Nationalist Alternative

“No time to wait” – The western fertility crisis

admin — Tue, 15 May 2012 09:15:50 +0000

by Carla O’Hara

One in six couples in the west is said to have trouble conceiving. That’s a pretty staggering figure, considering that there’s probably someone you know who has received some form of fertility treatment. But what does this mean for the average Australian who many want to have children in the future? Nationalist Alternative explores the issues of the western fertility crisis.

In January 2011, the Federal government introduced a tax payer funded 18 week paid maternity leave scheme in the hopes of boosting Australia’s birth rate. Currently, 280,000 babies are born in Australia each year, and each Australian woman on average is having 1.9 children.

Bernard Salt, a leading demographer noted in regards to the paid maternity leave scheme “As significant as this event will be, it will not in the same magnitude as a baby boom. At best it will be a baby blip“. And he is right. Australia’s birth rate is still below population replacement levels, and with the average cost of raising a child to 18 estimated at over $1 million, it’s not surprising that fewer westerners are choosing to have children, and those that are, are having them later in life. The average age for a woman to have her first child is 30, whilst for a man it is closer to 33.

Australia, like many western nations is heavily reliant on tertiary education for job security. Invariably, women will postpone their child-rearing years to pursue an education and career, and for the average educated woman, she will have one less child for each degree she holds. In the ten years from 1995 to 2005, the proportion of women who had their first baby at 35 years of age or older doubled to 10%. However, as the percentage of women postponing their first child increases, so too does the number of childless families.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s biennial welfare report released in 2009 notes that while couple families with dependent children had long been the most common family type “their proportion has gradually declined from 45% of all families in 1986 to 37% in 2006. Coinciding with this decline has been an increase in the proportion of couple-only families, increasing from 30% to 37%,” the AIHW report finds. “This increase is partly due to population ageing, with more empty-nesters (older couples whose children have grown up and left home), but also reflects younger couples delaying having children or not having children at all (Double Income no Kids)”. Whilst no statistics are available for the reasons behind these younger childless couples, some are simply the result of waiting too long, referred herein as ‘Socially-induced Infertility’.

Director of Monash IVF, Professor Gab Kovacs suggested that women should be settling for “Mr Not-Too-Bad”, rather than waiting for “Mr Right”. However, as with many other IVF specialists, Professor Kovacs fails to comment on the western societal norm where women attempt to establish careers prior to starting their families, often with dire consequences.

Fertility peaks between 18 and 25 years of age for women and naturally declines with age, with a sharp decrease after 35. Celebrities are partly to blame for giving a false impression of extended natural female fertility and the use of IVF as an insurance policy for the over 35. Dr Randy Morris, M.D an infertility specialist in Illinois, commented on this phenomenon “Marcia Cross [is] the most honest celebrity in Hollywood. She admits she used egg donation”. Dr Morris also encourages women to start their families at a younger age, as “The success rates for fertility treatments also decreases with age. This is true even with “high tech” treatments such as IVF.” Most notably, Nicole Kidman and Sarah Jessica Parker, both over 40 resorted to the use of surrogates after multiple failed IVF attempts.

The elephant in the room is that older women who use IVF to achieve a pregnancy often do so using donor eggs, and in extreme cases surrogates. However, some doctors believe that there are options for women in the west who do wish to delay having children.

Many fertility clinics are starting to spruik egg freezing to women in their 20s and 30s. A Queensland-based IVF specialist, Dr Ashley Stevenson believes it is time for GPs to start talking to young women about fertility and informing them of egg freezing when they do not have the right social circumstances for it to happen naturally. ”For young women, I think it’s a perfectly valid and sensible thing to do,” he said. However, the director of Monash IVF, Professor Gab Kovacs, said women should not be conned into thinking it offered a ”guaranteed family in the fridge”.

Egg freezing for social reasons is not covered by Medicare, and costs between $10,000 and $14,000 per cycle. The egg retrieval procedure carries about a one-in-1000 risk of significant complications, such as bleeding or infection, and depending on the woman, one cycle will retrieve about 10 eggs each time. With a success rate of 27% per embryo transfer for a woman over 35, and even poorer success rates with egg freezing, it is not surprising that egg freezing for social reasons is limited to the uber-wealthy.

A less invasive, and cost effective method is the use of fertility testing which can be determined using a simple blood test at specific times during the menstrual cycle by your family GP. The blood test is used to measure FSH (Follicle Stimulating Hormone), LH (Luteinizing Hormone) Progesterone, Prolactin and Androgen levels. However, these tests need to be performed yearly, as the results are not static, and should continue until a couple is ready to begin their family, as fertility declines with age and exponentially declines after 35.

These fertility tests should become as common as a yearly pap smear for women over 25, as prime fertility continues to decline in the west due to an over exposure of chemicals.

Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDC) are prolific in the west (ranging from herbicides, pesticides and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons/ petrochemicals), with acute exposure to these chemicals linked to a rise in the incidence of Premature Ovarian Failure (POF). Whilst little is openly published about the links of EDCs and POF, there has been significant research into the effects of EDC exposure, which includes transgenerational epigenetic damage of the eggs (oocytes) contained within the ovaries. Transgenerational effects can be put into a simple explanation as follows; A woman is born with all the eggs she will need for her lifetime. The eggs therefore, contained within a woman were created whilst she was still within her mother’s womb, subject to her mother’s genetics and her mother’s environmental conditions. Her mother’s eggs (which would eventually become the woman herself) were also created whilst in the womb of the grandmother, subject to the environmental conditions of the grandmother. Thus, the quality of the woman’s eggs will predate her own creation, but will date back to the environmental and genetic conditions her grandmother experienced.

Currently, it is estimated that Premature Ovarian Failure affects 1-4% of the population, and it is expected that this figure will rise with the increase in transgenerational epigenetic effects of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. In girls and young women with POF, something has happened to the supply of eggs in the ovaries at a young age. It could be a loss of eggs, a dysfunction of the eggs or the removal of the ovaries at a young age, but unlike menopause, this is not a natural occurrence, although it is still considered as a premature menopause.

Premature Ovarian Failure usually occurs in women under the age of 40 and can happen as early as the teen years. Premature ovarian failure is also called primary ovarian insufficiency (POI), premature menopause, and hypergonadotropic amenorrhea. Whatever it’s called, the consequences of Premature Ovarian Failure can be devastating to a young couple trying to conceive, and what is more alarming, is that POF can display minimal symptoms, whereby an individual may not even know that they have the disease.

When it comes to reminding women of child rearing age in the West that there literally is “No Time To Wait, that there really is no better time than the present to conceive, it can be a difficult topic for a woman to hear. However, arming ourselves with relevant information about fertility and fertility testing can help defend against the unfortunate results of Socially-induced infertility.

Australians to be paid $300 a week to house refugees

admin — Sun, 06 May 2012 02:24:42 +0000

By Jim Osborne.

While Australian workers are still under pressure from one of the most expensive housing markets in the world and a rising cost of living, the government has decided to implement a plan in which people could be paid up to $300 a week to house those who have bypassed our immigration process. ⁱ

Our government clearly has no interest at all any more in protecting the Australian identity and the well-being of Australian workers. Our present government, much like our past one, no longer has any shame with regards to its desire to remould Australia into a crowded, cosmopolitan backwater.

Government handouts of up to $300 a week are overly generous, with many people struggling to find this amount to rent a single home. But if one chooses to use their home in order to drive up our population to beyond its already unsustainable levels and allow people to bypass our border controls, they get our tax payer dollars. What is worse, is that it is easy for people here to be paid up to $300 dollars to house their own family members who have come over. It would be easy for someone to register with the privately run Australian Homestay Network, and essentially have their own rent paid by us to house their brother or parents or other family members or friends. Housing illegal immigrants will now be a lucrative, tax payer funded venture. The potential for abuse of this system is huge.

Although the cost for this unbelievable program is set to be taken from the existing portion of the budget dedicated to housing asylum seekers (which the portion could always just be increased), what is worrying is that the focus of OUR government is not on the Australian workers and tax payers who the government is subservient to, but idealistic moral ventures.

This venture is not only foolish and wasteful, but also dangerous, leaving people who haven’t gone through thorough checks loose in the homes of Australians and in our communities. This policy provides short cuts for people to enter our civic life from abroad, and to do so without the care and consideration that should be taken, and at a very high financial cost of up to $1,200 a month.

Australia should be looking at tighter, not looser control of its borders. Governments should be doing something, anything at all, about our astronomical house prices, which are hurting us greatly, instead of providing free suburban accommodation to refugees. If the Gillard government wanted to show its utter contempt for Australian workers and give them the finger, then it has certainly achieved that goal with this contemptible, poorly thought out idea.

i http://www.news.com.au/national/aussies-asked-to-take-in-refugees/story-e6frfkvr-1226345214230

Joe Hockey’s hack at welfare

admin — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:12:53 +0000

By Jim Osborne.

Joe Hockey has called for an end to the age of entitlements in Australia recently on the Lateline television show. He was on Lateline discussing a speech he gave in London, where he both boasted about Australia’s financial position and simultaneously spoke of the need for Australia to “compete” with our geographic neighbours, thereby cementing his position in the struggle to maintain our way of life in the camp which wishes to sell it. Mr Hockey warned that the Liberal party will be looking aunt the whole range of entitlements, but after some quizzing from Tony Jones, it became apparent of Joe Hockeys prevarication regarding middle and upper class welfare, such as the private health insurance rebate for higher salaried people, that the Liberals costly vote buying “wealth-fare” would remain. His sights were set on pensions, on raising the retirement age, on “entitlements” which provide a safety net, save people from becoming homeless and destitute and support people who are disabled or who are required to look after people who are disabled.ⁱ Hockey then hold of Asia, of all places, as a model which we should be looking towards, holding in hold regards Confucianist ideas on Filial Piety. Hockey says “Entitlement is a concept that corrodes the very heart of the process of free enterprise that drives our economies.”. Australia’s public social spending of 16% of GDP and by no means the highest in the OECD.ⁱⁱ It is difficult to see what Hockey’s problem is, considering that Australia was able to build a surplus with more or less, our current welfare system.

Is Hockey really attacking our entitlements? Hockey says that he was “shocked to hear that one of the policy promises of one of the main French Presidential Election candidates, François Hollande, is to bring the official retirement age back down to 60 from 62.”. With regards to our expenditure he says “Other countries get by with much less. Korea only spends 10% of GDP on public social expenditure with Australia at 16% of GDP, the USA at 20% and the United Kingdom at 23%.”. We can see immediately that countries such as Sweden, Germany and Denmark also maintain higher levels of social expenditure. Hockey is pulling out failing economies such as the USA and blaming their issues on entitlements, whilst ignoring other countries which are economically well off, but has similar or even higher levels of public social expenditure, such as Australia.

The real issue is here perhaps isn’t one of expenditure, for if he was truly concerned about expenditure and representing the Australian people, then tax dollars going to those who don’t need it would be targeted before those tax dollars going to those who do. We would expect the negative gearing to go first. A tax benefit to subsidise poor property investment choices by amateur property speculators. But despite being all for “Free Markets”, and therefore against socialist support to pay for losses for private investment ventures, the Liberals (and Labor) are silent on this, arguing that this “Free Market” requires government funds to operate. We would expect handouts to private business to be cut, but this seems unlikely. Hockey had little to say for the obscenely wasteful “nannies for mansions” plan of Abbott, or paying a rate of $75,000 per annum for an upper income earner to take maternity leave. What the issue here is one of expectation, of lifestyle.

Australia’s future as an Asian nation.

Two boys rummage through garbage.

Hockey called upon our Asian geographic neighbours as an example and clearly indicated that his vision of Australia is along the admittedly sometimes brutal Asian model. He is not alone, as recent activity by the ANZ bank and statements by other technocrats and politicians have suggested. The never ending discussion of “The Asian Century” by business “leaders” and other technocrats and the need for us to “compete” with Asia has more to do with modelling our nations on a social order which is more amenable to plutocrats than it is to do with advancing our own civilisation. The issue with outsourcing is really one to do with the relatively low value of Asian labour, which is in turn, related to the relatively lower quality of life that many Asian nations offer. When they talk of “Asia”, you can rest assured that they are talking of China, of mainland Asia and South East Asia and India, not so much Japan which is perhaps the most Westernised. We are told that they are geographically our “neighbours”, and therefore our future is tied up with Asia, but considering that cities like Berlin or Athens are roughly about as far from Shanghai as Melbourne is, it hard to see how Australia is tied up with Asia at all, considering that Europe, which is not considering converting itself to an Asian nation is actually more accessible to China and India.

What Hockey is pitching here is a social condition which our corporate masters desire. One of abundant, cheap and subservient labour. One where the cost of maintaining a first world existence and the comfort and dignity that this brings to the human conditions is stricken from their expenses and most of all, one where the “Free Market” rules for rank and file citizens, but “Socialist” support and favours are offered to the few who need them the least. It is hard to see how Hockey can make such statements without himself considering the absurdity of his words. The European nations who are burdened with debt, much like the USA or Australia, which is burdened with one of the higher private debt to GDP ratios on the world are still nevertheless the envy of the world. Despite these Asian countries being held as a model of the future, the irrefutable fact is that the number of people seeking to leave these nations to move towards Europe, the USA, Canada or Australia is markedly higher than the number of people who want to leave the west to go to Asia to partake in their ‘superior’ lifestyle.

The Asian model just doesn’t work the way we would like in Australia, and the masses of Asians who wish to leave these countries to move here is the most compelling proof there is. The debt burdens which the western nations share are not due to individual and different circumstances, but more to do with the one over arching commonality between them all, a monetary system based on debt, profligate lending practices and a vicious circle consumer driven growth mentality.

The Sale of the Century

What is really at the heart of the matter is that there are elements within our society, exemplified by Hockey’s speech, who do not wish to bear the cost of maintaining our civilisation. The inherit value in the societies that Anglo/Europeans have created for themselves is being sold off, and we are not to receive any of the proceeds of that sale. The fact of the matter is, even in economically crippled Greece, children are not trawling through garbage to survive and those who are unemployed can still generally keep a basic standard of living which we would consider liveable, even if it means that landlords allow tenants to live rent free, a growing practice there. White Western nations simply maintain a high standard of living, which results in higher costs, a cost which people who live within these nations are generally happy to bear, provided that the expenses of maintaining such a nation are handled competently, a rare event these days. But to our multinationals, our corporations and technocrats, this lifestyle is seen purely in financial terms, and when viewed purely in financial terms, it is more expensive and therefore cuts into profits. So these institutions without borders and without loyalties see the benefit from selling this lifestyle which we have built and created from ourselves, to a lower cost, cheaper and less desirable one. Of course, we do not expect Joe Hockey or any of the Liberal’s business mates to offer to lower their standard of living. We would not expect government subsidies to the mining industry such as diesel rebates to disappear any time soon, or for a mining tax to be brought in to fund the advance of our nation.

We are not competing with Asia directly, but rather having to ‘compete’ in order to satisfy the requirements of business owners, who have no loyalty at all to the nations which provide them the standard of living they seek to buy with their wealth. An Australian worker doesn’t “lose” his job, but more accurately, someone in upper management decides to offshore the job, even if employment in Australia is still profitable for the business, as it often is. When the ANZ offshore jobs and make record profits, they are not off shoring because business isn’t viable here, for if business in Australia wasn’t viable they wouldn’t be making profits. But they are. Off shoring means GREATER profits, which Australians can only provide by reducing their standard of living to one that is envied by no one.

There is truth that there is an entitlement mentality, but we can see that mentality not just in pensioners, carers and the unemployed, but in speculative investors who demand that we burden and pay for population growth through immigration to build their market, through government hand outs and bail outs to support failing business and other subsidies. We see that entitlement mentality in CEO’s who believe that are entitled to cheaper labour and to circumvent taxes.

Our entitlement system is broken, not because we have one, but because our politicians have used it to buy votes, because the very same politicians who spout the virtues of the free market and self responsibility are more than eager to give money to those who supposedly practice this, quite a contradiction.

What Welfare is for

Welfare is distinct from entitlements, a subtlety that has evaded Hockey. Welfare is a cost borne by society in order to provide a minimum standard of living, a safety net. Welfare is what stops our citizens who have been subject to misfortune having to watch or join their children scavenge through the tip to earn a living, as witnessed in the nations which Hockey wants us to follow. Welfare ensures that our fellow citizens do not need to die from preventable medical causes, starve to death or die from exposure. It provides a basic standard of living suitable for a civilised white society for those who due to circumstances beyond their control are currently not able to finance it. Welfare or course, should be the exception and not the rule. We do this, not because people are entitled to a free ride, but because it is better for us all to have people be able to feed themselves in exceptional circumstances, than have to rob or steal from us to live. Because it is better for us to live without the social problems that people who slip through the cracks can form

Entitlements are a different beast altogether, being that which people believe they are entitled to, because of their virtues or actions. Those entitlements which are earned are fair enough, but we are referring to unearned entitlements. That being a paid nanny, tax subsidies for property speculation, tax breaks for corporate entertainment and parliamentary bonuses and quirks.

ihttp://www.joehockey.com/mediahub/speechDetail.aspx?prID=1404

iihttp://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3746,en_2649_33933_38141385_1_1_1_1,00.html

How to train your anti-racist

mkennedy — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 01:35:49 +0000

by Jim Osborne.

Meet poor Bill. Bill came to earth from a far flung planet to study our weird ways, learn about human culture and the way we develop our civilization. Wondering which part of humanity to surreptitiously insert himself into, Bill choose an Anglophone country, as that was the language used in most of the transmissions he had come across. From this observation, Bill had decided to study the culture that was considered the most dominant. They were sure a weird mob. All wealthy, famous for no reason and mentally vacant, or so they were depicted in the popular media. Despite being vapid and shallow, it seemed to make them all the more endearing to each other. Curious indeed…

So using the Instamatic Shape Shifter 5000, he changes his form to that of the early 21^st century barista, dons thick black rimmed spectacles, white sneakers, tight slacks and a worn, striped T-shirt sporting a character from a 1980′s arcade game and heads to the local university to seek out a Mummy Professor.

Bill’s mission is to learn to be tolerant of ‘diversity’ and to be actively against racism, as is the style of the time. So many of these transmissions they picked up dwelt on this matter, as to how tolerance and multiculturalism advance humanity, these traits being portrayed as more important than even science itself! It was therefore the logical choice.

Bill wondered how important it could really be after all, and puzzled over how one could go to jail and be victimized for saying something that was “Politically Incorrect” yet nothing would happen if someone said something that was “Scientifically Incorrect”. For a society which owes so much to open inquiry and the scientific method, just as Bill’s does, but values this less than this ‘anti-racism’, and “Political Correctness” Bill figured there had to be something to it. Something that not even his space-faring civilization had discovered. How can being “Politically Correctness” be more important than being “Scientific Correctness” which had cured diseases and improved the condition of life.

Poor Bill. He has no experience of religion or even an experience of what it is. No experience of cults, “Political Correctness”, or never having to believe in certain things, just because… He’s never had to worry about losing his ability to earn a living for not saying the truth of the day which has been based on arbitrary morals. He’s never dealt with Orwellian thought crimes, because he comes from a society which just deals with matter of fact truth. The idea that somehow truth is ‘wrong’, or you should believe something contrary is alien to him. Bill doesn’t know what its like to have laws which tell you what is right or wrong which are independent of empirical truth. He has quite a bit to learn!

