Total War the End Game

Total War - End Game

Written by Richard Newman

Total War since 1945
Adolf Hitler was the greatest enemy of Nationalism, because he poisoned the ideology in the mind of the population of the world to such an extent that any further advancement was impossible.
Despite the obvious advantages of the political approaches driven first in Italy and then in Germany, every aspect of the positive appeal of the movements behind the approaches has been made negative by history and the spin of a left wing media.
I am not a Fascist because the name belongs to a failed political ideology driven by the former Socialist newspaper editor Benito Mussolini, and is named for the bundle of reeds and axe emblem from the time of Rome.
As a vehicle of social change and a counter for Marxist extremism in 1920’s Italy it was necessary and despite the lies of the left had a positive impact on the Italy of the 1920’s and early 1930’s.
I am not a NAZI because the name belongs to a failed political ideology driven by a former German army veteran and police informer Adolf Hitler, and was named after the National Socialism which was at its root.
People tend to forget that many German socialists joined the NAZI party because of its social policies, and once again as a vehicle for social change and a counter to the Marxist extremism in the Germany of the 20’s and 30’s it had a positive impact on the well being of the German nation.
Because of the left wing bias of the media and education system we find that the world financial situation both before World War One and throughout the period towards the catastrophe of the Second World War is obscured, and no mention is given in Western schools of the part of world Marxism, and the role of Jewish intellectuals in the rise of Marxist ideology. Nor is there any mention of the role of Jewish financiers in the world financial situation of the time. The Dawes and Young plan is hardly mentioned.
Most nationalists are aware that world Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933, yet this financial war was a side that people continue to be unaware of when faced with the more obvious actions which occurred in the military sphere.
The end of the war saw the failure of Fascism and its partner Nazism, and the victories of the “democratic” nations of Europe and of course their financial backers.
No doubt that had Hitler won his plans in Europe would have meant that our view of history would be different, it is the victor who writes the history of the world, and it is the victor who ignores the crimes of the victorious allied powers.
Bilderberg and Albert Speer
In 1942 Albert Speer, Hitler’s chief architect submitted his plans for a Europe after Germany had won the war. The Pan Germanic Co-Prosperity Sphere was an expansion of a vision first planned by the German General Staff in World War One, and extended by Speer, as a concept of a European Union under German Domination.
It was this concept which was taken up by the victorious allies as a means of unifying a post war Europe.
The idealism of the liberals in Western Europe to avert another war was as strong as the financier’s plans to make money from a broken Europe through the Marshall Plan.
This mindset was given substance in 1954 with the foundation of the Bilderberg Group, and the combined plans of the financiers and liberal power elite.
The Bilderberg Group and Cultural Marxism
It was with the best liberal intentions that they met on that day in May to decide the future of Europe, and of course they had no idea of the Pandora’s Box they were about to open.
Albert Speer had given them the template, they had won, and the future was theirs. Prosperity would only be assured with continued peace and that was the basis of their argument. Like the Concert of Europe that came before, they reasoned that the only way to prevent war in Europe was the destruction of national identity, and its replacement by a European super state.
The Cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt and Birmingham schools shaped the social aspects of the destruction of the nation state from within. This was developed into Political Correctness and is arguably the same destructive force under a different name.
The Trilateral Commission
The Trilateral Commission founded by David Rockefeller was the logical expansion of the financial aspects of Cultural Marxism, designed on the maxim of “he who controls money controls the world”, is a means of ensuring peace in Europe by controlling the finances of Europe. Prosperity it is assumed brings peace.

