This grainy picture was taken on October 24, 1946, almost 14 months after the end of World War II and almost 11 years before the Sputnik launch. It was taken by American military engineers and scientists, using a Nazi rocket launched from the White Sands Missile Range, in New Mexico.
Yes, a Nazi rocket—the V-2.
At the time there was no NASA, and human space exploration wasn’t a mainstream idea. The only people who were really thinking about spaceships at the time were the Nazis of a few years earlier and their spitzenreiter mad rocket science, a man by the name of Wernher Magnus Maximilian, Freiherr von Braun.
Von Braun dreamed about spaceships and wanted to build rockets at all cost, so he became a member of the Allgemeine SS and the Nazi Party. It was then that Hitler gave him the money, material and slave labor to built the V-2, the rocket bomb that terrorized London at the end of the WWII, morals be damned.
But by 1946, von Braun had become an American rocket scientist. And the Americans had a bunch of V-2s, having seized the ones that weren’t launched or were under construction when the Allies captured their launch and factory sites at the end of the war. They were imported to the United States, along with Von Braun.
Von Braun and the Americans kept working on these and other missile designs while launching the existing V-2s into space for testing. One of the engineers, Clyde Holliday, had developed a 35mm camera that took a photo every second and a half. None of the other scientists and engineers cared much about photography. They only wanted information about cosmic rays and aerodynamic performance.
Posted inNazi|Comments Off on Gizmodo: This Is the First Picture Ever Taken From Space—and It Was Taken From a Nazi Rocket
Back in early 2014, I predicted that liberal Jews around the world would increasingly turn toward their old home culture of Germany for leadership, while nationalist Jews would look toward better ties with Eastern Europe. That’s more or less working out, although more with Israel aligning with rightwing Hungary and Poland than with Russia.
From the Times of Israel on Netanyahu’s meeting in Budapest with the Visegrad Alliance (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia):
“I think Europe has to decide if it wants to live and thrive or if it wants to shrivel and disappear,” he said in a closed-door meeting whose content was accidentally broadcast to journalists outside the room. “I am not very politically correct. I know that’s a shock to some of you. It’s a joke. But the truth is the truth — both about Europe’s security and Europe’s economic future. Both of these concerns mandate a different policy towards Israel.”
During the meeting, Netanyahu also urged the leaders of Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Poland to close their borders to refugees from Africa and the Arab world, and praised the administration of US President Donald Trump for its “stronger” position on Iran and Syria. …
“If I can suggest that what comes out of this meeting is your ability, perhaps, to communicate to your colleagues in other parts of Europe: Help Europe… Don’t undermine the one Western country that defends European values and European interests and prevents another mass migration to Europe.”
The prime minister has often claimed that Israel is a bulwark preventing Europe from being flooded with refugees and migrants from Africa and the Middle East. …
Earlier, during the closed meeting, Netanyahu also expressed clear backing for the so-called Visegrad Group’s support of border fences to guard Europe from another wave of refugees from the Middle East. …
He said he believes in the free flow of goods and ideas — “but not people… Secure your borders. Secure your borders,” he urged the Eastern European leaders.
BUDAPEST/JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Europe should better appreciate Israel’s key role in Middle Eastern stability, leaders of four central European nations said on Wednesday in a joint attack with Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu on Brussels’ current policy toward the state.
The comments were the latest example of divergence between west and east Europe, where questions of national sovereignty, migration and civic freedoms have also stirred friction. U.S. President Donald Trump lent support this month to Poland, target of criticism by the EU he has disdained, with a visit to Warsaw.
Netanyahu met the Visegrad Four leaders of Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, who backed Israel and called for an improvement in the EU’s relations with the state.
“I think Europe has to decide whether it wants to live and thrive or it wants to shrivel and disappear,” Netanyahu told the leaders of the eastern EU states behind closed doors in Budapest.
In an audio recording of the remarks obtained by Reuters, Netanyahu goes on to say: “It’s a joke. But the truth is the truth, both about Europe’s security and Europe’s economic future. And both of these concerns mandate a different policy toward Israel.”
Israel has often been criticized in Western Europe on matters such as its settlement policy. The recent closeness of Netanyahu with leaders like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been viewed with suspicion in the European Union.
“We’re part of European civilization. You look at the Middle East – Europe stops in Israel. That’s it.”…
The group will meet in 2018 in Jerusalem at Netanyahu’s invitation.
“The Visegrad Four shares the Israeli view that external border defense is key,” Orban told a press briefing. “Free movement of people without controls raises the risk of terror.”
Orban has been criticized in the EU for erecting a razor wire border fence and refusing to accept migrants under EU agreements, preferring “ethnic homogeneity”.
Comments at Steve Sailer:
* With official Israeli imprimatur, keeping European countries European just inched closer to acceptance among Jewish and white liberals.
* Most younger American Jews hate hate hate Israel and Bibi. The cold civil war among Jews is similar to the rest of Whites.
* If Israel had open borders, African migrants could travel through it on their way to Europe by land (or on their way to sail to Europe from further north than Africa). So Netanyahu could argue his border fence on the Sinai is a sort of bulwark for Europe.
* The future of Europe has nothing to do with its policies towards Israel. Germany is arguably the nicest nation in the world towards Israel, besides the USA, and it is being overwhelmed by non-Europeans. Come to think of it the USA is being overwhelmed by non-Europeans too.
Israel helps foment mass migration to Europe through its support of ISIS and anti-Assad forces. Just like the Gulf Arabs, Turkey, Uncle Sam and the EU, they are literally destroying the mid east nations and flooding Europe with the aftermath.
…one might make the case that the more pro-Israel one is, the more support for open borders and immigration one is. Take a look at the strongest supporters of Israel in the USA and you will probably find 60 percent or more are in support of more immigration and freer movement of peoples. And it is not confined to Jews. Neocon gentiles like McCain, Graham and a host of others all appear to be inclined for more immigration and looser border restrictions.
I know there are exceptions, but all in all more Israel-firsters and pro-Israel people in the USA are more liberal on borders and immigration for the USA while simultaneously supporting Israel’s very restrictive immigration polices to preserve her demographic condition.
* …if Jewish Left does this and if Jewish Right does that and if they don’t bash each other, they get the best of both worlds.
I think even most Jewish Left is for open borders for the West, not for Israel. And even though Israel forged closer ties with Hungary and Poland, it hasn’t denounced the massive invasion of much of Europe by Muslims and Africans.
If White Left did this and if White Right did that but if they never attacked one another and acknowledged common interests, things would be great.
Jewish Left and Jewish Right may have different strategies, but both are committed to Jewish identity and interests.
After all, the Jewish Left is for massive migration into gentile nations, not into Israel. Perhaps, Soros is an outlier, but most Liberal Jews are more like Richard Cohen or Thomas Friedman.
