Toyota 52 deaths, Gardasil 49. Toyota recalled.


By Barbara Hollingsworth of the Washington Examiner, reposted at, March 31

Cervical cancer accounts for less than 1% of all cancer deaths, so it was somewhat surprising when the US Food and Drug Administration fast-tracked approval of Gardasil, a Merck vaccine targeting the human papilloma virus that causes the disease, in 2006.

As of Jan. 31, 2010, 49 unexplained deaths following Gardasil injections have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. By contrast, 52 deaths are attributed to unintended acceleration in Toyotas, which triggered a $2 billion recall....

No recall for Gardasil, which is required for 6th-grade girls in DC, MD, VA, and many other states. Parents can opt out, but few know the true risks...

My own congressperson, Debbie Halvorson, pushed mandatory Gardasil vaccinations of pre-adolescent girls in 2007 as an IL state senator, prompting me to write the "Debbie does..." series (I and II)

Hollingsworth goes on to describe 2 deaths and a stroke of young women following Gardasil injections. She says pro-abort Sen. Barbara Mikulski has requested an investigation into the death of 21-year-old Emily Tarsell, who lived in Mikulski's home state of MD.

Here is a glaring example of the rush by pro-abort feminists to try to stave off the consequences of illicit sex, in this case a vaccination against the HPV STD, to the detriment of the health and safety of girls and women.

Meanwhile they disparage the obvious, full proof, free, guaranteed to be safe and healthy answer, which is abstinence and monogamy.

Vast Majority of Latin Americans Support Criminal Penalties for Abortion


By Mathew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent

MEXICO CITY, May 28, 2010 ( - The vast majority of Latin Americans are in favor of maintaining criminal penalties for abortion, according to a new study.

The study, which polled residents of several Latin American countries, indicates that 60.4 percent of Mexicans favor criminal penalties for illegal abortions.

Mexico, however, is on the low end of the scale. In Brazil, 67.3 percent favor such penalties, and in Chile, 71.7 percent. In Nicaragua, where abortion is completely illegal, the majority reaches 82.2 percent.

In Mexico, women were even more likely to support the criminalization of abortion than men. Of those who support criminal penalties for killing the unborn, 32 percent are women, and 28.4 percent are men, according to the study.

The poll also reflects the fact that the pro-abortion drumbeat insisting that "women have the right to decide" to kill their unborn child has been heard by the people of Mexico -- and rejected.

While 57 percent said they had heard the slogan, 56 percent were in agreement with the statement that "the life of the fetus is above all things."

Claudia Dides Castillo, director of the Gender and Equity Program for the pro-abortion Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLASCO), which conducted the study, admitted to the press that Latin Americans are "conservative" on the issue of abortion. She added that the study's result reflects the fact that the prevailing image in Latin America is "the woman as the giver of life."

The survey was reportedly conducted through face-to-face interviews with an average of 1,200 respondents in each country. It has a margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points.

.- Mexican journalist Enrique Sanchez published an article in the magazine, Impacto, this week pointing out that a recent forum in Baja California demonstrates that the pro-life movement in Mexico is growing.

The “Citizens' Forum” was held last weekend in the city of Los Cabos in the Mexican state of Baja California.

In his article, Sanchez noted that during the forum, “Southern Baja California became the center of opposition to abortion, demonstrated by 21,000 notarized signatures” on a petition filed in court calling on the state's Congress to respond to a proposal which would guarantee the right to life.

Speakers at the forum included Mexican actor Eduardo Verastegui; Lianna Rebolledo, a 33-year-old woman whose 13-year-old son was conceived through rape; and representatives from numerous organizations. They all called on the state's Congress to recognize the demand from society for protection for human life.

During her remarks, constitutional lawyer Ingrid Tapia questioned the recent ruling by the Mexican Supreme Court allowing the use of the morning-after pill in cases of rape.

The anti-life norms upheld by the court have led “nearly one thousand hospitals and private clinics to request protection against implementing the directives, as the distribution of the morning-after pill in cases of rape was made obligatory, but the distribution free-of-charge of the drug was not established,” she said.

In addition, “Conscientious objection was not taken in to account, and since the pill is abortifacient when taken 72 hours after sexual relations, there will be medical personnel who will refuse to administer it,” Sanchez said.

“The state says, if you kill it, we’ll support you. If not, you’ll be left alone,” he added.

Ever-Growing List Of Anti-Serbian Movies


Updated 2/1/2013

Behind Enemy Lines (2001)

The film's fictional plot is centered on a story of uncovering a massacre in the Bosnian War of 1992-1995 by an American naval aviator.

Admiral Leslie Reigart's (Gene Hackman) carrier battle group is in the final stages of a NATO peace keeping deployment when the F/A-18F Super Hornet of Chris Burnett, the aircraft's Weapons System Officer (Owen Wilson) and his pilot Jeremy Stackhouse (Gabriel Macht), launched from the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson is shot down by a SA-13 SAM controlled by renegade Serbian forces led by General Miroslav Lokar (Olek Krupa) and his second in command Colonel Viktor Bazda. Lokar is committing a secret genocidal campaign against the Bosniak people in a no-fly zone that the NATO plane violates and photographs; wanting to avoid being discovered, Lokar has the plane shot down and executes Stackhouse while Burnett escapes to the countryside.

From then on Burnett is on the run, narrowly escaping from the Serb attack time after time. All the while he maintains contact with his Admiral, to lead him to a safe point for a rescue attempt. The resulting attempt to rescue the downed aviator are complicated by political considerations which are enforced on Reigart by his NATO commanding officer Admiral Juan Miguel

Piquet (Joaquim de Almeida), including using his own team for the extraction rather than the team that Reigart put together.

Burnett is chased by Sasha (Vladimir Mashkov), a Serbian sniper and right hand man to Bazda. He escapes death after he slides off a dam while being shot at by Sasha. In another gruesome scene he falls into a mass grave and hides under dead bodies. He makes his way to Hac, a small town in Bosnia on the back of a pickup with a group of fighters. The entire town is at an all out war. When Serbian forces attack the mall he and the fighters are hiding in, he manages to flee by disguising himself in a Serb militant outfit after dressing up a dead Serb militant with his pilot suit. He loses his radio in the attack. Bazda and Sasha pursue Burnett in the forest as Burnett attempts to make it to the safe zone where he will be rescued by helicopter.

In the pursuit, Bazda steps on a mine and his ally Sasha leaves him to die. The situation intensifies when Serbs claim that the downed aviator was shot dead by Bosnian guerrillas, after they find their dead soldier in the pilot suit. The rescue attempt is called off as Burnett sees the helicopter fly away.

Diplomatic Siege (1999)

A bomb expert (Peter Weller) is sent to the US embassy in Bucharest to defuse an old cold war bomb that is stored in the basement. Unexpectedly, a group of terrorists representing the "Serbian Liberation Front" raid the embassy, killing a number of people and taking 37 hostage. The special mission operative must save his son and an old flame (Daryl Hannah).

Meanwhile an anti-terrorist squad is sent on the rescue mission. The squad leader (Tom Berenger) turns out to be old friends with the head terrorist (Adrian Pintea).

Prime Suspect 6: The Last Witness (2003) (TV)

Detective Superintendent Jane Tennison's investigation of the murder of a Bosnian refugee leads her to one, or possibly two, Serbian war criminals determined to silence the last witness to a massacre a decade before.

The Fourth Angel (2001)

Jack Elgin is the European editor of The Economist, which is based in London, England. Jack has a wife named Maria and three

kids named Joanne, Julia, and Andrew. Jack subtly changes the family vacation from a lazy week of Mediterranean fun and sun in Corfu, Greece, to a tour of India, because of a story he has to cover. Maria is not as impressed by this as the kids are. Jack himself envisioned a chance to simultaneously work an easy reporting assignment and spend a little quality time with his family. But on the way to India, the airplane, a 747 owned by AM Air, an American airline, makes an unscheduled stopover in

Limassol Cyprus, because of a mechanical problem. After a while of waiting inside the Limassol airport, everyone gets back on the plane -- which is then hijacked by a group of terrorists known as the August 15th Movement, led by a Serbian man named Ivanic Loyvek and his right-hand man Karadan Maldic. And they are demanding $50,000,000 from the US State Department in one hour, or everyone on the airplane will die. The demand is met, and Loyvek and Maldic start releasing the women and children, with the men to go last. But as soon as a front passenger door is opened, a local police team gunning for the terrorists opens fire. The flight attendants frantically open the rest of the airplane's doors and start getting passengers out, but the terrorists start killing passengers, leading to an explosion. Maria, Joanne, and Julia get out of the airplane, and then Jack, holding Andrew, gets out -- only to watch Maria, Joanne, and Julia get shot by the terrorists. Jack tries to hide Andrew's face so he can't see it. Maria and Joanne are dead, and Julia is still alive -- but Julia burns to death while crying for help. Jack and

Andrew survive. In all, a total of 15 passengers die, and Loyvek and Maldic, the surviving terrorists, escape, knowing that they now have the $50,000,000. The hijacking would never have ended this way if the police team had waited until after the passengers were released from the airplane before getting trigger happy. Back in London, an absolutely devastated Jack is told that the terrorists were captured, but they were released and deported secretly, with no charges and no arrest, the result of some awfully compromised politics. Jack is understandably enraged that Loyvek and Maldic got off scout-free. While helping

Andrew cope, Jack tries all the legal ways to ensure justice for his family, but to no avail. Jack even pays a visit to Henry Davidson, a CIA agent who works at the American Embassy in London. Davidson tells Jack that there's little that can be done.