But alas, being only vaguely aware of these curious aspects of culture, and thinking that there is an objective, rational system behind it all, he presses on and begins to converse with the guardian of Political Correctness, the priest of the modern day. His tutor in ‘anti-racism’.

And so it begins…

Bill: Even though I don’t hate anyone just because of what they are, I understand that one should be anti-racist, which I think means fighting racism. Can you teach me how to do that? What can I do to be a good person!

Prof: You’re indeed right. Racism is evil, it’s a blight on humanity, a throwback to prehistoric days. Unfortunately we still have such attitudes about in our society and we should rid ourselves of them. That should be everyone’s prerogative.

Bill: OK. So what is anti-racism then?

Prof: That’s fighting racism of course, wherever you see it!

Bill: So if someone attacks someone just because of their race, or makes them a slave? I’ve read that used to happen.

Prof: That’s right.

Bill: I understand. I haven’t seen much of that. There are no slaves here right? My colleague at “The Caffeinator”, David, says he’s boss is a slave driver. Is that the same thing? David makes a very fine double mocha soy latte, but I can’t help but think he’s free to leave anytime he likes. Maybe I should tell him that.

Prof: Well, that’s not quite the same.

Bill: I went looking for racism, and to be honest, I didn’t find much. There seemed to be people of all races on the train, and if they were let into the country, then that’s tolerance, right?

Prof: Ha ha! There’s more to it than that! That doesn’t mean there isn’t racism. Racism is EVERYWHERE! Some people are against that immigration, and that’s racist. You see, some people still hold the view that this country is a ‘white’ country, and that’s a very racist thing to say.

Bill: It was, wasn’t it?

Prof: NO! There were indigenous people beforehand. The white people stole the land. They can’t claim its a ‘white’ country.

Bill: I see. So that means that if white people built a country on the land of some one else, and they don’t let in people of all races, that means that they think those people of other races are inferior?

Prof: Yeah, sort of…

Bill: So those other white countries in Europe which didn’t have someone else living first, they aren’t racist if they don’t let everyone in then?

Prof: No, because they subjugated people from other lands! They plundered Africa and Asia and South America!

Bill: And this means that they think they are inferior if they don’t let them in?

Prof: Yes, sort of. They have to bear the responsibility of their crimes.

Bill: So English people have to bear responsibility for what they did? I met a lot of backpackers from England and none of them had ever subjugated anyone. Does this mean they are OK?

Prof: No, because their nation did it.

Bill: So they inherit their guilt because they happen to be born white? I’m a little confused, because there were people who said that blaming Jews for killing Christ was racist, because you can’t blame a race for the actions of a few individuals, especially if it was ages ago.

Prof: That’s vilification. That’s different.

Bill: Why?

Prof: I don’t think you’re getting it. Nations shouldn’t think they have the right to discriminate. It’s wrong to discriminate based on race.

Bill: Then why did you make a big deal of what they did in the past, when it’s of no relevance today. If it’s wrong to discriminate regardless of your history, then isn’t that the end of that?

Prof: Because it shuts those racists up. You see, when you use these arguments against them, they just try to argue why they are innocent. Here’s a little secret, because I can tell you’re not from around here. There is this thing called “White Guilt”, and its a very powerful psychological weapon to use against people.

Bill: But if you say that someone in this country should have to pay, as it were, for something he didn’t do, just because he happens to be white, but its wrong to make someone else of another race pay, as it were, isn’t that a double standard?

Prof: NO! It’s called being against racism! You’re not racist, are you?

Bill: I’d rather not be.

Prof: Right, so stop making excuses for racists! Discrimination is bad, OK?

Bill: Sorry, I’m just trying to understand it. It seems there are exceptions and loopholes to all this. Double standards, like this ‘white’ guilt thing, but no one else has the same condemnation. It’s not like white people are the only people on this planet who have done bad things, it seems every race has, but there is this special focus on white people, as if only they can be held responsible for what they do.

Prof: The trick to it is this. Anti-racism is about getting white people to accept that their nations must become melting pots. We want white countries to take in lots of immigrants and for them to assimilate. Anti-racism is a code word for anti-white.

We say they have no right to control immigration because they ‘stole’ the land. But think about it, what relevance does having taken land have to current immigration policy? None! But because of ‘white guilt’, people think they have to go along. It’s the same with the imperial past. Again, it doesn’t really mean much, but it makes people feel guilty. Because if you can scream someone down, they shut up and go along with your nonsense.

Bill: So you fight racism by making people who did nothing wrong feel guilty?

Prof: Well, you see, we make people feel guilty so they accept multiculturalism. We want the West to become multiracial, so we need to do this for this noble outcome.

Bill: Do other people know this? I haven’t heard of this, though it does explain quite a bit.

Prof: People just want to fight racism, and we tell them what they have to do to fight it.

Bill: So making Western nations melting pots is actually the primary goal? Is this why you never ask Japan or China, which are quite homogeneous ethnically to open up their borders? I noticed that no one ever said that an Asian or African country must become multiracial, but only for European ones.

Prof: Of course, if you are asked whether you think Japan should open up its borders, you say “yes”. But we don’t normally care, you’re right. No one really makes a deal of non-white nations being homogeneous, that doesn’t bother us at all.

Bill: So this is ‘politics’ then, from what I understand.

Prof: Yes. Anti-racism is a political movement. We think that there is something wrong when a country is white, so we just make people think they need to do something about this to combat racism. The arguments we use are just words we’ve found which shuts people up. We’ve put a LOT of work into making people curl up into a ball and cry at the thought of being labeled ‘racist’, so even at the mere THREAT of being called that, people go along with what I say. People wouldn’t just accept being ‘anti-white’, but if you dress it up as being about ‘tolerance’, ‘love’ and ‘acceptance of diversity’ people accept it, think that’s the point, but in reality, it’s just anti-white. We use anti-racism as a code word for anti-white. The reality is, that despite our talk of tolerance and acceptance, it’s just talk, we can’t tolerate or accept any opposition at all. Intolerance shall not be tolerated!

Bill: Power politics!

Prof: Exactly!

Bill: But isn’t that genocide really? If you demand that all and only white nations become multiracial, and intermarry and that this is good?

Prof: No one ever says that to me. It can’t be true.

Bill: But if someone pointed it out then…

Prof: Stop. No one is going to argue that, and lets leave it at that… All you need to know is this. If someone who is white is saying something or advocating something which would preserve their race, then you call that racist. You can do this, because in order for a people to protect their identity, they have to have some kind of exclusion and discrimination, and because we’ve made it so ALL discrimination is considered evil, then this means ANYTHING Anglo/Europeans might do to preserve their culture and race would therefore automatically be racist. So we’ve essentially made anything that white people might do to protect their heritage and preserve themselves be considered evil and racist. It’s brilliant, but it won’t work if people realise this. But you must only ever talk of racism and acceptance and multicultural in white nations. You never, ever demand that non-white nations must become multiracial, and you never bring it up, because if you did, it would expose the double standard that has existed all along. They won’t mention it, I promise, so you’ll never have to explain the double standard.

Bill: Do they not mention that this ‘tolerance’ is only targeted at white people it out of politeness? Do they not realise that you only demand multi-racialism for white nations?

Prof: They are so brainwashed, they don’t notice, or they don’t dare argue, because, remember, you can always just say ‘racist’! Brush up on your white guilt, and if you feel that these double standards are being exposed, just use those arguments that make them feel guilty and that will shut them up. Works every time for me.

Bill: What if someone from Africa talks about preserving their culture and race?

Prof: Then you say its good, of course.

Bill: And if a white person then does it?

Prof: That’s ‘fascism’.

Bill: And people don’t pick up on this? Surely they do!

Prof: Whether they do or don’t doesn’t matter. They don’t point it out and that’s all that matters. You can say two plus two equals five, and two plus two WILL equal five if you can get everyone else to believe it. Whether they truly believe it or not doesn’t matter. They don’t SAY otherwise. Again, use the ‘racist’ slur against them if you ever get stuck and they’ll retreat.

Its like whether race exist. If it suits the argument against whites for race to exist, then race is real. If it suits the argument against whites that race doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t exist. There is no shame at all in believing that race both exists and doesn’t exist, as long as no one points it out to you, which they won’t, because you can always just call them ‘racist’.

Bill: So what is a ‘racist’ then?

Prof: Doesn’t matter! They won’t ask what a ‘racist’ is. They just know they don’t want to be called racist. Just as whether race exists or not depending on whether you can use it against whites or not, ‘racist’ can mean whatever you need it to mean to demonize someone who isn’t Politically Correct. If you have to answer, just say its discriminating based on skin colour.

Bill: But why would someone be afraid of being called a term which seems to have no real meaning?

Prof: Because of reputation!

Bill: You see, I would have thought a rational person would look at what someone is saying, and think about what it means, and make their own determination.

Prof: Not always, if the term is taboo enough, one word is all it takes. You can get people to destroy themselves in order to fit a social ideal, and that ultimately, is what we are doing.

Bill: So you’ve convinced people that they need to destroy themselves, and that this is a virtue?

Prof: Yes, spot on. And it IS a virtue, if you believe it it, and everyone else who matters, also believe it is. Some white people even go so far as to boast and applaud about how they might all be mixed in the future.

Bill: Sounds more like a sickness to me.

Prof: It works for me. I make a pretty good living out of this ‘diversity’ nonsense and white guilt, it is after all, my field of expertise. As long as people believe this anti-racism stuff, and keep going along with those beliefs, I’ve got power over them. It’s good business too. Look up Tim Wise. He makes money from this racket.

But in order of white people to preserve their race, they would need to discriminate, and we’ve convinced people that discrimination is bad, when it’s based on race. So you can discriminate on other attributes just fine, like skills, how much money they have, but we can’t let white people think they can act in a way to preserve their race. So the only way which they can do it, we call evil. We preach and call it an evil, and people believe in order to be moral, they have to open up their borders, without limits.

Bill: So you’re like a priest? You make a living based on promoting a system of beliefs, where people believe things, just because, well, they have to believe them? Because you say so?

Prof: Ha ha! Yes, Political Correctness is a religion! Look at the inquisition! You had heretics who were killed and tortured because they didn’t believe what was required of them. You had inquisitors who made a living seeking these heretics out. It was all based on what an authority said you had to believe.

Today, we have instead of heretics who question the religion, racists. Racist means today what heretic meant back then! People back then would soil their pantaloons in fear of being called heretic, even though it was hard to say definitively what a heretic was. We don’t say ‘heretic’ today, we say ‘racist’, but it’s the same thing. A term which makes people quiver with fear, if they think they are heretics to the religion of Political Correctness. Instead of inquisitors, we have people like me, other liberals and ‘anti-racist’ groups. They make their living looking for heretics, people who, as above, believe in things like protecting their culture, which is at odds with what Political Correctness needs them to believe.

And of course, it is all just based on faith. Based on someone high up who has power saying this is how its going to be, and that’s it.

Bill: This is all strange, but I think I’m understanding it. It’s all a game of pretend, like what I did when I was a kid? But what if people stop going along with it? What if they dare to speak up, and they all realise it’s nonsense?

Prof: Then I’m in trouble, but you just need to make sure people don’t feel they can question. Remember, use guilt, use fear. You don’t need to debate rationally, just look at what other anti-racists say and copy that. If you get stuck, say race doesn’t exist anyway, but save that for when you get stuck, because it’s hard to argue as it’s kind of obvious it does exist.

And remember, if all else fails, we can jail people who are really racist, or make them lose their jobs, or threaten to make then social pariahs. As long as they think they are alone, they’ll go along. There are plenty of underhanded means at our disposal.

You just need to remember these rules. Argue that they stole the land, or subjugated others first. If they don’t go into a defensive mode, and they realise that these facts mean nothing today, move to the “Discrimination is bad”. Then forget you brought up those points and just say they can’t discriminate based on race.

If your opponent is good, they will say that they have a right to preserve their race, which kind of means that your “discrimination is bad” argument could be shown to be Genocidal, if it prevents people from preserving their ethnic heritage. That’s kind of a bummer, which is when you then have to try and argue that race doesn’t exist. If you can argue that race doesn’t exist, then you don’t have to explain the moral predicament this anti-racism creates. Race doesn’t exist, no genocide! Of course, do this last, after you’ve been able to use ‘racism’ argument and utilize the face that race exists against them. You’ll have to gloss over the fact that you’ve used racism as an indictment against whites and now are arguing that different races don’t exist, but don’t draw any attention to that.

And lastly, be indignant! Be offended! Take everything personally! Tell them you have an African friend, and you are offended and disgusted! Tell them you find it disgusting. Pretend to be embarrassed and ashamed. Put on a show. It’s great theatrics and people take you more seriously if you are upset.

And remember, anti-racism is just a code word for anti-white.

The Theology of Political Correctness: The unwritten code.

mkennedy — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 01:18:57 +0000

by Michael Kennedy

In part three of the “Theology of Political Correctness”, we will look at the unwritten code that is characteristic of many religious belief systems. Political Correctness is not just a moral code, it’s a religion and a politically active religion at that, as most powerful established religions inevitable end up becoming. In parts one and two of “The Theology of Political Correctness” we looked at the concept of “Original Sin”, how white people, and only white people, are held responsible for the actions of our ancestors and how we ‘inherit’ the guilt of our forebears and must atone for it by giving intellectuals power over Western societies and through their prescriptions for our society, forfeiting our continued racial and cultural existence by surrendering it to the ideological weapon that is multi-racialism. We also looked at the messianic predictions of “Progressivism”, how following Liberal ideals will supposedly lead us to a utopian promised land of tolerance, understanding and peace. All of this is of course based on a faith, and that faith is in the religion of Political Correctness.

The Political Correctness Mythology

Much like any religion or belief based political movement, at the centre of such a belief is the mythos, the foundational myth upon which the movement is built and with which its adherents identify by. This mythos is what unites people in belief, it is the centre of the belief system, the proclaimed reason for the movements existence. All political movements, even those based on religion are struggles for power. They are the manifestation of Nietzsche’s “will to power” in an institution. They provide the wave of human energy and movement which propels those who preach the mythos into a position of power and by connection, those who take part in it. A movement such as a religion is based on belief in the mythos, in the mythologies promise of the future, in its unifying past. The mythos not only captures the now but the before and the after. It is complete from the beginning to the end of time, from Genesis to Armageddon. It is itself, just like those who exploit it, totalitarian in its reach over time and space. It is also, just like those who exploit it, not rooted in reality but in fanciful ideals which exist separately from the machinations of the physical world.

Political Correctness maintains its own mythos which helps form the mythical foundation for Liberalism. In the centre of that mythos is equality, liberation from nature, a unity of the working class and a utopian society run by intellectuals. The “promised land” is where progressivism is supposed to to take us, where black and white, gay and straight walk arm in arm confidently towards a future where history has ended, tribalism, greed and intolerance have finally been defeated after a long class struggle against particularism and authority and where people are free to do as they wish, when they wish, to whoever they wish. Here in this mythical future, humanity has realised that cultural and racial differences and gender differences were just imagined, invented and propagated for the purposes of power, and now they are gone and exist solely in the history books, like a bad memory. Knowing the totalitarian nature of Political Correctness, it would probably be a future where the very concept of race would have been eradicated from the present and the past. Men and women are now just individual humans who just happen to have different bodily parts, and white people are now just history, a bedtime story for the children in books of old, in paintings in museums and strange people who live in far flung regional backwaters, far from the enlightened and cosmopolitan concrete jungle. That is, if in this future it hasn’t been deemed prudent to excise this from history books, in order to give the appearance that the progressive multiracial society has always existed from the beginning.

Like it or not, this is the prescribed future, as imagined by Political Correctness. This future, this goal which is the end result of progressivism is built upon its foundational myth that humanities destiny is in this future, that we are all identical and must transcend nature and transcend our own individual inherited identities. Like Christianity, Political Correctness asks us to transcend our physical existence, to look to a higher spiritual plane where biological realities no longer exist and where only the will and desires of the mind matter. Christianity however has the good sense to offer this in the afterlife, in another realm where indeed physical realities and limitation may very well not apply. Liberalism however, standing in opposition to Christianity, is more foolish. It offers a world where the considerations of the real world and our identity are no longer deemed relevant or necessary, but it offers those in this world, a world which is governed by realities and laws in a Universe which doesn’t care for political ideology. It is all very well to offer another world, with different laws where our actions and responsibilities count for nought, but in this reality, Political Correctness has to deal with trying to create a utopia based on ideals and an understand of reality which is contradictory to how our world actually operates. Political Correctness has to convince people of an impossible future.

It was once a requirement of Political Correctness to say that men and women were identical in every way aside from bodily appendages. To say that men and women had different physiologies, different psychologies and innate biases was a heresy. The Politically Correct religion had as part of its mythos the idea that men and women are born free from any natural division and differences. This is contrary with reality, and now it has become more acceptable to discuss the differences between men and women. It is no longer the damnable heresy it once was to suggest that men and women think differently because our brains are different, but this makes Liberalism uneasy, because its mythos, its seductive trapping is to offer people freedom from gender roles. It is also worrisome for them, because if indeed the assertion that gender differences are purely imaginary as was confidently asserted by the educated Liberal establishment was untrue, then this could apply to racial differences as well. In fact, this already is recognised in anthropology, medicine and forensic science, but it cannot be recognised officially. As Bob Whitaker says, “In order to graduate a forensic specialist must spout the Politically Correct line that there is no such thing as race. But to keep his job he must be able to tell the race of the most damaged victim of which he has only decayed scraps.”

So created belief systems will always come head to head with reality. One’s understanding of the real world is something that needs not be maintained, it is self evident. Any belief system based on reality is also in need of no maintenance, no force. But those belief systems, those religions and institutions based on a created mythos must reconcile themselves with physical reality. They must be able to continue to exist despite people who hold these ideas experiencing a reality which is contrary. A belief that men and women have no innate differences or preferences must continue to exist after those who have raised children witness otherwise. It is not enough for a religion to have a story, a mythology and its own reality, it must maintain it, and as it’s not based on reality and therefore able to maintain itself, it requires the expenditure of intellectual energy and the use of force to continue to exist. This is an observed commonality between all institutionalised belief systems, the necessity of applying energy and force to maintain it, to overcome the entropy that would otherwise occur as the foundational myths and ideas fall one by one due to people becoming aware of a contrary reality.

Communism collapsed because its foundational myth, that a workers paradise would be created when intellectuals control the economy no longer had the necessary level of energy and force applied to maintain it. The death knell of Communism, its eulogy was written long before 1989. It was written when it became apparent that such a system couldn’t survive as it was based on something other than reality and was just silly. From this time, the Communist regime needed force and tyranny to keep the system alive, which was soon after its implementation. Indeed, in Eastern Europe Communism HAD to jail dissidents, HAD to send those who question the system to re-education camps or the Gulag. The self evident failure of the system and the quick realisation that it was indeed a flawed ideology was met with greater and greater tyranny and authority. It was known long beforehand that the system couldn’t work, wouldn’t work, and the system existed solely for the power of the party members. However one could not say that it didn’t work. Compare this to modern day Political Correctness, which is a similar manner, sentences people to re-education should the express a non-Politically Correct sentiment or say something about the Holocaust which falls afoul of the expected attitudes towards it, or even jail. Political Correctness must use force, indoctrination and a mas of propaganda and social control and shunning in order to keep the mythos alive.

