” and inability to deal with difference?
  • Isn’t discrimination based on overbroad stereotypes that it would be more intelligent to reject?
  • How could discrimination on grounds forbidden by civil rights laws possibly be rational?
  • But shouldn’t we all be judged as individuals?
  • What is the connection between discrimination and community?
  • Shouldn’t communities that define themselves by reference to ethnicity, religion, lifestyle and so on broaden themselves to reflect a fuller appreciation of the richness of humanity?
  • Weren’t equal opportunity laws necessary to redress evils caused by discrimination?
  • What specific problems have antidiscrimination rules caused?
  • Why try to bring back obsolete prejudices?
  • How would you like to be discriminated against?
  • What happens to those excluded in a non-inclusive society?
  • Whatever errors or excesses it may sometimes lead to, isn’t the ideal of inclusiveness a generous one?
  • If exclusion is morally OK, why are so many conscientious people so very troubled by it?
  • What is the overall political effect of antidiscrimination laws?
  • Isn’t it divisive to oppose measures designed to promote inclusiveness?
  • Doesn’t discrimination lead to Auschwitz?
  • What about Bosnia, the Wars of Religion, and other communal conflicts?
  • Would more exclusion and discrimination really make the world a better place?


What is inclusiveness?

“Inclusiveness”, like “access” and “equity”, is a way of talking about equality. Liberals believe as a matter of principle that the benefits of society should be equally available to all and that a basic task of government is to help make them so. As liberalism has developed so have the specific demands of that principle. Today it requires that persons of every race, ethnicity, religious background, sex, disability status and sexual orientation be able to participate equally in major social activities, with roughly equal receipt of status and rewards the test for equal ability to participate. This requirement of equal participation is referred to as “inclusiveness”.

What is wrong with inclusiveness?

The demand for inclusiveness is in effect a demand for comprehensive political, economic and social equality between groups, defined and administered by government. One objection to that demand is the usual objection to bureaucratic egalitarianism, that it requires comprehensive state control of social life restrained by neither popular control nor traditional limitations. It therefore leads to something not far from slavery that degrades the human spirit, destroys civil society, and has disastrous economic consequences. In the case of state socialism the legitimacy of such objections has finally been conceded. However, the spirit that gave us socialism keeps reappearing in new forms, of which inclusiveness ideology is one. The destruction and degradation therefore continue.

A more conceptual objection is that inclusiveness means that characteristics that define personal identity have no legitimate public role. If my specific identity–as a man, a member of a particular people, or whatever–affects how I am treated, then I am treated unequally because of who I am, contrary to inclusiveness. Since we are social beings, however, how we identify ourselves can not so easily be divorced from our place in the world. To say that what I am should have no effect on my position in the world is to say that I should have no essential connection to the social order of which I am part, and so to estrange me from that order. The progress of inclusiveness is therefore the progress of alienation. That alienation has political as well as individual and general social effects: a man becomes one thing, society quite another, and the bonds linking the two become wholly abstract. As a result, all grounds for loyalty disappear and free government becomes impossible as a practical matter.

Isn’t the sort of equality referred to as “inclusiveness” a limited one?

Not in the long run, since over time the circumstances thought to constitute exclusion multiply. Any inequality corresponds to a benefit from which some are excluded and so can be held to violate the principle of inclusiveness. No usable way of limiting the principle has been proposed.

In addition, the inequalities targeted by measures such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are extremely stubborn, and any serious attempt to eradicate them quickly turns radical. Sex, religion and ethnicity have always and everywhere been fundamental principles of social organization, and to forbid “discrimination” is to attempt to eliminate them as such. The attempt is extraordinarily radical, and necessarily requires radical and intrusive measures. In particular, it requires “affirmative action”– quotas and equivalent measures–since the only way to counteract hidden motives and eliminate subtle structural inequalities is to look at results. Thought control–sensitivity training, the bowdlerization of language, speech codes and so on–is also necessary to any serious antidiscrimination program, since the purpose of such a program is to prevent people from making decisions in ways that will seem natural to them unless their ways of thinking are transformed.

The demands of inclusiveness thus become quite comprehensive and take on obsessive importance throughout social life. To focus discussion on basic issues, I will nonetheless concentrate on measures that are now non-controversial, such as the rules against race and sex discrimination in employment, and on defense of some of the conduct those measures forbid. The objections to more far-reaching measures such as “affirmative action” are all the stronger. To limit the discussion, I will not deal with the question of innate differences.

Why is coercion a necessary part of inclusiveness?

A particular organization may choose inclusiveness even in the absence of coercion. However, it is not likely that all would do so, certainly not to the extent proponents of inclusiveness demand. Intentional discrimination is often rational. Human beings differ, as do their affinities to each other. While many differences are purely individual, enough are related to characteristics such as sex and ethnicity for free dealings to lead to a degree of social segmentation even in the absence of intentional discrimination. Where such segmentation arises the habits and social expectations it engenders accentuate it. When those habits and expectations become self-aware they turn into full-fledged discrimination. Discrimination of a kind considered invidious by proponents of inclusiveness thus perpetually recreates itself if there is no comprehensive supervening force to forbid it.

Isn’t discrimination based on fear and hatred of “the other,” and inability to deal with difference?

No. Discrimination is simply dealing by preference with people of one sort rather than another, and typically is not based on fear or hatred. People who hire their relatives or join clubs for graduates of their own colleges usually do not hate and fear non-relatives or alumni of other colleges. Liberal professionals who make friends with other liberal professionals rather than Southern Baptist Republican used car salesmen may have no particular negative feelings regarding the latter. Employers who demand college degrees for non-technical entry-level positions need not loathe those who don’t have degrees even though they discriminate against them. It is unclear why discrimination relating to ethnicity, religion, sex and lifestyle should be different.

Rather, it is the demand for inclusiveness that indicates an inability to deal with difference. Both those who make inclusiveness an absolute and those who demand absolute separation demonstrate an inability to deal with differences that matter. The former deny the significance of difference and the latter deny the importance of what they share with those who differ. An intermediate view that accepts the reality of both things that unite and things that divide, and so accords with common sense and universal custom, rejects both strict separation and mandatory inclusiveness.

Isn’t discrimination based on overbroad stereotypes that it would be more intelligent to reject?

It is nondiscrimination that insists on the broadest stereotypes. Stereotypes are simply social expectations based on an understanding of what people are like and how the world should be. The stereotype for “good American,” for example, is someone who works for a living, votes, obeys the law, wants to better himself and provide for his family, believes in education, and so on. American law and public policy accept that stereotype and expect us to follow it. They wouldn’t work for 7th century B.C. Assyrians.

The nondiscrimination principle is the principle that the same expectations, and thus the same stereotype, should apply to everyone. It thus demands that the treatment of persons be based on the broadest and least illuminating stereotype possible. Thinking is impossible without the use of stereotypes or categories, and one might reasonably ask whether it is really more intelligent to have a single category for “human being” than (for example) separate categories for “man” and “woman.” Our society has officially demands the former, but it’s hard to make the decision stick in practice and its justification isn’t clear. It appears rather that requiring us all to ignore pervasive differences that on some level we can’t help but recognize is a recipe for irrationality.

How could discrimination on grounds forbidden by civil rights laws possibly be rational?

In many ways. One is that similarities of habits, standards and attitudes make it easier for people to associate productively with those of similar background. To take ethnicity and employment as an example, an ethnic culture is a system of habits, standards and attitudes that has grown up among people who have lived and worked together for a very long time. Those who share such things usually find it more pleasant and productive to work together, and so prefer to associate with each other for that purpose. An ethnic culture is in effect a system of social cooperation. If ethnic cohesiveness did not make cooperation easier, employee diversity would not be a major challenge requiring special training and sensitivity. It is therefore no less reasonable for an employer who wants to limit the complications with which he must deal to seek out a niche in the market for people he hires (that is, to engage in employment discrimination) than to look for a niche in the market for what he sells.