An Unholy Alliance
It is through the mindset of the liberal elite that we must look at the actions of such groups who wish to control the destiny of the world with the best of liberal intentions.
The original ideal of Germany has been expanded by others to encompass the whole world, with liberal idealism and good intentions being replaced by greed and corruption.
On 11th September 1990 George Bush spoke in his speech entitled Towards a New World Order in which he outlined the objectives of a post Soviet world.
“A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.”
It is this flawed vision of a New World Order founded on liberal principles, and financed by the usual suspects that is inadvertently leading to the destruction of the Western World.
The United Nations is dominated by the Bilderberg Group and Trilateral Commission.
But how to bring forward a New World Order
Total War by any Means
Since the rise of the organisations which make up the New World Order, and the infiltration of every aspect of nation states, by its acolytes and NLP recruits we find that its best intentions have been changed to compensate for world events.
The rise of Islam and the fall of the USSR could not have been foreseen in 1954, and although there are thousands of think tanks devoted to the subject of trends, it is difficult to bring forward a plan of world domination when you cannot plan for the unforeseen circumstance.
Since the 1960’s the grip of the power elite has steadily tightened on our individual freedom to ensure that the public have limited impact upon the plans of our betters. This war by any means includes the reduction of the knowledge and intelligence of our children by the dumbing down of education, and the lowering of standards is all part of this process.
The control of the media has controlled the flow of information to the ignorant masses, as has the move from earth bound to terrestrial communications. In the future only the liberal elite will be able to gain access to real knowledge. Just as the church in the middle ages jealously guarded its knowledge, so the New World Order will guard theirs.
Of course the means by which such power is maintained and controlled is by an education and training system that ensures the docile compliance of the military and police. NLP and diversity training, which is now compulsory, and rigorously enforced, has intruded on the enforcement agencies to such an extent that a failure to comply with this twisted dogma would ensure the destruction of a career.
As a result of the development of the world, so the liberal elite have developed into the Neo-Conservatives, which have been active since the 1960’s
It is clear that the doctrine advocated in draft form in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz has been fully implemented as the next stage in the plan for world domination, and the adoption of the concepts advocated in 1954 is in play.
Having control of the organs of power, education, media, and communications led to the next logical step, which was the hundred year war.
The Hundred Year War
The Malthusian Theory of War has at its ideological basis the expanding of populations coupled with a scarcity of resources. It is the principle used to start the crusades, and Pope Urban II was aware that by providing the warring factions of Europe with an external enemy he was increasing the power of the church, and moving the problems of Europe to the Middle East.
It was clear by the end of the 20th Century that we were having problems in Europe, as the multicultural project failed, and the prosperity promised by the liberal/neo-con elite was destroyed. It left the members of the various organisations with a major problem.
How to maintain the drive towards one world government, despite the widespread resistance of the populations of the developed world.
We can surmise that they sought the advice of a think tank or two, so the very best people had a plan.
The Hundred Year War Plan, or the answer to all their problems. Even if they did not know about 9/11 they knew of the existence of groups capable of carrying out a 9/11 attack.
The Saudis backed the hijackers, and a CIA agent (Bin Laden) was in charge of the operation. The people in the various intelligence agencies had a vested interest in the start of a hundred years war, as it ensured funds for the foreseeable future.
As a fundraiser it was brilliant, and the war that followed has made millions for the government contractors and other agencies involved. It was also a good excuse to increase the assault on the individual freedoms of the citizens and ensure that ordinary people are focused on an external enemy and not any internal problems.
The people who know do not need to be convinced but the general public continue to be ignorant of the possible issues involved.
The Trilateral Commission are happy because the money keeps rolling in, and despite economic collapse in Europe they remain strong by their control of the emerging economies.
The Bilderberg/EU/UN/Liberal/Neo-Con’s are happy because they have the security to continue their drive to world domination. The same tried and tested method is used again and again.
Iran, North Korea and China will be used in the same way to continue the agenda of such people. But as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan the mission accomplished is sometimes premature, and in their arrogance the liberal elite sometimes bite off more than they can chew.
The Ideology of the Stupid Liberal
We assume that the liberal elite are intelligent, but there are different intellect types. We know that the total war waged on the people of Europe is the result of the actions designed to stop war, and we are sure that the liberal elite are corrupt, greedy and social. Liberals are happy as an elite, which is why the liberal is arrogant. He is happy sharing a neighbourhood with a rich Mr Ombogo, Singh or Patel while he screams contempt for the poor Mr Smith and Jones.
He cares not for the religion or race of his subject people. They can be black and Muslim for all he cares, as long as he and his rich friends are in charge.
Total War
He has waged total war on the populations of Europe since 1945, and has had a plan (much revised) since 1954. It is a total war waged on a grand scale, against the people of the world. Its goal is the establishment of a new world order.
Its plan is already well advanced and they control almost everything. They have killed and they will kill again to pursue their goals. John Smith, Saddam Hussein and David Kelly stood in their way.
In this country the media, police, Army and education system is controlled by them, and their placemen are in government.
The poor uneducated masses are being moved into communities so they can work for the new masters.
Democracy is dead.
Revolution may be the only answer.

Rise of Islam The Truth of Taqiyya

Rise of Islam The Truth of Taqiyya by Mary Gehl Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emaMore Sharing Servic

---

In direct opposition to the concept of Biblical truth is the concept of Islamic taqiyya, which, in Islam, is generally known as “lying for the faith.”

On the eve of Jesus’ crucifixion, He and Pontius Pilate engaged in a conversation that begged the question still being asked today—What is truth? John 18:37-38 describes the scene:

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?…

In direct opposition to the concept of Biblical truth is the concept of Islamic taqiyya.