The purpose of the unwritten code in institutions

But how to keep the religion alive and maintain it? How do two Politically Correct people engage in conversation which remains logically consistent, without having to bring up in conversation the discrepancies which belie this consistency? How does a person who’s belief system contains logical contradictions converse with someone else, who has these same contradictions, without ever having to acknowledge or address them? This is indeed one of the challenges with such belief systems having such a mythos. It is no good for a group of people, adhering to this belief system, believing in it and its promise talking to each other and criticising these inconsistencies in each other. This would therefore result in self criticism, and the destruction of the belief system which is the source of identity to those who participate. Self criticism would lead to destruction of the belief system.

People adapt to this through a hidden secret code, an unstated truth that is understood by all and said by none. Such a secret code is an internal understanding amongst believers that never needs to be taught, only understood. Many Christians will say that the Bible is the word of God and will stress the importance of the ten commandments, and depending on the branch of Christianity, the importance of other statements such as condemnations of homosexuality. But the Bible also allows the selling of your daughter into slavery and states that those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death. Would any Christian in this day and age ever dare suggest that someone should be put to death for working on the Sabbath? Very few would, and those that did would be condemned by most Christians and even called unchristian. Yet this is the world of God, and just as valid as other prescriptions in the bible which they do consider relevant. But no Christian needs to be taught which of Gods commandments must be followed and respected and ones which must be ignored. Yet they all pretty much agree. The members of a congregation need never discuss this double standard and need never teach it or explain it. It is never written and there is nothing in the Bible itself to serve as a guide as to which moral prescriptions can be ignored. It is an unstated code and the fact that its unstated gives the foundational myth of the religion the strength it needs. As its unstated, its unsaid, and self criticism through contradiction in conversation can be avoided. For if a Reverend ever had to explain why Homosexuality is against Gods will, but putting people to death for working on the Sabbath is, then the institution, the religion is weakened. Such a thing in a successful religion is never stated. It is identification and membership of the religious culture that creates the understanding of the unwritten code. Anyone can believe in Christ, but when it comes to identifying with organised institutionalised religion, this acceptance of Christ as ones saviour comes secondary to understanding the unwritten code, the allowable transgressions.

Liberalism has in the same vein, Politically Correct unwritten rules. There are rules which every Liberal, every Westerner is required to abide by, but they are never stated. For if they are stated, the mere fact that it is discussed would reveal instantly the double standards, the hypocrisy and logical contradictions of the Politically Correct belief system. It would reveal externally that Political Correctness, at its centre is something other than what it proclaims to be, it is in many ways, the reverse of what it claims to be. Ever Westerner must know this code, but never has to teach it, and never has to be explicitly taught. The belief system must allow transgressions if its own belief and moral prescriptions to remain externally coherent, and it is these allowable exceptions which quickly become the reason the ideology gains adherents. The unwritten rules evolve from a necessity understood by its adherents and over time becomes the primary reason for its existence.

This Politically Correct unwritten ‘code’ therefore must be exposed on order to destroy this religion. What is unstated must be stated and what is untaught must be taught.

Political Correctness says that race doesn’t exist and every Liberal, and by extension, any Westerner that wants to be considered ‘decent’ by Liberals, a requirement for general social acceptance, must also agree. However, the very same people who speak about the non existence of race must be able to identify ‘racism’, an ‘ism’ that can only exist with race being real. The fact that racism cannot exist without race existing is something that Liberals must never discuss, and few Conservatives bring up, as they also seek social acceptance by Liberals.

Likewise, every Liberal must know that race DOES exist under other circumstances, for instance, when arguing that White people have committed race crimes against other peoples of the world.

The unwritten code of Political Correctness says that “race” only exists when it can be used against white people. When a white westerner might oppose multi-racialism and argue against his or her race being assimilated out, every Liberal need to know to argue that “race doesn’t exist”. Change the argument to indigenous rights, and every Liberal must know to treat indigenous people as an identifiable ethnic or racial group. Change the argument to “Genocide”, and race again is real.

So no one is ever ‘told’ explicitly that anti-racism means being anti-white, but this is at the heart of the unwritten code of Political Correctness. Non-whites have ‘homelands’, whites don’t. Non-whites have indigenous rights, whites in Europe don’t. Non-whites have labels which specifically refer to their race, such as “Aboriginal” or “Native American” which are racially exclusive, whites can’t use identification labels in a racially exclusive manner. The term “European” must apply to everyone who lives in Europe, regardless of race, but no Australian automatically becomes Aboriginal simply by being born in Australia. A French person cannot refer to “French” as a national lineage which is specific to the French people, but a Tibetan or a Jew can. Aboriginal are entitled to a term which identifies them as a race, and this is applauded by Liberals, but Whites who may seek to identify as per their racial groupings are positively evil. Such a contradiction is simply ‘understood’, whether the person is aware of it or not.

The unwritten Politically Correctness code also has a hierarchy. Racism trump sexism. It is wrong for a man to subject a woman, but it is even more evil for someone to disparage a culture or religion on its treatment of women, as that’s racism. When Politically Correctness comes across a conflict of interest, it simply looks up the hierarchy. Genital mutilation of women is now occurring in the UK because of increased numbers of Africans bringing the practice to the UK? Do you be ‘racist’ and condemn the practice for the sake of gender rights? No, as racism trumps sexism, you be silent. Do you speak against Halal and Kosher slaughter? Again no, racism trumps animal rights. In fact, racism trumps everything else. Racism trumps children’s health.

Another unwritten rule is that of white supremacy. Every Liberal must state that all races are equal in ability, that Western civilisation was just luck, exploitation and chance, and that everyone else on the planet is just as able to create the same standard of living. If you were to say otherwise, you would be an evil racist of the higher order. But as part of the Politically Correct code, you are not supposed to believe this. The Politically Correct code says that you SAY that races are equal, but you insist that ALL and ONLY white nations must open their borders to the third world to give them a better chance at life. The Politically Correct code does not require, and does not expect at all, wealthier non-white nations to take in the third world, or share in the global burden of supporting all of humanity. The unwritten code is that all races are equal, and that non-whites could only ever hope to have what Westerners have, if they move to a country created and run by whites. The unwritten code is that no non-white country should make the same contribution and further to this, you can’t expect them to ever hope to be able to make the same contribution. Do you have to ‘explain’ to a Liberal this? No, of course not.

The Left of politics has had to acquire an anti-white bias, because as part of Leftism, is the fear that whites may be superior. It is this fear which left wing Liberals have, which drive their anti-white, anti-western feelings, and give a basis for the anti-white biased hidden code. Liberals fear that true racial equality may not happen, and they must both put down and attack ‘whiteness’, while proclaiming racial equality. The unwritten code allows Liberals to allay their fears. Anti-racism is a code word for anti-white.

The Unwritten code and Conservatives.

Renown trend forecaster Gerald Celente aptly said that “Liberals lie and conservatives believe”. Many conservatives seem to fail to understand that Liberalism and its foundation myths of Political Correctness is a religion, and like a religion an as unwritten code to keep its mythos alive. No Liberal actually truly believes that race doesn’t exist, as they must also argue it does exist when talking about Genocide against non-whites or the Holocaust. They only need know when to say it exists and it doesn’t exist. No Liberals can ever say “Asia for the Asians, African for the Africans, White countries for everybody” because that’s the unwritten code which must remain unwritten and unsaid. No Liberal would say that Tolerance and “Diversity is our Strength” is just an attack against white people and that anti-racism really is just code for being against white people and turning a blind eye to other acts of racism. Liberals understand the unwritten code, and understand you never discuss it or analyse it, just as no believer goes to Church and questions why the congregation doesn’t kill people for working on the Sabbath. Liberalism, like any other mythos, isn’t just true now, but all of humanity since civilisation began has been a struggle to realise the Liberal promise.

But as Celente says, Conservatives believe. Mainstream Conservatives believe in Political Correctness. These mainstream “Respectable” Conservatives talk about how Aboriginals should just consider themselves “Australian” and give up their separate identity. This is what Liberals demand of whites, but “Respectable” Conservatives think this means it applies to all. This is what Liberals say will usher the promised ‘race free’ utopia of the future with no inherited identities. But “Respectable” Conservatives don’t know of the unwritten code.

“Respectable” Conservatives talk against Aboriginal privilege without understanding that the Liberalism they now superficially support never ever intended to have racial equality for all. “Respectable” Conservatives criticise racism against whites calling for greater “tolerance” without understanding that “Tolerance” was never meant to be for all. Yet they continue to be bewildered as to why they are attacked when they talk about immigrants not ‘assimilating’. They don’t understand why despite Liberalism constantly saying intermarriage is good, and that Whites should mix themselves out if existence, why saying that non-whites should also assimilate themselves out is tantamount to Genocide. The “Respectable” Conservative takes at face value the morality of Liberalism, and when they take it seriously, they draw the wrath and criticism of Liberalism. Bewildered as to how they can be called “bigot” despite being just as vocal against Nationalists and other heretics, they flounder because they are doing something that all Liberals know NOT to do, to take Liberalism seriously, as its advertised.

The oddities of Political Correctness makes much more sense when you know the unwritten code. Just as someone who follows an old holy text “knows” which moral prescriptions are not relevant and which are, Liberals “know” that their demands for tolerance, assimilation, open borders and the destruction of racial and ethnic identity and traditions only apply to White people and White nations. Liberals know when they talk to each other, than when they might discuss for instance, indigenous tribes preserving their identity and autonomy, this is something they should applaud and encourage, and they also know then when they talk of Whites preserving their identity and autonomy, that this is racism, ignorance and bigotry. The unwritten code says white autonomy bad, non-white autonomy good.

Socialists can freely support Palestinian Nationalist causes and attack White Nationalist causes, and no Liberal ever criticises this, because they know the code. To those who don’t understand the politics, this seems a contradiction they must be unaware of. In the story of the Emperors New Clothes, every one in the crowd both had to recognise that the Emperor was naked, and say that he was wearing the finest clothes of the finest fibres if asked. This was the unwritten code, an understanding that everyone had, until the little boy spoke up and revealed it.

Philosopher Slavoj Žižek states a system has as a condition of functioning that its own ideology cannot be taken seriously. The ideology must not be taken seriously, as taking the system seriously exposes its contradictions and what he calls its “hidden reverse”. The ideal subject he says, is one who understands the irony of the system and understands that the system allows for transgressions. Žižek states that the real form of conformity to the system, to the ideology, isn’t identification with its public image, with how the system presents itself, but with the “hidden reverse”, with the allowed transgressions within the system.

Indeed we see that true identification with Liberalism doesn’t come from opposing racism or supporting gay rights. There are many self identified Conservatives who are just as zealous in “anti-racism” and who for libertarian purposes support gay marriage. But the anti-racist socially libertarian Conservative identifies with the publicly proclaimed face of Liberalism, not with its unstated reverse, the unwritten ‘code’. Despite their support of Liberal ideas, their commitment to tolerance, it matters little to the true adherents of the system, and these hapless Conservatives are nevertheless still the subject of character smears, defamatory statements and accusations of bigotry. There is no level of tolerance and acceptance which a non Liberal can practice which will stop Politically Correct Liberals accusing them of bigotry, racism and xenophobia. They are the ‘out group’, the ‘other’, not because they reject the ideology, but because they don’t identify with its allowed transgressions, they don’t identify with the unwritten code. They don’t understand that anti-racism is a code word for anti-white, and if they did, they would be dangerous as they would say so. They foolishly apply racial equality to all races, unaware that one doesn’t have to apply it to whites. The argue for cultural preservation for all races, or alternatively, advocate assimilation for all, unaware that the hidden code, the real source of identification in Liberalism is a hatred of whites. A hatred which is practised through the unstated transgressions that are permitted in Liberal ideology, namely through the promotion of ‘white guilt’ and the forcing of multi-racialism as a racially and culturally destructive weapon against whiteness.

Revealing the Code.

To eliminate the destructive influence that this Politically Correct theocracy as over us, we must reveal this hidden code. It’s power over people exists because it is not discussed, because it is unwritten and unstated. As long as it is unwritten and instated, it serves it purpose to keep the Politically Correct mythos alive. It, as long as its unwritten and unstated, as long as its hidden, allows Liberals to perpetuate their false ideology without criticism of its obvious flaws, as it protects these flaws. The Emperor was fine with being naked, as long as he believed that everyone else didn’t think he was naked. Likewise, Liberals and the priests of Political Correctness can state all manner of anti-white, anti-western and anti-Australian sentiment as long as they believe that everyone else will believe what they say. They will argue directly for our demise and against those who wish to preserve our heritage without shame as long as they believe that everyone else will play along with the unwritten code.

But expose that code the fact that the Emperor has no clothes is revealed. No longer does public discussion with Liberals mean accepting what they say at face value, but with understanding that their sentiments and ideas have this unwritten code at the core. No longer do we all have to pretend that its about tolerance, but we can now realise that anti-racism is indeed a code word anti-white.

So to remove the yoke of Political Correctness from your neck you must speak up. Point out this very code to a Politically Correct Liberal when they argue with you, as you understand now why they have double standards. Reveal to the world the reason that everything they say invariable ends up being biased against whites and like all other totalitarian belief systems, it will fail, unable to find the energy to keep it alive.

Animal Cruelty and Kosher/Halal slaughter

admin — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:24:00 +0000

by Ryan Walsh

Nationalist Alternative condemns the exemption to pre-stunning slaughter methods extended on religious grounds to Kosher and Halal as a further example of multiculturalism in action.

We have previously published an article on live export and our support for pre slaughter stunning Australia wide in an effort to improve animal welfare.

On the weekend October 29-30,2011 an article titled ‘ Religious abattoirs dodge stun law’ appeared on page 7, The Nation in The Weekend Australian (October 29-30,2011). This article describes the decision by primary industry ministers including Federal Labour Minister Joe Ludwig to not impose mandatory pre stunning in all abattoirs Australia wide.

Pre stunning before slaughter aims to ensure the animal is rendered unconscious and insensible to pain.

Instead in what can only be described as timid governance unsure of its sovereignty, we are pandering to minorities which in this instance is supporters of Kosher/Halal slaughter amongst sections of Australia’s Jewish and Muslim population and possibly elsewhere.

Twelve abattoirs will be provided with exceptions which according to the article will see up to 250,000 alive and conscious sheep, cattle, and hens killed a year without first being rendered unconscious before their throats are cut.

We condemn such practices as barbaric, inhumane, cruel and a affront to Australian morality and further examples of multiculturalism NOT enriching Australian culture. Some fellow opponents of ritual slaughter may baulk or sidestep our inclusion of multiculturalism with this issue but they are clearly linked particularly when some supporters claim their religion or culture demands/obligates this practice and that they would be discriminated against or lead ‘less fulfilling lives’ if not allowed to continue.

Kosher and Halal slaughter requires the animal to be alive to facilitate the draining of the blood and proponents argue the throat slitting is humane because the animal dies quickly or some claim instantaneously.

It is claimed that due to the ‘sharp’ blade the animals are killed in one stroke. With the animal collapsing almost immediately due to an abrupt outpouring of blood thanks to a clean and complete severing of both jugular veins and cateroid arteries.

It has also been claimed, in some articles or commentary, that ritual slaughter is in fact more humane and painless than mandatory pre stun captive bolt conventional methods.

Analysis of the ritual slaughter proponents assertions

We will provide opposing evidence below including quotes that include eye witness accounts as well as hard science to disprove the above claims.

We believe the evidence against ritual slaughter is so overwhelming that assertions and articles presenting it as humane seem like ignorance at best and at worst deliberate equivocating in order to mislead and provide partial truths. All in a desperate attempt to avoid the inevitable banning or shunning of the practice, at least in Western countries that do not share these cultural views.

Claim: Ritual slaughter involves instantaneous, painless ‘quick’ death or where pain occurs it is minimal.

Opposing evidence:

Proof of pain leads to calls for ban on ritual slaughter. Oct 2009.

…But the new research suggests otherwise. Dr Craig Johnson and his colleagues at New Zealand’s Massey University reproduced the Jewish and Islamic methods of slaughter in calves. The calves were first anaesthetised so although their pain responses could be detected, they wouldn’t actually feel anything. They were then subjected to a neck incision. A pain response was detected for up to two minutes following the cut, although calves normally fall unconscious after 10 to 30 seconds.

The team then stunned the calves five seconds after cutting their throats: the pain signal detected by electroencephalography ceased immediately.

Johnson told the New Scientist he thought this work was “the best evidence yet that [ritual slaughter] is painful”. However, he observed that the religious community “is adamant animals don’t experience any pain so the results might surprise them”.

The findings have earned Johnson the inaugural Humane Slaughter Award from the Humane Slaughter Association. Dr James Kirkwood, the charity’s chief executive, said: “This work provides significant support for the value of stunning animals prior to slaughter to prevent pain and distress.”

Adam Rutherford, an editor of Nature, wrote on the Guardian website: “It suggests that the anachronism of slaughter without stunning has no place in the modern world and should be outlawed. This special indulgence to religious practices should be replaced with the evidence-based approaches to which the rest of us are subject.”

Some European countries, such as Sweden, require all animals to be stunned before slaughter with no exception for religions. ¹[emphasis added]

Opposing evidence:

Time to loss of brain responsiveness – The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) found in its 2003 Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing found that by observing brain function the “evidence shows that sheep become insensible within 5-7 seconds of the cut”, and adult cattle may take between 22 and 40 seconds to become insensible.”

” Furthermore, a separate study of brain response after Shechita (Jewish ) slaughter of cattle compared to that after captive-bolt stunning indicated responses for up to 60 seconds in the former and no response in the latter ” ²[emphasis added]

Claim: In Ritual slaughter ‘ knife throat cuts are not painful and instead quick and efficient with a sharp blade”

Opposing evidence:

Pain and distress during exsanguination – The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) found in its 2003 Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing found

“When a very large transverse incision is made across the neck a number of vital

tissues are transected including: skin, muscle, trachea, oesophagus, carotid arteries,

jugular veins, major nerve trunks (e.g. vagus and phrenic nerves) plus numerous minor nerves. Such a drastic cut will inevitably trigger a barrage of sensory information to the brain in a sensible (conscious) animal. We are persuaded that such a massive injury would result in very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes.” ² [emphasis added]

more on claims of the ‘ lack of pain’ involved with throat cutting

Opposing evidence:

” That lead me to look-up studies on the agony of human suicide, as these studies are not likely affected by either monetary grants or by religious beliefs pertaining to halal or kosher slaughter of animals. There are several studies on this issue, among them the study by Rhyne, et al. (1995) Dimensions of suicide: perceptions of lethality, time, and agony. In this study, a group of pathologists was asked to rate the time to death (in minutes) and the agony of dying. The agony of dying was rated by using scale that ranged from 0 (painless) to 100 (excruciating). Results of this study are listed in the table below.

The agony of death by cutting the throat was rated by medical experts only second to that by burning. In secular slaughterhouses the animals are rendered unconscious by firing a bolt into the animal’s head, corresponding to the ‘gunshot to head’ method in the Table 1. The duration of dying (Figure 1, in minutes) and the agony of dying (Figure 2, on a 0-100 scale) ³

We are aware that the table and study in the quote relate to humans however if you re read the quote immediately above this one by The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) the likelihood of extreme pain with a cut throat seems highly likely and correlates with this separate study.