Other forbidden grounds include sex, which has always and everywhere been treated as fundamental to social organization. Respect for the universal consensus of mankind, tolerance for natural human inclinations, and consideration of the effects of increasingly ill-defined sex roles on family stability and the well-being of children suggest caution in attempts to create a sex-blind society and willingness to recognize differing roles in at least some settings. But if sex roles are accepted socially, men and women will be brought up differently and–quite apart from the question of whether they differ naturally–it will be no more irrational to discriminate between them in employment than to discriminate between candidates who differ in formal education.

Beyond issues relating to organizational function and effectiveness, forbidden grounds of discrimination such as ethnicity and religion help define communities. Since community is important for the conduct of life, things related to its definition are a reasonable basis for decisions as to affiliation. If a Mormon or Chinese wants to earn his living working with his like, the better to participate in a way of life that reflects Mormon or Chinese ways, he is not acting unreasonably in choosing to do so. Nor is it wrong for employers to accommodate workers who want that kind of work environment, or to have preferences in such matters themselves.

But shouldn’t we all be judged as individuals?

What can this mean? The kind of family I was raised in, and my sex, ethnicity and social class, have done at least as much to make me what I am as the schools I went to and whether I graduated or not. It’s not clear why looking at the latter but not the former constitutes “judging on individual qualities.” And if it is freedom and idiosyncrasy we value, employers and others who wish to establish connections with people should be free to choose the persons with whom they affiliate on grounds that seem sufficient to them. If someone wants to establish a law office in which all the lawyers are Mayflower descendents who like to talk about duck hunting and bring in business through their social connections, he will judge applicants in accordance with their contribution to that goal. From the standpoint of individualism, it is hard to see a problem.

“Inclusiveness” means all institutions have to be composed of the same sorts of people in the same general proportions. What’s so free and diverse about that? And in any event, an emphasis on judging people as individuals can be misplaced when the purpose is to enhance the well-being and productivity of an organization rather than (for example) determine moral merit or culpability. In human affairs the whole is never a simple sum of its parts. The all-star team does not necessarily win, and the same principle applies in settings that are more serious than sports. In addition to individual talents principles of cohesion and cooperation are necessary, and religion, ethnic culture and the like can foster such principles.

What is the connection between discrimination and community?

The good life requires community, and community requires discrimination. As social beings we all belong to networks of “people like us” by reference to whom we understand our lives, and with whom we prefer to deal because when we do we are in a setting we understand and trust. Family and friends are an obvious example, but we all belong to other networks as well.

Community membership defines what our lives are to us. It helps us give our goals coherence and stability and have confidence in their goodness. Many people want to be CEO, but very few would bother to do the things a CEO does in exchange for the material benefits of the position if they were marooned on a desert island and not allowed to communicate with others about anything except business matters. Without a community setting, the goal wouldn’t seem worth pursuing.

The communities within which we live are most often defined, at least in part, by class, ethnicity, history, geography and the like. They are never fully inclusive as to religion or lifestyle because they are based in part on beliefs about the world and the good life. They are rarely so as to ethnicity because communal ties typically include ingrained attitudes and habits and a sense of common history and destiny. Such things are the stuff of ethnicity, and are a necessary part of the setting for the cultural and moral life that make community possible and our existence more than crude impulse and instinct.

To try radically to separate the benefits of society from religion, lifestyle and ethnicity–the very purpose of laws promoting inclusiveness–is to try to remove those benefits from a community setting. To the extent such an attempt is successful it divorces material success from personal loyalties and from shared understandings of the use to be made of it. Those things find their home within particular communities, and when ambition is separated from them it dissipates or becomes self-sufficient and all-consuming.

People object to exclusionary conduct because they want to make the benefits of human society equal for everyone. Such wishes are impossible to realize because those benefits arise in idiosyncratic concrete settings rather than in accordance with a overall scheme that can be reconfigured at will to meet abstract standards such as equality. The benefits of a birthday party might be more fairly divided if an official supervised the guest list and activities to make sure everyone around had an equal opportunity to play an equal role in it. It would not be much of a party, however.

Shouldn’t communities that define themselves by reference to ethnicity, religion, lifestyle and so on broaden themselves to reflect a fuller appreciation of the richness of humanity?

Sometimes to some degree. Unlimited breadth is impossible because we are finite creatures. No single person or society can express all human possibilities, if only because of practical incompatibilities, so the particularity and diversity of human life can not be realized without social diversity and particularity. Inclusiveness denies that necessity since it attempts to create one social shoe (the inclusive society) that fits all equally.

The Vikings, the Abbasid Caliphate and Heian Japan all achieved splendid things, but it is unlikely that mixing the three societies and insisting that members of each be able to participate equally in all aspects of their common life would have created something that realized human capacities better than they did separately. Each might have profited in its own way by learning from the others, but not by reconstructing itself to become equally accessible to the other two. While Egil Skallagrimsson and Lady Murasaki were both great literary artists, it would have helped neither to force them to write a book together.

In such matters the world today is no different from what it was a thousand years ago, and particular organizations no different from whole societies or circles of friends. Some diversity is good, too much is bad, and dogmatic rules like the civil rights laws are worse than useless for dealing with the issue.

In addition, behind all differences mankind has an essential nature that some religions and lifestyles succeed in realizing better than others. To require each society to be equally open to all religions and lifestyles is to forbid social recognition of that essential nature and insist on a sort of official amorality. The requirement is even self-contradictory, since the principle of inclusiveness is itself a universal moral claim and as such cannot be asserted if there is no universal human nature that is better served by some moral rules than others.

Weren’t equal opportunity laws necessary to redress evils caused by discrimination?

Many evils have been attributed to discrimination, and it is impossible to discuss them all in these questions and answers. Since the position of black people is thought to present the strongest case for government intervention, commenting on it may serve as a partial answer.

Black people have problems, but statistics suggest that equal opportunity laws do not do much to solve them. To begin with economics: in 1994 as in 1959 blacks were about 3 times as likely as whites to be poor; a third of a century of antidiscrimination legislation and huge changes in public attitudes had done nothing to reduce the gap. (Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States.) Other measures of overall economic well-being confirm the overall failure of the civil rights laws to benefit black people economically. For example, in 1939 earnings of black male workers were 45% and black females 38% of those of whites. By 1960 the ratio had increased, to 67% for men and 70% for women. In 1990 the figures were 73% and 90%. Progress had not stopped after the Civil Rights Revolution, but it had became slower. (Source: A. Hacker, Two Nations, 101.)

Such statistics should not be surprising. Civil rights laws would never be enacted if bias were universal. However, bias against blacks could not have much effect on black economic success unless it is universal or coerced; otherwise employers whose greed is stronger than their bias would be able to make extraordinary profits by hiring capable blacks and paying them less, thus creating a bidding war among profit-motivated employers for black services that would bring black wages up close to parity. In addition, interference with markets hurts those most who have not yet established themselves. Both the black unemployment rate and the gap between rich and poor blacks rose strikingly after the civil rights revolution made it risky to hire blacks who had not already demonstrated their productivity and so might have to be fired. (Note: the foregoing arguments allow the possibility that in the mid-60s civil rights laws gave a one-time boost to blacks in parts of the South by breaking up a system of segregation coerced by law and threats of violence.)

Further, it appears that civil rights laws and changes in racial attitudes have if anything injured non-economic aspects of black people’s lives, which have grown increasingly chaotic. Between 1960 and 1993, for example, the percentage of black children living with both parents declined from 67% to 35.6% (source:, and from 1950 to 1970 the percentage of blacks among prison inmates rose from 29.7% to 35.8%, and then to 45.3% in 1986 (source: A. Hacker, Two Nations, 197).

It appears that some of the lack of progress and even retrogression can be attributed to the civil rights revolution. If blacks live in a prosperous free-market society and have ordinary liberty in economic, cultural and religious matters, most of what their lives are like will depend on their cultural condition, which will in turn depend on the state of black communities. The effect of the civil rights revolution has been to undermine community generally by making human relations more impersonal, and to lead blacks to put their hopes in white “society” –practically speaking, the government–rather than in each other and their own institutions and communities. Further, affirmative action requirements have led white organizations to bribe talented blacks away from black organizations, thus disrupting black community leadership. From that perspective, the decline of black institutions and communities is no surprise.

What specific problems have antidiscrimination rules caused?