Obviously, the American and British governments are completely impotent when it comes to going after Loyvek and Maldic, so Jack has absolutely no choice in the matter. He must do it himself. With the help of his ex-intelligence operative friend Kate

Stockton, who is well-schooled in the finer points of international intelligence, Jack becomes a one-man anti-terrorist squadron, searching for Loyvek and Maldich. Dogging Jack's trail is FBI agent Jules Bernard, who's cooperating with Scotland Yard on anti-terrorist activities, and who suspects that Jack is the man who has been killing anyone involved in the hijacking. But as it turns out, Jules is on Jack's side, and he's willing to help Jack make those responsible pay for the deaths of his family and the other people who died in Cyprus.

Extreme Ops (2002)

When an extreme-sports filmmaking team sets out to make a commercial featuring a gold-medal skier outrunning an avalanche, they run afoul of a Serbian war criminal hiding out in a mountain resort. So it's snowboards vs. bullets on steep slopes of snow--and if that's your thing, Extreme Ops is for you. film crew travels to the Austrian Alps near the (former) Yugoslav border to film three extreme sports enthusiasts being chased down by an avalanche for a commercial. What they don't know, however, is that they're filming near the secret hideout of Slobodan Pavle , a Serbian war criminal. Accidentally catching him on film, they become locked in a life-or-death chase through the mountains that includes skiing, snowboarding, sky diving, white water rafting, helicopters, motorcycles, and base jumping.

Sniper 2 (2002) (TV)

A former Marine sniper is lured back in on a top-secret mission to take out a Serbian general who is committing atrocities on the Muslim population.

The Hunted (2003)

The move opens with some of the most brutal and vile carnage ever seen on screen. In Kosovo during the Bosnian war, a Serbian commander is killing every non-Serb thing that breathes. Men. Women. Children. It didn't matter. US Special Services Operations specialist, Aaron Hallam (Benicio Del Toro) is assigned to kill the Serbian commander. With skill and cunning, Hallam dispatches the Serb commander in a bloodbath in the commander's own blood. That is what he was trained to do. As an assassin.

The Rock (1996)

The FBI’s top chemical weapons specialist, a geek named Stanley Goodspeed (Nicolas Cage, in his first role since winning an Academy Award for Leaving Las Vegas) saves his co-workers from a Serbian sarin gas booby trap, The FBI Director (John Spencer) wants Goodspeed to accompany the SEAL incursion into Alcatraz and disarm the missiles.

Hunt for Justice (2005)

Hunt for Justice chronicles the heroic struggle of Louise Arbour, the Canadian Chief War Crimes Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, to indict Slobodan Milosevic for crimes against humanity.

The Hunting Party (2007)

After years of covering one war after another, journalist Simon Hunt (Richard Gere) loses his composure during a live broadcast covering the Bosnian War. While his career spirals downhill, that of his long-time camera man Duck (Terrence Howard) goes in the opposite direction. Duck gets a cushy job at the network, while Hunt is left following war after war, unemployed, in an attempt to get back on top.

Years later, Duck returns to Bosnia to shoot a "puff piece" of the network anchor Franklin Harris (James Brolin) covering a peace treaty, along with fresh young journalist (and son of the network vice-president) Benjamin (Jesse Eisenberg). Duck runs into Simon--by this point, a desperate, cynical freelancer who needs a story big enough to propel him back to the realm of credibility. He tells Duck that he has the location, through a source, of Through a tip, he has located Radoslav Bogdanovic--known as "The Fox"--who is a wanted Serbian war criminal with a $5 million bounty on his head. Convinced by Simon, Duck comes along to shoot the interview, with Benjamin in tow. On the way, Simon confesses his plan to capture the Fox--something

Duck and Benjamin consider insane to even think of. Along the way, the group is mistaken for a CIA hit squad by several groups, including the United Nations police force and the Serbians themselves. It quickly becomes evident that there are people in the international community who don't wish for the Fox to be captured, and Simon, Duck, and Benjamin find themselves in well over their head.

The Peacemaker (1997)

Before Nicole Kidman could have a tragic love affair in Moulin Rouge, she first had to save Manhattan – with George Clooney's help – from a Serb with a backpack nuke in Peacemaker (1997). The villain was no less than a member of the Bosnian Serb parliament, who first killed a colleague to ensure he'd have a spot on the New York-bound delegation. His motive?

Vengeance on the UN, because snipers killed his family and the peacekeepers had done nothing to help.

Force 10 from Navarone (1978)

Some time after the successful Navarone mission, Mallory (Robert Shaw) and Miller (Edward Fox) are summoned by Cmdr.Jensen (Philip Latham) and charged with identifying and killing a spy known as "Nicolai", who appeared briefly in The Guns of Navarone. (In the film The Guns of Navarone, Nicolai was the identity of the laundry boy who was suspected to be listening in on private conversations and almost killed for it). "Nicolai" is now thought to be disguised among the Yugoslav Partisans, under the guise of a Capt. Lescovar (Franco Nero).

To get to Yugoslavia the two men are paired up with "Force 10", a sabotage unit led by Lt. Colonel Barnsby (Harrison Ford), whose target is a key bridge in Bosnia. Barnsby considers having the two older men forced upon him as an unnecessary added risk to an already dangerous mission. In order to ensure absolute secrecy, they are ordered to steal an Allied plane from an airfield in Termoli so that no information about their flight to Yugoslavia can be leaked out. However, while breaching the perimeter fence they are discovered by US M.P.'s who are escorting Sgt. Weaver (Carl Weathers) to captivity. A brawl ensues which ends with the M.P.'s overpowered and Weaver forcing his way onto the plane. After crossing the Yugoslavian coast, the plane is attacked by German night fighters, at which point most of Barnsby's team are killed, and the survivors have to bail out of the stricken aircraft.

Once on the ground the remainder of the team attempts to link up with the the communist Yugoslav Partisans (who were part of the Allied forces) and believe they have run across a group of such led by a Capt.Drazak (Richard Kiel). However, once at their camp they soon discover that these are not Partisans but a group of collaborationist Chetniks (nationalist Serb guerillas). Finding themselves in German hands, they attempt to convince the commander, Maj.Schroeder (Michael Byrne), that they are black marketeers who have escaped from Allied captivity with a valuable stash of a new wonder drug called Penicillin.

The Filthy War (2008)

A group of young volunteers create an international platoon to defend a village against ethnic-cleansing Serbs in Croatia at the beginning of the Yugoslav civil war.

Storm (2009)

Storm features an international cast pair of female leads in Kerry Fox (who we most recently seen in Bright Star and might remember all the way back to Shallow Grave) and one of my favorite Eastern European discoveries in Anamaria Marinca (4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days). Schmid's Storm sees Hannah Maynard (Fox), prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague, is leading a trial against a former commander of the Yugoslavian National Army who is accused of the deportation and later killing of dozens of Bosnian-Muslim civilians. When a key witness commits suicide, it looks like the case will unravel, however Hannah refuses to give in. Hoping to uncover new findings.

Albanian's kidnap and rape Serb girl in Gračanica.

Another Serb, who was with her, was severely beaten and robbed, Kosovo Police Service (KPS) representatives told the agency Tuesday.

KPS regional spokesman Agron Borovci said the incident occurred in Gračanica at around 9 p.m. yesterday, and that police were in active search of the perpetrators.

“An Opel Vectra automobile blocked the road ahead of the victims and then three persons dragged the young man out of his vehicle, beat him up and closed him in the trunk, from where he was released after the girl had been raped,” Borovci specified, speaking on the basis of the testimonies of the two victims.

The BMW in which the boy and girl had been driving was then stolen, as well as their personal belongings, Borovci said, and the two of them were released near Ajvalija.

Beta reported the village in question was Albanian, as well as that the victims then walked to a hospital in Gračanica to get help.

According to an announcement by the Gračanica Press Center, the victims of this attack are S.Đ. of Gračanica and I.K. of Mladenovac, in Serbia proper.

Both received treatment last night at the Simonida Hospital in Gračanica, where the staff reported the incident to the police.

The incident occurred near the newly-built kindergarten in Gračanica, where another Serb boy and girl were kidnapped in the same way five months ago, and subsequently released, Tanjug reported.

Cuban Government & Society Deeply Masonic

Three hundred Masonic lodges work in Cuba
09 July 2009, 13:28

Moscow, July 9, Interfax - About 29 thousands Cubans are members of more than 300 Masonic lodges in various cities of the country and at the same time are actively involved in public work, humanitarian and charitable projects.

Ethnic composition of Masonic lodges is very diverse as well as Cuban population in general. Majority of "Freemasons" - over 9 thousand people - live in Havana. Masons act freely, each person can confess that he is a Mason of his own free will, the Tribuna paper has cited Grand Secretary of Cuban Masons Alberto William Rojas Aguilar as saying on Thursday.

Masonic lodges crept over all Cuban provinces in the late 18th century, representatives of elite mostly joint them. Role of Masons was especially significant in the Cuban liberation movement. Before socialism, Masons actively participated in the government, though according to the Grand Secretary, today there is no masons in executive power of Cuba.

"Freemasons" donated money to construct the main Masonic church in Havana in 1955. After the revolution, Masonic property was partly nationalized, the number of Masons abruptly reduced. However, the Masonic church was not closed, offices of several ministries are located there.

Romania has 70% abortion rate

A devastating abortion rate of 70% has, during the past 12 years, claimed the lives of the equivalent of one-third of Romania's stagnant population of 24 million people.

In 2002, there were 700,000 abortions accounting for well over two-thirds of the one million pregnancies recorded, both within marriage and extramarital. Canada's abortion casualty rate is closer to one-third.

Even in light of the staggering figures, Glasgow's Sunday-Herald spoke for Western media when the paper commented, "The transition for women from baby-producers to individuals in charge of their own bodies has been difficult. But now that the population fails to renew itself, the self-appointed guardians of the nation have swung into action," a dismissive reference to Romania's tiny pro-life movement.