Claim: The ritual slaughter technique involves an efficient ‘ one stroke’ knife throat cut

Opposing evidence:

from the Viva Going for the Kill’ .Viva! Report on Religious Slaughter.by Juliet Gellatley BSc Zoology. PART TWO – The Reality of Religious Slaughter –

“Viva! has interviewed experienced slaughtermen to discover whether the stated procedures above are adhered to and to find out the reality of religious slaughter. These men have many decades of experience in killing animals and observing different methods of slaughter. We have also referred to the eminent Farm Animal Welfare Council’s (government advisory body) report on religious slaughter (11); to published scientific studies and to video evidence.

Examples of Witness Statements obtained by Viva! from Slaughtermen in the UK regarding Jewish and Muslim Slaughter”

Mike
“I have been working for well over forty years and that’s a lot of killing. I have seen Kosher and Halal carried out in many different places and I’ve assisted. It disgusts me… Jewish Shechita slaughter is just a sick joke. They claim they kill with one cut but with the bigger animals it never is. The Shochet slices backwards and forwards and it can take as many as 20 cuts and the animal obviously feels real pain. It can take minutes to lose consciousness.”

…Viva! Video of Jewish Slaughter

Viva! has obtained video evidence, filmed officially, of two bullocks being killed by the Jewish slaughter method. Viva! has been told on several occasions that cattle are killed by one stroke across the neck and that the animal collapses almost immediately, however this is not the case.

Case 1
The bullock’s neck is extended and the head lifted upwards by a chin lift in an upright pen. The animal’s nostrils are flaring, eyes staring and he is salivating. The slaughterer cuts the bullock’s throat by slicing across it, backwards and forwards 13 times. The bullock jerks away from the knife as far as he can and his facial reaction shows pain and great aversion. The bullock does not collapse immediately (the filming ends before he does).

Case 2
Again, the bullock’s neck is extended and the head lifted upwards by a chin lift in an upright pen. After three strokes the blood pours out; the chin lift which supports the head is removed, but the animal does not collapse. He is clearly conscious as the blood gushes from his gaping wound. His eyes are seeing, his ears moving and he holds his head upright. The captive bolt is used on him after 30 seconds, but he still does not collapse. He is still managing to hold his head up without any support after 50 seconds when the filming is stopped.

Did the video footage show legal slaughtering methods?
The slaughter shown in Case 1 formed part of Viva!’s Sentenced to Death video, which exposed cruelty in both mainstream and religious slaughter. Viva! submitted this footage to the Meat Hygiene Service in August 2000.

MHS Chief Executive Chris Lawson responded, “With regard to the video footage of a bovine being slaughtered using Shechita methods, we can confirm that the slaughter of this bovine was in compliance with the relevant legislation applicable to slaughter by a religious method. Such methods do not always render animals immediately unconscious. However, they do have to be carried out by licensed slaughterers.” (53)

This confirms that the extreme suffering we have on film is legal and strengthens our case for a ban on Shechita slaughter methods.

Chris Day MRCVS viewed our video footage of Shechita slaughter and comments:
“The religious slaughter appears clearly to show an animal standing and fully conscious, pouring blood from the carotid artery area, having had its throat cut. This method of killing will inevitably cause pain and distress. I join Viva! in calling for stunning, prior to such procedures, to be made compulsory.” ⁴ [emphasis added]

further opposing evidence here

D.K. Blackmore (22) of the Dept. of Veterinary Pathology and Public Health, Massey University, New Zealand who has published many papers on slaughter states:
“A BASIC requirement for humane slaughter is that an animal should be rendered insensible before exsanguination (bleeding) is initiated and this should last until the animal becomes permanently insensible from cerebral anoxia.”

Blackmore studied the behaviour of sheep and cattle after being cut; he found that sheep lose consciousness more quickly than cattle. Lambs collapsed after an average of 2.6 seconds and stopped attempting to stand after 10 seconds (not being able to stand does not mean inability to feel); in contrast calves were standing up to 135 seconds after their throat was cut and were attempting to stand up to 385 seconds after that. Even though the calves had both carotid arteries and jugular veins severed three out of four were breathing up to 11.6 minutes later and so were shot. Lambs were gasping for up to 3.8 minutes after carotid arteries and jugular veins were cut. A bull was killed by the Jewish method and was still gasping sporadically for seven minutes after his carotid arteries, jugular veins, oesophagus and trachea were cut.⁵[emphasis added]

further opposing evidence here

Thornton’s Textbook of Meat Inspection says:

“A factor of considerable importance, and to which not sufficient attention has been paid in considering the problem of Jewish slaughter, is that after the carotid arteries of cattle are severed transversely, they tend, by virtue of their elasticity, to retract rapidly within their own external connective tissue coat, and as a result the sealing of the cut ends of the vessels may occur.As the blood pressure…is then maintained by the heart, the blood pressure in the vertebral arteries may likewise be maintained at a substantial level and unconsciousness therefore delayed”.

This explains why “some cattle have regained their feet and walked a considerable distance before they succumbed some minutes later.”

>The Textbook of Meat Inspection continues: “these occurrences have been attributed to the fact that all the neck vessels may not have been severed completely, but observations lead one to the conclusion that the cut is invariably made dextrously… There is therefore considerable doubt as to whether unconsciousness always follows rapidly in cattle after the severance of the neck vessels, for by the very nature of the neck cut made in Jewish slaughter it is impossible to ensure that self-sealing of the cut ends of the carotid arteries will not occur.”⁴[emphasis added]

Combine, one, potentially long times to unconsciousness as quoted above (therefore the prolonged period in which pain is felt) with two, a ‘quickly rush every task’ production line mentality that we can reasonably assume occurs at any commercial abattoir and you have fertile conditions for this shocking further excerpt from the Going for the Kill – Viva.org.uk article

“In Jewish slaughter the Shochet examines the thoracic cavity of cattle and sheep for signs of abnormalities. The FAWC found that this examination can take place too quickly – the hand being plunged into the body while the animal was alive. [emphasis added]

Disturbingly, with the various quotes above evidencing how even supposedly ‘sharp’ knives do not cause a clean severing or instantaneous death. The Viva.org.uk article details how the Muslim Halal method in practice often involves blunt knives despite Halal ‘theory’ apparently requiring a ‘sharp’ blade. This leads to the uncomforting realisation that if pain and horror result when using a sharpened blade what extra animal suffering endures in cases where blunt instruments are used.

Callous Responses

Despite all this evidence is it worrying to see the blatant responses of some supporters of ritual slaughter over the years including

‘It is unfortunate that the National Council of Shechita Boards makes the following astonishing justification of religious slaughter in a letter to Viva!: in reference to cows being killed “the animal, being an herbivore, does not react to blood and remains oblivious throughout to what is happening around it and to it, both prior to and during Shechita.” (14) They are suggesting that because an animal does not eat meat, it is not familiar with blood and so doesn’t react when its throat is sliced open; or presumably when it is cut elsewhere. ‘^{6 /span>}[emphasis added]

and here

‘The Islamic Medical Association go as far as saying that cutting the throat of a cow is little different in terms of pain than a man nicking himself shaving!’ ⁷

and here

‘scientists such as Professor Broom and many others reject the serious suggestion by the Islamic Medical Association that cutting the throat of an animal is practically the same as people voluntarily giving blood as a blood donor! The IMA said: “A blood donor does not feel pain when he is bled…..The difference is that instead of a needle a sharp knife is used to bleed’⁷

Ritual Slaughter – Handling and restraining the animal in order to make the neck incision

In the above we have concentrated on the lack of pre stunning prior to the throat of the animal being cut. It is also worth looking at some of the associated procedures involved with handling the animal pre and post the live throat cutting. Handling itself is recognized as another separate area of animal welfare with various methods resulting in different levels of pain and suffering.

Shackle and hoist

Shackling and hoisting is a method of inverted slaughter restraint in which a fully conscious animal is first shackled with a chain around its back leg and hoisted into the air. The animal hangs upside down, often for minutes, sometimes travelling along a conveyor belt, prior to slaughter. Often, nose tongs are used to pull the head back to allow for the throat to be cut. at which point the cow is lifted off the floor and suspended upside down while it bleeds to death. Throughout the entire procedure, the cow is fully conscious and capable of feeling pain.

This horrific method, outlawed in the USA in 1958 causes unnecessary anguish and pain. We believe the hanging of a 1,000 to 1,200-pound cow by its leg would rip its muscle and tendons whilst its weight would crush its organs.

According to an article titled ‘Widely condemned cattle-killing method is used by kosher meat firm’s supplier‘ by Nathaniel Popper in the Los Angeles Times, April 15 2010^{. 8}

Alle Processing in New York one of the largest U.S. kosher-meat suppliers owned or was owned by Mottel Bergman and imports a large proportion of its meat from South America, notorious for using the shackle and hoist method. PETA activists after initially exposing the practice at one plant in 07/08 shot another video in 2010 illustrating the same horrific practice STILL being carried out at the slaughterhouse known as Frigorifico Las Piedras outside Uruguay’s capital, Montevideo.

Israel is also another large importer from South American slaughter houses and despite some noise being made seemingly tokenly from Israel and the Orthodox Union in the US on stopping certification of animals killed via shackle and hoist nothing concrete has ensured as the PETA videos shot over several years indicate.

Inverted Pens and Rotating Cages

In this section we discuss what became a supposed more human alternative from the shackle and hoist method. Shockingly this method still relies on having the cow upside down prior to the live throat cut.

The animal is lead into a cage which then rotates upside down all whilst still alive ensuring the animal ends up in effectively the same situation as the shackle and hoist just by different means.

Some have commented that stress levels for inverted slaughter with devices known as the Weinberg pen (which are less stressful than shackling and hoisting) have yielded the highest average stress ratings ever published (almost 300% higher than cattle killed in upright pens).

The above photos are snapshots from a video on Agriproccessors, a kosher slaughterhouse in Iowa that was owned by Aaron Rubashkin and managed by two of his sons, Sholom Rubashkin and Heshy Rubashkin. Eventually it became the largest kosher meat-packing plant in the United States.

As described above (and shown as untrue) supposedly in kosher slaughter the animal is killed with a quick, deep stroke across the throat with a sharp knife. A PETA undercover investigation over several years from 2004 – 2008 revealed many disturbing practices, below a just a few including an observation about the inverted rotating cage above.

2004

PETA’s first investigation at Agriprocessors in 2004 revealed almost 300 instances of inhumane slaughter, in which cows’ sensitive faces were shocked with electric prods, fully conscious cattle had their tracheas and esophagi ripped from their throats with meat hooks or knives, and they writhed in pools of their own blood, trying desperately to stand up for up to three minutes as blood poured from their throats.

The following are excerpts from the investigator’s notes:

The cow was loaded into a machine that resembles a large metal tube. His head stuck out of the front, then a metal bar clamped under his neck and forced his head upwards and back, cocked in an awkward and painful-looking position. The entire machine rotated, turning the cow upside-down. This process seemed to terrify him—his eyes were wide with fright—I imagine because he had never been in such a helpless position. The cow’s exposed neck was scrubbed with a hose and brush, then a rabbi came out of a small room and slit the cow’s throat. Another worker followed the rabbi and gouged a chunk of flesh out of the cow’s neck and then pulled his trachea or esophagus (I’m not sure which one) outside of his throat so that it hung down. Then the machine reverted the cow into an upright position. The trap door on the side opened up, and the cow was dumped onto the floor, where another worker attached a chain to the animal’s ankle so that he could be hoisted into the air and sent down the line.

Many cows were still alive and conscious when they came out of the tube and were slammed onto the floor. Their heads often hit the concrete with a sickening crack. I watched as one cow landed on his feet and started scrambling around with a shocked look on his face. The workers simply jumped behind their barricade and waited for him to collapse. ⁹[emphasis added]

Please visit the article ‘PETA Reveals Extreme Cruelty at Kosher Slaughterhouses’ for the full story including 3 separate graphic videos shot on each undercover operation there.

Mutilations at Agriprocessors Slaughterhours
Second investigation still reveals cruelty at Agriprocessors
Undercover at Rubashkins Again!

Incredulously we found an article titled ‘Rubashkin: It’s all a lie’ dated June 3 2008 by Ben Harris on the website jewishjournal.com which quotes Rubashkin

““We got 21 or 23 inspectors,” Rubashkin said in a thick Yiddish accent. “Every minute the plant is open, there is USDA inspector. We got maybe 30 rabbis. How can we do something which is wrong? If I want to, God forbid! We are ethical people. We don’t do no injustice to nobody, not to a cat.” ¹⁰

We further note this excerpt from the PETA article linked above

‘ After a May 2008 federal raid of the plant over immigration violations, 76 percent of the 968 Agriprocessors employees were found to be using false or fraudulent Social Security numbers that were allegedly supplied by plant management’ ⁹

Inverted slaughter methods such as the pens above have been banned in England and some countries in Europe however allegedly the Israeli Chief Rabbinate requires that the animals be inverted in order for the cut to be in a downward motion in line with Jewish law.

Upright Pens

These pens followed a path from opposition to shackle and hoist, which then lead to the inverted pens and now in some places the upright pens are used.

From the viva.org.uk, Part Two, The Reality of Religious Slaughter under the section titled ‘ ‘ Examples of Witness Statements obtained by Viva! from Slaughtermen in the UK regarding Jewish and Muslim Slaughter ‘ we quote Mike who says

“Now they say there’s nothing wrong with the upright crushes but there is. In fact the Shochet is cutting upwards, working against gravity and with a weaker set of arm muscles. It therefore makes the cut much weaker and often means more of them. ^4″

The above must be read in conjunction with the claim that Kosher slaughter involves a clean single cut of the neck as a big part of how its supposedly ‘ humane ‘. See earlier quotes at the start of the article.

In our opinion the ‘ evolution ‘ of handling methods, whilst noted as a separate component of suffering mainly represent attempts to present the whole killing process as humane and the industry as being concerned and seeking improvements. Clearly slaughter itself without mandatory pre stunning is cruel and not in line with Western morals.

Any improvements/prospects on reducing or eliminating religious slaughter

Halal:

New Zealand appears to have made some headway with Halal meat (but not Kosher) being already pre stunned according to the article titled ‘ Humane Slaughter? killing animals fully conscious ‘ ¹¹ on the website www.safe.org.nz.

However this ‘pre stunning’ is only via electrical stunning and is sometimes known as ‘ reversible stunning’ where the animal can regain consciousness prior to the throat cut. This is to be compared to irreversible captive bolt pre stunning required by all other non halal non kosher slaughter. It is obviously a concession to religious interests with the loss being to the animal.

The 2008 Adams/Sheridan report on animal welfare prepared by the Animal Welfare Branch of the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, states

‘reversible stunning is not in itself sufficient to lead to death of the animal. All stunning must be inextricably linked to the performance of slaughter using a reliable and fast means of exsanguination.’ ¹²( p XIV)

Lets speak directly to the plain truth here, unless the animal has been properly bled in the small time before the stunning wears off, it wakes up into the middle of its own murder with its throat cut and a crescendo of pain. In a commercial environment of animal after animal, with staff that get tired, bored, distracted over a long day it is reasonable to assume that mistakes and incompetency can and does happen.

Now finding direct data from the abattoirs is difficult only due to the obvious self interest religious slaughter houses have in keeping such statistics hidden, denied, covered up or not recorded at all. It is in such an environment that we applaud undercover investigations such as PETA or the frank if anonymous reports current and ex slaughtermen provide such as can be found quoted here from the viva.org.uk articles.

One other such place to search is of course the internet and below we quote a revealing discussion from the Muslim internet chartroom which we have saved even if they tactically delete it

‘sunniforum.com – a resource for the propagation of authentic Islamic teachings’ . Here – ‘Abdullahnana’(15/2/2010) -we read in the report by the Muslim scholars who toured Australian slaughter houses at the end of 2009 that –

‘Slaughterers are authorized to remove animals from the line which did not bleed properly, were not stunned properly, or were not cut properly. They will mark them with a special tag and inform the plant manager to process the animal separately. There are strict measures in place to keep these animals completely separate from the regular halal animals. These carcasses are not labeled as halal and not exported to halal markets

The main concern is whether the animal remains alive after this method of stunning.The two scholars have conducted research on electric stunning for sheep……. They even requested that a sheep be stunned with the electric stunner and removed from the line in order to give it time to regain consciousness. The animal DID regain consciousness within a few seconds.

A pneumatic stunner or mushroom stunner is used for beef. This is also a non-lethal type of stunning in which the device does not penetrate the brain of the animal. The beef plants have measures in place to reject those animals whose skulls are damaged or cracked from the stunner. This type of stunning also will not cause the death of the animal and will not affect the halal status of the meat. ¹³[emphasis added]

Snippets of conversation like this by two Muslims interested in whether the killing process in Australia meets Halal requirements (NOT animal welfare) in this authors opinion contribute to a far more revealing insight into what goes on then any whitewashed official news release by a Halal slaughterhouse or spokesperson. For instance the statement about the ‘main concern is whether the animal remains alive after this method of stunning’ is diametrically opposed to our aims.

Kosher:

The move to pre stunning appears even less prevalent in the Kosher world of animal slaughter with staunch opposition argued by some theologically to the more humane mandatory pre stun technique as illustrated in the quote below

‘Jewish law requires that all animals for slaughter must be healthy and without injury prior to slaughter, otherwise the meat is trefar, unfit for human consumption. Levinger states that Jews cannot accept stunning because the definition of healthy is that the animal moves. If the animal is stunned it may not move.Secondly, there should not be any pathological-anatomical changes. The bolt causes brain damage; electric shock causes damage… ¹⁴[emphasis added]

The Viva article that provided the above quote also contains the following

‘National Council of Shechita Boards makes the following astonishing justification of religious slaughter in a letter to Viva!:

In reference to cows being killed “the animal, being an herbivore, does not react to blood and remains oblivious throughout to what is happening around it and to it, both prior to and during Shechita.” (14) They are suggesting that because an animal does not eat meat, it is not familiar with blood and so doesn’t react when its throat is sliced open; or presumably when it is cut elsewhere. ‘¹⁴

Another non Viva UK source further confirming the above is found in the small piece titled ‘ What’s wrong with stunning? ’ by Chabad.org states

“Stunning” refers to the methods of attempting to render an animal or bird unconscious prior to slaughter. The main methods used in the general slaughtering industry for cattle and sheep are:

• captive bolt gun: a steel bolt is shot into the skull at the front of the animal’s brain.

• electric shock: electrodes are clamped to the animal’s head/heart and the animal is electrocuted.

These methods are contrary to Jewish law, because an animal intended for food must be healthy and uninjured at the time of shechita. The above stunning methods injure the animal, making it treifa (non-kosher and thus prohibited). If the stunning kills the animal it makes it neveila (an animal which has not been shechted) and is forbidden as food for Jews.”¹⁵

To conclude this section ‘ Any improvements/prospects on reducing or eliminating religious slaughter’ we have observed during our research for this article that

1: Jewish-Kosher slaughter seems to get an easier ride than Muslim-Halal slaughter in the press despite both involving horrific slaughter of live animals and in some reporting the Jewish-Kosher practice seems conveniently ignored whilst Halal is discussed.

2: Kosher slaughter looks to possess the least chances for improvement based on its very rigid and inflexible theological underpinnings.