It is difficult to separate the effects of antidiscrimination rules from those resulting from larger changes since the early ’60s in public policy and accepted morality. Nonetheless, certain changes for the worse are impossible to avoid if comprehensive antidiscrimination rules are taken seriously. Liberals often respond to nostalgia for the ’50s by pointing out that at that time discrimination was legal and widely practiced. Their point that the good aspects of the ’50s were connected to the legality of discrimination appears well-taken:

Antidiscrimination rules make community more difficult to achieve and so result in the loss of the goods it brings us. They make it harder to achieve the compatibility and cohesion needed for a happy and productive workforce. They also alienate people from their social surroundings, since they can no longer recognize in their surroundings the things that make them what they are.
If a connection between well-being and membership in a particular community is an evil to be extirpated there is no room for expectations of self-help based on any particular moral code, which of necessity would be that of a particular group of people, or for traditional systems of mutual assistance based on kinship, community and religion. Such beneficial arrangements make well-being connected to things that officially should not matter. The pervasive scheme of regulation the civil rights laws require attacks and weakens them in a thousand ways. The consequence is to weaken both individuals and communities and make them more reliant on government.
The abandonment of definite duties within the family implicit in the rejection of stereotypical sex roles and the attack on particular cultural understandings means fragmented and dysfunctional families and therefore badly reared–and sometimes abused–children. It means particular suffering for women. Non-discrimination is inconsistent, for example, with the expectation that men marry the mothers of their children and support their families, because such expectations place burdens on men that are not identical to those placed on women. The difficulties are compounded by official opposition to the view that birth into a group with shared moral standards (typically, an ethnic or religious group) creates obligations to which one should submit. That rejection leads schools and the broader society today to teach children to throw off parental authority, which typically upholds religious or ethnic standards that under antidiscrimination ideology must be treated as matters of individual taste.
Antidiscrimination rules lead to single-minded pursuit of private gain; those who complain about the Decade of Greed and also call for energetic civil rights enforcement haven’t thought things through. Public spirit exists in an environment of shared goals, understandings and expectations that grow up over time in particular settings. It therefore varies by community: WASP organizations are public-spirited in one style, Jewish organizations in another, and so on. If networks of shared understandings weaken within private organizations, as they will if they are not allowed to choose their members in accordance with felt affinities, trust dwindles, public spirit dissipates, and all that is left is struggle for individual advantage. Any residual altruism is likely to remain abstract and ineffectual.

Why try to bring back obsolete prejudices?

Why indeed? The way people live develops in accordance with current conditions and understandings. The argument is not that segregation should be reimposed or that all women should be kept in the kitchen, but that association should be based on mutual choice and the social understandings growing out of it. No supervening principle should prevent people from making the discriminations they find worth making or living by the social arrangements that accordingly grow up and become customary. For the foreseeable future, sex roles, ethnicity and the like will serve a legitimate and necessary function, and government efforts to eradicate their significance by denying freedom of association will remain ill-conceived and destructive. Just what role such things should play will be determined by what people find appropriate and satisfying. To the extent they no longer serve a function people will come to ignore them. Legislators, bureaucrats and judges have no special insight into such matters and should have no special part to play in deciding them.

How would you like to be discriminated against?

It might well be painful, in the same way rejection in courtship and any number of other things can be painful. Affirmative action, which discriminates against whites and men and then lies about it, is certainly annoying to its victims. On the other hand, the current situation, in which blacks and other members of protected classes spend their lives working with people who they suspect would rather have nothing to do with them, doesn’t make its beneficiaries happy either. (For details, see Ellis Cose’s Rage of a Privileged Class.) If there were no antidiscrimination laws people who wanted to work together would find each other; in the long run that would bring about more happiness than current arrangements.

What happens to those excluded in a non-inclusive society?

Someone excluded from one part of society will usually have better luck elsewhere; if I’m excluded by the Century Club I may be able to join the Shriners. A group excluded everywhere can develop its own institutions. The ease of communication and fluidity of life today makes self-organization far easier than in the past, and thus reduces many of the adverse consequences of exclusion.

Since self-organization requires some degree of separation, it is easier in a non-inclusive society than in an inclusive society that tries to establish a single social order to which everyone must belong. Ethnic minorities in a non-inclusive society are often able to thrive through some combination of adaptation and niche-finding, while in an inclusive society religious and social conservatives, and ethnics who consider their ethnicity important, are subjected to public policies designed to make their (and every other) religion, ethnic culture, and traditional moral outlook irrelevant to all matters of public concern and thus in substance to destroy them.

Whatever errors or excesses it may sometimes lead to, isn’t the ideal of inclusiveness a generous one?
The motives supporting anything that benefits some people at the expense of others are never limited to generosity and love of justice. The intended beneficiaries of inclusiveness may support it for reasons that have nothing to do with generosity.

In addition, inclusiveness serves powerful social interests that ostensibly are not intended beneficiaries at all. The issue of inclusiveness arises when society is viewed as a single actor following a single script, and to demand inclusiveness is to demand that the script be rewritten and a new one put into effect. Attempting to carry out such a demand requires an enormous grant of power to a small and cohesive group of social technologists. On the design side, the favored group includes social theoreticians, legal experts and social scientists, and on the implementation side civil servants, jurists, lawyers, educators, journalists and media people. Not surprisingly, the ideal of inclusiveness finds huge support among the people named, whose power it increases so much.

Inclusiveness also liberates us from the demands of the particular social groups to which we belong, because it denies the significance of our membership in such groups. For example, Christians who adopt inclusiveness as their standard are thereby freed from the specific demands of traditional Christian morality. Some may welcome such liberation because it enables them to do great things; others may have baser motives.

If exclusion is morally OK, why are so many conscientious people so very troubled by it?

For a variety of reasons:

People whose view of human society is based on technological rationality–which includes most educated and articulate people today–naturally find exclusion a moral outrage. If society is a system that dispenses benefits and detriments in accordance with an overall scheme, then the scheme should be designed to benefit all as much and as equally as possible. If some in fact do worse than others (that is, are excluded from some benefits) reform is required, and in a technological age it is assumed possible to redesign a system to achieve or at least progressively approximate specifications. Failure to do so seems unacceptable.
Unfortunately for this view, “society” can’t be conceived as an overall scheme because it is composed of myriad irreducibly independent agents. Things happening within society can’t be held to uniform standards as if they were the acts of a single person. To do so would eliminate all moral agency except that of the government, and in effect create a system of slavery to a universal bureaucracy.

Idealists often believe human relations should be direct rather than mediated by presumptions based on sex, race, class and so on. Further, forbidden grounds for discrimination usually have to do with accidents of birth and the like, and many feel it unjust for people to be treated differently on account of such things. Such feelings stem in part from a belief that all our actions should reflect universal rational principles in a straightforward way–if I choose to hire or associate with X I am (it is thought) implicitly judging X to be better and others worse, and should be able to justify the judgment on universally applicable grounds.
However, in social matters we can not be guided so simply by direct application of ideals and principles. The issue in politics is what fosters the best in human life as a practical matter. As one commentator has said, “By their fruits shall ye know them.” By that standard, it is legitimate to treat those differently to whom we have a particular connection arising from accidents of birth and the like. Such accidents are what give us special obligations to the persons who happen to be our parents, our children, and our fellow citizens. If we tried on principle to ignore such obligations we would be far worse off than at present. We would get not universal love but universal indifference sliding into universal aversion. The legal requirement that we ignore traditional roles and presumptions has on the whole made human relations worse; by making them more artificial it has undermined the ways in which we actually connect to others.

Another source of support for laws requiring inclusiveness is the romantic tendency to reject external rules in the name of subjective feeling; to be excluded is to be subordinated to someone else’s rules and so an offense to the ego. Also, people today feel isolated and at the mercy of large impersonal institutions, and want guarantees they will be treated well. In practice, however, antidiscrimination laws increase the pervasiveness of bureaucratic rules, the impersonality of institutions and the isolation of individuals, and so feed the alienation and insecurity from which they spring. It is better not to give into the temptation to adopt them.
Finally, much of what passes for moral opposition to exclusion serves the interests of particular social groups. Weakening of ethnic, family and religious cohesiveness strengthens the social and political groups now dominant, whose power is based on money and bureaucratic forms of social organization. The cohesion and power of those groups is enhanced by defining their opponents, those who prefer traditional forms of social organization that involve traditional distinctions, as “bigots” to whom all evil is attributed, and propagating that view through their control of education and communications.