A March 2012 public relations campaign to teach America about Shari’a law ignited a new round of dialogue regarding the truth of Islamic taqiyya. The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a New York-based group, is planning to spend $3 million on its “Defending Religious Freedom” campaign. The effort includes billboards, TV, and radio ads in 25 major cities—including New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Additionally, Muslim academics and activists are holding town hall meetings and seminars on university campuses in an effort to slow the two-year progress of state legislation banning Shari’a law in the U.S.

Taqiyya

Taqiyya, in Islam, is generally known as “lying for the faith.” There are two basic uses of taqiyya: 1) disavowing one’s religious identity during fear of persecution (Shi’a Muslims vs. Sunni Muslims), and 2) active deceit during jihad against the realm of unbelief (Dar al-Islam vs. Dar al-Harb). This form of deceit is grounded in Islamic doctrine and is often depicted as being equal to, or superior to, other military virtues such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.

Former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut, Sami Mukaram, wrote in his book, At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam (Dissimulation in Islam):

Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream. Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.

His book clearly reveals the ubiquity and broad applicability of taqiyya within Islam. Within Shari’a—the body of legal rulings that defines the appropriate behavior of Muslims in all circumstances—deception is not only permitted in certain situations, it is often deemed obligatory. Muslims who were forced to choose between recanting Islam or suffering persecution were permitted to lie and feign apostasy. Other jurists have decreed that Muslims are obligated to lie in order to preserve themselves because of verses in the Qur’an that forbid Muslims from being instrumental in their own deaths.

The writings of Qur’anic scholars detail the history of the authorization and use of Taqiyya. Sura 3:28 is used most often as the verse that sanctions deception towards non-Muslims:

Let believers [Muslims] not take infidels [non-Muslims] for friends and allies instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.

In his Qur’an commentary, Muhammad ibn jarir at-Tabari clarifies verse 3:28 as follows:

If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them… [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.

Some Qur’anic scholars extended taqiyya to cover deeds. Abu ‘Abdullah al-Qurtubi (1214-73) and Muhyi ‘d-Din ibn al-Arabi (1165-1240) supported bowing down and worshiping idols and crosses, offering false testimony, and exposing the weaknesses of fellow Muslims to the infidel enemy. Anything short of actually killing a Muslim is deemed acceptable: “Taqiyya, even if committed without duress, does not lead to a state of infidelity, even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire.”

Taqiyya and Islamic Public Relations

As this article is being written, two U.S. states have banned the practice of Shari’a law, twelve are in the process of drafting and approving legislation, and three have proposed legislation that failed to pass. For Islamic proponents of Shari’a in America, the battleground has been taken to a new level—the American billboard.

The slogan created by the Defending Religious Freedom campaign: Shariah: Got Questions? Get Answers hopes to catch the attention of the American voter with hopes of educating us to stop the bans. For many analysts, the issue is not one of creating a backlash of Islamophobia, but the reality of the use of taqiyya in the education process and the reality of Shari’a in America.

Shari’a literally means “the path to a watering hole.” Shari’a is the law of the Qur’an that is comprised of five main branches: adab (behavior, morals and manners), ibadah (ritual worship), I’tiqadat (beliefs),mu’amalat (transactions and contracts), and ‘uqubat (punishments).

According to its proponents, these branches of Shari’a combine to create a society based on “justice, pluralism and equity for every member of society.” They would like for us to believe that Shari’a forbids that it be imposed on any unwilling person. In fact, they propose that the Prophet Muhammad himself demonstrated that Shari’a may only be applied if people willingly apply it to themselves—never through forced government implementation.

Shari’a

One of the primary reasons for the backlash against the practice of Shari’a in America is the growing public awareness of honor killings. Human Rights Watch defines honor killings:

Honor killings are acts of vengeance, usually death, committed by male family members against female family members, who are held to have brought dishonor upon the family. A woman can be targeted by individuals within her family for a variety of reasons, including: refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce—even from an abusive husband—or (allegedly) committing adultery. The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a way that “dishonors” her family is sufficient to trigger an attack on her life.

In her 2009 Middle East Quarterly article, Phyllis Chesler argues that the U.S. is far behind Europe in acknowledging that honor killings are a special form of domestic violence—a form of violence in which the perpetrators are protected by Shari’a law. While the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” the Qur’an states:

• Sura 5:38 – Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from Allah.
• Sura 24:2 – A raped woman is punished with the man: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with 100 stripes.

The complexities and the deceit of the Islamic Circle of North America’s Defending Religious Freedom campaign are meant to assuage fears of Islam and Shari’a. However, even the name of the campaign denies the truth. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion,” yet Mohammed said, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57)

In his book, What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur’an: A History of Islam & the United States, William J. Federer presents an exhaustive study of the truth of taqiyya in U.S.-Islam relations. In contrast to the First Amendment Federer states, “Islamic law (Shari’a) relegates non-Muslims to ‘dhimmi’ status, where they are not to propagate their customs amongst Muslims and cannot display a Cross or Star of David.”

