The method by which a very small nation gains supremacy over its much larger enemies is to pit its enemies against one another. Islam has not been an enemy of the West for half a milennium. Judaism has much more in common with Islam than the West has with either. Islam vs. The West is a contrivance that benefits only the Jews.
The U.S. has no national interest in the Middle East and an argument can be made that Israel itself has no interest in the land it has taken from the Palestinians. Since 1904 when Britain recognized Russian Talmudists as representing all Jewry the Zionists have pursued a program that allowed European Jews with no genetic or historical ties to Palestine to establish, in the guise of a "homeland", a center for world dominion. They have used and continue to use European nations to that end.
The basis for Israel's much touted "right to exist" is the Torah, not the League of Nations:
"The Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth . . . The Lord shall establish thee an holy people unto himself . . . And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the Lord; and they shall be afraid of thee. . . thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. And the Lord shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath . . ."
The Zionist program for world domination is a long-term, multi-faceted, relentless program of destruction that includes two World Wars, interminable smaller wars, massive immigration, and cultural Marxism. They use the same tactics over and over again so we should look closely at their history to tell us how to interpret current events and to tell us what to expect.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Myth of the Suicide Bomber, Part I
I arrived at work one morning in 1979 and was hit with the news that one of our colleagues had been shot and killed. Without any information beyond the words, “she was shot”, I visualized a drive-by shooting on the freeway. Never mind that such a scenario was less likely than her having been struck by lightning, my mind had drawn upon recent news stories to fill in the blanks.
We have been conditioned to use media-generated visions to flesh out stories that are bereft of genuine information. On September 11, 2001, the American people drew on a colossal reservoir of media fantasy that had been collecting in their minds for years. Before any information was available and before an investigation had taken place the public was invited to fill in the blanks, prompted by three words: terrorist, hijacking, and suicide.
Three days later, when the alleged hijackers’ names and photographs were released by the FBI, the photos seemed to confirm what most people already understood – that Muslim hijackers had committed a stupendous act of terrorism against the people of the United States. Never mind that forty-eight hours is not enough time to thoroughly investigate even a single murder. Never mind that the source of the names and photos was not revealed. Never mind that seven of those named and pictured were still alive. The public had been primed to believe that suicide terrorism equals Islamic perpetrators.
What is the source of such a widespread belief? Many would assume that the belief is based on carefully gathered and documented evidence of individual suicide bombings, but that is not the case. In the Middle East the word suicide is routinely attached to the word bombing before any investigation is possible and without any evidence. This fact, by itself, points to a false flag perpetrator.
A false flag operation is an act of terrorism made to appear as if it were the act of the enemy. It is not a military tactic, but a propaganda tactic. Since the end of WW II, the European Jews who created Israel repeatedly have used the false flag operation in their propaganda war against the people of the Middle East. The formation of the State of Israel in a land belonging to others required an audacious removal of settled people and theft of their property. The conflict between Palestinians and Israelis has always been lop-sided with the Israelis in the role of the heavy. After three successful wars against the inhabitants of Palestine in 1948, 1967, and 1973 what the Israelis had on their hands were millions of dispossessed, unarmed people in the periphery of what had been Palestine and in refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon. This did not satisfy the Israelis who wanted the whole lot to move into neighboring countries leaving the land to the Jews.
The injustice and inequality of this situation was too obvious for the Israelis to pursue their goals without being severely condemned. Feeble Palestinian resistance was not enough. It was necessary to make the hapless Palestinians look menacing, dangerous, fanatical, and bent upon the destruction of Israel to justify the Zionists’ continued expansion and relentless punishment of these defeated people.
The Israelis faced an image problem, not a military problem, but Jews have had a great deal of experience in depicting themselves as the victims of “unprovoked”, unwarranted, murderous hatred. The false flag operation is perfectly suited to the Israelis’ predicament in the Middle East.