Even Norman Finkelstein, harshly critical of Israel as he is, isn’t for massive immigration of non-Jews into Jews. If anything, his solution for Israel-Palestinian conflict is pretty nationalist. Let Jews keep Israel, let Palestinians take West Bank.
* Heaven knows I’m no apologist for (((them))), but, as Mr. Brimelow might say, at least they brush their teeth. They don’t go ’round raping children, hewing people in the subways with axes, and flying planes into skyscrapers.
I presume that’s the connection being suggested here: they stand with the free peoples of the West just as, but for geography’s largely obviating things (for now) I expect Japan would. It’s a matter of concentric loyalties. I’m no fan of Jewry’s parasitism of we Europeans, but I’ll stand beside an Israeli any day against an African or an Arab to defend European interests. The truth is, Israel may yet prove to be crucial in inevitable wars, for the same geographical reasons that Gibraltar, Ceuta, and Melilla may be. The Kingdom of Jerusalem did much to spare Europe the horrors of the barbarians; the state of Israel may yet again.
* This is just the same good cop/bad cop entryist routine that’s been going on for millennia now. When they start supporting the right for countries to exclude Jews, then you’ll know that they’re acting in good faith. Until then, it’s just opportunism.
* Now that Bibi has mentioned this, he can move to the next step by encouraging all of Europe and British/European settler countries to adopt Israel’s immigration and demographic policies.
* I wonder what effect, if any, this unambiguous praise by the Israeli head of state for European immigration restriction will have on the white nationalist memeplex that all Jews everywhere support fully open borders for Europe but closed borders for Israel. (I suspect little if any, because at this point it’s so deeply entrenched that it would cognitively painful for many to update their views.)
* If the non-GB parts of the Anglosphere count as part of European Civilization, which it certainly seems to me as though they should be, a case can be made for Israel. It’s a tricky one. With friends like Jews, who needs enemies you might say. But on the other hand, if you are going to make enemies of the Jews you want to be sure to have a majority of the countries on your side because if not they will soon be against you. (And as Ashkenazi Jews are roughly 50% Italian by DNA, and the other not that far away (it’s not like they are SSA or East Asian), and have lived in Europe for a long time, I’d be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. If you ask their liberal members, whether they are white depends on what’s in it for them at that given point in time, AFAICT. I think most Jews on the right would consider themselves white. And irrespective of what they consider themselves, walking down MLK BLVD at 3AM, they would be considered white.)
Is this good for the Jews? The theory evidently had been that with a Eurosphere that is increasingly European in name only and increasingly anti-European, this will work out just swell for a people that are identified as European or if Jewish, an especially pernicious type of European. In reality this is very questionable which is why I think more pragmatic people like Bibi are trying to turn the ship around.
* During the 70s and 80s, Israel got along pretty well with Apartheid South Africa and Pinochet’s Chile, which were the two most hated regimes among the European Left. Working with Poles and Hungarians who just want to keep out hostile migrants should be a lot easier for Israel.
* He strongly encouraged the US to invade Iraq. Strongly supports overthrowing Syria’s Assad. Supports Sunni KSA against Shiite crescent, despite 25+ years of Sunni terrorism in the United States.
He doesn’t seem to place much value on the lives of gentile Americans, including our servicemen. What are we, cattle?
* Why criticize Bibi for not placing much value on the lives of gentile Americans when that is not any of his duties.
Our leaders are supposed to protect America’s interests. They fail to do so.
Bibi’s duties are to protect Israel’s interests. He succeeds in doing so.
In response to your query: Yes, we are cattle!
* The culture German Jews identified with was mostly just their wishful idea of what Germany was about. That reverie ended in the 1930s when the real Germans showed us their idea of what Germany was about.
[Which occurred after Ms. Luxembourg and crew showed Germany what was in store for them.]
The Germans have changed in the meantime, but as we’re seeing, they’ve now latched onto another self-destructive madness.
* It won’t have an effect until Jews living in European nations overwhelmingly support immigration restrictions for said European nations. Having the head of Israel permit Europeans similar rights to Israelis is nice, but so long as their co-ethnics in the European world punch above their weight in promoting open borders, it probably won’t affect that meme you referenced.
* The reality of a future Muslim dominated Europe is more apparent to Israeli leaders than it is to EU leaders.
* Nationalist Jews still depend on Germany. None of the Visegrad countries can build a submarine for example.
* This is why nationalists / alt-right / whatever can be so stupid about Jews. The whole ‘they destroy our nations but preserve their own’ thing assumes a singular THEY. In fact there’s nationalist Israelis, who are quite happy for Europe to keep its identity, and diaspora progressive Jews, who aren’t. They’re not the same people! We can profitably ally with the nationalist Israelis, rather than conspirasising with fucking ellipses about jewish treachery.
* This is great news. There is no way Trump could have survived in office in conflict with both left-wing American Jews, and conservative Israeli Jews. He could have been impeached at any moment. With this kind of support from Israel Trump is perfectly safe. I was unhappy with the very cozy visit with Saudi Arabia and Israel, but now that the bigger picture is (hopefully) becoming clear … yeah, this is great!
* Looks like the Israelis are standing beside us as well, they are even giving our police the benefit of their expertise in counter-insurgency techniques:
As discussed in Part 1 of this article, “Click Against Hate” was devised by the Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) as an “early-intervention” program for Australian schoolchildren. I was recently forwarded a recording of a “Click Against Hate” session conducted by a Jewish activist named Brett Kaye (featured in the above photograph). At no point during the session does Kaye acknowledge that he represents the ADC, a Jewish activist organization. Instead he presents himself as a deeply moral and caring person who is involved in the program for purely humanitarian and altruistic reasons. In concealing his organizational affiliation, the children remain oblivious that “Click Against Hate” is not a politically neutral cyber-safety and anti-bullying program, but a carefully designed propaganda tool designed to serve Jewish ethnic interests in promoting “diversity,” “multiculturalism,” and the suppression of “hate” speech (i.e., speech professional Jews don’t like).
Kaye asks the children why they hate someone and they volunteer a variety of answers, such as jealousy and doing something bad to you. So he gives them a hint at what he is really after:
EXCERPT 1: “Psychologist time”
Brett Kaye: I’m gonna ask you a question that’s gonna help you: “Why would I hate somebody because of the color of their skin or because of their religion? Why would I hate somebody because the color of their skin or because of their religion? Why would I?
Child: Because of racism?
Brett Kaye: Yes. Why would I be racist?
Child: Because you were brought up not to like these people
Brett Kaye: AH! So my parents teach me how to be a racist. In other words, if I’m brought up in a racist household and therefore that could be my view too. Excellent answer.