To the second point we reference two pieces

Stunning Use under Halal, Kosher Practices Revealed

UK – No poultry are now slaughtered for halal production without stunning while no kosher poultry are stunned before killing, according to a senior Defra official. However, the Halal Monitoring Committee (HMC) says all poultry at its certified plants are killed without prior stunning.

The Muslim News of the UK reports that Lord Moonie asked the Government “What estimate they have made of the number of domesticated animals and birds slaughtered in 2010 without being stunned first.”

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Lord Henley, responded that the most recent data on the slaughter of animals without prior stunning was published in March 2004 by the Meat Hygiene Service in its Animal Welfare Review. The data was collected through a survey of meat plants between 1 and 7 September 2003.

The number of animals killed over that period without prior stunning for the production of Kosher and Halal meat: cattle, 365; calves 8; young lambs, 6,845; other sheep, 11,454; goats, 62; broilers, 167,745; hens, 15,900; turkeys, 749 and ducks, 610.

More recent data collected by the EU Dialrel project shows that, of the UK abattoirs surveyed, 100 per cent of the animals and birds slaughtered for the production of Kosher meat were slaughtered without prior stunning. For Halal meat, 25 per cent of cattle and seven per cent of sheep were slaughtered without prior stunning. The Dialrel data also indicates that no poultry were slaughtered for Halal production without stunning. (Source: Hansard, House of Lords, Written Answers, January 18)

However, one of the many organisations which certify halal meat products, the Halal Monitoring Committee (HMC), told The Muslim News that “Poultry certified by HMC is done without stunning. HMC does not actually certify any abattoir as such, HMC certifies the poultry product that has been witnessed and labelled by the HMC inspectors on site at the time of slaughter.”¹⁶

This article illustrates that despite conflicting data regarding Halal slaughter there is at least more evidence of pre-stunning (even if only the non permanent and still unacceptable pre-stun..) being attempted whilst on the Kosher count (in the UK) moves to pre stunning are rare to non existent instead ‘compromise’ has involved in some instances a ‘post stun’ after the live throat cut which is laughable.

The following quote proudly written by a Kosher slaughter supporter on the Israellycool blog is gold as far as evidence towards proving point 2 about re Kosher’s rigidity and therefore lack of will to compromise in achieving a humane end. Note text sections preceded by ‘Ed.’ have been added by us.

Halal: It’s Just Not Kosher

Over the coming months we will see attempts to ban halal slaughter in Europe. But they won’t be worded in such a way to target only halal, they’ll probably go after something nebulous like “ritual slaughter” or “religious slaughter without stunning”. If that happens (as is ongoing in New Zealand) it will more likely than not deprive European Jews of kosher meat and make very little difference to the lives of farm animals.

This essay will be general but will draw specific examples from the UK.

As much as Muslims like to talk about halal, it is not a religious requirement in the same way as kosher has been to Jews for thousands of years. There is conclusive historical and archeological evidence across Israel and anywhere else Jews lived, that the rules of “Shechita” have been followed in an unaltered form for millennia. The mere fact that kosher food is perfectly acceptable to Muslims while halal is not acceptable to Jews shows the Muslim requirement has a certain inherent flexibilityborn of political expediency. The Jewish laws do not yield for convenience or to achieve other goals. Halal has also been flexible enough to include “light stunning” which has been enough to sidestep a ban in New Zealand. A very large proportion of the lamb consumed in the middle east is actually New Zealand lamb and in the UK this halal lamb is nearly always sold unmarked in big supermarkets. ¹⁷[emphasis added]

So the author is admitting he/she is not concerned about ‘nebulous’ things like animal rights which the generic title ‘ritual slaughter ‘ fairly covers instead it’s just about denying Muslims their practice whilst maintaining the Jewish one! Hypocrisy. The comment about ‘ little difference being made to the lives of farm animals’ flies in the face of evidence of extreme pain during live throatcutting.

The comment about ‘the rules of “Shechita” have been followed in unalterated form for millennia’ proves our point 2 on Koshers rigidity and least likelihood to change compared to Halal. The comment ‘shows the Muslim requirement has a certain inherent flexibility born of political expediency’ attacks the notion of being flexible on ritual slaughter and at the same time just proves again our point 2.

As for Halal being more flexible due to ‘political expediency’ , response one is that anything that results in less animal suffering is a win for the animals regardless. Response two, is that this could imply the Jewish side is for some reason less susceptible or more resistant (stubborn?) than Muslims to community pressure against ritual slaughter in Western countries. Indicating this group possesses more relative societal ‘ power ‘ to weather the storm of adverse public opinion and/or find ways to deflect or lessen any negativity. If this is the case then ritual slaughter opponents of all stripes should bear this in mind when attempting to reign in Kosher slaughter as part of a broad approach that seeks to stop ritual slaughter of ANY kind by ANYONE.

Finally the comment ‘The Jewish laws do not yield for convenience or to achieve other goals’just about sums up our argument then on point 2, at least in the case of this individual Kosher Jewish slaughter supporter.

Labelling

It is shocking to think that there is no clear labeling system for ritually slaughtered meat in Australia and/or in many other Western nations.

An example of an appropriate clear and transparent label would be

“Animal subject to live slaughter in accordance with Kosher/ Halal religious requirements.”

Followed on a second line with the Kosher and Halal symbols.

We demand clear explicit labeling of religious slaughtered meat for 2 primary reasons

1 Cultural:

Kosher and Halal slaughter with its inhumane methods are not part of Australian culture or values or indeed Western culture and hence our people and children should not be forced to be eating meat with such origins. Current Australian slaughter guidelines reflect our values regarding pre stunning and we note it is mandatory across the land…other than the religious minority exceptions discussed here.

2 Health

In our opinion massive amounts of stress hormones would be released in animals that are either not stunned at all or only stunned via the reversible method as they recover consciousness. Animals would begin releasing these stress hormones as they smell the blood, hear the cries of other animals and are forced into positions (think hoist shackle, inverted pens, upright pens with neck compresses) needed for slaughter men to cut the throat of a conscious animal!

Such stress hormones, released in large amounts under these circumstances would seep into the muscle (meat) as the animal slowly bleeds to death. We fail to see how such hormones would not be detrimental to human health.

Lack of Transparency:

Australians purchase meat believing it is pre stunned, we believe a clear majority would be shocked to learn that in fact Halal and Kosher meat finds its way into mainstream meat sales by stealth.

Consider the following quote

“British Veterinary Association : Our position is clear – all animals should be stunned before slaughter and if that’s not possible the meat should be labelled as not stunned…By ensuring that all meat from animals that are not stunned only enters the specific communities that it is targeted at, we can make a significant difference.” 2.1 million UK animals are killed annually using Shechita slaughter methods, of which none are pre-stunned, and an estimated 70% of those cattle slaughtered enter the non-Jewish market.… Last month, the EU Environment, Public Health and Food Safety committee voted in favour of new labelling regulations requiring meat to be labelled as stunned or non-stunned. The new measures will be put forward for full approval by the parliament in July.”¹⁸ [emphasis added]

And here

‘Another area of concern that has been raised with the RMAA and the Department of Agriculture is a whole animal is kosher slaughtered (no pre-stun) but as we know only the forequarters are used for Jewish consumption. Currently the kosher slaughtered hindquarters are processed for the everyday meat market, we believe that that meat should be marked kosher slaughtered. Consumers believe that all meat that they buy – other than kosher, – is in fact pre-stunned, the above proves that to be wrong – this is mislabelling of products and should be addressed, consumers should have the right to make informed decisions.¹⁹ [emphasis added]

Here

‘British public has no idea that they are eating halal meat, a senior member of the Church of England’s governing body said yesterday.

In comments likely to spark controversy, Alison Ruoff said, ‘this is just another back door way to the Islamification of our country.” [emphasis added]

Livestock destined for halal meat is dispatched in a process that involves the animal being prayed over by a Muslim butcher as its throat is cut. Some religious abattoirs do not stun the animal, as Sharia law stipulate that the animal must hear the prayer. It’s estimated that it can take around 30 seconds to die…

The interview on Premier Christian Radio’s Woman to Woman show yesterday tackled the issue of unlabelled halal meat being sold to unsuspecting customers in supermarkets; an issue that affect people of all faiths, and not just Christians. [emphasis added]

Ruoff revealed that most stores stock halal lamb only, with Morrisons being the only store to label their products.

She believes that most meat imported from New Zealand is halal, enabling them to sell on to Muslim markets. She alleged that economically it’s cheaper to butcher the animals in the same way, rather than halal and non-halal.

Joy Barrow, Interfaith Relations Officer said: ”No person should be made to eat halal meat. Clearly it’s an issue of labelling.” ²⁰

Commerce over Culture: Values be damned

The underlined text in the previous quote raises another issue, namely big business, food production and the lack of concern large enterprises commonly have for the values, customs and culture of the host populations they rely on.

We would agree with the sentiment that vast modern slaughterhouses simply make the decision that it is cheaper and more efficient (lovely adjective to excuse anything) to setup one production line then multiple ones. As it is currently not illegal to palm off’ ‘killed alive’ slaughtered meat on non muslims and non jews their business decisions are currently not liable to prosecution.

In fact such practices clearly fit with our position that international capitalism operates in the world from an economic reductionist position. Namely that diversity and difference between cultures, religions, ethnicities et al merely get in the way of ‘efficiency’ and add production costs. Costs that would be removed if the world did away with our diversity and humanity become a once race, one culture, one religion atomized consumer with the only diversity being the choices in a catalogue or menu.

Another economic related excuse related to labeling comes from the below quote

What would strict labelling mean?

One of the ways that people are calling for some introduction of control on the spread of halal meat is by calling for strict labelling of meat that is not stunned before slaughter. There is a particular issue with halal today because there is a large amount of halal meat in the normal food chain that is not labeled as such. This is not such an issue with kosher meat except in one respect. Fully kosher meat is always much more expensive than non kosher and this reflects the small nature of its market and the care with which it has to be produced. Halal is generally cheaper than non halal. Some parts of kosher slaughtered animals do end up in the non-kosher meat supply, however, because this does help keep kosher meat affordable.

So strict labelling would be a problem for Jews if it meant that producers of meat pies and sausages were reluctant to accept some meat because it would force them to label their end product as containing some parts from non stunned animals. ²¹

Animal welfare and pre stunning is what is at issue here, economic arguments from proponents whether ‘ Halal is cheaper so why not change your mind” or ‘ Strict labels will cause Kosher meat to be more expensive ’ bear no weight. In fact both are insults. The former implies we are happy to trade off our values and morals based on money and the second that we should trade off BOTH values and money for a minority to be satisfied against the wishes of the host population amongst whom they have been allowed to settle.

Prior to a complete ban being achieved transparency through labeling will provide Australians with the ability to take a ‘conscious vote’ as to the kill method employed when they choose their meat from the supermarket shelve.

Conclusion

Nationalist Alternative advocates on grounds of compassion and in line with Australian values the total ban on any form of inverted killing methods whether shackles, pens or otherwise for all slaughter in Australia. We also reject the token reversible pre stunning method.

We call to STOP ALL SLAUGHTER of ANIMALS that are NOT FULLY, PERMANENTLY STUNNED and UNCONSCIOUS PRIOR to throat slitting.

There is no use being tricked into the often decades long slow reform path of ‘ compromise ‘ with the supporters of religious slaughter.

Politically correct politicians need to gain some backbone and ensure there are no exemptions for anyone and simply weather the minority lobby groups attempts to cry foul inevitability with the old chestnuts of ‘anti semitism or islamaphobia’ and ‘ how can we possibly live without these exemptions’ et al. In 2012 general citizens are slowly waking up to the fact that these labels are merely attempts to shut down discussion and close down opponents without debating them.

We would invite those proponents of such slaughter to emigrate to lands where these methods and values hold sway.

References

http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/19151/proof-pain-leads-calls-ban-ritual-slaughter

http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports/pb8347.pdf

http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports.htm and then select the report titled’ Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing – Part 1: Red Meat Animals – 2003′

3 -

http://www.visualstatistics.net/043%20phenomenological%20analysis%20of%20obscured%20events/Slaughter.htm

this articles quotes the study: Rhyne, et al. (1995) Dimensions of suicide: perceptions of lethality, time, and agony. Suicide & Life Threatening Behavior, 25(3), 373-380

http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/ritual_slaughter/goingforthekill01.htm http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/ritual_slaughter/goingforthekill2.htm#27

or pdf here

http://www.viva.org.uk/pdfs/GoingfortheKillReport.pdf

http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/ritual_slaughter/goingforthekill2.htm#27 under the section FAWC observations of Religious Slaughter

http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/ritual_slaughter/goingforthekill3.htm under the section titled

‘Conclusion’.

Going for the Kill.Viva! Report on Religious Slaughter. by Juliet Gellatley BSc (Zoology),
Director of Viva!

under the section titled ‘ Trefar ‘

also referenced in the Viva article at point 14: Letter from Michael Kester, Executive Director, National Council of Shechita Boards, 8 May 1997

http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/ritual_slaughter/goingforthekill01.htm

http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/ritual_slaughter/goingforthekill2.htm

under the section titled ‘ FAWC observations of Religious Slaughter’

also referenced in the article by – 37. Ghulam Mustafa Khan, 1982. Al-Dhabh; Slaying Animals for Food the Islamic Way. Islamic Medical Association.

Also see the pdf copy at http://www.iccservices.org.uk/pdf/Al-%20Dhabh%20M%20Khan.pdf

Widely condemned cattle-killing method is used by kosher meat firm’s supplier‘ by Nathaniel Popper in the Los Angeles Times, April 15 2010^.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/15/business/la-fi-kosher-slaughter15-2010apr15

PETA Reveals Extreme Cruelty at Kosher Slaughterhouses

http://www.peta.org/features/Agriprocessors.aspx

June 3, 2008. ‘ Rubashkin: It’s all a lie’ -By Ben Harris

http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/article/rubashkin_its_all_a_lie_20080604/

‘ Humane Slaughter? killing animals fully conscious ‘ under the subsection ‘Religious slaughter in New Zealand’

http://www.safe.org.nz/Campaigns/Religious-slaughter/

‘Specifying the Risks to Animal Welfare Associated with Livestock Slaughter without Induced Insensibility’ by David B Adams and Allan D Sheridan. Prepared by the Animal Welfare Branch of the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 28th Nov 2008. – page xiv.

www.sunniforum.com – a resource for the propagation of authentic Islamic teachings> General Forums > Health and Well-Being > Halal Meat Criteria in Australia?

Post by ‘ abdullahnana ‘ on 15-02-2010,6.26AM

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-54639.html

Under the section Trefar.

http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/ritual_slaughter/goingforthekill01.htm – under the section ‘ Trefar’

What’s Wrong with Stunning?

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/222246/jewish/Whats-Wrong-with-Stunning.htm

16.

‘ Stunning Use under Halal, Kosher Practices Revealed ‘, Feb 24 2011, www.themeatsite.com

http://www.themeatsite.com/meatnews/13683/stunning-use-under-halal-kosher-practices-revealed

‘ Halal: It’s Just Not Kosher, May 06, 2011

http://www.israellycool.com/2011/05/06/halal-its-just-not-kosher/

‘BVA calls for total pre-stunned slaughter’ Gemma Mackenzie, Tuesday 17 May 2011.

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/17/05/2011/126837/BVA-calls-for-total-pre-stunned-slaughter.htm

‘ Many faces of slaughter ‘ 07/06/2010. National Council of SPCAs promoting the Welfare of All Animals

http://www.nspca.co.za/page.aspx?Id=291&CateId=14&Category=Farm&SubCateId=291&SubCategory=Slaughter

‘Halal meat: are you eating it without choosing it?’ Courtesy by: Inspire Magazine. Posted by Halal Research Council on Jan 19 2011

http://halalrc.blogspot.com/2011/01/halal-meat-are-you-eating-it-without.html

‘ Halal: It’s Just Not Kosher, May 06, 2011

http://www.israellycool.com/2011/05/06/halal-its-just-not-kosher/

Why I am not a National Socialist: or, do we need ‘Neo-Nazism’ any more?

admin — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:16:45 +0000

An independant article by contributor by Wade Chambers

1. Introduction: A Fantasy Scenario

Would anyone vote for Hitler, were he alive today? Let us perform a thought-experiment: suppose that, by a miracle, Hitler and the NSDAP were around today, in the year 2012. Despite the NSDAP’s chequered history (the mass gassing of 8 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and others, in giant gas chambers disguised as showers and vans; turning those said people into, according to the Nuremberg trial, bars of soap, lampshades, upholstery, pocketbooks, gloves and other items), all the party’s past excesses are forgiven. Hitler and the NSDAP are allowed to run on the same electoral platform as they did in the 1930s. How successful would they be?

I would argue: not so successful. Once a politician enacts a certain reform, or policy, and it becomes law, and remains law – then he can’t run with that policy or reform again. For example: a politician running on a platform of decriminalising homosexuality, or allowing the widespread use of contraceptive pills. In the West, this would be a redundancy (although it would be, perhaps, in the Islamic and Arabic world, quite radical). Likewise, just about every part of the Hitler/NSDAP platform has become redundant. There are exceptions, of course, but the exception proves the rule.

2. How we are already National Socialist

Take the National socialist doctrines on anti-smoking and the cult of physical fitness and beauty. In Australia (and most western countries), these are part of everyday life, and certainly cultural life. Laws in Australia prevent smoking in just about every public place (and often in private places too, with the advent of mandatory smoke detectors in every apartment). As for physical fitness, the hobby, the lifestyle, has taken off everywhere in the West (since around the 1980s or so), and the craze shows no signs of abating – something which is visible to everyone (through fashion, media, advertising) and which anyone can see for themselves (unless they have been living in a cave for the past thirty years).

Then there is National Socialist environmentalism. Just about every politician, whether on the Left or the Right, today wants to be seen as an environmentalist and holding to environmentally-friendly policies. Things have changed a lot in this regard since Hitler’s time. The NSDAP was the first green party, and the only left-leaning party to hold to environmentalism (the Soviet Union, before, during and after Hitler, pursued policies which were environmentally destructive).

Since Hitler’s time, environmentalism has become an establishment doctrine, and, in fact, has mutated into a sort of Marxism. Just as the Marxists of old held to ‘scientific socialism’, and declared that only Marxism was true ‘science’ (dismissing everything else as mere ‘ideology’ or ‘false consciousness’), the environmentalists of today uphold true ‘science’ and dismiss anything that disagrees with it as ‘not science’. ‘Science’ (that is, environmentalist science) in their view, is unanimous, all-knowing, all-true and fixed, rigid, certain and immutable – just as Marxism was. (This is despite the fact that science has been, since the Einsteinian revolution in physics, an uncertain thing; almost two scientists, outside of the environmentalist sciences, can hardly agree on anything (except for the principles of something basic – say, combustion)).

Environmentalism was always mixed with anti-capitalism. But, in 2012, the anti-capitalist parts of the doctrine have gained ascendancy, and a new element has emerged – scientism, that is, bowing down to the opinion of science, what Nietzsche called ‘submission to the facts’ (viz, the facts as determined by scientists).

Along with this, governments – and corporations – have instituted environmentalist policies everywhere. The result has been a real perversion of the doctrine. In an anti-environmentalist article, James Delingpole writes that: ‘Wind farms, besides blighting views, destroying topsoil and causing massive noise pollution, kill around 400,000 birds a year in the U.S. alone’ (‘How green zealots are destroying the planet: a provocative claim from a writer vilified for denying global warming’, The Daily Mail, 7/2/2012). This is hardly a picture of man living in harmony with nature.