In Romania, 75% of the couples don’t want children anymore/ În România, 75% dintre cupluri nu îşi mai doresc copii

The overwhelming majority of Romanians renounced the idea of having children. According to the first survey on generations and gender, over 75% of the questioned couples declared that they don’t want children at all or that they don’t want more children.

Gândul, July 8, 2008

Russian Orthodox Church in Israel stoned by Jews

MIGDAL HA-EMEQ, Israel, June 22 (Compass Direct News) – When the congregation at St. Nicolay church in this northern Israeli town gathered on that quiet Friday morning of May 29, they never expected to be showered with stones.

The Russian Orthodox worshipers, including many women, children and the elderly, had filled the small building to overflow with several outside when they were stunned by the rain of stones. Some were injured and received medical care.

“The church was crawling with people – the worshipers stood not only inside the church, but also outside, as the building is very small, when suddenly a few young men started throwing stones at the direction of our courtyard,” Oleg Usenkov, press secretary of the church told Compass. “Young children were crying, everyone was very frightened.”

The church had also been attacked earlier that week, during a wedding ceremony. Stones and rotten eggs were thrown from the street, hitting guests as they arrived.

The same night, the Rev. Roman Radwan, priest of St. Nicolay church, filed a complaint at the police station. An officer issued a document to confirm that he had filed an official complaint and sent him home, promising that measures would be taken. But within 24 hours, the attackers again appeared at the church’s doorway and no police were present to deter them – although the police station is located a few dozen meters from the church.

The identity of the assailants is unknown – a police officer said the complaint “lacked the exact description of the attackers” – but eye-witnesses claimed they were ultra-orthodox yeshiva students who frequently cursed the church on their way to the school or synagogue.

“They often assault us verbally, curse and yell at us, although we tried to explain that this is a place of worship, a holy place,” said a frustrated Usenkov, adding that the police inaction amounts to nonfeasance.

Another member of the congregation identified only as Nina, born in Moscow and now living in Nazeret Ilit, said that she didn’t understand where all the hatred is coming from.

“They are heading to the yeshiva or going back home after praying at the synagogue – are they inspired to attack us during their prayers?” she said. “I hope not. We are all Israeli citizens, we pay taxes, serve in the army and are entitled to freedom of choice when it comes to religion.”

She and other members of the congregation fear hostilities could escalate quickly if measures are not taken soon. Already the small building, which barely accommodates the worshipers, is surrounded by a stone fence by order of Migdal ha-Emeq officials following a series of arson attempts and other attacks.

Members of the congregation, a few hundred Christians from Migdal ha-Emeq, Afula, Haifa, Nazareth and other Israeli cities still remember how their building was vandalized in June 2006. Under cover of darkness, unidentified men broke in and broke icons and modest decorations, smashed windows and stole crosses.

The identity of those responsible remains unknown.

Established in 2005, the church building was constructed to meet the needs of Christians who do not belong to the Arab Christian minority, mostly Russians who came to Israel from the former Soviet Union in the 1990s. Besides the Christians, these immigrants included other non-Jews, as well as atheistic Jews and Jewish converts to Christianity.

No official data on religious make-up of the immigrants are available, especially since many fear deportation or persecution for talking openly about their faith, but Usenkov – a Russian Jew who converted to Christianity after immigrating to Israel in the 1990s – said he believes there are at least 300,000 Christians of Russian or Russian-Jewish origin who live in Israel today.

According to Israeli law, non-Jewish relatives of a Jew are also entitled to citizenship, but Jews who have converted to other faiths are denied it.

Most of the Russian and Russian-Jewish Christians in Israel belong to the Russian Orthodox Church and find it difficult to adjust to Greek or Arabic services common in the Greek Orthodox churches of Israel. Since St. Nicolay’s church opened its doors, hundreds of worshipers from across Israel have visited it.

“Many people fear they might pass away without seeing a priest, or they dream of a Christian wedding service,” said Radwan, an Israeli-Arab whose family once owned the land on which the St. Nicolay church is located. “Here we can answer their needs. We do not want to harm anyone and wish that no one would harm us.”

Stimulus bill gave $1 billion to Jewish social service providers

Stimulus bill gives $1 billion to Jewish social service providers

February 17, 2009

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The economic stimulus bill enacted by President Obama will provide $1 billion to Jewish nursing homes and social service agencies, according to the United Jewish Communities.

The funds come from the $87 billion that the legislation allots for state Medicaid programs as a result of an increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP. An increase in FMAP was a top priority for UJC, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and other Jewish groups that lobbied for passage of the $787 billion bill signed Tuesday by Obama.

The federation system receives about 1.4 percent of total Medicaid funds, so it will get more than $1 billion of the $87 billion provided in the stimulus package.

Jewish groups advocated for a variety of forms of assistance to vulnerable populations that ended up in the final version of the legislation.

"By ensuring that people get the assistance the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will offer, we’re doing a tremendous service by helping the most vulnerable and looking out for their general well-being,” said Rabbi Steve Gutow, executive director of the JCPA.

William Daroff, vice president for public policy and director of United Jewish Communities’ Washington office, said the demand for social services has increased as the recession has worsened, and the supply of resources to fund those services "has been taxed to the limit."

"The legislation signed into law today by President Obama will hopefully not only shorten the duration of the economic recession, but will also blunt its impact on those who have been devastatingly impacted by providing needed funds to social service agencies,” he said.

The Orthodox Union did not take a position on the bill but congratulated the president and Congress for its enactment and said "like all Americans, we hope and pray it will indeed spark an American economic recovery."

O.U. public policy director Nathan Diament praised the legislation for its allocation of millions of dollars to fund educational services and students with disabilities -- which are provided to private as well as public schools. But he noted "our continuing disappointment" that religious and other non-public schools were excluded from receiving money for the "green" school modernization program outlined in the legislation.

Brazilian Government Says 99% of Citizens Are "Homophobic"

Brazilian Government Says 99% of Citizens Are "Homophobic" and Must Be Reeducated

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BRASILIA, February 13, 2009 ( - The Brazilian government has determined that 99% of its citizens are "homophobic," and therefore must be reeducated, according to the Brazilian newspaper O Globo.

The results are taken from a study that tested for "homophobia" by asking people to comment on such statements as "God made men and women with different sexes so that they could fulfill their role and have children." The 92% of Brazilians who agreed partially or completely with the statement were labeled "homophobic."

Another test question for "homophobia" was, "Homosexuality is a sin against the laws of God." Fifty-eight percent of Brazilians agreed.

Those who agreed partially or completely that "Homosexuality is an illness that should be treated" (41%) were also labeled "homophobic," as were those who objected to homosexuals kissing and hugging in public (64%).

According to O Globo, Brazil's federal government will use the data "to plan new policies, and warns that it has now detected a dark consequence of so much prejudice: intolerance." The study was performed by an organization linked to the socialist Labor Party, which currently occupies the nation's executive branch and predominates in the legislature.

"There's no way [for the government] not to involve itself, because intolerance must manifest itself in crimes, including crimes committed by agents of the government," said Paulo Biagi, coordinator of the government's official "Brazil Without Homophobia" campaign.

Biagi says that the government will now begin to "rearticulate" the case for its proposed "anti-homophobia" law, which would make it illegal to criticize homosexual behavior in Brazil.

In addition, the government will be launching the National Plan for the Promotion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Citizens in May. It will also soon initiate a television campaign to combat "homophobia" in conjunction with ten other Latin American countries.

"What is surprising is how a population that is 99% against homosexuality is accepting passively that its 100% pro-homosexuality government is lifting homosexual acts to the level of inviolable sacredness," wrote Brazilian pro-family activist Julio Severo on his blog, Last Days Watchman, "and at the same time it is lowering 99% of Brazilians to the class of 'ignorant mob' that should be forcefully condemned to state policies of reeducation,"

Turkish PM in Germany: "Assimilation is a crime"

"Erdogan cheered by 16,000 Turks in Cologne," from Expatica (thanks to all who sent this in):

Cologne, Germany -- A crowd of 16,000 expatriate Turks cheered Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan at a vast indoor auditorium in Germany on Sunday as he told them to resist assimilation into the West.

The political rally by Germany's biggest ethnic minority upset German politicians, who objected to a major public event on German soil being advertised on posters in Turkish only.

Erdogan indirectly addressed those concerns, saying it was right for Turkish immigrants to learn German and other languages so they could integrate, but wrong to abandon their Turkish heritage and assimilate.

"Assimilation is a crime against humanity," he told the crowd. Many Turks had travelled from France, Belgium and the Netherlands to hear his hour-long address in the shiny venue, the Koelnarena.

"I can well understand that you are against assimilation," he said. "It is important to learn German, but your Turkish language should not be neglected."

Cohen's Commentary

On this point, I agree with the author. Gentile (non-Jewish), or shall I say goyim, altruism is something that every Jew should fear. Whenever goyim have forsaken their own vices for the greater good of their own ethnicities, communities and nations, the Jewish people have historically suffered, usually in the form of expulsion.