The conflict between Palestinians and Jewish-European interlopers began with the signing of the Balfour Declaration in 1917. For sixty of those ninety years the State of Israel has represented worldwide Jewish interests, while the Palestinians have been denied their ancestral lands and every advantage of statehood. The Israelis boast nuclear weapons and Palestinian youths throw rocks.
The Palestinians have never been organized to resist Israeli aggression and occupation. They had been chased from their homes in 1948 and for the next twenty years, they lived in makeshift refugee camps. But remarkably in September 1970 these beleaguered Palestinians suddenly emerged as highly organized airplane hijackers who orchestrated the simultaneous hijacking of four passenger jets and a fifth two days later. Not only were these Palestinians highly organized, they were part of a putative, world-wide, terror network that included the Red Army Faction of Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, and the Revolutionary Red Army of Japan. Not only were these Palestinians part of a world-wide Marxist-Leninist-Maoist terror network it was claimed that they trained and supplied arms to members of the Red Army Faction!
The above scene is familiar, not because we remember what was going on between Israelis and Palestinians in 1970, but because, with only minor adjustments, it describes the major elements of dozens of false flag operations since 1948, including 9/11. But where was Islamic terrorism in 1970? Where were the Muslim suicide bombers in 1970? And how did the worldwide Marxist-Leninist-Maoist terror network come to be replaced by a worldwide Islamic terror network?
The easy substitution of one worldwide terror network with a completely different network, with new leaders, adherents, objectives, history, and ideology reveals the sleight-of-hand of the inventors who create the settings for false flag operations.
We have been conditioned to use media-generated visions to flesh out stories that are bereft of genuine information. On September 11, 2001, the American people drew on a colossal reservoir of media fantasy that had been collecting in their minds for years. Before any information was available and before an investigation had taken place the public was invited to fill in the blanks, prompted by three words: terrorist, hijacking, and suicide.
Three days later, when the alleged hijackers’ names and photographs were released by the FBI, the photos seemed to confirm what most people already understood – that Muslim hijackers had committed a stupendous act of terrorism against the people of the United States. Never mind that forty-eight hours is not enough time to thoroughly investigate even a single murder. Never mind that the source of the names and photos was not revealed. Never mind that seven of those named and pictured were still alive. The public had been primed to believe that suicide terrorism equals Islamic perpetrators.
What is the source of such a widespread belief? Many would assume that the belief is based on carefully gathered and documented evidence of individual suicide bombings, but that is not the case. In the Middle East the word suicide is routinely attached to the word bombing before any investigation is possible and without any evidence. This fact, by itself, points to a false flag perpetrator.
A false flag operation is an act of terrorism made to appear as if it were the act of the enemy. It is not a military tactic, but a propaganda tactic. Since the end of WW II, the European Jews who created Israel repeatedly have used the false flag operation in their propaganda war against the people of the Middle East. The formation of the State of Israel in a land belonging to others required an audacious removal of settled people and theft of their property. The conflict between Palestinians and Israelis has always been lop-sided with the Israelis in the role of the heavy. After three successful wars against the inhabitants of Palestine in 1948, 1967, and 1973 what the Israelis had on their hands were millions of dispossessed, unarmed people in the periphery of what had been Palestine and in refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon. This did not satisfy the Israelis who wanted the whole lot to move into neighboring countries leaving the land to the Jews.
The injustice and inequality of this situation was too obvious for the Israelis to pursue their goals without being severely condemned. Feeble Palestinian resistance was not enough. It was necessary to make the hapless Palestinians look menacing, dangerous, fanatical, and bent upon the destruction of Israel to justify the Zionists’ continued expansion and relentless punishment of these defeated people.
The Israelis faced an image problem, not a military problem, but Jews have had a great deal of experience in depicting themselves as the victims of “unprovoked”, unwarranted, murderous hatred. The false flag operation is perfectly suited to the Israelis’ predicament in the Middle East.