That aside, a NSDAP couldn’t succeed today running on a green platform, for the simple reason that there are plenty of green parties out there which do environmentalism better – and that environmentalism has become part of Western culture anyway.

What else is there? Autobahns, of course: well, Australia, and Europe, has plenty of these. In the time of Mussolini and Hitler, motorised transport was a new thing (and the German army, as we know, relied to a large extent, on moving around soldiers and supplies around by foot, horseback and train). It was National Socialist policy that every German family should have a car, and the chance to drive these cars on the autobahns criss-crossing the country (and, perhaps, the conquered East – i.e., those parts of the USSR conquered and colonised by the Germans – as well). In an odd way, this policy is evocative of the American way of life – then and now, America is the country of the car, the country which makes the ownership of one’s means of transport (whether it be a horse or a car) a sacred right. But, now, Europe (and Australia and North America) suffer from too many cars, and too many roads: our cities, suburbs and workplaces are designed for cars and around cars, and not for human beings. Cars are a nuisance (along with bicycles and motor bikes), and, while all these forms of transport are needed for modern civilisation to continue, it is arguable whether or not we need to work, live and play on top of giant roads and parking lots (which is what our living spaces have become).

What of communism? Since 1991, we don’t have communism any more, and that’s that. Communist parties dominate some Third World countries (the notion of a ‘Third World’ being itself a Maoist one); but the only two countries which pursue strict communist policies are North Korea and Cuba.

In Hitler’s time, communism was a deadly foe; not only was it militarily powerful, and aggressive (having invaded Finland, Rumania, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia; given the Japanese a pasting in Mongolia; and ‘intervened’ in the Spanish Civil War), but millions of working-class people around the world believed that communism stood for a better way of life. The jury is out as to whether or not the Soviet Union was, in the post-war era, capable of defeating NATO and subjugating Western Europe; but certainly, the perception of communism, by the working-classes in the West, as offering the ‘good life’ was invalidated fairly quickly by the end of the war.

The decline and fall of the Soviet Union, and the backsliding of China into capitalism, was a huge set-back for Marxism; but it was an equally grievous blow for fascism. Contrary to post-war (Jewish) myth, Hitler maintained a very simple political objective throughout his career: not to destroy Jewry, but to destroy communism, by force, in Europe and the Soviet Union itself if necessary. Mussolini, and the rest of the fascist movement, maintained the same objective. (Which is why Mussolini, during the time of the Hitler-Stalin pact, wrote, in an aggrieved letter to Hitler, that the pact was a gross violation of the fundamental principles of fascism). Like many ideologies, fascism (and National Socialism) depended on its political opponent for the justification of its existence. If you were to take away communism, you would take away the justification for fascism.

A German politician, whether Hitler or anyone else, would meet with indifference and incredulity, were he to campaign on a platform of sturdy anti-communism, in Germany or anywhere else in the West. Which is not to say that the radical Left in Germany aren’t a nuisance: they are. But they are not as egregious as, say, cars.

3. The fascist as street-fighting man

So, in 2012, we live in a West without communism. Which brings us to the next topic: fascism and the street-fighting man. In an article by Donald Winters, (‘The Neofascist Method’, at: http://www.natalt.org/2011/08/11/the-neofascist-method-the-edl-breivik-and-double-legality/ ), the topic of fascism and its tradition of association combat with communist opponents is explored. Just as Islamism relies upon terrorism as method for gaining power, fascism relied upon a violent, theatrical and paramilitarised confrontation, played out in public, with communism.

The fascist strategy was obvious. The resulting social and political chaos, brought about by the confrontation (bordering on civil war), destabilises liberal democratic governments. This, in turn, leads to the opening of the field, so to speak, in politics: radical, extra-parliamentary movements, like fascism or communism, have the chance of seizing power from a weak, embattled liberal democratic government. (Liberal democracy is ‘suspended’ by the new fascist government in the interests of upholding ‘law and order’ and ‘decency’). It was a simple enough method – so simple that even the most dim-witted brownshirt or blackshirt could understand it – and, at the time, extremely effective.

One of the theses of the Winters article was that, possibly, the fascist method could be transposed to the present: Islamism could take the place of communism, and a series of highly stylised, ritualised and theatrical street confrontations with Islamism could destabilise liberal democracy – just as the fascist and communist confrontations did in the 1920s and 1930s.

This is logical enough: after all, it is fairly easy to draw comparisons between Islamism and communism. Both are dogmatic; both are intolerant of opposing creeds and religions; both are hierarchical and led from the top down (clerics and mullahs, Marxist intellectuals and philosopher-kings); both have a large compendium of theoretical texts behind them, ‘holy scriptures’ (Marx, Engels, Lenin for one, the Koran on the other); both have millions of fanatical adherents willing to die for the cause; both, once they are implemented, have a terrible record when it comes to liberalism, human rights and basic freedoms (all of which are taken for granted in the West); both are politically active and want to control their immediate environments (and the people in them); both use subversion, violence and extra-parliamentary activities in order to achieve that control; both are – and this is the most important thing – willing to come out, in large numbers, and fight fascists in the street.

Time – and history – will prove if this thesis is correct. The Winters article raises possibilities; it does not say, ‘This is only way forward’ for nationalism; it merely says that this is one possible avenue. I myself am divided on it. The presence of millions of Muslims in the West, along with the Islamification of many Western European neighbourhoods and cities, is, quite possibly, a symptom of an underlying disease – not the disease itself. The millions of Muslims do want, paradoxically, to make Western Europe more like the Islamic countries they have fled; and their presence alone has transformed Europe. But they are not, like the aggressive communists of the 1920s and 1930s, seeking to subjugate, to conquer, the West: that is, they are not acting to a prearranged master plan (unlike the Muslims of old – e.g., during the expansionist phase of the Ottoman Empire). They are, in Spengler’s view, part of a spent civilisation; they are the remnants – fellahin – of that civilisation. They have no more ‘world-conqueror’ left in them – any more than today’s Mongolians have any Genghis Khan left in them.

Instead of the Muslims (and the millions of African, mainly Christian, immigrants to Europe), we should be focusing upon the whites who brought these groups here. It was whites who, for instance, abolished the whites-only immigration laws in the US in 1965; it was whites who, in Australia, created the intellectual climate which led to the downfall and destruction of the White Australia policy in that same decade; it was whites who were among the chief agitators for the destruction of apartheid and white South Africa (and white Rhodesia). A number of Jews, of course, played a significant role in all of this (as will be detailed later); but, in the end, it was all down to white people.

Part of the beauty of fascist ideology was its simplicity. The enemy is communism; the enemies are communists; the communists are holding a rally next week: let’s turn up with some sturdy, uniformed lads and smash it! But how, in 2012, do we confront multiracialism – a destructive tendency which is spread among the white population at large and is not centrally located in any individual or party? Multiracialism and multiculturalism – nice terms which mean, in fact, the destruction of white people – don’t have a Comintern; nor do they have offices; or party rallies; or parties one can join. (They don’t have armies one can fight against, unless one counts the modern-day US army).

My own conclusions are that we nationalists, today, are in a similar position to that of the French Situationists in the 1950s and 1960s. ‘Capitalism’ and the ‘consumer society’ are so endemic, so widespread, that they are a state of mind. Radical politics must apply a series of shocks, in order to wake people up – or jar them out of their normal, somnolent, accepting state of consciousness. In other words, what is needed is a mental revolution before a political revolution. Situationism, of course, ended in failure (after the failure of the May 1968 revolution in France), although its unique approach, and world-view, still dominate sectors of the Left today. But the fact that these methods didn’t really work for the extreme Left doesn’t mean that they can’t work for the extreme Right.

In turn, this means that the nationalists need to win over two groups: the youth and the intellectuals. It is a new decade, a new century, and not only do we nationalists have a new weapon – the Internet – but also millions of disaffected white youths unhappy with the way things are. (Possibly, they are only unhappy, in America and Europe, because of the present economic malaise, but still…). We are only going to win the youth over to the nationalist cause by bypassing the mainstream media (and entertainment) with the Internet, and other tools, and by forcing them to think – and abandon the old dogmas held by their parents. (One of them is: the West’s colonies and empires were founded by the brutal mass-murder and despoliation of the coloured peoples of the Third World; the other dogma is regarding Germany and Italy and their conduct during the war, and the reasons why that war started. (It’s actually easier to persuade today’s youth to revise their views on the subject of Germany and the war, given that they – unlike their parents – are open to new media and new means of the transmission of information)). The multiracialists, in their portrayal of white people, in history books, and mass entertainment – as a nasty, brutal, degraded, murderous lot, forever committing terrible crimes against Jews and black people – wage psychological warfare against the whites of the West. The aim is to get white people to think less of themselves – to really see themselves as horrible, not worthy of life. The British get a steady dose of the ‘crimes of British imperialism’; the Germans, of course, get endless doses of Elie Wiesel, mass gassings at Auschwitz, etc.; the Americans, crimes of the segregationists in the South, and the alleged mass murder of native American Indians; and so forth. No group likes to see themselves as a bunch of killers and bastards. (Which is why Israeli Jews, for instance, have contrived an elaborate series of psychological defence-mechanisms to insulate themselves from the reality of what they do, and have done, to the Palestinians). If you alter the perception, created by the Left, white people have of themselves, then you have changed the way they think; if you change the way they think, then you change the way they act.

4. Hitler, race and Eastern Europe

I once asked a Serbian friend why Hitler, and National Socialism, were so popular in nationalist circles in Eastern Europe – despite the historical enmities some of the countries in these regions feel towards Germany. He replied that the peoples of Eastern Europe were being deluged by the biggest wave of immigration (from sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East) that the world had ever seen; and, in response to this, they felt that Hitler’s racialist doctrine was highly pertinent.

In the 1930s, there were two racialist creeds: one was the white Anglo-Saxon one, which we would, today, call ‘white supremacist’, and which every leading white politician, journalist and intellectual more or less accepted (including Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Patton, Montgomery); the other was Hitler’s rather strange brand of Germanic racialism. The Anglo-Saxonist racial view never really was intellectually articulated, or at least, made the subject of a fully-fledged political ideology. Hitler’s racialism, on the other hand, was fully-developed and lay at the centre of his ideology. Hitler’s notion that states owe their greatness (or inferiority) to their racial state was, at the time, a radical one – and still is. What British, Australian or American politician would dare assert, today, that the national greatness of their respective countries is due to their racial composition?

Hitler’s doctrine, then, is a timely one, simply because of the terrible realities for white people today.

The problem with the racially homogenous liberal democracies of the 1950s and 1960s – in Europe, Australia, and North America – was that they worked: there was no need for a neo-fascist revolution of any sort. Communism didn’t present the existential threat to the West, in those decades, that it did in the 1920s and 1930s. Fascism (or neo-fascism), as a creed, was unused and unloved – the property of a few eccentrics, like Yockey and Evola, and a few old nostalgics, like Mosley and Degrelle. Then along came multiracialism – which, carried to its logical conclusion, will see the utter biological extirpation of the peoples of the West. Now here is an existential threat – and one that is, in its way, worse than communism. (Had the communists taken over Britain, Italy, France, Germany, in the 1940s, millions would have been starved to death or executed; but at least a proportion of the indigenous inhabitants of those countries would have survived as a demographic majority. Not so now). Hitler’s racialism – and Mussolini’s – was dusted off and re-presented to the nationalist world. The line, taken by the nationalists and Far Rightists of the West, was almost: ‘Hitler anticipated this! He was right on race all along!’.

At first sight this seems to be the case. But the fact is: today’s immigration problem is, in the West, completely without precedent; no sane white person, in Hitler or Mussolini’s time, have advocated the extirpation of the British, Dutch, Belgian, French, Swedish, et al., peoples through mass non-white immigration to Europe and the colonies of the West. Such an idea would have been beyond the ken of a Hitler, Roosevelt, Churchill or Stalin – as much as, say, a manned flight to the moon, or, for that matter, rock music.

The second objection is that the doctrinal content of today’s racialism stems, not so much from Hitler’s rather peculiar anti-Slavic racialism as much as the Anglo-Saxon racialism of Britain, America and Australia. It was the politicians and intellectuals who invented ‘the white man’ and ‘the white peoples’ as a cultural and political category (Hitler preferred the term ‘Aryan’). This kind of Jack London, Rudyard Kipling racialism underwent a mutation by the 1970s, insofar as the peoples of Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union (Russia, Belarus and the Baltic States anyway) were now counted as honorary members of the ‘white race’. In other words, Canadians and Slovenians, Germans and Poles, Australians and Russians, both have the same racial and political status.

Whatever the biology of the matter: many Westerners, before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, assumed that the Eastern Europeans (e.g., the Serbs, or the Russians, or the Poles) thought and behaved exactly the same as the British, Swedes, Spanish, Irish, New Zealanders and Canadians did – in other words, that they were the same as us. Now, though, in 2012, we see a mass migration, from the economically depressed areas of Eastern Europe, to the more prosperous West. Many of these migrants are questionable from a racial point of view: e.g., many nationalists would dispute that the Albanians, Bosnian Muslims or ‘Romanians’ (most of the time, Roma, gypsies) flocking to Britain, France and Sweden are, in fact, white. But we also see the intriguing phenomenon of Western European whites (e.g., the British) coming into contact with Eastern European whites (e.g., Poles) in large numbers, for the first time, and not liking them very much (an additional question is: are all these Romanians in Britain, collecting huge welfare benefits and being put up in million-pound mansions by local councils, really Roma? Or are they just mendacious white Romanians?). We see where some of that anti-Slavism in Mein Kampf came from. In other words, not all members of the white race are brothers despite the fact we should be.

Part of the problem is that today’s racialism, in the nationalist movement, is Americanised. To the American, the Negro and the Hispanic is the racial Other: and a very prominent, visible and identifiable racial Other. Compared to the Negro and the Hispanic, the American of Lithuanian, Slovak or Greek immigrant origins is mighty ‘white’, that is to say, Anglo-Saxon.

In turn, this is because America has been so successful, historically, in assimilating European immigrants. The immigrants from Greece, Russia, Italy, Poland, etc., were forced to learn English – Americanised English – in order to enter, and live in, the country. There are Italian and Irish Americans (particularly in New York) who claim to possess some filial bond with the country of their ancestors, but this is so much bunk: these are Americans, and are no more Irish, Polish or Italian than I am. Whereas, in Australia, the situation is completely the reverse: the Greeks, Italians, Poles, Lithuanians, Serbs, Hungarians, et al., were encouraged to retain their own language, and their own sense of separate ethnic identity (separate from the Anglo-Saxon racial host population); separate churches, ethnic newspapers, schools, radio stations, cultural events, were encouraged by the state. They were never ‘broken’ and ‘melted down’ in the way that their ethnic compatriots emigrating to America were. Australians never go to political demonstrations on behalf of Wales, Ireland or Scotland; but Greeks, Macedonians and Serbs, for instance, turn out in the thousands for rallies whenever a current issue, affecting their respective countries, crops up.

Nationalist intellectuals have never really faced any of this. Hitler’s racialism was unique, a form of particularism, intended (mainly) for the Germans, and for the Germans alone; but what happened was that, in the hands of the George Lincoln Rockwells, it became transmuted into a kind of universalism which holds true for every white person in the world. It is one of the peculiarities of the Far Right that nationalism has become a doctrine of transnationalism.

5. Today’s Jewish question

Hitler’s thesis, of the Jew as the ‘race poisoner’ of the ‘Aryan’ people, was a radical one when it appeared in Mein Kampf. Many readers simply couldn’t understand how one ethnic group, living in the midst of a host population, could promote multiracialism, miscegenation, individualism and the extirpation of a unique national, racial and cultural identity (and the pride that comes with it), while at the same time holding their own group racially pure. That changed – in the nationalist world, at least – after George Lincoln Rockwell, David Duke, William Pierce and Kevin MacDonald. These men could draw upon their bountiful experience with, for instance, counter-culture Jews (hippies and communists) during the civil rights crusade in America in the 1960s. All they had to do was juxtapose Jewish activity in the anti-Apartheid struggle, or the Jewish role in the founding of the NAACP, with Jewish racial policies in Israel. (Also, Pierce and Duke would also use techniques such as reproducing full-page advertisements, taken out by Jewish activists, in the New York Times – these advertisements, penned by Jews, would be pleas for Americans Jews to marry only other Jews, lest ’3000 years’ of cultural, racial and religious history be sacrificed).

Another thesis – of Jews and their relationship to Russian communism – also met with disbelief and incomprehension. The idea that Jews, in Europe and elsewhere, viewed communism as a vehicle for advancing their own ethnic interests, seemed absurd. Why would, for instance, a Jewish member of the capitalist class support a Bolshevik revolution in Russia or Hungary? Ethnic solidarity coming before class divisions? Madness!

But post-war communist experience changed that. Maoism, for instance, utilised Chinese nationalism, Chinese transnational solidarity, the patriotic anti-Japanese resistance by the Chinese, and class collaboration between nationalist Chinese businessmen and Chinese communists. Successive communist groups availed themselves of the same techniques: we have a Kurdish separatist and nationalist Maoist communist group – the PKK – which is supported by wealthy capitalist Kurds, living overseas, and Kurds who don’t usually have any time for communism or Marxism. Which is how I explain Hitler’s thesis of ‘Judeo-Bolshevism’ to non-nationalists (of an intellectual bent): the Jews, in Russia and the USSR in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, practised a form of Maoism and advanced the cause of Stalinist communism – a universalist, internationalist, humanist and anti-nationalist ideology – simply because it would advance the Jewish ethnic interest in Russia (and, it was hoped, communist-occupied Western and Eastern Europe). In other words, they saw Stalin as their boy. Once Stalin, by 1952, turned on the Jewish minority in Russia, of course, Jewry worldwide turned on Stalin, who was denounced as an ‘anti-Semite’. Then we began to hear about all the terrible ‘anti-Semitism’ in the USSR, and why millions of captive Soviet Jews, a people ‘in bondage to the pharaoh’, should be allowed to emigrate to Israel.

Non-nationalists can easily be made to understand this idea – of an ethnic group utilising ideology and foreign policy in order to serve its group interest. One simply has to say something like, ‘Israel, the Israel lobby and their supporters amongst Jewish-Americans have large influence on the US political system in the US. If they decide that the US will bomb Iran, the US will bomb Iran, no questions asked. That doesn’t matter if Obama, or Mitt Romney, is president’. Non-nationalists can’t argue with that. Neither can the Left, and there are signs that even the Left is, now, becoming aware of the existence of a Jewish and Israel lobby. The idea that, of course, an ethnic minority group – the Jews – can control the entire politics of a state is, of course, a Hitlerian thesis. So the Left is articulating Hitlerism without knowing it.

So, in that regard, certain of Hitler’s positions on the Jews have met with a kind of (covert) acceptance throughout the West: it’s just that these things must be spoken of, behind closed doors, and to people whose minds have not been corrupted by Israeli and US propaganda (and there are surprisingly many of these people). This represents an advance on, say, twenty years ago.

The question is: are Hitler’s views on Jewry as ‘race poisoner’ still correct today?