Let me recap how many times this has happened. We're all familiar, of course, with the expulsion of Jews from Ancient Egypt, and in 580BC Nebuchadnezzar chased the Jews all over arabia. Diaspora Jews would later find themselves on-the-go for the next two milleniums. In 250AD, the goyim expelled Jews from Carthage; 415: Alexandria; 554: Diocese of Clement (France); 561: Diocese of Uzzes (France); 612: Visigoth Spain; 642: Visigoth Empire; 855: Italy; 876: Sens; 1012: Mayence; 1181: France; 1290: England; 1306: France; 1348: Switzerland; 1349: Hielbronn (Germany); 1349: Hungary; 1388: Strasbourg; 1394: Germany; 1394: France; 1422: Austria; 1424: Fribourg & Zurich; 1426: Cologne; 1432: Savory; 1438: Mainz; 1439: Augsburg; 1446: Bavaria; 1453: Franconis; 1453: Breslau; 1454: Wurzburg; 1485: Vincenza (Italy); 1492: Spain; 1495: Lithuania; 1497: Portugal; 1499: Germany; 1514: Strasbourg; 1519: Regensburg; 1540: Naples; 1542: Bohemia; 1550: Genoa; 1551: Bavaria; 1555: Pesaro; 1559: Austria; 1561: Prague; 1567: Wurzburg; 1569: Papal States; 1571: Brandenburg; 1582: Netherlands; 1593: Brandenburg, Austria; 1597: Cremona, Pavia & Lodi; 1614: Frankfort; 1615: Worms; 1619: Kiev; 1649: Ukraine; 1654: LittleRussia; 1656: Lithuania; 1669: Oran (North Africa); 1670: Vienna; 1712: Sandomir; 1727: Russia; 1738: Wurtemburg; 1740: Little Russia; 1744: Bohemia; 1744: Livonia; 1745: Moravia; 1753: Kovad (Lithuania); 1761: Bordeaux; 1772: Jews deported to the Pale of Settlement (Russia); 1775: Warsaw; 1789: Alace; 1804: Villages in Russia; 1808: Villages & Countrysides (Russia); 1815: Lubeck & Bremen; 1815: Franconia, Swabia & Bavaria; 1820: Bremes; 1843: Russian Border Austria & Prussia; 1862: Area in the U.S. under Grant's Jurisdiction; 1866: Galatz, Romania; 1919: Bavaria (foreign born Jews); 1938-45: Nazi Controlled Areas.

Why did this happen? Gentile altruism.

It happened because goyim cared more about their folk and communities than they cared about themselves. And it can happen again. It is happening already with the rise of nationalism. Although I'm inclined to feel a sense of pride at the achievements of my Jewish tribe, as detailed in Professor Kevin MacDonald's book, Culture of Critique, I am also mortified that Gentiles have taken notice of it.

Jews are taking this very seriously.

Scott Huettel, an associate professor of psychology at Duke University Medical Center, in Durham, N.C, and Dharol Tankersley, a graduate student at Duke, published findings in the Jan. 21 online issue of Nature Neuroscience, illustrating a nexus between altruism and heightened activity in the posterior superior temporal cortex (pSTC) of the human brain. Huettel defines altruism as acts "that intentionally benefit another organism, incur no direct personal benefit, and sometimes bear a personal cost."

Fortunately, fellow jew, Paul Sanberg, director of the Center of Excellence for Aging and Brain Repair at the University of South Florida College of Medicine, in Tampa, publicly challenged these findings. The last thing we need are Gentiles in the scientific community exploring ways to increase higher levels of pSTC. But we've already known what causes it:
Perceptual models suggest that an early-developing and rudimentary capacity to perceive another agent's action as self-generated and goal-oriented may form the basis of empathic perception and, in turn, altruism. Neuroimaging studies indicate that brain regions in the pSTC contribute to the perception of agency. Both low-level perceptual tasks, such as target detection and prediction of complex movements, and more complex tasks, such as consideration of other agents' beliefs or (inter) actions in the environment evoke activation in the pSTC. For example, right pSTC activation increases when people watch geometrical shapes performing seemingly purposeful acts, but not when the shapes move at random. The pSTC may support rudimentary computations about the meaning of perceived actions, which might in turn subserve more complex social capacities, including empathy and theory of mind. Thus, the functional integrity of the pSTC may be a prerequisite for prosocial traits such as empathy and altruism.
In plain Yiddish, the perception of purposelessness lowers pSTC stimulation, consequently lowering altruism (new scientific terminology, but an old game for Jews). Gentiles need to perceive the world around them as lacking order and purpose. They need to step out of the orderly machine that drives them to higher states of evolution and consciousness, and into a world of purposeless individualism.

Relax. The circumcised sons of Abraham are on the job.

Fellow jew, Nadine Strossen, is second in command of the ACLU. She was given the "Woman of Distinction" award from the Women's League of Conservative Judaism and the "Women who Dared" award from the National Council of Jewish Women. Below her is Steven Shapiro, who commands an army of 90 full-time lawyers, with an active docket of cases against Gentiles. Geri Rozanski, former director of field operations for the American Jewish Committee, is another loyal Jew. Together, they've taken on the tasks.

Although the groundwork for racial desegregation had already been laid by jewish icon Franz Boas, Shapiro's sayanin, with their sophisticated attacks upon Eurocentrism, would make Franz Boas proud. They champion racial justice for non-Whites, affirmative action, racial profiling and immigrants rights.

Speaking of immigration "rights," I tip my yalmuke to the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society: they pushed so hard to get amnesty for illegal aliens. Mui Bueno! A special thanks also to Jewish Senators Boxer(D-CA), Coleman(R-MN), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein(D-CA), Kohl (D-WI), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Levin (D-MI), Lieberman (D-CT), Specter (R-PA), Schumer (D-NY) and Wyden (D-OR) who voted in favor of amnesty, and to all the jewish PAC's who paid off enough of the remaining Gentile Senators to get eleven million jobless, criminal wetbacks into this country. Just what America needs!

Homosexualism and transgenderism are both antithetical to the family unit, which, if functioning correctly, is a microcosm of progressive, communal order. That is why Shapiro's starched-shirt attorneys defend he-she's and she-he's and their various isms.

It's also why Jews are the mouthpiece of homosexual organizations like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, co-chaired by Loren S. Ostrow, who is also President of the Board of Congregation Kol Ami, a predominately gay and lesbian synagogue in West Hollywood, CA, and formerly served as Co-Chair of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center's Board of Directors.

Alan Klein, another trustworthy Jew, is co-founder of Queer Nation. In 1997, a year television critics will remember as the "Year of the Lesbian," Mr. Klein played a pivotal role in the international media frenzy that accompanied Ellen Degeneres' historic announcement. As National Communications Director and chief spokesperson for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), he orchestrated the media's Ellen coverage from day one. Mr. Klein also co-founded the successful multimedia campaign STOPDRLAURA.COM. Klein carries on the fight for Gentile individualism by serving as Communications Director for Rainbow25 ...

Because Christianity lends itself to the integrity of family units, order and a strong sense of purpose, it hasn't escaped the ACLU's Goydar. In 1925, the ACLU defended biology teacher John Scopes, in the famous "monkey trial," against the charge that he had broken Tennessee's fundamentalist-inspired ban on the teaching of evolution. In the 1930s, the ACLU supported the right of Jehovah's Witness schoolchildren not to salute the American flag, which would have violated their religious beliefs. In 1947, the ACLU participated in the landmark case, Everson v. Board of Education, in which the United States Supreme Court proclaimed: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We would not approve the slightest breach."

In the 1950s and 1960s, our loyal jews successfully challenged official prayer and bible reading in public schools. The Supreme Court ruled, in Engel v. Vitale and in School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, that school prayer and Bible reading are unconstitutional. In the 1980s, the ACLU successfully fought bills introduced in 23 state legislatures which required public schools to teach the biblical version of the earth's creation. In the early 1990s, the ACLU lobbied for congressional passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which strengthens protection for the rights of "religious minorities." More here.

One method of achieving the separation of family units has been to drive a wedge between genders. That is why our loyal Jews in the ACLU have been strong defenders of womens' rights and why so many other Jews extend this branch of "individualism" to the goyim (it's not exactly an olive branch, but the goyim don't seem to know the difference).

Gloria Felt, a loyal Jew, is the President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Eric Schaff is Chairman of the National Abortion Federation. R. Gaull Silberman is Chairman of the Independent Womens' Forum. Leslie A. Calman is the Executive Vice President of National Organization for Women Legal Defense and Education Fund (NOWLDEF), with Lynn Schafran as the Director of the National Judicial Education Program, and Stephen Hammerman as the Vice Chairman of the Board. Malcolm Lazin is the Executive Director of Equality Forum, which is the largest national, and international forum for gay, lesbian and bisexual civil rights.

Vivienne Kramer is Chair of the New England Leather Alliance and Chairperson of the Board of Directors for the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom. On New Voices, she explains "I probably wouldn’t play [engage in BDSM] on a Friday night,' she says, merging the two practices into her own version of religious observance." Hymm. She didn't owe the goyim any explanations, but okay...

Marcia Pally founded Feminists for Free Expression, whose President is loyal Jew, Marilyn Fitterman, and whose secretary is loyal Jew, Jayme Waxman, who is a writer, producer, performer, sex educator and outspoken advocate for women's sexual liberation. She is currently pursuing her masters in human sexuality education and teaches sexuality classes at a well-know adult toyshop in downtown Manhattan. She is the Associate Producer of the television show Naked New York and a columnist for Playgirl Magazine. She produced 'Love Bytes' with Bob Berkowitz and hosted her own show 'Aural Fixation' on WSEX Radio.

Abby Ehmann is a member of the board of Feminists for Free Expression. In her own words, she is a "Sexpert" and "New York's preeminent female smutmeister." This faithful Jew began a career in the adult entertainment industry as an Associate Editor at Penthouse Forum. She has also served as Consulting Editor of Masquerade Erotic Newsletter, Girls of Outlaw Biker and Erotica Online. She has written for many sex-oriented publications from Screw and Hustler to Forum and New Rave."

I'm happy to announce that the entire pornographic industry is heavily larded with God's Chosen people. Fellow Jew, Nathan Abrams, boasts: “A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we’d prefer that the ‘triple exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews 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 transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana. These are the ‘true blue’ Jews. Smut peddlers." Jewish Quarterly (UK), [print edition] 2005, p. 27-30. And just why is that? Al Goldstein (fellow Jew and publisher of Screw magazine) answered this question on Lukeford. “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.”