What is the overall political effect of antidiscrimination laws?

One effect is radically to increase the power of government and markets at the expense of everything else. Inclusiveness doesn’t mean that PhDs, rich people or high-ranking officials have to be treated the same as everyone else. It means that men have to have the same as women, married people as unmarried people, blacks as Koreans. Its function is therefore to disrupt and destroy all social institutions other than those based on bureaucracy or money.

By attacking religious and ethnic particularism antidiscrimination laws weaken culture, community and family and in substitution increase the dependence of individuals on government and on what they can buy. The greatest gains go to government. Antidiscrimination laws entitle it to dictate things, such as procedures and standards regarding membership, that define the nature and character of private associations. To do so it must prescribe the permissible nature, purposes and procedures of associations. For example, to determine whether employment decisions are made for “legitimate business reasons,” what counts as such a reason must be fixed and private decisions formalized to make them susceptible to review. Every private organization thus becomes to some degree a branch of government. Within every organization such laws create a faction that depends for its position on victim status, further weakening the organization.

A free society requires a variety of institutions that are independent of government and capable of calling it to account. That variety is a source of social strength; what hurts some organizations benefits or provides opportunities to others, and society as a whole is held harmless. In the interests of “diversity,” antidiscrimination laws abolish both independence and actual diversity. The membership of every association must correspond to that of society at large. The requirement that every organization be as welcoming to members of protected groups as to others requires the internal culture of every organization to be forced into the same artificial mold. One becomes very much like another, and all must toe the government line and enforce it on their members. The practical restrictions on freedom of inquiry and discussion in universities and media organizations and the increasing uniformity of permitted views that have resulted from antidiscrimination laws provide and example of the inconsistency of those laws with a free and self-governing society.

Isn’t it divisive to oppose measures designed to promote inclusiveness?

Inclusiveness is intrinsically far more divisive than laissez-faire. Its effect when successful is to dissolve all particular connections among human beings so ideally their only serious connections would go through universal institutions like transnational bureaucracies and world markets. It therefore works by absolutely dividing all of us from each other and turning us into a mass of unconnected individuals.

Beyond that, measures to promote inclusiveness rely for legitimacy on a sense of grievance on the part of those they favor, so maintenance of ill will is necessary for continued support. Such measures are unlikely, especially in the long run, to seem fair to those burdened by them. Inclusiveness thus dramatically exacerbates and perpetuates divisions. The first task of its proponents has always been to raise consciousness: to use divisive rhetoric, to violate the law to demonstrate contempt for established order, and so on.

Opposition to inclusiveness does appear divisive to many people because for many years social peace has been bought by giving aggressive proponents of inclusiveness what they want. Opposition to their demands is therefore viewed as a breach of the social contract and virtual declaration of war. Nonetheless, whether a position is divisive can not be separated from its merits. Those who believe that a principle is fundamental to good social order find opposition to that principle divisive. If inclusiveness makes for a happier and more peaceful society, then opposition to it is divisive, but the same is true for freedom of association.

Doesn’t discrimination lead to Auschwitz?

No. Racial discrimination and the like have no special connection with political disaster or radical evil. The Nazis were actively “racist,” “sexist” and “homophobic,” but so were the armies that defeated them. Auschwitz was an exceptional event and needs to be explained by reference to something unusual. Discrimination of some sort is ingrained in all societies, since all social institutions have to differentiate persons and cases to exist at all. Ethnic culture is a normal part of social functioning, so ethnic discrimination has generally been frankly accepted. Why think that just by remaining what it has always been it suddenly caused Auschwitz?

Indeed, the member of the anti-Nazi alliance most opposed ideologically to ethnic and other particularisms was more murderous than even the Nazi regime. What repeatedly led to the murder of millions of innocents in the 20th century was not toleration of particularist loyalties as one of the principles of social order but the determined attempt to make some one thing the sole foundation of human society and eliminate other influences. The attempt to make race an absolute that trumped all other considerations led to Auschwitz, but the attempt to extirpate human acquisitiveness and particularism as social principles has led to the murder of far more innocents than died in the Holocaust. The intolerant utopianism of the civil rights movement has much in common with the things that led to the political catastrophes of recent times. Evil is multiform, and cannot be defeated by extremist projects like the extirpation of ethnic and sexual distinctions.

What about Bosnia, the Wars of Religion, and other communal conflicts?

What about bloody and tyrannical attempts to establish unity? On the face of it, the desire to be separate is is less aggressive than the imperialistic desire to suppress small-scale systems in the interests of a universal homogeneous order.

In general, it promotes peace to let men live the way they find natural. To the extent clannishness is destructive it is safest to let it diffuse itself among a variety of affiliations, so that loyalties are based on a combination of family, religion, ethnicity, locality, occupation, class, and so on, without any one becoming overriding and therefore divisive. The effect of civil rights laws is to create legal entitlements based on a very few affiliations, primarily race, and so to heighten divisions and make race-based politics inevitable and permanent. If such laws were abolished, things such as race would have only a degree of importance corresponding to actual attitudes that in the long run are usually based on daily experience and practicality.

Proposals for social changes as radical as the eradication of sexism and ethnocentrism raise questions as to the degree of force needed to establish and maintain the new form of society, and whether coercion can ultimately be successful or will only destroy existing arrangements without being able to replace them. If men are clannish by nature, arrangements that deny expression to their inclinations are likely to be more oppressive and less stable than arrangements that give those inclinations a definite role. In this century attempts to eradicate economic distinctions have led to catastrophe, as have fascist and National Socialist attempts to achieve a totally unified national society. It is not clear why efforts to abolish our own divisions by extirpating racism, sexism and so on, if carried on with equal determination and equal readiness to overturn whatever stands in the way, should turn out better.

It can of course be very messy when societies unravel that aimed at greater inclusiveness and universality than realities permitted. The bloody collapse of socialist Yugoslavia, British India and medieval Catholic Christendom are examples. However, the separation of Norway from Sweden and Slovakia from the Czech Republic show that disengagement can be a peaceful process even when it leads to political independence. Most often it need not do so. The principles of decentralization and voluntary affiliation can usually prevent extremes, allowing diversity within a common legal order and so avoiding the necessity of political dissolution. Switzerland, which devolves power and multiplies political divisions that correspond to ethnic and religious differences, is a better model for peace in a diverse society than more centralizing systems.

Would more exclusion and discrimination really make the world a better place?

The point is not that in themselves they are goods that should be multiplied as much as possible, but that they have a function and attempting to eliminate them necessarily destroys good things. Like armies, prisons and economic inequality, their destructive side is easily visible. Nonetheless, they are necessary for the existence of reasonably cohesive societies with common standards. Accordingly, attempts to extirpate them soon become destructive.

Of course, in itself the repeal of civil rights laws and similar measures might do very little good; such measures are no less a symptom than a cause of our current disorders. There are many institutions today, such as the welfare state, the mass media, and the modern educational system, that tend to destroy the social cohesion needed for human flourishing. Nonetheless, repeal is a necessary reform that should be carried out, even though other things may also be necessary. It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.

(Note: Source site has notes and many valuable links, in addition to many more penetrating essays)

Africa for the Africans. Asia for the Asians. White Countries for Everybody?

July 27, 2008

Just in case VOR listeners missed Peter Schaenk’s great interview with Bob Whitaker, here is:


From Robert Whitaker

“Liberals and respectable conservatives agree there is this RACE problem. They say this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”

“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”

“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”

“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”

“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”

“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to it?”

“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

“They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.”

“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”

For more of Bob’s Wisdom go to: National Salvation

El Dorado, Texas FDLS

July 27, 2008

An excellent videos on the unlawful situation in El Dorado, Texas with Child Protective Services stealing their children.