Truth

Sadly, in America, it does not matter if the “public relations campaign” is for the Islamic implementation of Shari’a law or the demoralizing implementation of humanism in every aspect of daily life, the result is the same—a life without the God-given freedoms and foundations established on our shores over two centuries ago.

Fjordman on the Verdict in the Breivik Trial

Fjordman on the Verdict in the

 Breivik Trial

The Oslo court has declared that Anders Behring Breivik is sane and inspired by an evil, right-wing extremist Islamophobic ideology, which also happens to be exactly what the entire political establishment from the state broadcaster NRK and national newspaper VG to Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg wanted the judges to say. So far, none of the involved parties have indicated that they will appeal this decision to a higher court.

In the end, Breivik received three months in jail for each of the human beings he killed in cold blood, which believe it or not is the maximum punishment possible in Norway. This is being hailed as a great victory for Norway’s glorious and humane justice system.

I admit that I have mixed feelings about this sentence. First of all, if Breivik actually is sane enough to be held accountable for his actions, sentencing him to a mere three months in jail for each of his murder victims is a sick joke that makes a mockery of the entire Norwegian justice system. It’s the symptom of a society that values the right of brutal criminals over the rights and well-being of their victims.

I have never met Breivik, but to the best of my abilities I would say that he represents a difficult case somewhere between insanity — as his very twisted worldview sometimes indicates — and the calculated cynicism he displayed during his terror attacks. He might have been declared sane in the USA, for instance.

However, it is not and should not be up to random journalists to decide this legal matter, which it sadly looks like it partially was in the Breivik case. We have to question whether we live in a democracy, a society ruled by the people, or a pressocracy, a society ruled by the press and those who control it.

The simple truth is that the outcome of this trial has been largely dictated by the mass media, who conducted an extremely aggressive campaign to overturn the first report of the court-appointed psychiatrists stating that Breivik is criminally insane. We were eventually presented two different reports with diametrically opposite conclusions, and the judges chose to simply overlook the first one of these entirely.

The official statements of the female head judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen and her co-judges closely mirrored what many pro-Multicultural newspaper columnistshave written over the past year, parroting the line that Breivik was part of a dangerous and delusional Internet-based “right-wing extremist” subgroup and that his massacre on July 22, 2011 was basically the logical conclusion of reading Islamophobic blogs.

Today, I published at Frontpage Magazine an essay about increased surveillance of Islam-critics in Norway, which is now also seen in several other Western countries. Unfortunately, it is likely that this trend will get worse after the latest court ruling in Oslo. Siv Alsén, a senior advisor in the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST), openly admits that the security services are now closely monitoring anti-Islamic websites and groups, since they are seen as a security threat.

NBC Interviews Non-Gay Olympian Lamar Ferguson

Komissar Blogunov
For more satire visit Thepeoplescube.com

Lamar Ferguson, an openly non-gay athlete of Marietta, GA, who has won his second gold in the men’s 3/4 acre lawnmower event in London, was also forced to fight an uphill battle to overcome the intolerance and resentment from his fans and the sports media after going public about his life with a domestic partner of the opposite sex.

Veteran reporter Blogunov, who was in London making sure that all events receive equal coverage, interviewed Ferguson on his win, his future plans, and intimate details of his personal life.

Ferguson won his first gold four years ago in Beijing, having defeated the heavily favored Mexican champion, Pedro Rodriguez, whose heterosexual leanings had been overlooked due to his predominantly non-European ancestry.

~
Blogunov: Tell me, Lamar, how does it feel to win gold again four years later?

Ferguson: Well, of course it feels real good, ‘specially to see all that trainin’ and hard work pay off.

Blogunov: You had earlier talked about retiring after Beijing, and so many of your fans were excited to see you back in the race and winning gold for the second time.

Ferguson: Well, y’know, I thunk it over and I thought I had one more Olympic competition left in me, so I thought I’d go for it.

Blogunov: That seems true of some of the other winners in these games.

Ferguson: Oh, yeah. Misty and Kerri done real good gettin’ gold for the third time, Phelps got hisself even more medals, and that Bolt feller from Jamaicer was still runnin’ at warp speed, so there was somethin’ in the air favorin’ us vetrans.

Blogunov: Now that you’re in the international spotlight once again, perhaps now’s the time to discuss your sexual orientation. For the record, you are openly straight. Is that correct?

Ferguson: Sure is.

Blogunov: When did you feel heterosexual leanings for the first time?

Ferguson: Oh, I think it was in middle school ‘bout the time I almost graderated from 7th grade. Girls was startin’ to be less yucky and more interestin’ to me.