This is why Jews, whether holding the reins to civil rights groups like the ACLU or leading the guilds of feminists, homosexuals or pornographers, have always been faithful advocates of Gentile "individualism," although, as we all know, individualism really has no place in the party line of international Jewry. Can you imagine the consequences to Israel if Rosa Parks lived to ride on this Israeli bus? Israel would be teaming with Mutti shvartz!

But I digress. A small amount of controlled, Gentile altruism can be good.

The only time---and I mean the only time---Gentiles can be allowed to behave altruistically is when they sacrifice themselves and their freedom for the greater good of the Jewish people or Israel. The less than finite war in Iraq (and future wars with Syria and Iran), demonstrates that this artificial form of Gentile altruism, once guided toward our own interests, can actually serve the Jewish people well. And, it also allows the altruistic type of goyim to feel somewhat true to their own in-group instincts, however misguided, adding a slight texture of realism to the fantasy world painted by our other loyal Jews on the entertainment front, Red Summerstone (also known as Murray Rothstein), Michael Eisner and Spielberg.

So long as the goyim stay glued to Murray Rothstein's MTV and embrace this multi-cultural morality of individualism, they will not care what happens to them as a whole. The goyim certainly won't care enough to be "altruistic."

Eclipse of the Normal


Nearly a century ago, G.K. Chesterton wrote of “the modern and morbid habit of always sacrificing the normal to the abnormal.” Today the very word normal is almost taboo. Perish the thought that there is anything abnormal—let alone sinful, vicious, perverted, abominable, sick, unhealthy, or just plain wrong—about sodomy. (Unsanitary? Let’s not go there.)

As one T-shirt legend puts it, “I’m proud of my gay son.” Sure you are, lady. I’ll bet when he told you, you blurted, “O darling, you make me so proud!” I mean, like, who wouldn’t? And then you went out and bragged to all the neighbors.

And do you enjoy picturing what he and his “partners” do together? If you’re curious, you can probably get the idea from a DVD. Just go into an “adult” DVD store and ask where the anal-sex section is. This should make you just burst with maternal pride.

Let me lay my cards on the table. I’m what they call homophobic, and I believe God loves me just the way I am. He may even regard homophobia as one of my finer qualities. To a much lesser degree, I’m also lesbophobic. I realize that lesbianism is also a form of sodomy, but that strikes me as a rather technical point, because, in my rather limited experience, it doesn’t involve the sort of repulsive practices male sodomy does. How often have you heard of a lesbian dying of AIDS?

This is hardly the place to discuss sexual practices in clinical detail. Such discussions are freely available, indeed unavoidable, elsewhere. To add to them here would be, as the old saying has it, carrying coals to Newcastle.

But I digress. (I wondered when you’d notice.) Most people realize that God made two sexes. Even the phrase gay and lesbian is an attempt to ape the natural symmetry of nature’s (two and only two) sexes. Male and female homosexuality are only superficially parallel; in fact, they are wholly different and dissimilar maladjustments. The male brand is madly promiscuous and indiscriminate; the female brand tends to be monogamous. This will surely be borne out by the upshot of the craze for same-sex “marriage”—an absurd contradiction in terms if ever there was one. (You might as well expect two bulls, or two lions, to form a lasting union.)

We are witnessing what might be called the eclipse of the normal—an eccentric phase of modern history in which huge numbers of people feign ignorance of what is perfectly obvious. The polite taboos on calling abortion “killing” and sodomy “perversion” are mere symptoms of this; Barack Obama, with his sycophantic solicitude for “gays,” is typical of the modern liberal mind-set. “Who is to say what is ‘normal’?” is now thought to be an insoluble conundrum.

Well, who is to say that, in all the fantastic abundance of nature, there are only two sexes? Or is that another tough one? After all, members of some species of marine life can even change sexes. It’s clear that anybody who can’t answer such questions just doesn’t want them to be answered. All sane people know the answers, and it’s a waste of time arguing with a man who pretends not to know, even if he’s the president of the United States. This nonsense has been going on far too long.

Who could have imagined, a generation ago, that organized Sodom would achieve such cultural and political power in the United States? And so soon, at that! “We are all sodomites now,” exults Andrew Sullivan, and he has a point, at least a semantic one. The word sodomy, as he notes, used to comprise all sexual perversions, including contraception within marriage. The real sexual revolution came to pass quietly, when contraception became generally accepted as a legitimate part of marriage. After that, it became hard to argue against virtually any sexual practice, inside or outside wedlock, short of rape. The revolution in morals occurred almost before anyone noticed it. And today it is taken for granted.

Few of us can now remember how sternly nearly all Christians disapproved of birth control before 1931, when the Anglican Church opened the floodgates with a few seemingly innocuous exceptions in certain cases of hardship. By now the old standards of chastity have melted away like ice in August. In today’s terms, they are well-nigh incomprehensible.

Modern man is thoroughly cut off from his past. He and his ancestors would be total strangers to each other. The essential problem is a new form of hypocrisy in which we all feel pressure to affect ignorance of things everyone used to know—and which most people still do know.

To put it bluntly, our moral standards would horrify our forebears. They would gasp in disbelief at the things we now accept as normal, for the simple reason that any civilized society would recognize those things as highly abnormal.

This article first appeared in the April 2010 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. By Joe Sobran.

NATO tells Russia: We'll keep the heroin flowing


NATO Wednesday rejected Russian calls for it to eradicate opium poppy fields
in Afghanistan, saying the best way for Moscow to help control the drug would be to give more assistance against the insurgency.

Russia's anti-drugs czar, Victor Ivanov, met NATO ambassadors in Brussels and proposed that NATO troops be given a U.N. mandate and an obligation to eradicate Afghan opium crops, which were killing 30,000 Russians a year.

(Afghan opium kills 100,000 people every year worldwide" - Wikipedia)

But NATO spokesman James Appathurai said the drug problem had to be handled carefully to avoid alienating local people. He said the alliance was continuing efforts to target drug lords and drug labs, but added at a news briefing:

"We cannot be in a situation where we remove the only source of income of people who live in the second poorest country in the world without being able to provide them with an alternative."

Afghanistan is the world's biggest producer of poppies used to make opium, the key ingredient in the production of heroin.

Appathurai said NATO understood Russian concerns, given its estimated 200,000 heroin and morphine addicts and the tens of thousands dying each year.

Wed Mar 24, 2010

Sexual Liberation & Racial Suicide

By F. Roger Devlin

What is “sexual liberation”? It is usually spoken of by way of contrast with the constraints of marriage and family life. It would seem to be a condition under which people have more choice than under the traditional system of monogamy. Hugh Hefner’s “Playboy philosophy” seemed to offer men more choices than just sleeping with the same woman every night for fifty years. Feminism promised women it would liberate them from “domestic drudgery” and turn marriage and motherhood into just one among many lifestyle choices.

On the other hand, there was always an element of free choice even regarding marriage: one may choose whether, and to a certain extent whom, one will marry. Indeed, marriage is perhaps the most important example of a momentous life choice. But on the traditional view you cannot make your choice and still have it. Once one takes the vow and enters into the covenant, ipso facto one no longer has a choice. In other words, marriage is a one-way nonrefundable ticket. Your wife is your choice even if she eventually displeases you in certain ways, as all mortal wives necessarily must. Keeping your choice of mate open forever is called “celibacy.”

Ultimately, the ideal of sexual liberation rests upon a philosophical confusion which I call the absolutizing of choice. The illusion is that society could somehow be ordered to allow us to choose without thereby diminishing our future options. Birth control, abortion, the destigmatizing of fornication and homosexuality, arbitrary and unilateral divorce—all these have been pitched to us as ways of expanding our choices.

Now, I am in favor of giving people all the choice they can stand. But I would like to be careful about what this means: analysis will reveal that the term “choice” has distinct and partly contradictory senses which may not be equally applicable in all contexts. In other words, choice is not a single thing which can be expanded indefinitely at no cost; the appearance of greater choice in one area can be shown to entail reducing one’s possibilities in another.

One perfectly legitimate sense of choosing is doing as one desires. When we are asked to choose a flavor of ice cream, e.g., all that is meant is deciding which flavor would be the most pleasing to us at the moment. That is because the alternative of chocolate or strawberry involves no deep, long-term consequences. But not all choices can be like this.

Consider, for example, a young man’s choice of vocation. One of the charms of youth is that it is a time when possibility overshadows actuality. One might become a brain surgeon, or a mountain climber, or a poet, or a statesman, or a monk. It is natural and good for boys to dream about all the various things they might become, but such daydreams can breed a dangerous illusion: that, where anything is still possible, everything will be possible. This is only true in the case of trivial and inconsequential matters. It is possible to sample all of Baskin-Robbins’ thirty-one flavors on thirty-one successive days. But it is not possible to become a brain-surgeon and a mountain climber and a poet and a statesman and a monk. A man who tries to do so will only fail in all his endeavors.

The reason for this, of course, is that important enterprises demand large amounts of time and dedication, but the men who undertake them are mortal. For every possibility we realize, there will be a hundred we must leave forever unrealized; for every path we choose to take, there will be a hundred we must forever renounce. The need for choice in this sense is what gives human life much of its seriousness. Those who drift from one thing to another, unable to make up their minds or finish anything they have begun, reveal thereby that they do not grasp an essential truth about the human condition. They are like children who do not wish to grow up.

Now, sexual choices, especially for women, are analogous to a man’s in regard to his calling. Inherently, they cannot be made as easy and reversible as choosing flavors of ice cream. But this is what sexual liberation attempts to do. The underlying motive seems to be precisely a fear of difficult choices and a desire to eliminate the need for them. For example, a woman does not have to think about a man’s qualifications to be a father to her children if a pill or a routine medical procedure can remove that possibility. There is no reason to consider carefully the alternative between career and marriage if motherhood can be safely postponed until the age of forty (as large numbers of women now apparently believe). What we have here is not a clear gain in the amount of choice, but a shift from one sense of the word to another—from serious, reflective commitment to merely doing as one desires at any given time. Like the dilettante who dabbles in five professions without finally pursuing any, the liberated woman and the playboy want to keep all their options open forever: they want eternal youth.