Author: subiesisters
Keywords: El Dorado children CPS corrupt judges
Added: July 27, 2008

The Patriot Dames, July 31, 2008

July 27, 2008

Our radio show on Thursday, July 31, will again host another mother’s plight when her children were stolen by Child Protective Services. Every parent must turn in.

Author: subiesisters
Keywords: CPS Children Services child stealing subpoena power judges
Added: July 27, 2008

Peter Schaenk 7/25/08 Behind Jew Eyes

July 26, 2008


If world events confuse and confound you, you’re not alone. The behavior of our “closet ally” Israel is confusing by Western standards. Once you view the world through the eyes of the Jew, it all begins to make sense…

In this program Peter also discusses:

  • IDF vets train New York Jews to defend themselves against “anti-Semitic” violence.
  • Jalapenos grown in Mexico are now on the Salmonella list.
  • Discussion of the JWO in public is counter-productive claims a listener, Peter disagrees.
  • All the latest news and “This Day In History”

Bud White 7/18/08 This Week in Organized Jewry

July 25, 2008

IDF Vets Train NY Jewish Paramilitaries

July 25, 2008


Yonatan Stern, the "Sgan Mefaked Hakita" (deputy squad commander) of Kitat Konenut New York, insists his "paramilitary emergency armed response team" is no "group of vigilantes or a JDL [Jewish Defense League]."

"The goal of the organization is to have a competent and professional group of armed volunteers ready to respond to a threat at a moment’s notice in any area where Jews reside," explains the Israeli combat veteran.

"We do not carry out demonstrations or political activity of any kind as we have no political agenda. Our agenda is to protect Jews wherever and whenever necessary and by any means needed."

On Friday, the third session of the group’s training camp will begin in the Catskills woodlands of upstate New York, on land belonging to a Jewish supporter of the organization. With tuition at $400, the group expects 15 participants and five instructors for the 10 days of training. Participation has doubled since the group began three years ago.

Kitat Konenut New York is modeled on the rapid response teams in the West Bank settlements that are often the first to act when terrorist attacks or other emergencies take place. The group bills itself as religious-Zionist but nonpolitical.

American Jews have "felt a false sense of security in the United States," Stern believes, "because historically there has been less anti-Semitism than in other countries. But there have been incidents – neo-Nazi terrorist attacks, Arab terrorist attacks. Jews have to be vigilant."

"The threat is not from the American people or government," he adds, but from "terrorist sleeper cells that want to target Jews. These people are very dangerous and the FBI issues warnings against them very often," he said, citing the FBI’s warning, after the killing of Hizbullah operations chief Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus in February, that the Lebanese group might carry out terror attacks on Jewish communities.

"The average American is friendly to Jews, but we’re worried about those individuals on the periphery of society," Stern says.

The group was founded in the summer of 2006 in response to the shooting attack at the Jewish federation of Seattle premises by local Muslim Naveed Haq.

"We realized there is a need for this kind of organization, and as Israeli combat veterans living in the US, we have the skills and ability to respond to this," Stern says.

The group’s MySpace page details the camp’s regimen, which includes training in the IDF’s Krav Maga martial art, use of non-lethal weapons and identification of suspicious objects, but also sharpshooter and assault rifle training, infantry exercises and endurance marches. Explanatory literature lists a large number of weapons with which participants can expect to train.

"We believe all Jews in the US must be legally armed and trained," Stern says, "and towards this goal we hold paramilitary training camps to train and equip Jewish American youth."

The group’s literature notes emphatically that all firearms used in training "are 100% legal and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws."

"We strongly believe in the constitutional right to bear arms and we express this right to its fullest," it adds.

The group claims to be "well-connected with the New York police and fire departments" and it invites "all members of the law enforcement community to join in our life-saving activities."

Stern says, "We are all legally armed and carry radios and cellphones" during all hours of the day, and even on Shabbat, "as we need to be constantly ready to respond to any incident."

The camp literature also promises discussions on Torah and Halacha, understanding and confronting terrorism, fighting anti-Semitism, the history of the Zionist movement in the Land of Israel, and encouraging participants to "know your rights and learn how every American can and must be legally armed and how to express the Second Amendment" – the right to bear arms.

Funded by tuition money and a handful of private donors, the group does not exclude secular Jews, Stern says, but asks that they respect the Orthodox nature of the camp by observing Shabbat in public and refraining from bringing non-kosher food.

"We wouldn’t have a problem with non-Jews coming either," says Stern, "but no non-Jew has applied thus far."


The Salami Principle: How People Accept the Unacceptable

July 25, 2008

Friday, July 25, 2008
The Salami Principle: How People Accept the Unacceptable

by Phaedrus
Imagine, if you will, an average American or European citizen from 1950, sent forwards through time to the present day. As the door of his time-capsule swings open and he steps tentatively outside to appraise this Brave New World in which we currently live, what do you imagine his reaction might be? Phaedrus ventures to propose that it would be nothing short of horrified disbelief. We might picture it for ourselves as going to sleep one night and waking up the next morning to find ourselves in some God-forsaken, dysfunctional menagerie populated by all manner of bizarre and terrifying entities which are carrying out the most unspeakably wicked acts towards one-another as the rational mind can conceive. Our time-traveler’s senses are overcome to the point of swooning by the thick, unmistakable, acrid stench of pure Evil. How could mankind have descended to this level? It defies all reason.

Yet as this voyager in time continues to look on aghast, he sees people broadly similar to himself in everything other than the clothes they wear, who seem to a great extent unaware of the maelstrom of madness going on all around them. They continue to go about their activities largely impervious to their environment. Occasionally our visitor is mortified to see one of the modern humans brutally slain by a deranged predator right before his eyes, yet even more revolted by the realization that whenever this happens, the other humans, though fleetingly fearful, quickly appear to resume their normal activities – rather TOO quickly, in fact. As the soundtrack backdrop to all this insanity, there is the constant “thump, thump, thump” of some kind of bass percussion instrument which is almost deafening. Modern man, however, appears not to notice it. To engage in the most basic conversation, he has to shout directly into the ear of his interlocutor, but seems to bear this burden without complaint.

Stunned by his nightmare vision of the future, the venturer gathers enough wits together to make a dash for his time-capsule. He fears for his life momentarily as he fumbles with the controls, but seconds later, with IMMENSE relief, he finds himself back in the familiar, ordered society of 1950. Had it all just been a bad dream? Surely no one could REALLY live in a future world like that. It was SO bad, SO dysfunctional that decent people – the majority – would NEVER permit such a sick society to arise. Yes, that must be it. It was just a terrible vision and nothing more. What on earth could have given him such a bad dream? Ah, it must have come about through his reading George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four two years earlier. Yeah, that must be it. Powerful works of fiction have a way of perturbing our subconscious in ways that can surface quite a while later. Phew! What a relief!

Sadly, the test of time proves to us today, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that this nightmare vision of the future was no figment of the human imagination. Our hypothetical time-traveler from 1950 only made a fleeting visit to 2008, he only saw a tiny FRACTION of what now goes on on a daily basis, yet it was enough to convince him that the world had gone mad. To the mind of the average, decent citizen of 1950, the way we ‘live’ today is like something out of a badly-made horror movie. The citizens of 1950 would NEVER suffer a future to develop like the one that nevertheless, has. The society we see around us today would be totally UNACCEPTABLE to the average person of 58 years ago. The obvious question, then, given the foregoing reasonable assumptions, is HOW the HECK did we get into this state? How could it POSSIBLY HAPPEN?

The intervening years since reasonable sanity once prevailed, have been driven by a specific Agenda. It is an Agenda that no decent person could possibly sign up to. Nonetheless, the forces that conceived of it drove it through and they were able to do this by making use of something known as the ‘Salami Principle.’ Now a Salami is a long sausage; sometimes VERY long. In one piece it is pretty much indigestible, so the powers that be, that envisioned our post-war future for us, decided that the only way to make us swallow it would be to slice it up and feed it to us over very many years; a little piece at a time. Now this hypothetical salami isn’t a palatable sausage at all. Even small slices of it don’t taste very nice. But they’re manageable – just. If we’re spoon fed thin slices at odd intervals, preferably whilst our attention is distracted (like folks do when they’re feeding a baby sometimes) then it’s not such an ordeal. We can just about stomach a slice at a time, whereas the whole sausage in one sitting would be a complete no-no.