The conflict between Palestinians and Jewish-European interlopers began with the signing of the Balfour Declaration in 1917. For sixty of those ninety years the State of Israel has represented worldwide Jewish interests, while the Palestinians have been denied their ancestral lands and every advantage of statehood. The Israelis boast nuclear weapons and Palestinian youths throw rocks.
The Palestinians have never been organized to resist Israeli aggression and occupation. They had been chased from their homes in 1948 and for the next twenty years, they lived in makeshift refugee camps. But remarkably in September 1970 these beleaguered Palestinians suddenly emerged as highly organized airplane hijackers who orchestrated the simultaneous hijacking of four passenger jets and a fifth two days later. Not only were these Palestinians highly organized, they were part of a putative, world-wide, terror network that included the Red Army Faction of Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, and the Revolutionary Red Army of Japan. Not only were these Palestinians part of a world-wide Marxist-Leninist-Maoist terror network it was claimed that they trained and supplied arms to members of the Red Army Faction!
The above scene is familiar, not because we remember what was going on between Israelis and Palestinians in 1970, but because, with only minor adjustments, it describes the major elements of dozens of false flag operations since 1948, including 9/11. But where was Islamic terrorism in 1970? Where were the Muslim suicide bombers in 1970? And how did the worldwide Marxist-Leninist-Maoist terror network come to be replaced by a worldwide Islamic terror network?
The easy substitution of one worldwide terror network with a completely different network, with new leaders, adherents, objectives, history, and ideology reveals the sleight-of-hand of the inventors who create the settings for false flag operations.
Monday, March 1, 2010
What Is Western Culture?
The Art Renewal Center website and much of what is written on their forum implicitly asks the question, “What happened to art at the beginning of the twentieth century? To answer that question one must take a wide view because what happened to art is not isolated from the ongoing process of cultural decline we see today in Europe and its far flung outposts.
It is often argued that we are simply witnessing a kind of progress in the form of global free trade and accelerated buying and selling, but if accelerated and expanded trade is a positive influence why does it coincide with the decline of Western culture?
What is Western culture? We know what races of people created the didgeridoo, the geisha and the tipi, but “Western” culture often draws a total blank from Americans and many Europeans. They are likely to mistake the ubiquitous commercial “culture” for Western culture. If they are given the names of Bruckner, Yeats, or Bouguereau nothing registers; and if they are given the names of Mozart, Michelangelo, and Shakespeare they will recognize those, but only in terms of “cultured” elites, not the culture of the people. In other words, the entire product of Western Civilization, particularly the high culture of Europe, is not recognized by its people as belonging to them.
In what sense does culture belong to a people? We understand that Chinese culture is the product of the Chinese and the culture of the Bushman is the product of Bushmen so in that sense it belongs to those who have created it; but when there is a discussion of the culture of the Europeans, naysayers tell us that white people who would think that the culture of the West in any way belongs to them are merely attempting to “take credit” for the genius of others.
Such a reading presents an odd disparity. It suggests that, unlike Japanese or African cultures, the European culture is the product of individual genius, not the product of a people, and that this individual genius appears randomly in fits and starts and taken as a whole represents the sum of Western Civilization.
Civilization requires a critical mass of ordinary people of like mind from which culture and genius are born. There is a reason why, among trillions of people born on earth, a Bach is born in Germany and not in Tierra del Fuego. Hundreds of thousands of years of separation have resulted in the distinctive physical and mental qualities that concentrate in a people. The resulting culture is meant to nurture all who are born into it.
It is often argued that we are simply witnessing a kind of progress in the form of global free trade and accelerated buying and selling, but if accelerated and expanded trade is a positive influence why does it coincide with the decline of Western culture?