According to the Pierces and Dukes, multiracialism is a vast edifice, which is maintained by (mainly Jewish-American owned) media, which pumps out ‘race-mixing’ propaganda 24 hours a day; furthermore, the same Jews, advocating race-mixing and mass non-white immigration, also are supporters of the most radical, liberal causes as well – e.g., gay marriage. One cannot deny these facts; and, if one needs evidence, one can find copious amounts of it in Pierce, Duke, MacDonald. Likewise, one cannot deny the role Jews played in agitating for Negro civil rights, or the end of Apartheid, or the anti-war movement, in the sixties; or their long involvement, predating the 1960s, in radical causes.

I have two problems with this thesis: one is that it neglects the role whites – particularly baby boomer whites – played in the sixties cultural revolution. It’s true that Jewish beatniks, hippies, communists and counter-cultural agitators played a big part; but so did many British, American, German, Australian, French, et al., whites. And these were not all at the cultural fringes: the whites who abolished the American immigration law in 1965 were white, and by today’s standard, conservative; as were the white Liberal Party politicians who overturned the White Australia policy in the late 1960s.

The truth is that, just as in the Chinese Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, there was a kind of madness in the air infecting all the participants in the 1960s Western cultural revolution. It was inescapable. One only had to turn on the television and see the film clip for the Beatles’ ‘Hey Jude’ – where a black Afro-Caribbean immigrant is holding hands and singing along, with British whites, around Paul McCartney’s piano. How could one fight the Beatles?

(In this connection, one wonders what Hitler would have thought, had he lived to see the ‘Prague Spring’ – essentially a revolution against authoritarian, Brezhnev-era communism by liberals and hippies within the Czechoslovakian communist state – in 1968. I am inclined to speculate that one of Hitler’s age, temperament, life experience and politics would have led him to sympathise with Brezhnev).

In short, the great cultural changes of the 1960s can be put largely at the feet of white people, not just ‘the Jews’. Now, though, in 2012, we in the West are enjoying the after effects of that sixties cultural revolution (just recently, we had to live through another American celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. Day). What strikes me is the degree to which multiracialism has become incorporated into the world-view – the way of acting, thinking, believing – of ordinary white people. The celebrants of Martin Luther King Day are ordinary, Anglo-Saxon Americans, who are completely ignorant of King’s dubious past – his debauchery, his plagiarisation of his doctoral thesis, his shadowy connections to communism. King the man has become subsumed to King the myth: and it is that ‘I have a dream’ myth which captivates white America (it is the same with the Mandela cult). And this is without ‘The Jew’.

What I compare multiracialism to is a computer virus, like the malignant Stuxnet virus (created, according to rumour, by Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities). In my analogy, all the computers in the network – e.g., all the white Western European people in the world – are infected by it, and, to a certain extent, are completely unaware that they are infected. And, while ‘The Jew’ (along with Lyndon Johnson and John Lennon) contrived to release the virus upon an unsuspecting world – he is no longer soley responsible for maintaining its existence. The genie is out of the bottle, so to speak.

In other words, Hitler’s ‘race poisoner’ thesis has become completely outdated. The reason why so many in the nationalist movement – particularly some white nationalists – cling to it is that they are unwilling, or unable, to acknowledge the whiteness of the multiracialist doctrine – or the fact that it is our own racial kind (our own parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles) who are using it to destroy us.

6. Germany Rising

Other of Hitler’s doctrines which have now become commonplace are welfare subsidies to women, encouraging them to have children; others have not become that commonplace (e.g., animal welfare, vegetarianism, and laws against cruelty for animals). But we will finish here by concentrating on something else: geopolitics and Germany – one of the central themes of Mein Kampf and its successor, Secret Book.

In international power-politics, independence, sovereignty, is a rare thing: one’s country is either a great power (like the US/Israel, Russia, China) or a vassal (one could use a nicer word: ‘ally’; ‘friend’; ‘beneficiary’) of them. A small nation, true, can eke out an existence independent of the great powers: Cuba does, as do Iran, Vietnam, Laos, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua. But generally, this is not a position one wants to be in: one’s subordination to a great power means one is protected by that power (what Yockey calls, following Hobbes, the ‘law of protection and obedience’).

This geopolitical model is an either/or model. But there are, in the real world, shades, gradations.

One can, for instance, ‘lean towards’ a great power, and show signs of ‘toppling over’ and ‘falling into’ its sphere of influence: such was the case of Libya (previously a small, independent state, like Cuba or Vietnam) after 2003. Now, after the anti-Ghaddafi rebellion, the state is in the Washington/Tel Aviv camp – if one could call the anarchistic hodge-podge, which Libya is today, a state.

Likewise, a state – usually one with a past track record of greatness and independence – can show signs of ‘bursting out’, of ‘breaking away’, out of the sphere of influence of a great power; it, in turn, may lead to true independence, true sovereignty, and end up accruing great power and respect for itself. Such is the case with Turkey after 2010 and Germany after 2011. (A recent poll of around 26,000 people put Germany up the top as the most popular country in the world; the bottom three were Pakistan, Israel and North Korea).

The latter would make the NSDAP member exclaim, upon hearing it: ‘What’s this! My beloved Germany, again becoming a great power! Then the program of Mein Kampf is well and truly fulfilled’.

Germany is still under the thumb of Israel and the US. But the recent financial crisis, and the almost complete absence of US influence and interference on the Continent (and indeed, Obama can scarcely summon up any interest in European matters) has led to a strange power vacuum.

This is a period in European history which is oddly evocative of the US isolationism of the 1930s, before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941. Nothing, but nothing, could persuade the American people to take an interest in events on the Continent: not even a war between Germany and Britain. This was a source of great frustration to Roosevelt and his Jewish ‘Brains Trust’, who longed to throw America’s resources into the war. As a result of this isolationism, Germany scooped the pools and was the master of the Continent – and, except for Britain, all of Europe.

Germany, in 2012, out of all the Continental European nations, has, as we know, avoided the worst effects of the European debt crisis, and is now taking upon itself the control of the fiscal affairs of all the other EU members (using the medium of the EU and France). Merkel’s fiscal austerity policies are dreadful, of course, and it is no wonder that Britain, and Greece, are resisting Germany’s power. But resistance is a sign of power being exerted, Nietzsche says. The fact that these countries are putting up a fight is a sign that Germany does have the power (and not Russia, the US or Israel). The Second World War was a battle for, among other things, German political and economic control of the Continent. Arguably, there can be no political control without economic control, and the adoption of a Europe-wide monetary policy – and now, under Merkel, a Europe-wide fiscal policy (awful as it is) – has facilitated Germany’s wartime aims of control of the Continent. This is without a shot being fired, and, unlike the first time around, it has happened with very little struggle. Certainly, other countries – like Poland, and Austria – have fallen like ninepins.

The strange thing is that none of this was intended: it simply happened. The Germans, under Merkel, never sought power, and, after Hitler and the war, were reluctant to be in a position of power over their fellow Europeans. Now we are seeing, for the first time in seventy years, a powerful Germany – led by a leader who is portrayed as a bully, and who has that grating, ugly, discordant German accent – which is imposing its own rather peculiar brand of economics on the subjugated European nations.

This is, at first sight, due to the fact that, after the financial crisis, Germany was the last man standing, and that Germany is one of the wealthiest (if not the wealthiest) of the European nations, and blessed with a populace of hard workers, a large industrial base, innovative technology, and a fiscally prudent government. In other words: you can’t keep a good German down.

But it goes deeper than that. Roosevelt, the interventionist, fought a tremendous, horrific war for control of the Continent. The ‘expulsion of the Nazis [viz., Germans]‘, from ‘All the countries they’ve conquered’, was dear to him: it was his penultimate aim. But Obama, and the US, are preoccupied with Iran only; they ignore Europe because American foreign policy is written for them by Tel Aviv. What’s more, America, under Bush Jr. and Obama, has gone through a deep economic, political and social decline. It is no longer interested, really, in maintaining a foothold in East Asia; likewise, it has let Latin America – its other backyard – be taken over, virtually, by populist demagogues of the Chavez, Ortega and Morales type. In effect, it no longer has the resources – political, economic, moral – to maintain its power in the two backyards. This decline is the outcome of five lost wars – in Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, Lebanon in 2006, Georgia in 2008 and Gaza in 2009 – wars lost by itself and its proxies. It takes great skill and statesmanship to arrest a political decline following such a series of military reverses, but, under Obama and Netanyahu, the Washington/Tel Aviv power unit hasn’t got it.

So, what we are seeing at this point of history, is an extraordinary thing: Turkey, increasingly alienated from Israel and America, shows signs of shrugging off the yoke and wanting to become the strong man of an increasingly liberalised Middle East; Germany is already the strong man of Europe, and is forming an economic space which will be completely independent of the British and American one – a new European order which is for Europeans, and led by Germany. (Hitler, in one of his last radio addresses (in January 1945) speaks of Germany’s ‘destiny’ to ‘lead this continent’).

During December last year, The Daily Mail (the British tabloid, which runs stories on Hitler, the NSDAP and WWII in the European theater, virtually every day) ran a feature on the anniversary of Germany’s ill-fated 1944 Ardennes offensive, (‘Vivid new Battle of the Bulge photos offer never-before-seen look at the war-weary soldiers braving the frigid weather as they fight off Nazi Germany’s last major offensive of World War II’, 18/12/11). As we know, the offensive was narrowly thwarted by the Allies, at great cost in American casualties. In the voluminous comments section for the article, one British poster commented acerbically, ‘Seems like a useless war. Less than a century later, Germany is in control of continental Europe again’. Another British poster wrote: ‘And some of us still want to join up with these Europeans, get out of europe before they try to destroy us again. Germany having lost twice has now got wise to itself and has taken over Europe at last without a shot being fired. All those brave men died for Nothing. LET THEM HAVE IT’.

In an odd way, the British and Greek media propaganda comparing Merkel’s Germany to the Third Reich is accurate: the writers of these hate-filled screeds understand, intuitively, that Hitlerism and German National Socialism stood for a strong Germany – a Germany that is in a position of power over the other European nations (and being in a position of power is what leadership is about). National Socialism is a complex, multi-faceted ideology; but it is this belief in the German national virtues, and the belief that Germany should lead, which makes up the bedrock, the foundation, of German National Socialism. Hitler’s racialism is, in the end, a German racialist chauvinism: an expression in the belief in the German’s superiority to other Europeans (in particular, the French, and the Eastern Europeans) and an exhortation for Germans to take pride in this fact.

(Much of Germany’s political success depends on its current popularity. It is seen, by the world, as a good country and a desirable place to live. Likewise, Turkey is popular in the Middle East – for standing up to Israel, among other things – and is economically prosperous, and what’s more, a model of how an Islamic country can develop itself along quasi-Western lines. Today’s anti-Iran propaganda tries to portray Iran as being much like 1930s Germany – that is, a small, bellicose nation, led by an arrogant, eccentric little leader, pursuing a policy of brinkmanship and no compromise. But this is imposing today’s political requirements on the past, malforming the past to suit the political needs of the present. Germany, in the 1930s, was a large, wealthy, successful and well-liked nation; it wasn’t isolated at all; and, just like today, it was held up as a model of prosperity and growth).

Given this new modern context, who needs remixed 1930’s German ‘Neo-Nazism’? Who needs, indeed, a ‘German nationalism’ of the NPD variety? Or at least many of its older policies. It’s true that Germany has been inundated with Middle Eastern immigration, and that the new Germany shows no signs of wanting to sweep these immigrants away. Likewise, Germany – just like Turkey – shows no signs of edging towards out-and-out war with the US/Israeli political entity. But, in response to that, I say war is a means of attaining political control: one can attain power without war, and the remarkable thing about the Turkish and German ascent is that it has all happened so easily, viz, without war. Secondly, as for German immigration and racial policy: we can only hope that things will steer towards a new ethnic nationalist (ie. not the Wilders/Gates of Vienna civic camp) direction in the future (once Merkel and her ilk are gone). The main thing is that Europe, under the EU construct, is achieving a degree of economic independence and self-sufficiency. This will form the foundation of an immigration and racial policy which is separate from that of the US and the UK (it must be emphasised here: the foundation, not the policy itself).

This is important, because Europeans – and Westerners – have become convinced that they cannot lead decent lives (the ‘good life’) without dependence on foreign labour and investment. Part of the justification for mass non-white immigration to the West is that the West cannot simply survive a day without the labour of the Hispanic from Mexico, or the menial labour from Africa, or the smart IT engineer from India. (As for Britain: the popular press, and the politicians, are continually lamenting that indigenous, white British won’t do the jobs that immigrant Romanians and Poles do, instead choosing to live their lives on welfare). This is an absurd argument, but Westerners have come to believe it. Once Europe, under the EU, becomes a self-sufficient entity, free of both immigrant labour and US investment, and trading with Russia and the Middle East (e.g., for gas and oil) on its own terms, then it can prove that Westerners don’t need the Third World – or the US. The ‘good life’ is possible without being part of the US-UK Anglo-Saxon economic sphere, or being part of a ‘globalised world economy’, viz., China and India.

In an odd way, then, another of Hitler’s doctrines is becoming true, and is becoming assimilated to the cultural mainstream.

Nationalist Cities of the Future and the A-A-A plan

admin — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:31:09 +0000

By Peter Middleton

Pope Benedict XVI recently called for more ‘silence’ and ‘reflection’ in today’s world:

Pope Benedict is asking people to stop amid the noise and haste and listen to the sounds of silence in life.

Benedict dedicated the theme of his message for the Catholic Church’s World Day of Communication to the relationship between silence and words.

‘Silence is an integral element of communication; in its absence, words rich in content cannot exist,’ he said in the message.

‘In silence, we are better able to listen to and understand ourselves; ideas come to birth and acquire depth; we understand with greater clarity what it is we want to say and what we expect from others; and we choose how to express ourselves,’ he said.

Benedict, who is a shy and quiet man himself, said that today ‘silence is a precious commodity’ in a world with a ‘surcharge of stimuli and data’.

‘It is often in silence, for example, that we observe the most authentic communication taking place between people who are in love: gestures, facial expressions and body language are signs by which they reveal themselves to each other,’ he said.

Joy, anxiety, and suffering can all be communicated in silence, sometimes more powerfully than with words and silence often gives people a chance to listen – to God, to themselves and to others.

In short, the Pope is asking everyone to turn down the noise, reflect, evaluate and analyse.

‘For this to happen, it is necessary to develop an appropriate environment, a kind of ‘eco-system’ that maintains a just equilibrium between silence, words, images and sounds,’ he said. ['Shhhh... Pope appeals for world to stop, listen and enjoy the sound of silence', The Daily Mail, 24/1/2012].

Why is it, for instance, that cities like Melbourne and Sydney – cities in one of the richest countries in the world, with the best standard of living – are so ugly? Why do the people seem so pinched and frustrated? (One can tell a lot from someone else’s body language: one can tell what they’re feeling and thinking. My observations are based on my everyday experience with most working Melbournites). One can blame Facebook, Twitter, mobile phones, SMS-texting; as well as that, there are crowds. (On that note, quite a few economists and demographers see crowds, population increase and immigration as being beneficial to ‘the economy’ and ‘growth’: perhaps they are – but they are not beneficial to human beings).

Really, though, I put it down to at least three reasons.

The first is cars. Today’s cities, in the West and elsewhere, are built on top of highways, throughways and parking lots. In Melbourne CBD, cars can come out at pedestrians (viz., human beings) at all four directions: one can be walking along a footpath (a sidewalk, to Americans) and suddenly be barged into a car emerging from the entrance to a fifty-floor carpark building, or perhaps a little alleyway (which the driver has decided, sneakily, to drive his car along). On top of that, cars have the right to go through traffic lights, even when pedestrians are crossing. Often, even when crossing the (always busy) road at a green ‘go’ signal, one risks being run down by an impatient driver. So one can’t walk across the road; one has to dash – for one’s life.

The modern city is designed for cars, not human beings. (To a lesser extent, it’s also designed for bicycles and motorbikes). We can’t do without cars, of course. But is it possible to live in a city without them? Of course it is.

The second reason for our spiritual discontent is, of course, immigration. One particular sub-class of immigrant, which I won’t name here (out of political correctness), almost always dresses shabbily, but flaunts expensive mobile phones – which on which the male of that sub-class jibber-jabbers, for hours, to his brethren back in his home country. In the ‘old’ Australia, certain classes of immigrant used to be, well, quiet; but now that they are congregating here, in huge numbers, they tend to be unrestrained, noisy, boisterous among their own kind. (Certainly, we humans can be uninhibited when part of a large group). As these immigrants increase and increase, the average Aussie working man or woman, commuting for long hours into the city, and competing for jobs, housing or space on a train against these immigrants, grins and bears it. (Perhaps, out of some misplaced sense of guilt, he makes an effort to be nice to them; or maybe he makes the effort because of his corporate code of conduct demands it). He knows that nothing can be done about it. Since John Howard’s fourth term (2004-2007), Australia has been on the death-march, immigration-wise, bringing in six-figure numbers of immigrants per year. Neither Gillard, Abbott or the Greens will do a thing about it: and why should they – the policy is part of their ideology. The outlook is grim. All the Australian can do – and this cuts across class, and income – is commute to work each day on the overcrowded morning train, and try and read his Kindle or IPhone app, and try and avoid having an elbow shoved in his face.

The third reason, for the absence of calm in our lives, is: animals. As a society which (like all human societies for the past million years or so) exploits, kills, tortures and consumes animals, we are generating (what a hippie would call) ‘bad karma’ for ourselves. In fact, were I an occultist type, I would say that the sum of collective animal suffering, in our cities and suburbs, generates ‘psychic waves’ which disturbs the ‘psychic ether’. Our survival and well-being, in the 21st century, doesn’t depend on hurting, killing and eating animals: for an Eskimo in his igloo, or Grizzly Adams in his mountain shack, one has to kill animals to survive; in Melbourne, Sydney, New York, London, Berlin, one doesn’t.

Aside from that, there are the health effects – physical and mental – of eating meat and dairy. No real scientific evidence has emerged to show that eating meat, like smoking, is bad for you; all the same, it is my conviction that it is – and ‘scientific studies’ will show this, over time.

So, there is my formula for improving our cities, and our lives: abolish meat (and other animal products); abolish cars; abolish immigration. I call it the A-A-A plan (this title has been inspired by the Republican candidate for the US presidency, Herman Cain, and his 9-9-9 plan). I myself am willing to be flexible when it comes to implementing this plan: there may be more than one path towards it. Possibly, some sort of compromise is necessary. We can have animal products, immigrants, and cars, outside of our cities – in the outer suburbs, for instance (where, coincidentally, many of our immigrants live). But our cities (and this includes cities outside of Australia) will be oases of no meat, no cars and no immigration.

In order to implement the plan, we must be stern: no compromises. E.g., we can’t allow meat into our cities for ‘special occasions’; neither can we give immigrants day passes on weekends (or internal ‘work visas’, allowing them to work in the cities and then go home to the outer suburbs). That would defeat the purpose. (I am in favour of making exceptions for delivery trucks, etc., in our cities. It’s not that we can’t live, today, without cars: it’s that we don’t have to live, work and shop, on parking lots and highways).