Blogunov: Of course, we’ve all heard that you have a domestic partner of the opposite sex. Tell us more about that.

Ferguson: What happened was I got to likin’ girls so much, I ended up marryin’ me one. I think we like that we’re different. Good thang we was in a state that allowed fer hetrosexual marriages.

Blogunov: We’ve also heard that you and your partner became involved with the highly controversial Chick-Fil-A appreciation day.

Ferguson: Well, yeah, almost, but we missed that one ‘cause they was a qualifyin’ heat that day an’ we was in London, so we couldn’t go. But then we heard they was gonna be a kiss in a little later on, so me and the missus looked at each other and thought that was a great way to celebrate our anniversary. Anyway, we done the next best thang and went to a pub and ordered us some chicken. Kissed, too.

Blogunov: Well, Lamar, I commend you on your openness in going public about your heterosexuality. You must be very brave.

Ferguson: Aw, it’s no big deal; just who I am. I mean, me and the missus - we like it that way.

Blogunov: And what of your future plans for the Olympics? Are you on for 2016?

Ferguson: Naw, I’m definitely done. Four games is enough for me. I may see about coachin’ the upcoming team for Rio.

Blogunov: Ironically, you seemed to win more easily this time. How did that happen?

Ferguson: Fer one, I didn’t git no injuries in the medal round like the last two times, and fer another, Pedro done retired, so the only competition I had come from the Latvian champ.

Blogunov: How do you rate the Latvian team in the lawn care events?

Ferguson: Seein’ they didn’t even qualify in Beijing and they come up out o’ nowhere to git silver, I think they’re the team to watch.

Blogunov: Your old coach, whom we discussed in our previous interview, seemed a little bitter about your win.

Ferguson: You remember I had to let ‘im go before the Beijing games, and I don’t think he ever got over that. I reckon that’s why he called a press conference and said I didn’t win that medal, somebody else done it for me.

Blogunov: Tell us about your friend and rival, Pedro Rodriguez who silvered in the Beijing games.

Ferguson: Well, now, he actually did retire after them games, but then Mexico hired him to coach their men’s synchronized landscaping team, and you seen how good they done.

Blogunov: They absolutely dominated. Do the two of you still keep in touch?

Ferguson: Well, we both been real busy, but I congratulated him after his team got gold. He speaks some English and I can ahblow espanle some myself, so we been keepin’ up with each other some since Beijing.

Blogunov: Lamar, it’s always a pleasure talking with you. Best of luck to you in your future endeavors.

Ferguson: Same to ya.

Welcome to the modern hell

Welcome to hell

Aug  2012

by Posted at Amerika.

Modern life is hell.
It is the best kind of hell because it is invisible. On the surface, it appears to be a land of plenty. Underneath, none of that plenty can help us resist its emptiness.
In Dante’s Inferno, each type of wrongdoer received a customized level of hell. In each case, the punishment was based on life serving back their excesses as tortures.
However, all levels of hell had a theme, which was frustration. To be able to indulge in all the powers and excesses of the material world, and yet be powerless against that which you really need to conquer.
People in the modern time do not know themselves much at all. At first it appears that this is because they are constantly distracted with garbage, and this is true.
However, they are distracted by choice, in order to avoid looking too deeply into the parts of themselves they feel they cannot control.
The ego, and the social functions of a human being — these are really mirrors of one another — they feel they can control these. But depth of emotion, insight into the nature of the world? That terrifies them.
As a result, being in hell is a mystery to them. They can’t recognize a difference. The result is neurosis: their body sends signals to run, escape and hide, but the “rational” part of their brain thinks in money, products, and freedoms.
If we look past the world of strictly what is tangible and start thinking of life as an experience, we can see how modern society has made itself hell:

• No values. There is no overall sense of quality or moral good, other than ideological objectives, which distill down to different forms of radical altruistic egalitarianism.
• Quantity over quality. So that all must participate, we reduce the rare and exceptional, and replace it with learning by rote, success by participation, value by conformity and other non-quality assessments.
• Ugly. We call our design utilitarian, but what makes more sense is to call it administrative. It is not there to make life better. It is there to minimize complaints by being so average that none can complain without appearing to be putting on airs.
• Individualistic. Each person by the nature of being equal now needs to prove themselves. They compete on needless tasks, become egomaniacs for no purpose, and attire and adorn themselves with “unique” combinations of hobbies, clothing and personal drama in order to make themselves seem important.
• Conformist. The price of individualism is conformity; if anyone in a crowd is not an individualist, all individualists are threatened, because that non-individualist might invoke some principle of reality larger than the individual. All chase the same trends, memes, crazes, manias, and images. What they see in movies, they buy.
• Anti-exceptionalism. Utilitarian society is designed to accommodate the broadest swath of average, not the exceptional. As a result, it takes from the exceptional and redistributes to the average as a means of hobbling the exceptional so that everyone else feels satisfied at their own level of performance. It’s a peanut gallery, lynch mob, hive-mind and circular reasoning apparatus that exists only to justify itself.
• Idiots rule. To support egalitarianism and also a hierarchy of popularity and income, societies generate tests to find the “best.” Since these are egalitarian, they are not based on actual ability. The result is lots of zampolit style people who master details and know the right political dogma, but cannot adapt to new stimulus and thus are terrible leaders.