Child: Wait, are you saying you were?
Brett Kaye: I’m not saying I was, but I’m saying based on what he said, what’s your name?
Brett Kaye: Based on what James said, if somebody is brought up in racist household might they themselves become racist?
Child: Um maybe difference?
Brett Kaye: Difference. That’s an excellent answer too. Someone who is different to who I am: I don’t like people who are different, I don’t like their food, I don’t like the way they dress, I don’t like the way that they talk a funny language, they talk in an accent, and all of a sudden that difference can translate into hate. I don’t know about that. I’m ignorant about that. Nobody’s taught me about that. I’ve never learnt about that. Why are they doing all these funny things? Why are singing in this funny way? Why do they talk in this funny way? Why do they dress in this funny way? All that sort of stuff can lead to hatred. Have a look at my answers boys and girls and I think they’re close to yours: someone hurts you or someone you love (we got it), jealousy (Bam! Smacked it on the head), ignorance or lack of education, and what we learn at home.
Firstly, Kaye is not a psychologist. He is a teacher at a Jewish day school in Melbourne, a cantor at a synagogue, and an ADC activist. His opinions about the origins of “hate” are simply that, opinions. He uses leading questions to elicit his preferred responses from the children — a highly manipulative and unethical practice. He is evidently less interested in hearing about “hate” that arises in response to the actions of others because such hatred is eminently rational. Instead, he is keen to emphasize the irrational basis for hatred — with “anti-Semitism” doubtless being, in his mind, the paradigmatic example of such hate. Hostility to Jews is not a rational response to Jewish behavior that compromises the interests of non-Jews, but an irrational, phobic response to “difference.”
Kaye cites innocuous manifestations of difference, such as a “funny language” or unusual “food” or mode of “dress” rather than, say, the demographic displacement of Australian Whites, honor killings, female genital mutilation, demands for sharia law, epidemic rates of violent crime, or the mass rape of White women and children. He might also have mentioned how, as a result of the Jewish-led promotion of “difference” and “multiculturalism,” the Australian children he addresses are the first generation to grow up in a nation where regular Jihadist massacres (and the concomitant danger of being a victim) is now a normative part of their lives. White Australian children are today living in a situation they did not ask for, but which a generation of activists like Kaye (and traitorous politicians) have given them.
Recently concrete bollards, CCTV cameras and warning sirens were installed around Melbourne’s Central Business District in response to the heightened threat of terrorism that has accompanied the reckless importation of a rapidly expanding Muslim population.
The concrete (pun intended) benefits of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” in Australia
The Australian Federal Police recently revealed they have “70-odd investigations” under way into terrorism cases going on around the country. The Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews informed his constituents in 2015 that “all of us, as Victorians and indeed Australians, have to accept that violent extremism is part of a contemporary Australia.” Last year his government introduced new laws in panicked response to an explosion in the number of carjackings and home invasions committed by young African and Pacific Islander males. For the first 228 years of the Australian nation’s existence such laws were unnecessary. Australia was a high-trust society founded on certain basic assumptions about human behavior. As a result of mass non-white (and particularly African, Pacific Islander and Middle Eastern) immigration, these assumptions no longer hold.
In the aftermath of recent terrorist attacks throughout the West (including in Australia) a horrifying realization has dawned on growing numbers of White people: their ruling elites regard no price (in murdered and maimed victims, or in the curtailment of civil liberties) as too high to pay for the supposed virtues of increased “diversity” and “multiculturalism.”
EXCERPT 2: “We cannot judge the whole group because of what a few people do”
Brett Kaye: Okay here’s the next word that I googled. Hard to see on this screen for some reason, but what religion do you think I googled when I pulled up that?
Brett Kaye: Muslim/Islam. So I put in Muslim and I put it in Google Images and that’s the first image that came up. Now, if I was a Martian coming from outer space what would I think about Muslim people based on that picture? That Muslim people are?
Child: A bit crazy?
Brett Kaye: Bit Crazy. …
Brett Kaye: Weird. Okay now, why do you think somebody put this image up of a Muslim person? What was the purpose? Why would they do that? What do they want me to feel? Whose hand haven’t I seen up for a while? How about you? What’s your name?
Brett Kaye: Kiera. Alright tell me, what do you think the person who put that up wanted me to feel about Muslim people?
Child: Maybe a bit scared.
Brett Kaye: Good. That’s exactly what they wanted me to feel. They wanted me to feel scared. In fact the word that we use to describe who do and say bad things about Muslim people is called Islamophobia. I’ll write it out because the screen is unclear. Cos Kiara said that she wanted they wanted me to feel scared. Phobia. Islamophobia is when I am scared of Muslim people because I don’t understand them, and therefore I say and do bad things against them. Now I taught at a beautiful school called ******** Primary School which was a Year 5 and 6 composite class and was sitting in a circle and a little girl put up her hand, her name was Fatima, and she told her own story. She said she was walking home from school with her little brother who was in Prep and all of a sudden some guy came up and swore at her, called her a Muslim and ‘c’ word, pushed her little brother over, and ran away, like a coward. So she was obviously devastated. Devastated. Crying. Her brother was on the floor crying, his books were everywhere and she said what made it even sadder was that people didn’t know what to do. They didn’t know how to react. Lots of people just pretended that never say the man cross the street, they didn’t want to get involved. Bystanders. Some people came up and helped. But she said that most people just ignored or pretended they never saw. That was the one reason she was upset. The other reason she was upset was, from that moment onwards her parents wouldn’t allow her to go out by herself and her brother. Because they were scared, and you know it’s interesting, a lot of the Muslim schools where I teach at, they say that after a terrorist attack they get so scared because they’re worried that everybody thinks that all Muslim people are bad because of the acts of just a few. And unfortunately, those people who don’t understand or listen to stories, or maybe just read the newspapers, might believe that. You’ve got to make sure that you understand that you cannot judge a whole group of people because of the actions of a few. Ninety-nine percent of Muslim people, just like ninety-nine percent of Jewish people, or Hindu people, or Buddhist people are good. And we cannot judge the whole group because of what a few people do. That’s just being unfair. Yeah?
Child: Yeah but, at the same time, what a few people have done is bad…
Brett Kaye: It’s true. It’s true. That’s why we need to have discussions, we need to have these discussions. Because there are Muslim people who do the wrong thing. But that doesn’t mean that most Muslim people are bad. Because just a few people do the wrong thing. You’re right. And that’s why there is the perception, that why people do things bad, that’s we have to clear that up. It’s not fair. It’s not fair to all the Muslim people who are good people. It’s not fair. Horrible to live your life like that. Feeling that people don’t like you because of your religion. Or because of what a bunch of crazy people do overseas because they’re crazy. Yeah? That doesn’t represent Muslim people all over the world. It represents a bunch of crazy people who are out there doing crazy things. Who really don’t even know what it means to be a Muslim.