Following the Triple-A plan would give Western man – peace of mind. He would find that such an environment gives him inner calm, stillness, the chance to develop his soul. I call this ‘interiority’: the development of one’s inner self, one’s soul. One can’t develop interiority when one is being badgered, 24 hours a day, by cars, hordes of scowling immigrants, or the sensation of döner kebabs and Hungry Jacks doing damage to one’s body (and that’s not counting the stink of these fast food establishments – also the unpleasant odour of seafood, emanating from Asian restaurants). Melbourne and Sydney would become like Venice, or the car-free parts of Paris, Athens, Stockholm, Amsterdam and Vienna (to name a few European cities) which Western man spends a fortune on, each year, visiting. (Are Australian and American tourists attracted to these cities because of the cultural affinity they feel for them? Or is it the car-free environment? The answer is, both).

I will say, as a caveat, that the A-A-A plan isn’t an environmentalist one. Environmentalists, of course, tend to be anti-car; some environmentalists even are anti-population growth. There are vegans who believed that, among the reasons for getting rid of meat consumption, is ‘global warming’: cattle-farming leads to huge increases in the number of cows, and cow flatulence and excrement brings about global warming – which, as we know will melt the polar ice-caps and drown us all in a flood of Biblical proportions. (I think, here, that vegans are trying to give legitimacy to their ideas by latching on to the environmentalist movement – a tactical error, in my view). I am not an environmentalist; I simply believe that suffering, in our day and age, and in our advanced Western societies, is unnecessary. As well as that, I believe that the West’s cities and major population centres should be places of quiet reflection and contemplation, as we go about work in our everyday lives, and enjoyment.

This is important for the nationalists, because, while we in the movement recognise the danger of immigration – the threat to our national existence, our culture, our civilisation, our way of life – we never ask ourselves the question, ‘Why is our way of life worth preserving?’. In our car-dominated suburbs, we forbid our own children from playing in the street, out of fear of being knocked down. In North America, we wreck our bodies through the consumption of meat and through the excessive consumption of sugar products (obesity, and diabetes, is a growing problem in North America, as is the excessive consumption of anti-depressants which may, in turn, induce psychotic effects). The American TV shows, Breaking Bad and Big Love illustrate the white man’s ‘suburban hell’ brilliantly; and the neighbourhoods (which are mostly white and ethnically-homogeneous in these TV shows) aren’t so different from the whiter suburbs in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth.

We whites, in short, have devised a trap for ourselves. I often see a kind of discontent on the faces of immigrant families, when I pass them in the street. I wonder if the source of that discontent is disillusionment with their lives here in Australia: the feeling that they have been sold a false bill of goods. Not only does the white man not like them very much (certain immigrant groups are always complaining, vocally, of how Australians are “racist” and how Australians “discriminate” against them); but perhaps the white man’s life isn’t so good, after all. They have the accouterments of the white Australian – a massive mortgage, a mobile phone, middle-class welfare payments for having children, the dreadful morning and evening commute, the chance to shop at an outer-suburban mall on weekends – but this life really isn’t so great.

In a way, the hippies and counter-cultural rebels of the sixties were right: what use is the wealth and prosperity of the West when the white man forgoes his soul? It’s a timeless question, and a spiritual one. But it is more pertinent than ever, in this increasingly noisy, crowded and uncomfortable civilisation – the civilisation of ‘becoming’, and not ‘being’.

How right he is. Certainly, there is a lack of opportunity for contemplation, reflection and the development of inner spirituality in today’s world. Ours is not a still world, a calm world; it doesn’t have the characteristics of what Evola calls ‘being’; instead, it is a world of ‘becoming’ – endless, transitory motion.

Constitutional Change: Liberalism, Liebler’s List and the coming Police State

mkennedy — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:33:03 +0000

By Michael Kennedy and Ryan Walsh

The freedom of Australians to speak freely, particularly those of European/white heritage (the founders, builders, the people who comprised 98% of those who fought and died in two world wars, creators of the country that is so appealing it attracted thousands of migrants and currently still the majority demographic of ‘Australia’) is under threat, again, from Liberalism’s zeal to end any debate on multiculturalism in the name of ‘anti-racism’. A national debate is raging over a panels proposed change to the constitution, though one would hardly know it, as the public is taking very little part in the debate. The argument is about a 300 page report which contains proposed changes to the constitution to move racist sections and a recommendation to add a clause prohibiting racial discrimination.^ⁱ

The report was delivered to Canberra by Melbourne lawyer, Mark Liebler, (former President of the President of the Zionist Federation of Australia and apparently the National Chairman of lobby group: Australia Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) ) ⁱⁱwho Co-Chaired the Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. In a letter which was submitted to Parliament, Leibler writes

“When it was approved one hundred and twelve years ago, the Australian Constitution established the rules for governing one of the most prosperous, peaceful and democratic nations in the world. However, the Constitution understandably reflects the values and beliefs of the time it was drafted. The Founding Fathers deserve our gratitude and respect. But their perspectives – including those on race – were of the 19th Century, not the 21st.”

Mr Leibler doesn’t elucidate why perspectives have changed, very few Liberals ever do. It is merely to be taken for granted that 19^th Century views are to be discarded, and that the ‘view’ of the 21^st century conflicts with our nations constitution. This is a common line exploited by the left, the “It’s 2012, not 1812” argument, one hollow and meaningless. An argument which is supposed to impress upon the reader the modernity of their views in contract with their opponents archaic views, without ever having to explain why it is that the supposed modern views are to supplant the old ones.
Leibler and his story continue

“But racism casts a shadow over many lives, including my own. It was racism and its off-shoot Nazism that caused my parents to flee Belgium in 1939. It was racism that saw my maternal grandparents murdered in Auschwitz. Racism turns your life into a lottery. To stay or go becomes a matter of life or death. Racism reduces your ability to control your life’s destiny or make decisions for yourself.” ^ⁱⁱⁱ

Leibler puts the specific so called ‘anti-Semitism’ of the German Nationalist Socialist regime under the racist umbrella, an umbrella which now includes anyone who might oppose multiculturalism, high immigration or who might simply wish to preserve their racial and cultural heritage whilst reserving the right for all peoples around the globe to do the same. In doing so, Leibler downplays the specificity of the ‘anti-Semitism’ of the German Nationalist Socialist regime, and attributes this to broad racism. This is indeed incorrect, as the Nazi preoccupation with the Jewish question was disproportionately greater than their preoccupation with racial purity, and other ‘racist’ ideals.

Hypocrisy? What if modern day Jewish concerns about intermarriage and assimilation within the Jewish community were construed as racism? Many Rabbi’s and Jewish leaders around the world openly talk of the need of preserving Jewish identity, of preserving their race or culture or religion et al. For instance recently a Likud MP in Israel Danny Danon (Likud) put a proposal to Australian Jewish MP Michael Danby re sending African migrants from Israel to Australia. Danon was quoted in the 2011 Jerusalem Post article as saying

The arrival of thousands of Muslim infiltrators to Israeli territory is a clear threat to the state’s Jewish identity,” Danon told The Jerusalem Post.

“The refugees’ place is not among us, and the initiative to transfer them to Australia is the right and just solution.” ^{^iv}

One of the most hypocritical examples of double standards on issues of on the right of demographic survival of an ethnicity/nation is by Mark Liebler’s brother Isi Liebler. In a Herald Sun article titled “Multiculturalism not for Israel – Leibler”

Melbourne – Jewish leader Isi Leibler, a staunch defender of Australian multiculturalism, says the policy has no place in Israel.

“This is a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country for the Jews,” he told a Jerusalem newspaper.

Mr. Leibler has previously said that multiculturalism in Australia was something that “we are all proud being part and parcel of…

Mr. Leibler said post-Zionists were pushing a universalist agenda in schools aimed at eliminating Jewish nationalism and creating a multicultural state. “ ^{^v}

Many in the Jewish community openly discuss that in order to preserve their identity, intermarriage with gentiles must be eschewed. In a 2010 article titled Jews in the Lucky Country by Isi Liebler which appears to be mainly aimed at a Jewish audience he promotes Australia as one of the better countries for Jews who live outside of Israel.

If there were more Jewish communities like Australia’s, the future of Diaspora Jewry would be far more secure than it is now… Australian Jewry is frequently depicted as a role model for other Diaspora communities… it is dominated by painful memories but is also a forward looking Zionist community.”^{^vi}

The article lists what it considers positives such as Jewish dayschools and other institutions but also and notably the positive fact that intermarriage is currently relatively low

Intermarriage while growing is much lower than in other Western Jewish communities…. Of course, all is not rosy. The younger generation, like its global counterparts, lacks the passion of its forbears…

The level of intermarriage, while low compared to the US and most European countries, is growing… Yet notwithstanding these emerging challenges, if there were more Jewish communities like Australia, the future of Diaspora Jewry would be far more secure than it is.” ^{^vii}

Would Mark Leibler consider sentiment opposing intermarriage and multiculturalism amongst his own Jewish community and indeed his own brother Isi racist?

I doubt it.

But what if it were a White gentile (non jew), expressing the same concerns. What if it were, instead of an Israeli Jew expressing the desire of maintaining Israel as a Jewish state, a White gentile expressing a desire to keep their nation White? Unfortunately, caring about our survival as a distinct people is considered racism and some in the Jewish community, who facing their own possible extinction through assimilation , who should understand and empathise with this sentiment the most, are most keen to denounce and portray this thought as racism.

What is racist is to deny the existence of race or ethnicity, to deny or hinder directly or indirectly the right of a race/ethnic group to survive as a distinct sovereign people living according to their own culture, values and beliefs as a majority in their own land who at the same time extend that right to all other peoples.

Further on the double standards – if so much of what Liebler has helped put forward for constitutional change in Australia helps the Aborigines then why is he not pushing for the same in Israel for the Palestinians? Liebler’s bio talks about him being involved deeply with Jewish issues and Israel related organizations so he must have the time.

Tony Abbott seems to be concerned about the ramifications of adding such a clause. Abbott says “We want this to be a unifying moment, like the 1967 constitutional change, and if something is put up which is going to end up substantially distorting the traditional rights and freedoms and protections that we’ve had in this country, well I think that could be a problem. I would want to look very carefully at the legal ramifications of putting anti-discrimination provisions into the Constitution.”

We at Nationalist Alternative are more than concerned. The Liberal party, while voicing ‘concern’ would never take a Politically Incorrect position, and defend the right of a race of people to speak in defence of themselves, their culture and their right to remain a majority in their own land with laws written by us for us to ensure our survival as a people. We at Nationalist Alternative however do defend these rights for Australians and for all the peoples of the globe.

Tony Abbot scratches the surface with his comment about the threat of these constitutional changes ‘distorting the traditional rights and freedoms’ Australians enjoy. Totalitarian liberalism and its proponents already attack and attempt to legislate away the freedom of association and speech rights of Westerners to discuss matters of ethnic/cultural survival handing them constitutional power to do so will simply usher in a Stalinist state. Recent domestic political history in Australia demonstrates this with the appalling media treatment of the grassroots political party One Nation. However a particular nasty incident occurred in July 1998 that was known by some as Lieblers List.

The Australia-Israel Review somehow obtained the membership list of the newly formed patriotic party One Nation, and published the names of 2,000 One Nation members and donors along with a provocative front cover that implied in our opinion that they were some sort of criminals saying “Gotcha! …. Thousands of members revealed”

Given the publicly known physical violence that has already been directed against One Nation supporters publication of the list could only have been seen as intimidation. This blatant act left ordinary mum and dads, elderly and humble Australians from all walks of life, many participating in politics for the first time, subject to potential threats, harassment and intimidation from multicultural left wing thugs who already attacked One Nation meetings.

The newspaper article titled ‘Anger as One Nation members named ‘had the following quote

Mr William May, of Ashfield, said he did not think his membership was anyone’s business.

“It is discrimination against people who have different political views to them and a lot of these people are elderly, like myself, who have worked all of their life and a lot of them have been in World War II,” he said.” ^{^viii}

What is particularly chilling is that Mark Leibler was the chairman of the Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council, the magazine’s publisher back in 1998 That’s right ! The same man who in 2011-12 has Co-Chaired the Panel on Constitutional Change that this article discusses. Liebler was quoted in The Daily Telegraph 1998

the decision to publish the list of members and donors was in the interests of “political transparency”. ⁸

We wonder if he would have the same attitude to transparency if a group obtained and then published in full or in part the membership lists of various Jewish advocacy groups.

The Sydney Daily Telegraph published the astonishing news on July 9 1998 under an angry banner headline that shouted LEIBLER’ LIST. “The presentation associated with the list invites vilification” the newspaper editorialized and “The McCarthy-like imputation is that these people in some way transgressed, their beliefs — like those of communist sympathisers in the United States in the 1950s — are deemed to be a danger to the state.” ^{^ix} Interestingly a cartoon in The Sydney Daily Telegraph compared what was named by some as ‘ Lieblers List’ with the Nazis of 1938. What is also notable, is how Leibler can sit idle and take part in harassment against people because of their political beliefs. Harassment which has led to physical violence, persecution and public ‘shaming’. The very activity that Leibler should know very well, doesn’t accord with a free and open society. Yet here he sides with those that would persecute and attack someone based on their beliefs. Irony or hypocrisy?

Anti-racism is anti-white and any modern form of ‘anti-racist’ action has an anti-white component to it that makes such actions abhorrent. The issue isn’t about Aboriginals or Torres Straight Islanders, but that reliably, without fail, anti-racist action always, always goes beyond ending direct racial discrimination and violence, to controlling thought and speech which may be construed by a hyper sensitive and paranoid individual as possibly being racist, or leading to racism. Even if the sentiment isn’t racist at all, all a white Australian has to do, all any White Anglo or European has to do, is discuss in a frank manner their belief that their race too like all others, has a right to self preservation, and every Liberal, every Politically Correct zealot will automatically construe that as ‘racist’, despite the lack of any racist sentiment. Every anti-racist anti white will take anything less that complete support and devotion to the multiracial experiment as an evil that must be stomped out.

Given the disregard for our right to be concerned about our future and McCarthy like tactics illustrated above along with the anti free speech legislation (vilification laws et al) already in place and growing. We ask the people of Australia to consider this carefully and to reject any changes to our constitution which could effectively outlaw any position against Liberalisms desire to create a melting pot in ALL and ONLY white countries. Not only is the potential for organisations to be deemed ‘illegal’, for advocating for and supporting our race/culture/ethnicity, just as other groups such as the Aboriginal and Jews are free to do, but it has the potential to make YOU criminally liable for what you say, even if you just said that immigration levels are too high.

i Deadline shifts on referendum.The Australian January 21, 2012
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/deadline-shifts-on-referendum/story-fn59niix-1226249860843

ii>http://www.abl.com.au/ablattach/leibler.pdf< or

http://www.jafi.org.il/NR/exeres/FA8BC582-E6DF-4FC8-9F07-A907FD618422

iii >Leibler Panel Calls for Constitution Change.January 20, 2012 by J-Wire Staff

http://www.jwire.com.au/news/leibler-co-chairs-panel-on-constition-change/21978

ivDanny Danon: Send African migrants to Australia. By Lahav Harkov
06/30/2011. The Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=227332

Multiculturalism not for Israel – Leibler. By John Masanauskas. Herald Sun.September 27, 2000
http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/purejews.htm/a>

viJews in the Lucky Country – Isi Leibler visits Australia By J Wire staff. September 25, 2010

http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/jews-in-the-lucky-country-isi-leibler-visits-australia/11837

viiJews in the Lucky Country – Isi Leibler visits Australia. By J Wire staff. September 25, 2010

http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/jews-in-the-lucky-country-isi-leibler-visits-australia/11837

viii Anger as One Nation members named. The Sydney Morning Herald. July 10 1998.
By Greg Roberts,Andrew Clennell And Nick Papadopoulus
Also here http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/98/07/articles/Leibler100798.html

ix The Daily Telegraph. London July 10 1998
Or

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/98/07/articles/Leibler100798.html

Putting Authoritarianism before Democracy

admin — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:54:55 +0000

By Jim Osborne

Anti-racism is anti-white, whichever way you cut it. Whether you are ‘tolerating’ sustained mass immigration, or wanting to ban any event which could be construed as ‘pro-white’. Political Correctness says white people must go, and anyone who disagrees isn’t just wrong, but should be marginalized, fined, or even jailed.

It would seem the Independent member for Burnett, Rob Messenger agrees. He has launched an online petition to protest the Hammered Music Festival which is a supposedly neo-Nazi event. ^ⁱ You can see the flyer for the event here, http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/state-wont-stop-nazi-morons/story-e6freoof-1226241239162 . Rob Messenger and those like him should ask the real questions, What is Racism, What is Neo Nazism? If investigated honestly they would quickly find they are mere labels designed to shut down any expression of appreciation and pride in ones ancestry and heritage. Something available to all people groups, except apparently those of European descent.

What is it about such a festival that stirs people so? The possibility that there may be neo-Nazi’s listening to music? That the ideas expressed might offend the delicate sensitivities of people who would never go anyway? That it might spill into a full blown riot, something which has never happened from similar previous held events. Rob Messenger’s petition may be nothing more that Liberal authoritarianism coming to the fore. Freedom of speech is necessary for functional and progressive society, and there is no impact on others by this event.

The real danger though, as if his proposal wasn’t already against the very fundamental principles that Western society was built on, is the scope of the potential new laws. His petition states “Your petitioners therefore request the House to call on the Premier of Queensland and the Opposition Leader to commit to supporting legislative change that will ensure our state has the toughest laws in Australia which enable the banning and punishment of ‘ Neo Nazis and other race hate proponents’ activities”.

The danger is in the words “other race hate proponents’ activities”. We already know that ANY pro-white speech, or ANY speech which might solely be talking about issues facing Whites in the Western world is often construed as ‘race hate’. We at Nationalist Alternative have to deal with this label, despite the complete and utter lack of any ‘race hate’ sentiment or material. Liberalism doesn’t define ‘race hate’ (for whites) as deliberate incitement of hatred against an identifiable group, but extends this further to include any discussion of racial issues in a non Politically Correct context. We are all aware, that simple saying “Australia is full”, is in itself considered racist, despite the fact it contains no directed hate at anyone. Rob Messenger’s proposal will give Political Correctness strong legal means by which to silence dissent and remove any threats to the current Liberal social experiment that is being undertaken at the expense of the West.

We call on people to discuss this issue, and let others know of the dangers involved. NO ethnic group should face punitive measures for discussing their own well being, survival and continuation. To deliberately deny any group of people the right to preserve their heritage is akin to a directed attack against them and lays the groundwork for genocide. To deny them the speech, language and right to discuss and hold these ideas, is an attack against that group. It is in essence, doing what the ‘ Nazi’s ‘ are accused of doing, in the name of ‘anti-Nazism’.

Anti-racism is anti-white. Mr Messenger may very well be trying to score Politically Correct brownie points by making the necessary visible propitiations to the PC priests and thereby prove himself as ‘progressive’. He may very well not be aware of the ramifications of his proposal, doing this only as brainless political opportunism, but people like us must make others aware of the dangers of this type of thinking and action. It isn’t just music that falls into the sights of such kneejerk reactions, but the rights of us all to speak.

This concert is a fairly insignificant even in the scheme of things. Most Australians would have never heard of it, and its impact on others is negligible. There are quite simply no real consequences to letting these people have their concert, as evidenced by the fact that they have been held before around Australia and nothing has happened as a result. The proposed laws which Mr Messenger is agitating for though, could have real consequences for Citizen rights to speak on issues and concerns that affect their families, nation and our collective future. Mr Messenger’s ideas in our opinion reek of Stalinist authoritarianism and are a dangerous threat to a free progressive society.

ihttp://www.robmessenger.com/anti-neo-nazi-petition