There are many more. This article however exists as an introduction to the hell we have made of modern society, and its goal is to suggest alternate possibilities rather than debunk directly any one failing.
In other words, we have finite time. We are wasting it on the mediocre so that everyone can be included. Why not get rid of the excess and parasitic inclusiveness, and instead do something beautiful an good?

One way Modern Thought

 

One way

Aug  2012

by Brett Stevens at Amerika.

The infuriating thing about modern society is that it is based in one-way (and reversed) thought processes.
Reversed thought process is simple. Instead of studying reality and adapting to it, we project ourselves on it. We create a social group to affirm our reality and not outside reality, which is how individualism creates conformity.
One-way thought process is created by our need to fix reality to fit our expectations. It is uneven, not level, and as a result often shocking to us and unpredictable without intense study. Our lazy minds like the idea of leveling it, making it all equal, in a metaphysical process not unlike paving it all with concrete.
In a similar sense, we like the idea of creating equality through transfer of wealth, power or status. Imagine that you have two sticks of uneven lengths. One will be longer than the other, so you can either cut it down to the size of the other, or take off the extra wood and split the difference, so both sticks are the same length.
Notice that it is impossible to do the reverse, which is to cause one stick to grow longer to meet the other. All we can do is cut and redistribute. Those are the only mechanisms available to society, at least until genetic engineering gets more terrifying.
The fact of this inability — we can cut, but not grow — lies in the decentralized nature of society itself. Each person has their own abilities and only they can motivate themselves to rise to the top of their innate potential, and no one can push them past it.
What results from this inability is a one-way street. In our push for equality, we have only one method, which is to take from those with better outcomes and use that “excess” to stimulate the pre-outcome possessions of others. We cannot equalize outcome-to-outcome, but we can fake it, by removing and splitting the difference.
Much like all powerful tools however this ability shapes our minds. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you’re in a redistribution mode everything looks like a Robin Hood scenario. Even more, it’s popular to do that, and so if you do, your own fortunes will rise faster than they can be redistributed.
This one way path gives us no stop point. If our policies are not working, the solution is more redistribution; we have not redistributed enough. The means becomes the goal. Since any direction other than more redistribution is off the charts, we keep on the path and try qualitative efforts: faster, more, harder, broader.
As modern society winds down — all of the industrialized nations, with the West leading the pack — it will present an opportunity to break this single direction. Let us try redistributing nothing, and instead exile those who get wealth in corrupt ways, and take care of those who are without it.
That slightly old-fashioned idea does not make us feel as powerful and altruistic, but it does help the problem without rotting our society from within through a one-way path to dissolution.

What the Black Enrichers really think of us whites

What the Black Enrichers really think of us whites

Written by Green Arrow
Individually, there are some decent black folk and occasionally some of them show signs of above average intelligence for their race but overall they are a jealous and vindictive people, who rather than admit their own inadequacies need to fix the blame on someone else for their own shortcomings - and that someone else is ALWAYS the white race.
Now check out the video, below that is of some lunatic enricher to Our Country, whose honesty about black peoples real views on the White British People, whose country they are unwanted guests in, is quite refreshing.
Now why this butt ugly creature with no understaning of geography would think white people would want to look like her is beyond my reasoning, if anything it is black people who are buying skin whitening products and straightening their hair and just why anyone would want to walk around with buttocks the size of a waddling hippopotamus is also beyond my reasoning.

Way to go girl. Let us hope some "white cunt" police officers go knocking on your door soon and let us hope that they bang you up the way they did Liam Stacey and Jacqueline Woodhouse who were jailed for simply speaking the truth.  They had a valid reason for their rants, the black animal in the video has no such excuse.  She is just a black being black and revealing what they really think of us.

Now dull, thick, moronic white liberals can say that we are all equal, well the thing in that video may be your equal but it is certainly not mine.  Are you missing him yet?  I am.

You may also like to read this article here.
Please do not forget to visit the Corsham Crusader's Youtube channel, mark the article up and leave a comment to show your support for the work he does in providing us with such a great, informative channel.