What is Western culture? We know what races of people created the didgeridoo, the geisha and the tipi, but “Western” culture often draws a total blank from Americans and many Europeans. They are likely to mistake the ubiquitous commercial “culture” for Western culture. If they are given the names of Bruckner, Yeats, or Bouguereau nothing registers; and if they are given the names of Mozart, Michelangelo, and Shakespeare they will recognize those, but only in terms of “cultured” elites, not the culture of the people. In other words, the entire product of Western Civilization, particularly the high culture of Europe, is not recognized by its people as belonging to them.
In what sense does culture belong to a people? We understand that Chinese culture is the product of the Chinese and the culture of the Bushman is the product of Bushmen so in that sense it belongs to those who have created it; but when there is a discussion of the culture of the Europeans, naysayers tell us that white people who would think that the culture of the West in any way belongs to them are merely attempting to “take credit” for the genius of others.
Such a reading presents an odd disparity. It suggests that, unlike Japanese or African cultures, the European culture is the product of individual genius, not the product of a people, and that this individual genius appears randomly in fits and starts and taken as a whole represents the sum of Western Civilization.
Civilization requires a critical mass of ordinary people of like mind from which culture and genius are born. There is a reason why, among trillions of people born on earth, a Bach is born in Germany and not in Tierra del Fuego. Hundreds of thousands of years of separation have resulted in the distinctive physical and mental qualities that concentrate in a people. The resulting culture is meant to nurture all who are born into it.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Efraim Halevi Celebrates The London Bombings
The day of the London bombings, ex-Mossad chief Efraim Halevi wrote an astonishing piece for the Jerusalem Post. His fulsome praise of the “near-perfect” execution of the London bombings was a little startling. I have never heard such praise of Muslims coming from an Israeli.
He then told of a coincidence that would mean something to his Jewish readers. He said that one of the “target areas” was within a stone’s throw of 77 Great Russell St. where Chaim Weizmann had presided over the efforts that resulted in the issuance of the Balfour Declaration. That was interesting because this address is at least a mile away from any of the blasts. Perhaps this is where the bus should have been when it blew. Perhaps this is where Halevi expected it to be. I think Halevi had his piece largely written beforehand, with that nice little touch about Chaim Weizmann, and he did not want to leave it out.
So many people who read Halevi’s words on July 7th will look for clues of “prior knowledge”. But this is not important. The importance is in knowing who this editorial was written for and what it meant to them. Halevi was talking to Jews about a Zionist triumph. Invoking the memory of Chaim Weizmann was to honor the ascendancy of Zionism. There is not a single Zionist Jew who doubts that the London bombing, the Madrid bombing, 9/11, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and scores of other terrorist actions that Halevi referred to belong to them. What Halevi was really saying to his audience is: Zionism is triumphant.
All Jews are not the same and in the days of Chaim Weizmann the split between Zionists and Communists was clear, each faction having substantial control over part of the world: the Communist Jews with their Bolshevik revolution and control of the vast lands of Russia; and the Zionist Jews with their manipulation of the British and the Americans to ensure the creation of their Zionist state.
What of the other Jews? Was Halevi speaking to them as well? Yes, he was speaking to them as Jews, but not as Zionists. He does not expect them to feel the glow of accomplishment over this latest terrorist action; in fact he knows very well that they will be vocal critics of the London bombing. But will they confront their fellows with the truth? Will they tell the world the truth?
No, they will not. Their criticisms will fall far short of telling the world that Zionist Jews are the perpetrators of terrorism. They will say instead, as they always do: terrorism is the reaction to the cruel occupation of Palestinian lands; terrorism is the reaction to the bloody invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan; terrorism is the reaction to British and American support of Israel; terrorism is the reaction to Israel’s inhuman treatment of Palestinians; and terrorism is the reaction to the defiling of holy sites and symbols.