Child: Ah, but why do they believe in God? They think that because they think that…
Brett Kaye: They believe in a very warped idea of what it means to be a Muslim. That’s not the way that true Muslims behave. Most Muslim people that you will speak to totally disagree with the way in which these people live their lives. I don’t want to get into a big discussion about it now. All I want to say is, all I want to say, and it’s good that we’re talking about this, all I want to say, is that you cannot judge the actions of a few people and assume that everybody else is like that. Because it’s not true. It’s the same with everything, all types of people. How many other types of phobias guys? We’ve got Islamophobia. What other types of hatreds against groups of people are there?
Anyone who understands Muslims and their religion won’t fear them? Fear of Muslims has nothing to do with Islamic teachings and the actions of Muslims based on those teachings? “Islamophobia” is the result of a lack of understanding? Fundamentalist Muslims have a very warped idea of what it means to be a Muslim, and that’s not the way that true Muslims behave? These are dangerous lies peddled in furtherance of an ethnic agenda that is concealed from the children. Kaye is encouraging White Australian children to feel guilty about opposing a hostile outgroup that aims to establish Sharia law and all that means for women, democratic institutions, and civil liberties.
Exactly mirroring Kaye’s arguments, Melbourne’s Cultural-Marxist newspaper, The Age, in response to yet another deadly terrorist attack, this time by a Somali refugee, recently claimed that it was “dangerously false to see terrorism as an issue about Islam per se. It is about a miniscule minority of psychotic and psychopathic extremists and disenchanted, malleable young people.” It condemned those who “rail against immigration as a cause of terrorism, disquiet and cultural tension in Australia,” for engaging in “irresponsible scaremongering.”
The reality is that Jihadist violence and terrorism don’t originate from “a bunch of crazy people” who “don’t even know what it means to be Muslim.” It doesn’t even originate from the interpretation, let alone the extremist interpretation of the Islamic texts, but from an accurate reading by all practicing Muslims. It’s clear from reading the life of Mohammed and the Koran that killing infidels is justified because it is commanded by Allah against all those who don’t submit to Islam. The clearly-stated long-term goal is the establishment of a global caliphate. Any atrocity committed in pursuit of this aim is justifiable and only makes a martyr of the perpetrator. Those who, like Kaye, disingenuously claim that terrorists are simply “crazy people” doing “crazy things” fail to explain why this particular variety of insanity is almost exclusively confined to adherents of one religion.
For Kaye, the real shame of the (now regular) Islamic terrorist attacks in the West is, not so much the murdered victims and their families, whose lives have been destroyed, but the Muslims who live in fear of a backlash following these attacks. In response to terrorist atrocities, it is, he contends, only ignorant “Islamophobes” who “don’t understand or listen to stories, or maybe just read the newspapers” who think it’s reasonable “to judge a whole group by the actions of a few.”
Kaye conveniently ignores findings like those from a 2016 surveyin the UK that found that 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit terrorist attacks. It also found that two-thirds of British Muslims (66%) would not contact the police if they believed somebody close to them was involved with jihadists. A third of British Muslims think that polygamy should be legalized in Britain, and the same percentage refuse to condemn the stoning of women for adultery. The survey found that half of British Muslims believe homosexuality should be a criminal offence — which should ostensibly alarm the representative of an organization supposedly committed to opposing “homophobia.” A 2016 surveyof French Muslims found that 28 per cent hold extremist views and reject secular French law. The evidence clearly shows that Kaye’s assertion that “ninety-nine percent of Muslims are good [i.e. non-threatening]” is a dangerous lie.
“Ninety-nine per cent of Muslims are good” — Brett Kaye
A direct result of the Jewish-led push for greater racial and religious diversity in Australia is that juvenile justice facilities have now reached the point where a specialist facility is needed to manage Islamic extremist inmates. The general secretary of the Public Service Association recently observedthat “Radicalisation is not restricted to adults in the NSW prison system. My members at the juvenile justice system at Cobham have to deal with radicalized young people who openly speak about waiting for an opportunity to behead someone.” Given this reality, it’s not surprising that a survey in April foundthat four out of five Victorians distrust Muslims.
Organized Jewry in Australia is more than Happy to Generalize About Others
Kaye’s proposition that we cannot make negative generalizations about Muslims because it’s “not fair” is belied by the words and actions of the ADC itself. Despite supporting mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism for Australia, this organization, contrary to the rhetoric it espouses for non-Jews, knows that Muslims are a potential deadly threat that need constant and careful monitoring. The former ADC executive director, Deborah Stone, in discussing the organization’s “Anti-Semitism Prevention Project” explained how:
Australia’s Muslim population is growing and is more than triple that of the Jewish community. Most Australian Muslims are committed to multiculturalism but there is evidence of pockets of isolationism and sympathy towards extremist ideologies. The growth of the extremist Hizb-ut-Tahrir is an example. We need to monitor the Australian Muslim community to ensure we understand its plurality of positions, build bridges with moderates and counter fundamentalism in its earliest stages before it becomes a physical threat to our community.
So, while instructing innocent Australian schoolchildren to “be fair” to Muslims because ninety-nine per cent of them are “good,” the ADC is busy monitoring the entire Australian Muslim community to prevent it from becoming “a physical threat to our community.” Despite a survey last year showing half of all Australians oppose any Islamic immigration, the ADC (which happily endorses this policy for Israel), is active in schools encouraging the next generation to swallow this poison.
White Australian schoolchildren are instructed by Jewish activists like Kaye to refrain from engaging in pattern-recognition and drawing of logical inferences because it “isn’t fair.” Don’t conclude that Africans are far more likely to be violent offenders despite statistics showing they are 44 times more likely to break the law and 70 times more likely to commit a home invasion than Australians. The Australian recently reported the comments of Victorian Police Deputy Commissioner, Stephen Leane, who told a state inquiry into youth justice centers that African and Pacific Islander teenagers were “part of the angriest cohort of offenders police had seen, who started out with some of the most violent crimes rather than progressing from misdemeanours.” In response to an epidemic of violent crime committed by African refugees, columnist Andrew Bolt noted Australia’s refugee policy was “a crime against Australians,” observing that “the level and severity of crime by African refugees and their children is astonishing and an indictment of our refugee policies.”
To conclude on the basis of the evidence that Middle Eastern and African migrants and refugees are undesirable is, according to the ADC, “unfair” and morally reprehensible. Australia’s first dedicated refugee policy arose in late 1970’s in direct response to lobbying by the Jewish activist and pioneering multiculturalist Walter Lippmann (see my “The War on White Australia: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique, Part 3 of 5”).