Share this post

Dr. David Starkey on Riots

Starkey on Riots

Posted by BNP Ideas on August, 2012 

Andrew Brons MEP discusses a historian’s take on current events

Dr. David Starkey is not a man to be frightened into silence. He made controversial statements one year ago when the riots had taken place and dared to repeat them when vilified for his contribution.

Now, one year later, when the Political Class has, by enormous effort of  will, convinced itself that they did not really take place, Dr. Starkey, in an article in The Daily Telegraph (7^th August), has reminded us that they did indeed take place.

He referred to the fact that ‘many’ of the rioters were black and quoted a white shopkeeper who had followed the rioters in disguise and who claimed in an interview with Sky News that he had been the only white person present.

Dr. Starkey understands the political landscape of modern Britain and must realise that he will pay a heavy price. He will no longer be free to make his own television programmes – even on safe topics like the Tudors. The Establishment cannot afford to tolerate uncontrolled historians. Whatever will he come up with next?

As if it were not enough for Dr. Starkey to show that his understanding of the riots was high, he demonstrated that his understanding of the psychology of the Political Class was much higher.

Starkey began his article by quoting, with approbation, T.S. Eliot, “Humankind cannot bear very much reality”. This might explain the fact that recollection of the riots have been consigned not so much to history as to Orwell’s memory hole – ‘memory’, in Orwellian, meaning ‘to be forgotten’.  Starkey recalls that the last time the riots were mentioned in official circles was in March when the official inquiry into them published its report.

Dr. Starkey refers to the denial of white members of the Political Class, from David Cameron to the left-wing think-tank, Demos, that race had anything to do with the riots. He contrasts this denial with the admission from our old friend Darcus Howe who was reported as saying, “It’s an insurrection of a generation of poor, primarily black people from the Caribbean and from Africa”.

His major error was to refer to the proportions from each ethnicity among those who appeared before the courts. These still showed a predominance of  black people and those of mixed race (50% of those prosecuted were in one or other of these categories, compared with 41% who were whites). However, he seemed not to be aware that few rioters were prosecuted, because, in his own words, “the police were overwhelmed and fleeing from the rioters”. The people who appeared in court were looters who were ordinary members of the criminal classes, who saw the riots as an opportunity to be exploited rather than a cause to be supported. Economic criminals are to be found among all ethnic groups. The preponderance of blacks among them simply reflected the nature of the areas in which the riots had taken place.

The riots were described accurately by Darcus Howe as an insurrection, a political act, and were initially sparked by the shooting by the police of a black drug dealer.
I do not want to suggest that only black people riot. Historically riots have taken place in all populations. They are essentially acts of desperation from people who feel that they have no other means of expressing their resentment and frustration. This might be because those means have artificially been withheld from them or it might mean that they find themselves in a society in which they cannot compete, however equal the opportunities might be. The causes might be very different but the response is the same.

Dr. Starkey, quite understandably, wants to distance himself from any kind of ‘racial’ conclusion. Indeed, he trots out the cliché that he regards race, “in the proper sense of a group with fixed hereditary characteristics, as eugenicist nonsense”. This seems to be a variant of , “race does not exist but is merely a social construct”.

Nobody, of course, has ever suggested that races comprise  people with uniform fixed hereditary characteristics. All races comprise people with wide physical as well as mental disparities. They were referred to as ‘contours’ by the anthropologist Isherwood. They could just as easily have been described as occupying different positions on a human continuum – like height or weight. However, nobody would suggest that  variation in either of these characteristics is simply illusory.

Dr. Starkey is even careful to avoid identifying a single ‘black culture’ or (for that matter) a ‘white culture’. Instead he identified a very particular black culture that he referred to as: “The violent, destructive, nihilistic, ‘gangsta’ culture of the street”. This very particular black culture regards academic achievement and even the speaking of standard English as somehow effeminate. He is, of course, quite right to make this distinction but with whom is he disagreeing?

Of course, what Dr. Starkey is really saying is: “I am a thoroughly civilised person and must not be confused with those people out there, whom I shall not mention, because they might not exist but if they don’t, they will have to be invented anyway!

Dr. Starkey’s solution is to find a black leader of the right calibre – he suggests Doreen Lawrence, mother of Steven Lawrence – who would tackle black street culture head on and replace it with………….. something else.

There are, of course, other black cultures that are more appreciative of improvement and less negative and violent. Undoubtedly, it is possible to teach such culture. The question is whether all of the intended audience are capable of learning it and changing their behaviour.

There is a view of culture that is pervasive among the liberal chattering classes. This is of a culture that is a transient outer garment that can be discarded and replaced by an alternative outer garment. Some superficial cultural exteriors, such as language, religion and philosophy, can indeed be discarded and alternatives chosen by some people. However, the alternative garment must fit the wearer or be adapted to his needs.