The makers of this poison salami have chosen the thickness of its slices well. Only a morsel of the sausage must we endure each time, stopping short JUST before we throw-up. In the year 2008, we are forcing down the final few slices of this complete, toxic sausage. Phaedrus is a great believer in metaphors, so presumably by now it will be clear what this salami consists of. Our time traveler saw it almost in its entirety. What was the first slice? Probably the creation of the United Nations. Seemed like a good idea at the time to peace-loving people everywhere, didn’t it? No more wars, they told us! And many, many, many similar slices have followed since; each subtly chipping away at our culture, heritage and freedom. They have become too numerous to itemize. But some you may be aware of include the following:-

The founding of the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, NAFTA (North American Union in waiting), GATT (now the WTO), the World Bank, the IMF, the European Union (started off as a small trading arrangement between a handful of independent countries over 50 years ago and now a federal empire of some 27, centrally-governed sub-states like Germany, the UK, Italy and France). In 1948, we saw the founding of Israel – the most ruinously expensive, murderous, parasite pseudo-state in all history. Also along the way have been constant attacks on our nationhood and sense of self: so-called ‘equality’ laws arising out of the civil rights movement which have festered out of all proportion to become a cudgel to subjugate European Americans with. The ‘permissive society’ in the 1960s. Sex, drugs and Rock n Roll. Punk Rock, Hip-Hop, Gangsta Rap. The promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism. The purposeful destruction of the family unit. The robbery of taxpayers; funneling our hard-earned cash into the pockets of Negroes in Africa and Jews in Israel on the pretext of ‘aid’ or ‘security concerns.’ One could go on and on and on…

If all this had been foisted on us in one hit, the people of America and Europe would NEVER have stood for it. There would have been Bloody Revolution throughout the western world. The powers that be (mainly Jews) therefore fed it to us little by little; JUST enough at a time for the bulk of us not to be SO angry that we’d actually DO anything about it each time we were fed another slice. We collectively screwed up our faces, closed our eyes and swallowed. Then we morosely got back on with struggling to pay the bills and keep a roof over our heads. It’s been a long-term, on-going, insidious process carefully calculated to be JUST within the limits of our tolerance at each step. Last week saw warrant-less wire-tapping and e-mail snooping voted in by Congress. We grumble, make our excuses and get on with what remains of our lives. Next up? Micro-chipping for the masses. They’ll bring it in, once again, little by little. First, they’ll start with our kids. “It’ll protect them,” they’ll say, “Why should your kids be denied the kind of protection that we routinely give to dogs? Don’t they deserve better protection than mere animals already enjoy?” Later on it’ll be extended to criminals on parole, then anyone with a record – and finally, every last one of us. Same goes for the planned DNA database.

Anyone with half a brain can see where all this is leading and HAS BEEN leading now for many decades. Our REAL enemies aren’t so-called “terrorists” in far-flung lands; they’re the Jews in Washington DC, their gentile, sell-out cronies, and their counterparts in Europe. The situation as it stands today is UNACCEPTABLE. It is as UNACCEPTABLE today as it would have been to the good citizens of 1950. The fact that that the UNACCEPTABLE has accrued over a long period instead of in one, ugly great dollop counts for nothing. It is no less UNACCEPTABLE for that. Not one iota We have now reached where we were headed all along and thanks to the Internet (alone, largely) increasing numbers of ordinary Joes are waking up to the fact. That is the one, bright shining ray of hope on the horizon for us. The poisoners and traitors that have delivered us into the nightmare of early 21st century life will shortly be exposed before the entire world and dealt with in the appropriate manner. I truly believe that. I can SEE it, in fact, in our very near future. And it ain’t going to be a pretty sight. A lot of good men will die in wiping out this Evil. That is the price we must pay for not minding Jefferson’s vital warning: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

Peter Schaenk 7/24/08 Paint it Black

July 25, 2008


In this program Peter discusses:

  • Whether it’s Jewish involvement in the Russian Mafia, Russian Revolution, White and Black slave trade or the crucifixion of Christ, there is a concerted effort to “Black Out” any trace of the Jewish hand print from the public record
  • MS 13 and illegal immigration
  • All the latest news and “This Day In History”

Obama to Stop the Atom and “Terrible Storms”

July 24, 2008

European youths, signaling a complete loss of marbles, cheered breathlessly for Barry O’baumstein as he rattled off line after carefully-constructed line of NWO talking points.

The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom.

This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children to a world where the oceans rise, and famine spreads, and terrible storms devastate our lands.

Not forgetting his puppetmasters, Obama summoned the “Holocaust:”

Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words “never again” in Darfur?

The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand.

For those unfamiliar with the academic brand of NWO-speak, this is boilerplate language for dragging White countries down into the mud. Read it again, it’s right there: “Walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand.” If there are no walls, then the third world swarm are coming here and the government will not be allowed to stop them. If there are no “walls,” there are no nations. You hear that, White man fighting in Iraq? They sent you away, ostensibly to fight for something they are currently dismantling.

The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.

This crap-tacular comment will raise eyebrows in Israel. Or not. He’s already promised them that he plans to strengthen US obligations to Israel. Did you know that, White America? Were you even asked? And while Israel is busy building walls and buying American politicians, we’re stuck with Mexicans gunning down a father and his two boys in traffic because, well, it’s a Mexican, and Mexicans make Mexicos.

Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom; indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares.

If we didn’t have any tribal allegiance, then why were the indians fought? Why has management always sent our young men to die in wars on the basis of our God, America, apple pie, etc? These are all clear notions of tribe. Indeed, our allegiance was actually to our White tribe when the founding fathers wrote that they did all of this for their “posterity.” You ain’t it, Barry. The people pushing you are more out of touch than any other elite in history, and that means things will be getting interesting soon.


Peter Schaenk 7/23/08 Interview with Bob Whitaker

July 24, 2008


In this program Peter discusses:

  • Bob Whitaker was a Reagan appointee and senior staff member on Capitol Hill. He knows the political machinations of Washington all too well. In this interview, Peter and Bob discuss the “White Genocide” occurring in the West, “Wordism”, and what Bob refers to as the “Weakest Generation”; The WW2 generation.
  • Jews and the porn industry
  • All the latest news and “This Day In History”

Turning the Tables on the Israel-Firsters

July 23, 2008

Turning the Tables on the Israel-Firsters

July 16, 2008

by Michael Scheuer


Now that the dust has settled in the spat between journalist Joe Klein and the ideologues at Commentary, it is time to regret the ink spilled over the non-issue of “dual loyalties.” The idea that there are U.S. citizens who have equal loyalties to the United States and Israel is passé. American Israel-firsters have long since dropped any pretense of loyalty to the United States and its genuine national interests. They have moved brazenly into the Israel first, last, and always camp. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Norman Podhoretz, Victor Davis Hanson, the Rev. Franklin Graham, Alan Dershowitz, Rudy Giuliani, Douglas Feith, the Rev. Rod Parsley, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Bill Kristol, the Rev. John Hagee, and the thousands of wealthy supporters of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) appear to care about the United States only so far as Washington is willing to provide immense, unending funding and the lives of young U.S. service personnel to protect Israel. These individuals and their all-for-Israel journals – Commentary, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal – amount to nothing less than a fifth column intent on involving 300 million Americans in other peoples’ religious wars, making them pay and bleed to protect a nation in which the United States has no genuine national security interest at stake.

The Israel-firsters’ success is, of course, the stuff of which legends are made. Most recently, for example, we heard President Bush echo Sen. Lieberman’s insane and subversive contention that the United States has a “duty” to ensure the fulfilling of God’s millennia-old promise to Abraham regarding the creation and survival of Israel. Bush told the Knesset all Americans are ready to endlessly bleed and pay to ensure Israel’s security. And where does the president derive authority to make such a commitment in the name of his countrymen? From the Constitution? On the basis of America’s dominant religion? From – heaven forbid – a thoughtful, hardheaded analysis of U.S. interests?