In the decades since, organized Jewry has remained at the forefront of those pushing for increased refugee numbers. Bolt notes how it was this policy that
opened our gates to Muslim Lebanese families fleeing the Lebanese civil war — families who formed the nucleus of a community that’s provided more than half the Muslim terrorists jailed here. We also stepped up a refugee program that gave us the men who perpetrated the last three [now four] Islamist terrorist attacks here. … This refugee program also imported the Sudanese community that Victorian police statistics show is now 128 times more likely per person to commit aggravated robberies than other Victorians. To make this disaster worse, we trashed our own history and symbols while running multicultural policies that paid the least assimilated immigrants to stay that way.
A by-product of the mass-importation of low-IQ migrants and refugees is declining educational standards in Australia. The OECD expressed alarm at the nation’s educational slide. The Sydney Morning Heraldobservedthat “Where once Australia kept up with South Korea, now our east Asian neighbors are streaking ahead on tests that compare the academic ability of 15-year-olds around the world. Students from Poland and Vietnam are now outperforming Australia’s teenagers. … The warning signs have been there for over a decade. Australia’s PISA results have been on the slide since 2003.” Academics have scrambled for reasons (other than the obvious fact of the changing racial make-up of the student body) to account for this sudden decline. Some ascribethe decline to inadequate resourcing of schools — despite the fact that government funding of education in Australia is at an all-time high. A Victoria University report foundthe increasing number of students who drop out of education “are costing taxpayers a staggering $18.8 billion by increasing crime, clogging health services, relying on welfare and reducing tax revenue.”
Of course, unlike working class Whites, Jews in Australia are totally exempt from dealing with the pernicious daily consequences of the decades-long social engineering of their community leaders. Australia’s wealthiest ethnic group can avoid having their children’s education sabotaged by low-IQ, disruptive Africans and Muslims by utilizing their extensive network of lavishly resourced (and ethnically homogeneous) Jewish day-schools. Jewish columnist Kerri Sackville recently notedhow she was “thrilled” with the education her children receive at a Jewish school, where “they learn the meaning of each Jewish festival, they learn to sight read Hebrew, and they learn the history of the Holocaust and the Jewish people.” For her, Jewish schools are of vital importance in helping Jews to “maintain their sense of community, their understanding of their religion, and their cultural heritage.” White Australian children today have no corresponding right.
Despite their injunctions to the children to be non-judgmental about particular racial and religious groups, Jewish activists like Kaye routinely generalize about non-Jewish outgroups. Despite the fact that White Australians had absolutely nothing to do with “the Holocaust” (indeed thousands of Australians died fighting Germany in World War II) this is constantly invoked as sufficient justification for the transformation of Australian society through non-White immigration and multiculturalism. Kaye asserts that it’s “unfair to judge an entire people by the actions of a few,” and yet the central notion underpinning organized Jewry’s activism in Australia (and throughout the West) is the generalization that all White people are potential Nazis and, consequently, homogeneously White societies are dangerous for Jews and must be deconstructed.
The one-time editorial committee member of the Australian Jewish Democrat, Miriam Faine, got right to the heart of Jewish support for large-scale non-White immigration and multiculturalism when she noted that: “The strengthening of multicultural or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would be more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian.”[i] Comments like these, which echo those of Barbara Roche in the UK, and Barbara Lerner-Specter in Sweden, make it clear that Jewish promotion of non-White immigration and multiculturalism is, first and foremost, a form or ethnic strategizing (or ethnic warfare) concerned with preventing the development of a mass movement of anti-Semitism in Australia and other Western societies.
In Kaye’s duplicitous injunction to the children to treat everyone as individuals (rather than collectives) we hear echoes of the Frankfurt School’s promotion of radical individualism as the epitome of psychological health for Europeans. The sane and well-adjusted White person was characterized by these Jewish intellectual activists as an individual who had broken free from the traditional Western shaming code, and who realized their human potential without relying on membership in collectivist groups. This promotion of radical individualism among non-Jews was, of course, intended to undermine the group cohesion of Europeans and thereby weaken their capacity to compete with Jews. The defining feature of Jewish history has been that group interests, rather than individual interests, have been of primary importance. Judaism is the prime historical example of how the rejection of individualism (especially in the sociobiological niche of the Diaspora) leads to group evolutionary success (i.e. genetic continuity across millennia).
The uncomprehending veteran political journalist for The Australian, Paul Kelly, recently opined that the “risk for liberals” in “pushing the limits of multiculturalism” is that “in the process they weaken the overall sense of a bonded community with shared values.” This outcome is, for the Jews who have spearheaded multiculturalism in Australia, not an unforeseen and lamentable by-product of an otherwise benevolent policy, but its central objective. Radical individualism renders formerly White societies defenseless against collectivist strategies like those pursued by Jews.
Posted inAustralia, Jews|Comments Off on Australia’s Anti-Defamation Commission and “Click Against Hate,” Part 2 of 4
The Australian Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) is the Australian equivalent of America’s Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Both organizations fall under the umbrella of B’nai B’rith International which holds NGO status at the United Nations. The statedmission of the ADC is to make Australia “a better place” by fighting “anti-Semitism and all forms of racism” and combatting “the defamation of the Jewish people and Israel.” Describing itself as a “harm prevention charity,” the ADC claims to be dedicated to “promoting tolerance, justice and multiculturalism.” But despite its pious pretentions to universal benevolence, the ADC, like countless other Jewish activist organizations around the world, exists to promote the ethnic interests of Jews. The “harm” this organization is determined to prevent is any harm to these perceived interests.
Regarding the plethora of Jewish activist organizations in the United States, the Jewish academic and journalist Adam Garfinkle has observed:
The main mass-membership advocacy organizations of American Jewry — B’nai B’rith and its Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, the National Conference of Jewish Federations, and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (a kind of steering group for the major organizations), to mention only a few — are not religious organizations but ethnic ones. It is not necessary to have any Jewish religious affiliation to be a member in good standing in these organizations, and their leaderships are composed mainly of people who are not religious or Jewishly learned Jews.
We need not go into foundational texts and statements of purpose on the question of origins, for the answer is simple enough: organizations like B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee were created to lobby for particular Jewish interests. … In time, these and most other Jewish organizations became explicitly or implicitly Zionist, and thereafter existed to one degree or another to support, first, a Jewish home in Palestine, and then, after 1948, the security and prosperity of the State of Israel. In other words, all these organizations have depended, and still depend, on the validity of their serving parochial Jewish ethnic interests that are simultaneously distinct from the broader American interest but not related directly to religion. [Emphasis added]
Contrary to the propaganda put out by the ADC for non-Jewish consumption, the interests of Jews are not the same as those of the broader Australian community, particularly the White Australian community. While the ADC — whose motto is “Promoting Diversity” — pretends that all conflicting group interests can be reconciled through “education” and “mutual understanding,” the interests of different racial and religious groups are often fundamentally opposed and irreconcilable. The group evolutionary interests of White Australians are absolutely harmed by the mass importation of non-Whites into the country — compounded by ideological commitments by state and federal governments to “diversity” and “multiculturalism.”