The gangsta  street culture has become prevalent among a section of the black population because its fits the needs of that section, present as it is among a wider society and economy, in which it cannot compete but in which, its members have been taught, they are entitled to respect. Those incapable of competing with the values of the elite or even the average population create their own benchmarks for evaluating human status and achievement.

In a society with ascribed social status in which the least able are not given falsely high expectations, the humble accept their humility and are content with it. In a society containing people with widely differing abilities, equality of opportunity might appear to be a life line available to all. In fact it is only a lifeline for the able. We must not confuse equality of opportunity with equality.

The introduction of a meritocratic system would have had losers as well as winners, even if Britain had not been treated to the wonderful opportunity to experience a multi-racial society, possibly for ever. However, the range would not have been so great and the perceived chasm between the most able and the least able not as unbridgeable.

The creation of the multi-racial society is sometimes seen as an act of human kindness. It was nothing of the kind. It was an act of cruelty inflicted through the deceit of false expectation. Holding out an opportunity of success to those incapable of realising it, is to impose ritual humiliation on those doomed to fail. Can we really blame the condemned failures for rejecting the competition in which they could only be losers.

Rioting, gangsta culture and gun and knife crime are emphatically not the answer but what is?

Maturity , In Conservative Politics

Maturity

by Brett Stevens.

Conservatives need to avoid getting roped into being the voice of maturity that is a counterpart to the liberal voice of childishness.

From a distance, the childish looks like more fun and maturation looks like fascism. To a casual observer, whether a bored office worker, existentially challenged housewife, or angry teenager, the childish side looks like more fun.

This plays into the tendency of modern people to be constantly depressed and self-hating because they have externalized their self-worth in the form of money, status, power and most of all, peer pressure. As a result they are constantly looking for the uplifting and find it in the childish.

As a result, conservatives like abused children of domineering parents found themselves thrust into the role of “being the bigger person.” If the other side does something criminal, we ignore it and move on. If they demand a ludicrous plan, we come in later and fix the ruins.

From this has come a neutered version of conservatism. It accepts the basic precepts of the left, namely that every person is entitled to their own equally valid “reality,” but adds to it a finger waggling high school disciplinarian.

We as a result get drawn into trying to save people from themselves. “Don’t do drugs,” instead of the more self-serving “don’t do drugs around my family.” We try to create a perfect, safe and gentle society with laws and public initiatives.

The paradox of humanity however is that the more we try to fix things, the worse the result is. This is because we try to fix symptoms, not underlying causes. Our good intentions are on the surface level of the visible part of bigger problems, like icebergs beneath the surface.

This surface thinking arises from the social nature of civilization itself. We see things as others might see them, instead of how they are independent from a human bias toward the human perspective. This creates a one-dimensional surface view based in social notions of what should be right.

Just like nature is full of optical illusions, and unexpected twists and turns that defy “common sense” and visual aspects, nature is full of logical traps like this. We do not notice our bias because we are the instrument of our own perception.

Thus we walk into an erroneous way of viewing the world and have no one who is not human to show us the world outside humanity and correct us. We would if we listened more to all the good, noble, brave and kind dogs of the world, but they are short on language tokens so we do not.

Conservatives are entirely anathema to this social view. We care about what is eternal: beauty, efficiency, history, ideals. We focus on consequences of actions, not the action as both cause and effect as it is visualized socially, and as a result have an intense desire to know our world and predict consequences.

This is a losing proposition in a popularity contest like democracy because most people, owing to a combination of limited congenital intelligence and limited time and energy to expend learning airy subjects, pick the short-term, social, exciting and individually rewarding over the eternal.

It is for this reason that every society known to ever exist has started dying as soon as people began viewing individuals as equal. If we’re all equal, we’re all entitled to our opinions, and there is no reality principle. This creates a society where social reality and equal validity are more important than discovering reality, using it to predict the consequences of our actions, and planning for the best possible long-term consequences so that we can alter our actions to reach that state.

As those who do not wish to see collapse, conservatives are always pushing back against the tide. But in doing so, conservatives get shifted into the role of nanny, guardian and policeman. We become the cleanup crew for whatever mess the left makes.

This allows them to get away with it. They can honestly look at the past and say, “We did all this crazy and destructive stuff, and it all turned out just fine!”

It also makes conservatives unpalatable. Who do you want to vote for, the young lawmaker or his decrepit virgin aunt who thinks he should always wear a sweater and wash his hands twice before meals?

There is an old saying that does not get enough airtime. It is: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Conservatives have good intentions, alright, and it is why they win elections less frequently than they should.