The attempt to realize a utopia of limitless choice in the real world has certain predictable consequences: notably, it makes the experience of love one of repeated failure. Those who reject both committed marriage and committed celibacy drift into and out of a series of what are called “relationships,” either abandoning or being abandoned. The lesson inevitably taught by such experiences is that love does not last, that people are not reliable, that in the end one has only oneself to fall back on, that prudence dictates always looking out for number one. And this in turn destroys the generosity, loyalty, and trust which are indispensable for family life and the perpetuation of our kind.

Most of those who have obeyed the new commandment to follow all of their hearts’ desire do not appear to me to be reveling in a garden of earthly delights. Instead I am reminded of the sad characters from the pages of Chekhov: sleepwalking through life, forever hoping that tomorrow things will somehow be changed for the better as they blindly allow opportunities for lasting happiness to slip through their fingers. But this is merely the natural outcome of conceiving of a human life as a series of revocable and inconsequential choices. We are, indeed, protected from certain risks, but have correspondingly little to gain; we have fewer worries but no great aspirations. The price we pay for eliminating the dangers of intimacy is the elimination of its seriousness.

In place of family formation, we find a “dating scene” without any clear goal, in which men and women are both consumed with the effort to get the other party to close options while keeping their own open. There is a hectic and never-ending jockeying for position: fighting off the competition while keeping an eye out for a better deal elsewhere. The latest “singles” fad, I am told, is something called speed dating, where men and women interact for three minutes, then go on to someone else at the sound of a bell.

Sex belongs to early adulthood: one transient phase of human life. It is futile to attempt to abstract it from its natural and limited place in the life-cycle and make it an end in itself. Sustainable civilization requires that more important long term desires like procreation be given preference over short term wishes which conflict with them, such as the impulse to fornicate.

The purpose of marriage is not to place shackles upon people or reduce their options, but to enable them to achieve something which most are simply too weak to achieve without the aid of a social institution. Certain valuable things require time to ripen, and you cannot discover them unless you are faithful to your task and patient. Marriage is what tells people to stick to it long enough to find out what happens. Struggling with such difficulties—and even periods of outright discouragement—is part of what allows the desires of men and women to mature and come into focus. Older couples who have successfully raised children together, and are rewarded by seeing them marry and produce children of their own, are unlikely to view their honeymoon as the most important event of their marriage.

People cannot know what they want when they are young. A young man may imagine happiness to consist in living on Calypso’s Island, giving himself over to sexual pleasure without ever incurring family obligations; but all serious men eventually find such a life unsatisfying. The term “playboy” was originally derogatory, implying that the male who makes pursuing women his highest end is not to be taken seriously. The type of man who thinks he’s hot stuff because he’s able to have one night stands will never raise sons capable of carrying on the fight for our embattled civilization.

Confusion about one’s desires is probably greater in young women, however. For this reason, it is misleading to speak of women “wanting marriage.” A young woman leafing through the pages of Modern Bride does not yet know what marriage is; all she wants is to have her wedding day and live happily ever after. She may well not have the slightest notion of the duties she will be taking on.

Parenthood is what really forces young men and women to grow up. Young men whose idea of the good life was getting drunk, getting laid, and passing out suddenly start focusing on career planning and building capital. They find it bracing to have a genuinely important task to perform, and are perhaps surprised to find themselves equal to it.

But without the understanding that marriage is an inherently irreversible covenant, both men and women succumb to the illusion that divorce will solve the “problem” of dissatisfaction in marriage. They behave like the farmer who clears, plows, and plants a field only to throw up his hands on the first really hot and sweaty day of work, exclaiming: “Farming is no fun! I’m going to do something else!” And like that farmer, they have no one to blame but themselves when they fail to harvest any crops.

Understanding the marriage bond as an irreversible covenant similarly influences the way economic activity and property are understood. Rather than being a series of short-term responses to circumstance, labor and investment become an aspect of family life transcending the natural life span of any individual. From a mere means to consumption, wealth becomes a family inheritance. In Burke’s fine words: “The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends most to the perpetuation of society itself.” By contrast, the characteristically modern view of property finds its clearest expression in the title of a bestselling 1998 financial planning guide: Die Broke. This amounts to a scorched earth policy for our own civilization. Perhaps someday the author will favor us with a sequel entitled Die Alone or Die Childless.

But not everyone is equally receptive to this kind of message. Women in parts of West Africa are averaging over eight children apiece. The revolt against marriage and childrearing is an overwhelmingly white phenomenon. It is primarily in white countries that the birthrate has fallen below replacement level. It would behoove racially conscious whites, therefore, not to ignore the sexual side of the revolt against our civilization, nor shortsightedly to limit our attention to the single issue of miscegenation. The homosexual bathhouse view of sex as merely a means to personal pleasure attacks our race from within and at its source. As much as with inimical races and racial ideologies, our survival will depend upon our ability to organize effective resistance.

When we look around at all the forces arrayed against our race, it can be daunting. How can we fight them all? Are circumstances right? Would we be ready even if they were? And what to do in the meantime? The situation becomes a lot less daunting when we realize that the first battle, and the first victory, must take place within ourselves.

Truth Has Fallen and Has Taken Liberty With It

Paul Craig Roberts - March 25th, 2010

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
. — George Orwell

There was a time when the pen was mightier than the sword. That was a time when people believed in truth and regarded truth as an independent power and not as an auxiliary for government, class, race, ideological, personal, or financial interest.

Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it.

Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded “anti-American,” “anti-semite” or “conspiracy theorist.”

Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government.

Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt.

Truth is inconvenient for ideologues.

Today many whose goal once was the discovery of truth are now paid handsomely to hide it. “Free market economists” are paid to sell offshoring to the American people. High-productivity, high value-added American jobs are denigrated as dirty, old industrial jobs. Relicts from long ago, we are best shed of them. Their place has been taken by “the New Economy,” a mythical economy that allegedly consists of high-tech white collar jobs in which Americans innovate and finance activities that occur offshore. All Americans need in order to participate in this “new economy” are finance degrees from Ivy League universities, and then they will work on Wall Street at million dollar jobs.

Economists who were once respectable took money to contribute to this myth of “the New Economy.”

And not only economists sell their souls for filthy lucre. Recently we have had reports of medical doctors who, for money, have published in peer-reviewed journals concocted “studies” that hype this or that new medicine produced by pharmaceutical companies that paid for the “studies.”

The Council of Europe is investigating big pharma’s role in hyping a false swine flu pandemic in order to gain billions of dollars in sales of the vaccine.

The media helped the US military hype its recent Marja offensive in Afghanistan, describing Marja as a city of 80,000 under Taliban control. It turns out that Marja is not urban but a collection of village farms.

And there is the global warming scandal, in which climate scientists, financed by Wall Street and corporations anxious to get their mitts on “cap and trade” and by a U.N. agency anxious to redistribute income from rich to poor countries, concocted a doomsday scenario in order to create profit in pollution.

Wherever one looks, truth has fallen to money.

Wherever money is insufficient to bury the truth, ignorance, propaganda, and short memories finish the job.

I remember when, following CIA director William Colby’s testimony before the Church Committee in the mid-1970s, presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan issued executive orders preventing the CIA and U.S. black-op groups from assassinating foreign leaders. In 2010 the US Congress was told by Dennis Blair, head of national intelligence, that the US now assassinates its own citizens in addition to foreign leaders.

When Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that US citizens no longer needed to be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted of a capital crime, just murdered on suspicion alone of being a “threat,” he wasn’t impeached. No investigation pursued. Nothing happened. There was no Church Committee. In the mid-1970s the CIA got into trouble for plots to kill Castro. Today it is American citizens who are on the hit list. Whatever objections there might be don’t carry any weight. No one in government is in any trouble over the assassination of U.S. citizens by the U.S. government.

As an economist, I am astonished that the American economics profession has no awareness whatsoever that the U.S. economy has been destroyed by the offshoring of U.S. GDP to overseas countries. U.S. corporations, in pursuit of absolute advantage or lowest labor costs and maximum CEO “performance bonuses,” have moved the production of goods and services marketed to Americans to China, India, and elsewhere abroad. When I read economists describe offshoring as free trade based on comparative advantage, I realize that there is no intelligence or integrity in the American economics profession.

Intelligence and integrity have been purchased by money. The transnational or global U.S. corporations pay multi-million dollar compensation packages to top managers, who achieve these “performance awards” by replacing U.S. labor with foreign labor. While Washington worries about “the Muslim threat,” Wall Street, U.S. corporations and “free market” shills destroy the U.S. economy and the prospects of tens of millions of Americans.

Americans, or most of them, have proved to be putty in the hands of the police state.

Americans have bought into the government’s claim that security requires the suspension of civil liberties and accountable government. Astonishingly, Americans, or most of them, believe that civil liberties, such as habeas corpus and due process, protect “terrorists,” and not themselves. Many also believe that the Constitution is a tired old document that prevents government from exercising the kind of police state powers necessary to keep Americans safe and free.

Most Americans are unlikely to hear from anyone who would tell them any different.

I was associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal. I was Business Week’s first outside columnist, a position I held for 15 years. I was columnist for a decade for Scripps Howard News Service, carried in 300 newspapers. I was a columnist for the Washington Times and for newspapers in France and Italy and for a magazine in Germany. I was a contributor to the New York Times and a regular feature in the Los Angeles Times. Today I cannot publish in, or appear on, the American “mainstream media.”