No, Bush’s pledge was based on none of these. Bush’s decision to more deeply involve America in the eternal Arab-Israeli war was based on nothing less than the corruption wrought on the American political system by the Israel-firsters, AIPAC’s enormous treasury, and the lamentable but growing influence of America’s leading evangelical Protestant preachers.

The Israel-firsters started the Iraq war and now have the United States locked into an occupation of that country that may not end in any of our lifetimes. Unless Americans ignore the likes of Hanson, Podhoretz, Lieberman, Woolsey, and Wolfowitz, the cost in blood and treasure will ultimately bankrupt America.

AIPAC is a perfectly legal organization, and the wealth of its members is channeled into reliable campaign contributions for any candidate from either party who will put Israel’s interests above America’s. From McCain to Obama, from Pelosi to Giuliani, from Hillary Clinton to Vice President Cheney, AIPAC pumps money to any and every American politician who is willing to adopt an Israel-first policy.

Leading American Protestant evangelical preachers – men like Hagee, Parsley, and Graham – are the newest and perhaps most anti-American members of this fifth column. They serve two purposes: (1) to reinforce in the minds of their flocks the Bush-Lieberman absurdity that the United States has a “duty” to ensure Israel’s survival; and (2) to use religious rhetoric to steadily convince the Muslim world that U.S. leaders are interested only in taming – and if need be, destroying – Islam.

The reality and power of this anti-American, pro-Israel triangle – Israel-first politicians, civil servants, and pundits; AIPAC’s corrupting influence; and the warmongering of major evangelical Protestant preachers – is so obvious and palpable that the only way its members can blur reality is to deny the triangle’s existence and identify their critics as anti-Semites. Well, the time has come to simply ignore these folks’ knee-jerk hurling of that epithet. Indeed, the slur ought to understood for what it is: a sure sign that the Israel-firsters know that their fifth column would be destroyed in a minute if their fellow Americans come to recognize that their sons and daughters are dying in Iraq and soon elsewhere to protect an Israeli state whose existence is just as important to U.S. interests as the creation of a Palestinian state – that is, of no importance whatsoever.

American voters must start using the democratic process to begin removing themselves from the religious war known as the Arab-Israeli conflict. Disengagement will take time, hard work, and a steadfast commitment to the rule of law. Three actions are well within the voters’ capability, and their use would bring pressure on federal officials to stop killing America’s children in wars between Arabs and Israelis.

Voters should press federal representatives to end taxpayer funding for the National Endowment for Democracy and other such organizations. These organizations’ main function is to promote the fallacy that U.S. interests are served by making sure that Israel – “the embattled island of democracy in the Middle East” – is protected, and that the lives of American children should be joyfully spent to bring democracy to foreigners in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
Voters should not vote for any candidate for federal office who accepts contributions from AIPAC or any other Israel-first organization. This decision would be an important step in beginning to sweep clean the Augean stable that is American politics.
Voters of all faiths must press their religious leaders to regularly, publicly, and specifically denounce the evangelical Protestant preachers whose fire-and-brimstone support for Israel involves Americans in religious wars in which U.S. interests are not threatened.
Neutralizing the Israel-first fifth column must be done, but it must be accomplished using legitimate democratic tools: voting, lobbying, free speech, and support for candidates pledged to keep America out of other peoples’ religious wars. The invocation of the anti-Semite epithet by the Israel-firsters should be ignored. To be silenced by the slurs of the Israel-firsters is to ignominiously invite the end of American independence by subordinating U.S. interests to those of a foreign nation, as well as to forget the warning of the greatest American. “If men are precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind,” George Washington said in March 1783, “reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent, we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.” As long as the Israel-firsters can define the limits of acceptable public discourse, Americans are on their way to the slaughter.

Nathan Abrams On Jews In The American Porn Industry

July 23, 2008


A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we’d prefer to pretend that the ‘triple-exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews have played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America. Jewish involvement in pornography has a long history in the United States, as Jews have helped to transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana. These are the ‘true blue Jews’.

Smut peddlers

Jewish activity in the porn industry divides into two (sometimes overlapping) groups: pornographers and performers. Though Jews make up only two per cent of the American population, they have been prominent in pornography. Many erotica dealers in the book trade between 1890 and 1940 were immigrant Jews of German origin. According to Jay A. Gertzman, author of Bookleggers and Smuthounds:The Trade in Erotica, 1920-1940 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), ‘Jews were prominent in the distribution of gallantiana [fiction on erotic themes and books of dirty jokes and ballads], avant-garde sexually explicit novels, sex pulps, sexology, and flagitious materials’.

In the postwar era, America’s most notorious pornographer was Reuben Sturman, the ‘Walt Disney of Porn’. According to the US Department of Justice, throughout the 1970s Sturman controlled most of the pornography circulating in the country. Born in 1924, Sturman grew up in Cleveland’s East Side. Initially, he sold comics and magazines, but when he realized sex magazines produced twenty times the revenue of comic books, he moved exclusively into porn, eventually producing his own titles and setting up retail stores. By the end of the 1960s, Sturman ranked at the top of adult magazine distributors and by the mid-70s he owned over 200 adult bookstores. Sturman also introduced updated versions of the traditional peepshow booth (typically a dark room with a small colour TV on which the viewer can view X-rated videos). It was said that Sturman did not simply control the adult-entertainment industry; he was the industry. Eventually he was convicted of tax evasion and other crimes and died, disgraced, in prison in 1997. His son, David, continued running the family business.

The contemporary incarnation of Sturman is 43-year-old Jewish Clevelander Steven Hirsch, who has been described as ‘the Donald Trump of porno’. The link between the two is Steve’s father, Fred, who was a stockbroker-cum-lieutenant to Sturman. Today Hirsch runs the Vivid Entertainment Group, which has been called the Microsoft of the porn world, the top producer of ‘adult’ films in the US. His specialty was to import mainstream marketing techniques into the porn business. Indeed, Vivid parallels the Hollywood studio system of the 1930s and 1940s, particularly in its exclusive contracts to porn stars who are hired and moulded by Hirsch. Vivid was the subject of a behind-the-scenes reality TV show recently broadcast on Channel 4.

Nice Jewish girls and boys

Jews accounted for most of the leading male performers as well as a sizeable number of female stars in porn movies of the 1970s and ‘80s. The doyen of the Hebrew studs is Ron Jeremy. Known in the trade as ‘the Hedgehog’, Jeremy is one of America’s biggest porn stars. The 51-year-old Jeremy was raised in an upper-middle-class Jewish family in Flushing, Queens, and has since appeared in more than 1,600 adult movies, as well as directing over 100. Jeremy has achieved iconic status in America, a hero to males of all ages, Jewish and gentile alike – he’s the nebbischy, fat, hairy, ugly guy who gets to bed dozens of beautiful women. He presents an image of a modern-day King David, a Jewish superstud who supersedes the traditional heroes of Jewish lore. No sallow Talmud scholar he. His stature was recently cemented with the release of a pornomentary about his life, Porn Star: The Legend of Ron Jeremy. As probably the most famous Jewish male porn star, Jeremy has done wonders for the psyche of Jewish men in America. Jeremy has also just released a compilation CD, Bang-A-Long-With Ron Jeremy. For £7.99 (including delivery), the lucky listener gets to enjoy Jeremy’s hand-picked favourite porno grooves along with narration by ‘the legend’ himself. As the publicity blurb gushes, ‘Out of the brown paper wrappings and into the mainstream’.

Seymore Butts, aka Adam Glasser, is everything that Jeremy is not: young, handsome and toned. Glasser, a 39-year-old New York Jew, opened a gym in 1991 in Los Angeles. When no one joined, he borrowed a video camera for 24 hours, went to a nearby strip club, recruited a woman, then headed back to his gym and started shooting. Although the movie stank, with a bit of chutzpah and a few business cards he wangled a deal with a manufacturer and started cranking out films. Within a few years, ‘Seymore Butts’ – his nom de porn which is simultaneously his sales pitch – became one of the largest franchises in the adult-film business. As the king of the gonzo genre (marked by handheld cameras, the illusion of spontaneity and a low-tech aesthetic meant to suggest reality), he is today probably the most famous Jewish porn mogul. Seymore Inc., his production company, releases about 36 films annually, most of them shot for less than $15,000, each of them grossing more than 10 times that sum. Glasser employs 12 people, including his mother and cousin Stevie as respectively genial company accountant (and matchmaker for her single son) and lovable but roguish general gopher. Glasser currently even has his own reality TV show (also broadcast on Channel 4), a ten-episode docu-soap called Family Business, whose opening credits show Glasser’s barmitzvah photo.