Results from the 2016 Australian Census recently revealed that, for the first time, the country is receiving more migrants from Asia than Europe. In the past five years, China and India have been the largest sources of migrants, with China, India, the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia now accounting for more foreign-born residents than the traditional sources of England, New Zealand and mainland Europe. In response to these figures, Melbourne’s thankfully failing Cultural Marxist newspaper The Ageexulted that “Australia has reached a welcome tipping point.” Noting it had become “unrecognizable from the country portrayed in the 1966 census,” it celebrated the fact that Australia is now “more Asian, less Christian and more openly gay.”
The Daily Telegraphobserved that “the incredible boom in Asian migration has changed the face of Sydney,” noting that in the past 25 years the percentage of overseas-born residents from China has risen “an incredible 500 per cent” to now make up 4.7 per cent of Sydney’s 4.8 million people, overtaking those born in England (3.1 percent). The latest census results also revealed the Muslim population of Australia has jumped 77 per cent in a decade to more than 600,000. The Australiannoted that “If current trends continue, a majority Christian nation will almost certainly no longer exist come the next census in five years. Muslims and Hindus in Australia are themselves powered by immigration which has seen the share of Australians born overseas jump to a third.”
The question of why White Australians should welcome this rapid dilution of their genetic line and associated decline in political and cultural influence, is ignored, aside from the usual vague assurances that Australia’s “prosperity” is “fuelled by our changing cultural and ethnic make-up,” which has “enriched Australia economically and socially.” Ann Coulter once noted how if this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than Whites “it would be called genocide. Yet Whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact that current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population.”
Reaching this demographic tipping point is the desired culmination of the Jewish-led abandonment of the White Australia policy. The former national editor of the Australian Jewish News, Dan Goldberg, proudly acknowledged that “Jews were instrumental in leading the crusade against the White Australia policy, a series of laws from 1901 to 1973 that restricted non-White immigration to Australia.” Australia’s current immigration and refugee policies, left unchecked, will ensure White Australians are progressively replaced in the country their ancestors created by groups with higher fertility and often an abiding antipathy to the founding stock. Whites are already minorities in several suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney and face declining living standards as crime grows exponentially, housing affordability deteriorates, infrastructure is strained, and taxes rise to fund burgeoning public spending directed disproportionately to migrants and refugees from the Middle East and Africa. Meanwhile, non-White groups that are economically self-sufficient, like the Chinese, increasingly dominate the best schools and universities, jeopardizing White Australians’ access to professional employment opportunities. They have also pushed home ownership out of reach for millions through buying up Australian real estate.
The ADC only recognizes that group interests can be irreconcilable when it comes to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. Here their ostensible commitment to “inclusion,” “diversity” and “multiculturalism” gives way to hardnosed biological realism, and the virtues of a “two-state solution” are trumpeted. This is disingenuous posturing, of course, because the ADC fully supports the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements which will ensure that a “two-state solution” can never be achieved. The problem with Israel adopting the diverse, multicultural approach to nation-building so zealously advocated by the ADC for Australia (and the entire West) is that while it may sound “simple and fair,” it is actually “code for the destruction of Israel and its replacement with a majority Palestinian state.” The ADC insists that “It is naïve and dangerous to believe such a situation will not occur if Israel is taken over by a growing Palestinian population.” The organization has never condemned Israel’s Jews-only immigration policy as “racist” or “bigoted.”
…except in Israel
Instead, the ADC fiercely defends the ethno-nationalist state of Israel, and responds indignantly to all criticisms of the Israeli government, regardless of how merited. The organization is unabashedly committed to ensuring that Israel becomes more ethnically Jewish with each census. Its pro-Israel bias is so extreme that even the Jewish lawyer Michael Brull was moved to note that “The ADC is not an anti-racist group. It is a group that aims to peddle Israeli propaganda. Presumably, the think they might lose some of their credibility if they called themselves the ‘Pro-Defamation Commission That Supports the Israeli Government in Whatever it Does and Thinks Anyone Who Disagrees Exhibits Prejudice and Causes Anti-Semitism.’”
The ADC certainly cannot be accused of duel loyalty. When Israel was caught in 2010 using faked Australian passports to conduct covert operations around the world (including the assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud Al Mabhouh), then Australian Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, observed that “we do not regard these actions as the actions of a friend.” The ADC, in its singular refusal to condemn Israel’s actions (which seriously endangered all Australian passport-holders), tacitly pledged its undivided and unconditional allegiance to the Jewish state.
One searches in vain through the assorted propaganda on the ADC’s website for any acknowledgement that Israel was founded on terrorism and ethnic cleansing in which Palestinians were killed or violently driven from land they occupied for millennia to make way for Jewish settlers, or that Israel’s immigration policy openly discriminates against non-Jews, or that Israel bans marriage between Jews and non-Jews (which is subject to a two-year prison term), or that Israel has a two-tier political and legal system akin to the old South African apartheid. Instead one finds a statement defending Zionism as the “belief that Jewish people, like all other peoples, have the right to self-determination in a country of their own.” The mendacity of this statement should be clear to anyone. The ADC and other Jewish activist organizations in Australia, the United States, and throughout the West absolutely deny the right of White people anywhere to self-determination.
Every year the chairman of the ADC, Dvir Abramovich, hails the anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel. Despite it having one of the lowest asylum-seeker acceptance rates in the world, he extols the “Jewish state” for “putting out the welcome mat to refugees, traumatized survivors and victims of anti-Semitism” and for being “a thriving, free and tolerant state” that “comprises a multitude of ethnic and religious groups whose cultural and artistic diversity add to the country’s spirituality and creativity.” He naturally declines to mention that this diverse “multitude” are all Jews. He also neglects to mention that Israel’s treatment of African and other non-Jewish refugees is far from “welcoming” or “tolerant.” As the New York Timesreported in 2015:
Israel’s policy toward African asylum seekers is to pressure them to self-deport or, as the former interior minister Eli Yishai put it, to “make their lives miserable” until they give up and let the government deport them. … A law passed in 2013 requires male African asylum seekers already in Israel to be detained automatically and indefinitely in the open detention center, Holov, in the Negev desert. The detainees are allowed to wander the desert between three obligatory check-ins every day, and they must remain in Holov overnight. If they miss a check-in, they can be transferred to the nearby prison. Their only alternative is to accept a sum of $3,500 to return to their country of origin, or a third country, usually Uganda or Rwanda, often without proper documentation to stay. … Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once warned that the arrival of African people poses a demographic risk to Israel: “If we don’t stop their entry, the problem that currently stands at 60,000 could grow to 600,000, and that threatens our existence as a Jewish and democratic state.”