For the last six years I have been banned from the “mainstream media.” My last column in the New York Times appeared in January, 2004, coauthored with Democratic U.S. Senator Charles Schumer representing New York. We addressed the offshoring of U.S. jobs. Our op-ed article produced a conference at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. and live coverage by C-Span. A debate was launched. No such thing could happen today.

For years I was a mainstay at the Washington Times, producing credibility for the Moony newspaper as a Business Week columnist, former Wall Street Journal editor, and former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. But when I began criticizing Bush’s wars of aggression, the order came down to Mary Lou Forbes to cancel my column.

The American media does not serve the truth. It serves the government and the interest groups that empower the government.

America’s fate was sealed when the public and the anti-war movement bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government’s account of 9/11 is contradicted by much evidence. Nevertheless, this defining event of our time, which has launched the US on interminable wars of aggression and a domestic police state, is a taboo topic for investigation in the media. It is pointless to complain of war and a police state when one accepts the premise upon which they are based.

These trillion dollar wars have created financing problems for Washington’s deficits and threaten the U.S. dollar’s role as world reserve currency. The wars and the pressure that the budget deficits put on the dollar’s value have put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block. Former Goldman Sachs chairman and U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is after these protections for the elderly. Fed chairman Bernanke is also after them. The Republicans are after them as well. These protections are called “entitlements” as if they are some sort of welfare that people have not paid for in payroll taxes all their working lives.

With over 21 percent unemployment as measured by the methodology of 1980, with American jobs, GDP, and technology having been given to China and India, with war being Washington’s greatest commitment, with the dollar over-burdened with debt, with civil liberty sacrificed to the “war on terror,” the liberty and prosperity of the American people have been thrown into the trash bin of history.

The militarism of the U.S. and Israeli states, and Wall Street and corporate greed, will now run their course. As the pen is censored and its might extinguished, I am signing off.

Impact of Voyeurism

Voyeurism is regarded as a fetish. It conjures images of masturbating old men, peering from the corner of the curtain to catch a glimpse of a young woman in the street. This description is appropriate for that particular type of voyeur, but it hides the reality of voyeurism. Voyeurism is not limited to a few deviants who like to spy on their neighbours, but is rather a behaviour which has become so commonplace as to be the norm.

Western society has been corrupted by alien influences and degenerates from within for many years. With the advent of television, the decline of culture and morality accelerated. With the internet, that decline has become such that it can be felt to worsen on a near continuous basis.

So what has voyeurism to do with the decline of the West? Is the relationship one of cause, or one of effect? The relationship is in fact both - voyeurism is a result of the decline of Europe, and acts as an accelerant of that decline. The same can be said for other parts of the world which have succumbed to the media age, but analysis of the entire world is far beyond the scope of this article.

Voyeurism is the act of obtaining gratification by observation. It is much more than a non-productive sexual activity. Voyeurs include all those who watch sport on the television but do not actively play. To that end, even people who regularly attend football matches (or any other sport), but do not participate on the field, are voyeurs. They satisfy their need to feel that they belong to the tribe by diverting what is a natural and vital instinct, into watching a game - and in some cases into literally violently opposing those who pledge allegiance to a different team. Football hooligans are obeying a natural drive to defend the tribe - but such is the degeneracy of the West, that rather than defending their families and their people, they commit acts of violence against their kinsmen who wear different colours and have different chants. Can there be anything more ridiculous than a man in a Leeds United shirt kicking unconscious a man in a Manchester United shirt? Yet these oafs take pride in such destructive actions against their compatriots.

Not all sports fans are hooligans, but, with the exception of those who play the sport in question, they are voyeurs. To hear a typical football fan speak after a match, one would be forgiven for thinking that the individual boasting of how 'we won' had actively contributed to the team effort to kick a ball into the opposing goal more often than the other team - rather than in actuality screaming abuse at players in different shirts whilst shouting at the players he idolises. To witness the anger and tears gushed forth by football fans when the favoured team doesn't manage to kick the ball in the desired manner, one would fear for the mental well-being of the individual who doesn't understand the difference between trivial games designed as entertainment, and matters of importance.

The internet has greatly exaggerated sexual voyeurism, and the availability of the most bizarre pornography imaginable (and unimaginable!) Before the arrival of the internet, being 'into' Scat meant having an appreciation for a type of singing found in Jazz music! The easy availability of all manner of pornography has undermined the sanctity of a stable and meaningful monogamous relationship. Whereas the traditional society was built upon marriage with each partner remaining celibate until after the wedding ceremony, and faithful thereafter until the couple were separated by death, the era of mass pornography has introduced the mass of society to un-natural sexual practices which can be explored without taking part. Sadly, this perversion of the mind does lead to a desire to experience the bizarre acts witnessed on the screen. Just as how during the televising of cricket or tennis, the urge to play manifests in a healthy game amongst friends, so with pornography, curiosity manifests in anonymous acts of degeneracy far from the bosom of the family. The diseases thus caught, and the destruction of the bond of monogamy invariably take their toll.

The promotion of promiscuity and perversion are not confined to seedy shops and websites. By far the greater source of the family-destroying material is the television. Politically correct soap operas such as Eastenders and Coronation Street only show perverts in a positive light, with any objectors being painted as bigots, haters, and insane. School children are especially vulnerable to the drive to reduce society to a collection of valueless individuals. In school, children voyeuristically absorb the social conditioning of the indoctrination system which provides no education whatsoever. They are not allowed to question their 'teachers' or to have a different opinion to that which is ordained by the Establishment. They are told that internationalism is desirable, that man made global warming is true, that 9/11 was carried out by Sin-Laden Obama, sorry, Osama Bin Laden, and that it is the child's duty to experiment with many different sexual partners of every race, age, sex, and sexual proclivity. Marriage and family are presented as outmoded and oppressive institutions. Denied the ability to question the lies of the 'education' system, children are reduced to observers of a bizarre cult, which is replicated on the television and due to its pervasive nature, becomes accepted as normal reality.

The music industry has become a driving force for the destruction of society. Britney Spears' 'If You Seek Amy' (F U C K Me), Lady Gaga's 'Poker Face' (Poke Her Face), Beyonce's 'Video Phone', to mention but a few, promote promiscuity to impressionable children. Children are further sexualised by modern Disney films which present 'adult' themes to children, implanting ideas into the subconscious which the child should not be exposed to. Advertising hoardings in the street assault the passer by with imagery which works its way into the mind - corrupting the natural healthy mind with decadent individualist materialism. Again, these media instruments are viewed voyeuristically.

The news media present crime and violence in a sensational manner, which breaks down the horror and revulsion which a healthy individual feels when confronted by the unacceptable. In exactly the same way as people have become desensitized to murder, rape and torture by horror films, so people become desensitized to the crimes of the State which are presented on the news. Before television, a government which stole from the people, enacted policies which they expressly promised not to (such as being pro-immigration, committing wars of aggression against civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc), would have provoked mass action, even to the point of revolution. Now, the TV screens corruption and Zionism around the clock, with barely a whimper of indignation.

Voyeurism is a state of mind where the individual observes but does not participate. It creates a desire which must eventually be acted upon. The football fan who is frustrated by not having a real input and thereby is powerless to make his team win, may express this frustration with violence. The child who is lied to by the school system but is prevented from getting his or her point across may become 'anti-social', finding power in rebellion. This rebellion is pre-channelled into hostility to authority which mistakenly becomes hostility to the family. Not being in a position to even fully appreciate the fact that the family is the safe haven from the anti-human society created by the (pseudo-) libertine materialist Establishment, the child unwittingly follows the programming of the media and the indoctrination of the school and becomes promiscuous and immoral - exactly as the Establishment wish.

The West is in a trance. We are sleep-walking our way to oblivion. We have become so used to passively absorbing the diseased programming of the Establishment, that even though we may be aware that something is wrong, the same programming has led us into false rebellions which serve to protect the enemy. All is not lost however. By studying how subliminal control is placed in our homes and streets, we can awaken our minds to the point where subliminals no longer work. By making the effort to participate in sports rather than observing them, we can achieve some personal control, which can then be used as a self-esteem builder which will enable us to shake off the shackles of despondency. Sport is but one option - the individual must fond what he or she enjoys and can use to self-actualise.

Turning off the television and radio, not reading the mass media, listening to wholesome music (maybe to instrumental music), home-schooling our children, participating in the community rather than vegetating in front of the media box - these are just some of the ways we can remove the hypnotic power which keeps our minds enslaved. We cannot avoid all advertising, but we can limit what we are exposed to by not inviting the media into our homes and voluntarily exposing ourselves to their poison.

We are voyeurs. Maybe not sexual voyeurs, but voyeurs nonetheless. This is the key to our psychological enslavement. We are asleep to our peril, but we can easily awaken. Once awake we can never be beaten down. Freed from the oppression of media manipulation we will see the liars and their lies with fresh eyes. Then, they will flee like rats back into the sewers. All we need to defeat our enemies to to wake up and sense our own strength - and see their power for the illusion it is. It really is that simple.

By news from atlantis March 2010

Death of the West: The Cultural Revolution

Note from TTHC: The following review came from the blog Victory or Death back in 2007.

A while ago I finished reading Death of the West by Patrick Buchanan. I was not familiar with the author prior to reading the book, and would in all likelihood not have come across his book had a close friend not urged me to read it. I'm glad I did read it, and for a number of reasons which I will endeavor to share with you. It discusses a number of crucial issues which may be summarized as the following: a dying population, mass immigration, an anti-Christian culture, and 'the breakup of nations and the defections of the ruling elites to a world government whose rise entails the end of nations'. I intend to post about all of those issues but if I'm to give each area the proper attention I'm going to have to do it one by one. So I'll start with the cultural revolution. This post is actually less of a review, and more of a summary. I quote Buchanan at length, and keep my commentary to a minimum, so as to keep the post as short as possible (even so its pretty long). First things first though; although I think the book is immensely useful when it comes to explaining certain things, it does have some drawbacks, so I'll start with them.