However, the non-Zionist Jews, the liberal Jews, the Labor Jews, the Communist and Socialist Jews are lying. Their soft words appealing to the Zionists for restraint contain a black lie. That black lie protects their fellow tribesmen, those very Zionists they pretend to censure. The Zionists are the terrorists, the other Jews are their protectors. 7/20/05
He then told of a coincidence that would mean something to his Jewish readers. He said that one of the “target areas” was within a stone’s throw of 77 Great Russell St. where Chaim Weizmann had presided over the efforts that resulted in the issuance of the Balfour Declaration. That was interesting because this address is at least a mile away from any of the blasts. Perhaps this is where the bus should have been when it blew. Perhaps this is where Halevi expected it to be. I think Halevi had his piece largely written beforehand, with that nice little touch about Chaim Weizmann, and he did not want to leave it out.
So many people who read Halevi’s words on July 7th will look for clues of “prior knowledge”. But this is not important. The importance is in knowing who this editorial was written for and what it meant to them. Halevi was talking to Jews about a Zionist triumph. Invoking the memory of Chaim Weizmann was to honor the ascendancy of Zionism. There is not a single Zionist Jew who doubts that the London bombing, the Madrid bombing, 9/11, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and scores of other terrorist actions that Halevi referred to belong to them. What Halevi was really saying to his audience is: Zionism is triumphant.
All Jews are not the same and in the days of Chaim Weizmann the split between Zionists and Communists was clear, each faction having substantial control over part of the world: the Communist Jews with their Bolshevik revolution and control of the vast lands of Russia; and the Zionist Jews with their manipulation of the British and the Americans to ensure the creation of their Zionist state.
What of the other Jews? Was Halevi speaking to them as well? Yes, he was speaking to them as Jews, but not as Zionists. He does not expect them to feel the glow of accomplishment over this latest terrorist action; in fact he knows very well that they will be vocal critics of the London bombing. But will they confront their fellows with the truth? Will they tell the world the truth?
No, they will not. Their criticisms will fall far short of telling the world that Zionist Jews are the perpetrators of terrorism. They will say instead, as they always do: terrorism is the reaction to the cruel occupation of Palestinian lands; terrorism is the reaction to the bloody invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan; terrorism is the reaction to British and American support of Israel; terrorism is the reaction to Israel’s inhuman treatment of Palestinians; and terrorism is the reaction to the defiling of holy sites and symbols.
However, the non-Zionist Jews, the liberal Jews, the Labor Jews, the Communist and Socialist Jews are lying. Their soft words appealing to the Zionists for restraint contain a black lie. That black lie protects their fellow tribesmen, those very Zionists they pretend to censure. The Zionists are the terrorists, the other Jews are their protectors. 7/20/05
Friday, January 4, 2008
Are We Born that Way?
Heterosexual reproduction is the method by which most visible organisms reproduce. The word “sexuality” and the words “sexual orientation” are modern day constructs that serve to create separate compartments of mind and behavior that are said to exist outside biology. We do not talk about the sexuality or sexual orientation of dogs, cats, elephants, or chimps instead we refer to their biological sex, which is indicated by their genitalia.
Genitalia, along with the physiological components necessary for reproduction are genetically determined. Reproductive sex among animals is instinctive and is not dependent on learning. The conformation and functioning of the genitalia invite and facilitate sexual intercourse between male and female of their respective species.
Quadruped species are tightly bound to obtain sexual relief through intercourse with the opposite sex, while the bipedal animals find that they can obtain sexual relief through various simulations of sexual intercourse. But the basic, instinctual systems related to gender still form the basis of sexual activity – for the male, arousal, intromission, and ejaculation and for the female arousal, submission, and sometimes orgasm. Nature provides man with complementary sexual organs along with complex physiological actions that facilitate reproductive sex, but do not preclude non-reproductive sex. Complex physiological actions mediate sexual interest, attraction, receptivity, and aggressiveness and are closely related to fertility but are not reliant on a fertile partner to function.