In search of a buck

Jews became involved in the porn industry for much the same reasons that their co-religionists became involved in Hollywood. They were attracted to an industry primarily because it admitted them. Its newness meant that restrictive barriers had not yet been erected, as they had in so many other areas of American life. In porn, there was no discrimination against Jews. During the early part of the twentieth century, an entrepreneur did not require large sums of money to make a start in the film business; cinema was considered a passing fad. In the porn business, it was similarly straightforward to get going. To show ‘stag’ movies or loops, as they were known, all one needed was a projector, screen and a few chairs. Not tied up with the status quo and with nothing to lose by innovation, Jews were open to new ways of doing business. Gertzman explains that

"Jews, when they found themselves excluded from a field of endeavour, turned to a profession in which they sensed they could eventually thrive by cooperating with colleagues in a community of effort . . . Jews have for a very long time cultivated the temperament and talents of middlemen, and they are proud of these abilities".

The adult entertainment business required something that Jews possessed in abundance: chutzpah. Early Jewish pornographers were marketing geniuses and ambitious entrepreneurs whose toughness, intelligence and boundless self-confidence were responsible for their successes.

Of course, the large number of Jews in porn were mainly motivated by the desire to make profits. Just as their counterparts in Hollywood provided a dream factory for Americans, a blank screen upon which the Jewish moguls’ visions of America could be created and projected, so the porn-moguls displayed a talent for understanding public tastes. What better way to provide the stuff of dreams and fantasies than through the adult-entertainment industry? Performers did porn for the money. As ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman commented, ‘Those Jews who enter the pornography industry have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream.’

Secular sex

Like their mainstream counterparts, Jews who enter porn do not usually do so as representatives of their religious group. Most of the performers and pornographers are Jewish culturally but not religiously. Many are entirely secular, Jews in name only. Sturman, however, identified as a Jew – he was a generous donator to Jewish charities – and performer Richard Pacheco once interviewed to be a rabbinical student.

Very few, if any, porn films have overtly Jewish themes, although Jeremy once tried to get several Jewish porn stars together to make a kosher porn film. The exception is Debbie Duz Dishes, in which Nina Hartley plays a sexually insatiable Jewish housewife who enjoys sex with anyone who rings the doorbell. It has sold very well, spawned a couple of sequels and is currently very hard to buy – perhaps indicating a new niche to exploit. Indeed, according to an editorial on the World Union of Jewish Students website,

"there are thousands of people searching for Jewish porn. After things like Jewish calendar, Jewish singles, Jewish dating, and Jewish festivals comes ‘Jewish porn’ in the list of top search keywords that provide".

Sexual rebels

Is there a deeper reason, beyond the mere financial, as to why Jews in particular have become involved in porn? There is surely an element of rebellion in Jewish X-rated involvement. Its very taboo and forbidden nature serves to make it attractive. As I written in these pages before, treyf signifies ‘the whole world of forbidden sexuality, the sexuality of the goyim, and there all the delights are imagined to lie . . .’ (‘Reel Kashrut: Jewish food in film’, JQ 189 [Spring 2003]).

According to one anonymous industry insider quoted by E. Michael Jones in the magazine Culture Wars (May 2003), ‘the leading male performers through the 1980s came from secular Jewish upbringings and the females from Roman Catholic day schools’. The standard porn scenario became as a result a Jewish fantasy of schtupping the Catholic shiksa.

Furthermore, as Orthodox Jew and porn gossipmonger Luke Ford explains on his website ( ‘Porn is just one expression of [the] rebellion against standards, against the disciplined life of obedience to Torah that marks a Jew living Judaism.’ It is also a revolt against (often middle-class) parents who wish their children to be lawyers, doctors and accountants. As performer Bobby Astyr put it on the same website, ‘It’s an “up yours” to the uncles with the pinky rings who got down on me as a kid for wanting to be musician.’

As religious influences waned and were replaced by secular ones, free-thinking Jews, especially those from California’s Bay Area, viewed sex as a means of personal and political liberation. America provided the freest society Jews have ever known, as manifested by the growth of the adult industry. Those Jewish women who have sex onscreen certainly stand in sharp contradiction to the stereotype of the ‘Jewish American Princess’. They (and I’m speculating here) may have seen themselves as fulfilling the promise of liberation, emancipating themselves from what feminist Betty Friedan in 1963 called the ‘comfortable concentration camp’ of the household as they set out into the Promised Land of the porno sets of Southern California. It signified their economic and social freedom: they were free to choose to enter, rather than coerced into it by economic and other circumstances. Once they had lain down, they could stand on their own two feet, particularly as female performers typically earn twice as much as their male counterparts.

Sexual revolutionaries

Extending the subversive thesis, Jewish involvement in the X-rated industry can be seen as a proverbial two fingers to the entire WASP establishment in America. Some porn stars viewed themselves as frontline fighters in the spiritual battle between Christian America and secular humanism. According to Ford, Jewish X-rated actors often brag about their ‘joy in being anarchic, sexual gadflies to the puritanical beast’. Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. Astyr remembers having ‘to run or fight for it in grammar school because I was a Jew. It could very well be that part of my porn career is an “up yours” to these people’. Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, said (on, ‘The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.’ Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged. Porn is no longer of the ‘what the Butler saw’ voyeuristic type; instead, it is driven to new extremes of portrayal that stretch the boundaries of the porn aesthetic. As new sexual positions are portrayed, the desire to shock (as well as entertain) seems clear.

It is a case of the traditional revolutionary/radical drive of immigrant Jews in America being channelled into sexual rather than leftist politics. Just as Jews have been disproportionately represented in radical movements over the years, so they are also disproportionately represented in the porn industry. Jews in America have been sexual revolutionaries. A large amount of the material on sexual liberation was written by Jews. Those at the forefront of the movement which forced America to adopt a more liberal view of sex were Jewish. Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading. Reich’s central preoccupations were work, love and sex, while Marcuse prophesied that a socialist utopia would free individuals to achieve sexual satisfaction. Goodman wrote of the ‘beautiful cultural consequences’ that would follow from legalizing pornography: it would ‘ennoble all our art’ and ‘humanize sexuality’. Pacheco was one Jewish porn star who read Reich’s intellectual marriage of Freud and Marx (

"Before I got my first part in an adult film, I went down to an audition for an X-rated film with my hair down to my ass, a copy of Wilhelm Reich’s Sexual Revolution under my arm and yelling about work, ‘love and sex’."

As Rabbi Samuel H. Dresner put it (E. Michael Jones, ‘Rabbi Dresner’s Dilemma: Torah v. Ethnos’ Culture Wars, May 2003), ‘Jewish rebellion has broken out on several levels’, one being ‘the prominent role of Jews as advocates to sexual experimentation’. Overall, then, porn performers are a group of people who praise rebellion, self-fulfilment and promiscuity.

What are we ashamed of?

This brief overview and analysis of the role and motivations behind pornographers and performers is intended to shed light on a neglected topic in American Jewish popular culture. Little has been written about it. Books such as Howard M. Sachar’s A History of the Jews in America (New York: Knopf, 1992) simply ignore the topic. And you can bet that the 350th anniversary of the arrival of the Jews in the United States did not include any celebrations of Jewish innovation in this field. Even the usually tolerant Time Out New York has been too prim to deal with it, although the more iconoclastic Heeb plans an issue on it. In light of the relatively tolerant Jewish view of sex, why are we ashamed of the Jewish role in the porn industry? We might not like it, but the Jewish role in this field has been significant and it is about time it was written about seriously.

Nathan Abrams is a Lecturer in Modern American History at the University of Aberdeen. He has just completed a book on neo-conservatism in the United States.