Abramovich recently joined the chorus of Jewish leaders (and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) decrying the attempt by a democratically-elected President of the United States to restrict travel from six Muslim-majority nations. He endorsed a plea by Commonwealth Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, for President Trump to stop discriminating against people on the basis of nationality and religion. Executive Council of Australian Jewry leaders Anton Block and Peter Wertheim chimed in, saying they deplored any policies or remarks that “preference native-born citizens to naturalized migrants,” claiming that “such rhetoric or policy is self-defeating and harmful.” Colin Rubinstein, the executive director the Australia Israel Jewish Affairs Council called Trump’s policy “morally unacceptable and counterproductive.” Yet all of these individuals fully support the Israeli government’s decision to block all Syrian refugees, and Wertheim is more than happy to preference his own ethnic group in Israel, slamming as a “disgraceful falsehood” any claim that Jews displaced Palestinians from their land on the basis that Jews “are indigenous to the Holy Land.”
As always, these Jewish activists play ethnic hardball when it comes to Israel, but sanctimoniously deny the irreconcilability of the competing interests of the various ethnic and religious groups that now make up Western nations.
ADC Chairman Dvir Abramovich
Given the ADC’s fervent advocacy for Israel, despite that nation’s harshly-restrictive policies toward African and all other non-Jewish migrants and refugees, Abramovich’s (and the ADC’s) sanctimonious words about the virtues of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” are exposed for what they are: a rhetorical mask for ethnic aggression against White Australians. The ADC promotes pluralism and diversity and encourages the dissolution of the racial and ethnic identification of White Australians, while encouraging Jews to maintain precisely the kind of intense group solidarity they decry as immoral in Whites. Activist Jews have initiated and led movements that have discredited the traditional foundations of Western society: patriotism, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within their own communities, they have supported the very institutions they have attacked in Western societies.
Of course, calling them out for their obvious hypocrisy only prompts hysterical cries of “anti-Semitism.”
ADC media-monitoring and propaganda in Australian schools
One of the ways that ethnic groups compete is through controlling what goes into the minds of their competitors. That is why Jews always seek to control the media and entertainment industries — so they can fill the heads of their ethnic rivals with maladaptive ideas that harm them and which, as a result, help Jews to thrive. Prior to the unmediated peer-to-peer communication offered by the internet, all mainstream political discourse passed through a Jewish media filter (or at least a media filter subservient to Jewish interests). Jews are the only people that, except for the internet, control the flow of information throughout the West, and have a profound need to do so. When Jewish motivations and behavior become widely known, anti-Jewish sentiment inevitably rises.
Jews are not majority shareholders in the two largest media companies in Australia,Fairfax and News Limited. Despite this, they have a large journalistic presence at both organizations, and both companies syndicate material from Jewish-controlled and left-leaning media companies. Fairfax syndicates content from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Reuters (headed by President and Editor-in-Chief Stephen J. Adler), while News Limited syndicates content from the Associated Press (headed by Chairman Steven R. Swartz). Both media companies also provide a regular public platform for the various leaders of Australia’s Jewish activist organizations, including Dvir Abramovich, Colin Rubinstein, Vic Alhadeff, Peter Wertheim, and Mark Liebler.
The ADC assiduously monitors the Australian media, attacking those who stray outside the bounds of Jewish-approved speech in criticizing Israel, multiculturalism, or blaspheming against “the Holocaust.” It lodges formal complaints to employers if an insufficiently penitent response (i.e. an abject apology) is not forthcoming. Such an apology was recently obtained from federal MP George Christensen after the ADC attacked him for appearing on the Alt-Right podcast The Dingoes. Satisfied with Christensen’s apparent repentance, ADC chairman Dvir Abramovichdeclared that he was “heartened that Mr Christensen has finally owned up to the fact that his appearance on the Dingoes Podcast was a mistake that only legitimized racist rhetoric, and his apology sounds sincere.”
Another important part of the Jewish matrix of power in Australia is the media infrastructure created by the multimillionaire property developer and publisher Morris (Morrie) Schwartz. This Jewish media mogul, who migrated to Australia from Hungary via Israel, is the proprietor behind Black Inc. publishing, the left-wing journals The Monthly and Quarterly Essay (which have been called “the most powerful left-wing voices in Australia”), and The Saturday Paper. Schwartz’s various media organs churn out a never ending stream of articles indignantly demanding that Australia dramatically increase its refugee intake and end the off-shore processing of asylum-seekers.
Conspicuously absent from these same media organs, however, is any discussion (let alone critique) of Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians, or its unaccommodating policies toward all non-Jewish refugees and asylum-seekers. The slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza in 2014 went totally unreported across Schwartz’s media empire. One commentator observed that while the Schwartz publications are full of articles about “indigenous rights, climate change, [and] asylum-seeker policy” they were “shamefully silent” when it came to “Israel’s assault on the Palestinians.” A former editor and staff writer at The Monthly explained that when working under
Morrie Schwartz at Black Inc. or The Monthly, you work very closely with the publisher and things do get spiked and you have raving rows about what goes through and what doesn’t and there are certain glass walls set by the publisher that you can’t go outside of and … one of those is Palestine. I mean it’s seen as a left-wing publication, but the publisher is very right-wing on Israel. … And he’s very much to the, you know, Benjamin Netanyahu end of politics. So you can’t touch it: just don’t touch it. It’s a glass wall.
In her profile of Schwartz for The Australian, journalist Kate Legge noted that “everyone says Schwartz responds viscerally” to all issues concerning Israel. She quotes his close friend, the Jewish academic Robert Manne, who pointed out that “Loyalty to the idea of a Jewish homeland is very important to him.” Former editor of The Monthly, Peter Craven, observed that: “He’s very one-eyed on these sort of things. I once said to [his wife] Anna that I was going to see [the Wagner opera] Tristan and Isolde and she said, “Peter. I won’t even buy German goods.” Schwartz’s sister-in-law, Carol Schwartz, was recently appointed to the board of the Reserve Bank of Australia.