This reproductive system has worked to ensure the survival and proliferation of the human species partly because the system contains many redundancies. One such redundancy is the relatively loose connection between sexual behaviors and fertility. In the human female ovulation is not evident to the male while in many species estrus is made obvious to the male through sight, smell, and behavior of the female, all of which trigger the male to seek intercourse with her. Reproductive success in man, however, does not depend on the male reading such signals of fertility, instead the male seeks intercourse without such clear signals allowing the male’s independent sexual drive to determine his sexual behavior without regard to the fertility of his partner. The human male’s drive to seek sexual relief is unremitting, and relatively indiscriminant compared to animals with obvious estrus.
Humanity’s reproductive success shows clearly that the vast majority of human males respond sexually to female fertility signs such as health and youth and possibly more subtle signs of scent, body conformation, and behavior. But the redundancy in our reproductive system allows sexual behaviors like masturbation that are not triggered by the presence of a fertile female. Such non-reproductive sexual behavior would be intolerable in a system that relies on a single ejaculation to fertilize an infrequent ovum.
Masturbation, homosexuality, bisexuality, voyeurism, exhibitionism, sado-masochism, fetishism, pedophilia, bestiality, prostitution, etc. are the by-products of our particular type of reproductive system, a system relatively loosely connected to fertility and amplified by human imagination. There is no need to postulate a genetic glitch, the environment of the womb, the number and sex of siblings, the psychological dynamics of the family, or estrogen-mimicking pollution to explain these behaviors. Deviant behaviors are driven by the same hormones, effected by the same organs, and responsive to the same rudimentary tactile stimuli as reproductive sex. With the exception of the defective, deformed and the diseased we are all “born” to participate in reproductive sex. Deviations are not inborn but experiential, circumstantial, and are not manifest until a person reaches sexual maturity. Reproduction is an essential part of our life cycle and though some of us will be unable to participate in it, no one should act to preclude that possibility in another by suggesting that he or she has a different “orientation”.
Genitalia, along with the physiological components necessary for reproduction are genetically determined. Reproductive sex among animals is instinctive and is not dependent on learning. The conformation and functioning of the genitalia invite and facilitate sexual intercourse between male and female of their respective species.
Quadruped species are tightly bound to obtain sexual relief through intercourse with the opposite sex, while the bipedal animals find that they can obtain sexual relief through various simulations of sexual intercourse. But the basic, instinctual systems related to gender still form the basis of sexual activity – for the male, arousal, intromission, and ejaculation and for the female arousal, submission, and sometimes orgasm. Nature provides man with complementary sexual organs along with complex physiological actions that facilitate reproductive sex, but do not preclude non-reproductive sex. Complex physiological actions mediate sexual interest, attraction, receptivity, and aggressiveness and are closely related to fertility but are not reliant on a fertile partner to function.
This reproductive system has worked to ensure the survival and proliferation of the human species partly because the system contains many redundancies. One such redundancy is the relatively loose connection between sexual behaviors and fertility. In the human female ovulation is not evident to the male while in many species estrus is made obvious to the male through sight, smell, and behavior of the female, all of which trigger the male to seek intercourse with her. Reproductive success in man, however, does not depend on the male reading such signals of fertility, instead the male seeks intercourse without such clear signals allowing the male’s independent sexual drive to determine his sexual behavior without regard to the fertility of his partner. The human male’s drive to seek sexual relief is unremitting, and relatively indiscriminant compared to animals with obvious estrus.
Humanity’s reproductive success shows clearly that the vast majority of human males respond sexually to female fertility signs such as health and youth and possibly more subtle signs of scent, body conformation, and behavior. But the redundancy in our reproductive system allows sexual behaviors like masturbation that are not triggered by the presence of a fertile female. Such non-reproductive sexual behavior would be intolerable in a system that relies on a single ejaculation to fertilize an infrequent ovum.