There are 4 main faults. First is the use of the term Judao-Christian throughout the book. Although the author is not a Christian Zionist he persists in using the phrase and I can only assume that he is covering his back after having been accused of being an anti-Semite many times. Therefore since he is already bringing up very controversial issues such as the cultural revolution (and naming Jewish names), and promoting Christian values, he feels a need to temper the possible fallout and not rock the boat even more. Usually the nonchalant use of the term bothers me, but in the context of the information and values he conveys in his book, I'm willing to overlook it in this instance.

Secondly, being an American, a large portion of the book is understandably devoted to examining American problems and possible solutions. While I found his information and thoughts interesting, I confess that I have no emotional attachment to America. Even though it has patently been hijacked for malevolent means, I don't have much affinity for the founding fathers or the Old America. If Buchanan thinks America can climb out of the present hole it has dug for itself then good luck to him. But I'm not holding my breath, and I'm more concerned with Europe, and most of all with Orthodox nations.

Thirdly, being an ex-Presidential candidate, and Republican, Buchanan does show some flicker of hope in the democratic process and even his former party. To his credit he does ravage Republican policy, Republican politicians, the political and judicial system, but out of some sort of nostalgia or wishful thinking, hopes that the situation can be reversed using the democratic process. That after he spent the whole book outlining that the media, political, educational institutions are all firmly tied up in the hands of those he opposes.
Fourthly he talks in broad terms about the West without really giving a definition.

Cultural Revolution
Buchanan starts off by stating that America has 'undergone a cultural revolution, with a new elite now occupying the commanding heights.' He observes: 'What was immoral and shameful- promiscuity, abortion, euthanasia, suicide- has become progressive and praiseworthy'.
He traces the start of this revolution to 1914, which in my opinion doesn't go back far enough, but in his analysis of the situation from that moment on, he brings up some very interesting points. He describes how during WW1, that apart from in Russia, the workers had failed to rally to the revolutions launched in their name. Nothing the marxists had predicted had come to pass. Two of Marx's disciples advanced an explanation: 'they had not risen in revolution because their souls had been saturated in two thousand years of Christianity, which blinded them to their true class interests.' Until Christianity were uprooted the revolution would be betrayed by the workers in whose name it was to be fought.
The first 'dissenting disciple' was Hungarian Georg Lukacs who had the following solution to the problem: 'I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution. A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries'. As deputy commissar for culture in the Hungarian communist regime, Lukacs put his self-described 'demonic' ideas into action in what came to be known as 'cultural terrorism'. Buchanan summarises:

As part of this terrorism he instituted a radical sex education program in Hungarian schools. Children were instructed in free love, sexual intercourse, the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the outdatedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasures.

The second disciple was Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist who had seen that Bolshevism did not work, and that the regime could only compel obedience through terror.

Gramsci concluded it was their Christian souls that prevented the Russian people from embracing their Communist revolution. 'The civilized world had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2000 years', Gramsci wrote; and a regime grounded in Judeo-Christian beliefs and values could not be overthrown until those roots were cut... Marxists must first de-Christianize the West.

Rather than seize power first and impose a cultural revolution from above, Gramsci argued, Marxists in the West must first change the culture; then power would fall into their laps like ripened fruit. But to change the culture would require a 'long march through the institutions'- the arts, cinema, theater, schools, colleges, seminaries, newspapers, magazines, and the new electronic medium, radio. One by one, each had to be captured and converted and politicized into an agency of revolution. Then the people could be slowly educated to understand even welcome the revolution. Gramsci urged his fellow Marxists to form popular fronts with Western intellectuals who shared their contempt for Christianity and bourgeois culture and who shaped the minds of the young.

On the cover of his 1970 runaway bestseller The Greening of America, the manifesto of the counterculture, author Charles Reich parroted Gramsci perfectly: There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and with culture, and it will change the political structure only as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted with violence. It is now spreading with amazing rapidity, and already our laws, institutions, and social structure are changing in consequence... This is the revolution of the new generation.

In 1923, Lukacs and members of the German Communist party set up, at Frankfurt University, an Institute for Marxism modelled on the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow which would come to be known as the Frankfurt School. The Jewish Max Horkheimer became its director.

At Horkheimer's direction, the Frankfurt School began to retranslate Marxism into cultural terms...To old Marxists the enemy was capitalism; to new Marxists, the enemy was Western culture... Victory would come only after Christian beliefs had died in the soul of Western man. And that would happen only after the institutions of culture and education had been captured and conscripted by allies and agents of the revolution.

The following extract from the book could easily be passed over by many, but it is telling: 1933, history rudely intruded. Adolf Hitler ascended to power in Berlin, and as the leading lights of the Frankfurt School were Jewish and Marxist, they were not a good fit for the Third Reich. The Frankfurt School packed its ideology and fled to America.

Two of the more famous Jews were Erich Fromm and Theodor Adorno (who changed his surname from Wiesengrund). Among the new weapons of cultural conflict that the Frankfurt School was to develop was Critical Theory. One student described it as the 'essentially destructive criticism of all the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism'.

Under Critical Theory, one repeats that Western societies are history's greatest repositories of racism, sexism, nativism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-semitism, fascism, and Nazism. Under critical theory, the crimes of the West flow from the character of the West, as shaped by Christianity...Critical Theory eventually induces 'cultural pessimism', a sense of alienation, of hopelessness, of despair where, even though prosperous and free, a people comes to see its society and country as oppressive, evil and unworthy of loyalty or love. The new Marxists considered cultural pessimism a necessary precondition of revolutionary change.

They flatly asserted that individuals raised in families dominated by the father, who are flag-waving patriots and follow the old-time religion, are incipient fascists and potential Nazis. As a conservative Christian culture breeds fascism, those deeply immersed in such a culture must be closely watched for fascist tendencies.... As early as the mid-1960s, conservatives and authority figures who denounced or opposed the campus revolution were routinely branded 'fascists'. Baby boomers were unknowingly following a script that ran parallel to the party line laid down by the Moscow Central Committee in 1943:

Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them a fascist, or Nazi or anti-Semitic...The association will, after enough repetition, become 'fact' in the public mind.

Since the 1960s, branding opponents as haters or mentally sick has been the most effective weapon in the arsenal of the left.

During the 1950s, the Frankfurt School lacked a personality to popularize the ideas buried in the glutinous prose of Horkheimer and Adorno. Enter Herbert Marcuse. (Editors note: another Jew)

Marcuse provided the answer to Horkheimer's question: Who will play the role of the proletariat in the coming cultural revolution? Marcuse's candidates: radical youth, feminists, black militants, homosexuals, the alienated, the asocial, Third World revolutionaries, all the angry voices of the persecuted 'victims' of the West.

Past societies had been subverted by words and books, but Marcuse believed that sex and drugs were superior weapons. In Eros and Civilization, Marcuse urged a universal embrace of the Pleasure Principle. Reject the cultural order entirely, said Marcuse, and we can create a world of 'polymorphous perversity'.

For cultural Marxists, no cause ranked higher than the abolition of the family, which they despised as a dictatorship and the incubator of sexism and social injustice... Wilhelm Reich believed the way to destroy the family was through revolutionary sexual politics and early sex education. The appearance of sex education in elementary schools in America owes a debt to Lukacs, Reich and the Frankfurt School.

In the death of the West, the Frankfurt School must be held as a prime suspect and principal accomplice. The propaganda assault on the family it advocated has contributed to the collapse of the family.

The pill and condom have become the hammer and sickle of the cultural revolution.

In a third of a century, what was denounced as the counterculture has become the dominant culture, and what was the dominant culture has become, in Gertrude Himmelfarb's (Editors note: yet another Jew) phrase, a 'dissident culture'. We see it in the mandatory requirement for 'sensitivity training' in the military, in business, and in government. Turn on the TV and observe. The values of the revolution dominate the medium. Political correctness rules. Defiance of our new orthodoxy qualifies as 'hate speech', disrespect for its dogmas as a sign of mental sickness.

Political correctness is cultural Marxism, a regime to punish dissent and to stigmatize social heresy as the Inquisition punished religious heresy.

People who today accept these ideas 'cannot know that they were hatched in a Marxist nursery in Weimar Germany' or that their purpose was to 'subvert our culture and overturn our civilization'.

Why they succeeded

Buchanan proposes a number of elements that came together:

First was 'the message in a bottle', as the men of the Frankfurt School called their ideas.

Second, there arrived on campus, beginning in 1964, a huge cohort of youth who had known niether hardship nor war. The cultural revolution now had a huge, captive, and receptive audience. Spoiled and affluent, carefree, confident, liberated, and bored, these young people were ready for rebellion.

Third, 1960s television could convey the tactics and triumphs of campus radicals and urban revolutionaries instantly to their peers.

Through its control of the culture, the Left dictates not only the answers, but the questions asked. In short, it controls the cosmological apparatus by which most Americans comprehend the meaning of events. This cosmology is based on two great axioms: the first is that there are no absolute values in the universe, no standards of ugliness, good and evil. The second axiom is- in a Godless universe- the Left holds moral superiority as the final arbiter of man's activities.

I'll end today's commentary with a rousing quote:

Political adversaries who use terms like Nazi, fascist, anti-Semite, nativist, homophone, bigot, xenophobe, and extremist have started a fight and should be accommodated.

I'll add that its time, not to be silenced, but to take their 'Critical Theory' and shove it right back in their faces with the same gusto that they try to shove it into ours. Two can play the game of constant repetition and demonisation, and since the truth is not on the side of those degenerates, we can beat that at their own game!