Organized Jewry also exerts leverage on Australian journalists through the Australia Israel Cultural Exchange (AICE) program, launched in 2002 by Benjamin Netanyahu at the instigation of the Australian Jewish property developer and fervent Zionist Albert Dadon. Related by marriage to Morrie Schwartz, Dadon was former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s “most trusted kitchen cabinet advisor on Israel.” The AICE arranges and funds trips to Israel for politicians, senior journalists, trade union leaders and other important decision-makers. The journalists involved (which have included News Limited journalists Greg Sheridan, Andrew Bolt, Rita Panahi, and Janet Albrechtsen) are lavished with hospitality in Israel and intensively propagandized by the Zionist establishment there. The goal is to foster a sense of obligation and loyalty to Israel which is, in turn, reflected in these journalists’ strict adherence to a pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist line. The only real “exchange” involved with this program is journalists trading their intellectual integrity for the strategically-bestowed hospitality of organized Jewry. Lawyer and journalist Greg Barns noted the obvious parallels between the old Soviet Union and the Israel Lobby in their courting of Western journalists:
Back in the days when the hammer and sickle flew proudly, the Soviet Union would spend big dollars on paying for journalists, academics and diplomats to see for themselves the “workers’ paradise.” It was part of a long term and relentless strategy by the Communists to win the propaganda war against the West. Today the heirs and successors of those Soviet-sympathising journalists head to Israel. … The Israelis have clearly learnt a thing or two from the Soviets. They understand how important it is to roll out the red carpet for the media, by offering them carefully choreographed trips to Israel and in return ensure that their spin on events is planted in the minds of the Western media.
The Israelis also know that they have the upper hand in this game, because the impoverished Palestinians will not be able to outdo them when it comes to lavishing hospitality on a willing media. That the Israeli propaganda strategy of handpicking journalists and others to come to Israel works was made abundantly clear when TheAustralian’s Janet Albrechtsen visited Israel last November as a guest of the Israeli government and the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies. …
Albrechtsen is not alone in being feted by the Israeli propaganda machine. The Sydney MorningHerald’s Paul Sheehan is another. Just as the Soviets carefully selected the journalists they wanted to show around the country, so is the case with the Israelis. The Soviets would go for leftist sympathizers in papers such as the New York Times, The Guardian and other influential mastheads. The Israelis also favour sympathetic writers. Greg Sheridan as recently as May 6 was comforting poor Israel because “second to the US, Israel is the most acute object of the hostility to the West that flourishes in Western intellectual life.” One is tempted to evoke the immortal phrase “useful idiots,” attributed to Lenin, and used against Western journalists who fell for Soviet propaganda in the 1930s, to describe Western journalists who accept paid trips from the Israeli authorities.
It’s not only journalists who are targeted with these elaborate bribery schemes. During the last Australian Parliamentary term (2013-2016), Israel sponsored more foreign trips for members of the House of Representatives than any other country. Former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr observed in 2014 that Australia’s foreign policy (particularly with regard to the Middle East) was being virtually dictated by organized Jewry. Speaking to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Carr hit out at the “pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne,” saying it wielded “extraordinary influence” on Australia’s foreign policy during his time in Julia Gillard’s cabinet. As The Guardianreported:
Asked about the comments by the ABC’s 7.30 he said: “Certainly they enjoyed extraordinary influence. I had to resist it and my book tells the story of that resistance. … It needs to be highlighted because I think it reached a very unhealthy level.” Asked how the lobby achieved this influence he said: “I think party donations and a program of giving trips to MPs and journalists to Israel. But that’s not to condemn them. I mean, other interest groups do the same thing. But it needs to be highlighted because I think it reached a very unhealthy level.”
Despite all the foregoing, the advent of the internet has seriously undermined the capacity of Jews to comprehensively regulate public discourse in their own interests. Organized Jewry in Australia has responded to this disturbing development with a multifaceted approach. They have lobbied aggressively for the enactment and extension of Orwellian “hate speech” laws (like the notorious Section 18C of Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act) to counteract “online abuse.” Abramovich claimssuch laws “are a vital and necessary tool in addressing and countering the unique harm caused by bias-motivated hate speech.” In addition, the ADC has launched various “educational” programs in schools like “Click against Hate,” which is an “early intervention” program for goyish schoolchildren from Years 5 to 10. The program is offered free of charge to schools as a result of funding provided by billionaire Jewish property developer (and ardent Zionist) John Gandel.
Gandel also happens to fund Taglit-Birthright Israel, a program that provides free ten-day tours of Israel for young Jews who are “currently unaffiliated with the Jewish community and have never visited Israel.” Announcing the funding, Gandel declared that “My family strongly believes in supporting a range of programs that can foster and enhance Jewish continuity and identity, and help develop the future leaders in our community.” The Zionist Federation of Australia thanked Gandel and extoled Taglit-Birthright Israel as “a critically important Israel program” that serves to “engage many young Jewish adults with the powerful connection to Israel, Judaism and other young Jews they meet during and after the program.” Thus, while seeking to increase Jewish ethnocentrism and ethno-nationalism through his funding of Taglit-Birthright Israel, Gandel simultaneously funds “Click Against Hate,” a program specifically designed by the ADC to reduce White ethnocentrism and promote the virtues of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” among Australian schoolchildren.
According to the ADC’s website, “Click Against Hate” teaches students “to deal with a wide range of issues including: identity theft, invasion of privacy, cyber bullying, incitement, defamation, online dangers, YouTube and Facebook reporting, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, homophobia, freedom of speech, vilification, obscenity, contempt of court, website reliability, primary and secondary sources.” Under the guise of an educational program designed to promote cyber-safety and pro-social behaviour, “Click Against Hate” pushes a Jewish ethno-political agenda entirely contrary to the interests of the White Australian children involved. It promotes feelings of guilt and shame in White children, and foments grievance among non-White children — encouraging them to join Jews in mounting moral critiques of White Australian society and history. I recently obtained a recording made by a disgruntled student of a “Click Against Hate” session. In the subsequent parts of this article, I provide excerpts from this session together with my observations and comments.
Driving home while listening to a talk on the Fourth Step, I came to a halt at a four-way intersection. I arrived behind the car on my left, but when the car in front of me drove through the intersection on his way to passing me, I decided it would be more efficient if I jumped the queue and drove straight ahead. As I did so, I realized that the traffic was piled up in front of me and I was stuck in the middle of intersection blocking traffic. The driver on my left honked at me as he had arrived at the intersection before me and had the right of way. I was indignant that this black man would dare honk at me but then I realized he was in the right. Still, it took a few minutes for my indignation to completely fade away.
When we let our natural instincts get out of place, when we step on others, they naturally react and we rarely like those consequences. On the other hand, when we go through life observing the common courtesies, we rarely get honked at. Life is tranquil.
I have a friend who’s never had a ticket (neither a parking ticket nor a moving violation). I admire him. I want to be more like him. Over the course of my life, I’ve had about $2,000 in parking tickets (all in Los Angeles) and about five moving violations.
Posted inAddiction|Comments Off on Do You Like Getting Honked At?