Masturbation, homosexuality, bisexuality, voyeurism, exhibitionism, sado-masochism, fetishism, pedophilia, bestiality, prostitution, etc. are the by-products of our particular type of reproductive system, a system relatively loosely connected to fertility and amplified by human imagination. There is no need to postulate a genetic glitch, the environment of the womb, the number and sex of siblings, the psychological dynamics of the family, or estrogen-mimicking pollution to explain these behaviors. Deviant behaviors are driven by the same hormones, effected by the same organs, and responsive to the same rudimentary tactile stimuli as reproductive sex. With the exception of the defective, deformed and the diseased we are all “born” to participate in reproductive sex. Deviations are not inborn but experiential, circumstantial, and are not manifest until a person reaches sexual maturity. Reproduction is an essential part of our life cycle and though some of us will be unable to participate in it, no one should act to preclude that possibility in another by suggesting that he or she has a different “orientation”.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Obamania
The Barack Obama Show has been prepared for a brain dead public, a public that adopts media slogans as if they are thinking their own thoughts, even parroting the media words like charm and charisma. Quite suddenly all important issues have evaporated to make room for endless discussion of this latest, media-fabricated celebrity.
The one invention Jews can honestly take credit for is the celebrity. Barack Obama is their invention just as surely as Paris Hilton is their invention.
The methods of the Jewish impresario have been used in politics for a very long time, but we are a little slow to catch on. Most Americans wake up to find Barak Obama on the cover of Newsweek and they are embarrassed when they realize that they don't know who this guy is. They are embarrassed! So they Google the name only to find that they are thirteen million results behind the curve. These Americans like to think of themselves as intelligent and informed, so they are not embarrassed to be ignorant of J Lo, but they foolishly believe that the political celebrity and the movie celebrity are not cooked up in the same kitchen.
Being on the lookout for "black" talent is the responsibility of every well placed Jew in academia. and you can be sure that someone at Occidental College saw this mulatto as promising material. Recall that Condoleezza Rice was the protege of of Madeleine Albright's father at the backwater University of Denver and was moved along a trajectory that belied any authentic qualifications to become the first, black, female Secretary of State.
Obama was "discovered" at a small liberal arts college and was transferred to a big name Jewish school to be groomed for his future. We are not told what Obama's interests were in his two years at Occidental, but by the time he was transferred to Columbia University it was clear that his interests had been given political direction and Jewish management. A major in international relations, a Harvard law degree, being chosen the first "black" editor of the Harvard Law Review, a nice summer job for a top Chicago law firm, a stint doing some "community service" - all are the "bona fides" of the chosen.
At least since the twentieth century the Jews have made use of the special status of Blacks to front for their own, varied and nefarious schemes. Blacks were used as a pretext for the Civil War: They were used to crush white political power in the South during Reconstruction. With the Great Migration they were used to counter the fledgling power of white labor unions and the homogeneity of whites in northern cities. They were used to destroy local control of public education. They have been used as a massive voting block to promote the Democrats' candidates and issues. They were used as the cause celebre to push affirmative action on our universities assuring an enormous leap in Jewish and female enrollment at our top schools. And their status as the descendants of slaves has been used to give the cloak of righteousness to every minority group from homosexuals to illegal aliens.
The phenomenon of Barack Obama is to be used to support the false consciousness of white people that has been relentlessly cultivated in the last century.
Obama is to be used to fool everyone, especially Blacks, into thinking of him as a black man. His good qualities will be identified as examples of black intelligence, black accomplishment, and black attractiveness. The contribution of his white genes and his white upbringing will be ignored except when necessary as an ad hoc promotion of race-mixing.
A true champion of Blacks' interests is never chosen by the Jews to become their celebrity because he cannot be trusted to put the Jews' interests first. They chose the tractable mulatto, W.E.B. Dubois, to be their office boy at the NAACP because they knew he was not an advocate for the preservation of the race or the interests of Black people, but would support "assimilation". On the other hand, they did everything in their power to obstruct the full-blooded African, Marcus Garvey, because he was a true advocate of Africans for the advancement of Africa.
Barack Obama is not a black man. He is not a white man. He is a contrivance designed to confound us. His celebrity will reinforce every dishonest argument in favor of diversity, affirmative action, race-mixing, integration, third world immigration, the "rights" of sexual deviants, abortion "rights", the abolition of Christian holidays, symbols and ideals, the support of globalism, the insertion of Talmudic ideas into our public life, support for Israel and Zionism, the falsification of history, and the worship of Mammon as a replacement for all we have lost as a people.
The one invention Jews can honestly take credit for is the celebrity. Barack Obama is their invention just as surely as Paris Hilton is their invention.
The methods of the Jewish impresario have been used in politics for a very long time, but we are a little slow to catch on. Most Americans wake up to find Barak Obama on the cover of Newsweek and they are embarrassed when they realize that they don't know who this guy is. They are embarrassed! So they Google the name only to find that they are thirteen million results behind the curve. These Americans like to think of themselves as intelligent and informed, so they are not embarrassed to be ignorant of J Lo, but they foolishly believe that the political celebrity and the movie celebrity are not cooked up in the same kitchen.
Being on the lookout for "black" talent is the responsibility of every well placed Jew in academia. and you can be sure that someone at Occidental College saw this mulatto as promising material. Recall that Condoleezza Rice was the protege of of Madeleine Albright's father at the backwater University of Denver and was moved along a trajectory that belied any authentic qualifications to become the first, black, female Secretary of State.
Obama was "discovered" at a small liberal arts college and was transferred to a big name Jewish school to be groomed for his future. We are not told what Obama's interests were in his two years at Occidental, but by the time he was transferred to Columbia University it was clear that his interests had been given political direction and Jewish management. A major in international relations, a Harvard law degree, being chosen the first "black" editor of the Harvard Law Review, a nice summer job for a top Chicago law firm, a stint doing some "community service" - all are the "bona fides" of the chosen.
At least since the twentieth century the Jews have made use of the special status of Blacks to front for their own, varied and nefarious schemes. Blacks were used as a pretext for the Civil War: They were used to crush white political power in the South during Reconstruction. With the Great Migration they were used to counter the fledgling power of white labor unions and the homogeneity of whites in northern cities. They were used to destroy local control of public education. They have been used as a massive voting block to promote the Democrats' candidates and issues. They were used as the cause celebre to push affirmative action on our universities assuring an enormous leap in Jewish and female enrollment at our top schools. And their status as the descendants of slaves has been used to give the cloak of righteousness to every minority group from homosexuals to illegal aliens.
The phenomenon of Barack Obama is to be used to support the false consciousness of white people that has been relentlessly cultivated in the last century.
Obama is to be used to fool everyone, especially Blacks, into thinking of him as a black man. His good qualities will be identified as examples of black intelligence, black accomplishment, and black attractiveness. The contribution of his white genes and his white upbringing will be ignored except when necessary as an ad hoc promotion of race-mixing.
A true champion of Blacks' interests is never chosen by the Jews to become their celebrity because he cannot be trusted to put the Jews' interests first. They chose the tractable mulatto, W.E.B. Dubois, to be their office boy at the NAACP because they knew he was not an advocate for the preservation of the race or the interests of Black people, but would support "assimilation". On the other hand, they did everything in their power to obstruct the full-blooded African, Marcus Garvey, because he was a true advocate of Africans for the advancement of Africa.
Barack Obama is not a black man. He is not a white man. He is a contrivance designed to confound us. His celebrity will reinforce every dishonest argument in favor of diversity, affirmative action, race-mixing, integration, third world immigration, the "rights" of sexual deviants, abortion "rights", the abolition of Christian holidays, symbols and ideals, the support of globalism, the insertion of Talmudic ideas into our public life, support for Israel and Zionism, the falsification of history, and the worship of Mammon as a replacement for all we have lost as a people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)