• PayPal name: subiesisters@aol. com
  • Buy 'Moral Cowards' at Amazon.com

Sunday, April 29, 2012

If you cannot feed a child, then don't have one.....except.....

Here's the rub.  It makes sense that if you cannot afford to feed a child, then you should not get pregnant in the first place.  And until about 60 years ago in America, it was that way.  So, what changed in our society that now the government must feed every child because they don't get enough food?

What changed is that Civil Rights took hold and thanks to those Jews that introduced the concept, our Welfare State bloated to enormous proportions encompassing young school girls to have babies without fathers.  As a reward for doing this, the Welfare State gave these females free medical care, free housing and free food.  Who could turn that down and still retain dignity?  No one.

Then, the wealthy businessmen decided that taxes were too high in America and Non Government Organizations shipped whole businesses to underdeveloped nations because there were minimal taxes and extremely cheap labor.  And to add titillation to this destructive recipe, their import taxes to ship back into America were negligible.

Add to this, the ban Senator Joseph McCarthy put on subversive movies Jews were producing was lifted in about 1965 and they were again free to create 'strange' movies that encouraged perversion and questions our values.

President Reagan, although a nice guy, closed orphanages, hospitals for the poor, mental hospitals, devalued the dollar and deregulated almost every utility company including airlines and trucking.

During the 1980s, American doctors were pushed out of favor because of rising insurance costs and a story began floating around about 'fraud' in the medical profession.  Although no one that had health insurance knew of any fraud, the story floated and became 'truth.'

Into this mix, the free health/life insurance all employees received because they had a job, was threatened by Hillary Clinton in the early 90s, introducing Health Care for all.  Although her idea failed, HMOs began to replace health insurance until President Obama passed Hillary's socialized medicine plan in January of 2010, right after the Hate Crime Bill was passed.

As illegal aliens began swarming into this nation from Mexico and Cuba, they took jobs away from 'Americans that don't want those jobs' and today the only jobs Americans can find are jobs those illegals don't want.  Doctors from other countries such as India and Mexico took those 'jobs American doctors don't want.'

After the turn of the century, pharmaceutical giants were drugging children and adults in earnest because of the stress on the families and schools from busing and Civil Rights.  Many older adults went to Canada to buy cheaper drugs but those giants threatened our 'government' that if they didn't stop that flow, their financial favors would dry up so our 'government' ordered Canada to stop selling those drugs to Americans.  Now, Canada was getting their drugs from American pharmaceutical giants so they stopped and began getting their drugs from foreign nations.

The irony of this is that now our 'government' told Americans that foreign drugs were untested and dangerous.  Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

The price of a barrel of gasoline was held down to about $45 after World War II until the 1970s.  Without any control, the price of gasoline rose.  At the same time the price rose, it also rose in other areas because now America was not producing fabric, shoes, oil refineries, food, automobiles, appliances or toys. 

Our 'government,' now run by foreign interests, passed the H1B and NAFTA visa making it very easy to come to American and take those jobs 'Americans don't want.'  Jewish Family Services helps Somalians come to America and gives them beautiful townhouses to live in.  And WE pay for all this.

Employers cut overtime and pay and benefits of American workers.  With America becoming a Service Nation and not a production nation, the job market dwindled.  Farmers, long since subsidized for not producing, found it very difficult to keep the farm.  Small businesses, the backbone of America, could not afford to stay open because of personal taxes and Handicapped accessibility requirements and minority hiring quotas.

In the mid-80s, there was the Savings and Loan Scandal and right after that the Stock Market Scandal.  After the turn of the century, the stock market again stuck it to America's retirement prospects and reduced their pension plans to mud.

But hey, our 'government' solved those problems.  They bailed out the very people that got this nation into the mess. 

Ah, but there is one job industry that is doing quite well.  Our military.  Our healthy young men are signing up so they can fight trillion-dollar wars for Israel in the Middle East because Israel is our 'ally.'  They are our buddies, our friends, although Israel murdered more than thirty of our young men on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967 during the Six Day War and Americans didn't know about it.  Americans also didn't know Kissinger struck up a deal with President Nixon to turn a blind eye to Israel's amassing of nuclear weapons, which he did.

Where are we today?  Civil Rights turned angry American black people into violent criminals.  Busing mixed up neighborhoods and families and stressed white and black kids out until the level of education suffered and ailments increased.  Movies like 'The Warriors' introduced and trained angry black and white youngsters on the new concept of  how to wear Colors and fight....much more efficient.  More Americans became fat because of poorly-made food with preservatives and other additives, although the FDA said they were safe.

From those ever increasing fat people came other ailments such as high blood pressure and diabetes that our new Health Care System would remedy with more drugs.  Did you know that in many public schools the word 'fat' is a banned word?  Hey, if you can't say it, it must not exist, right?  And what a coincidence that the Liberal Democratic Party that backed busing, et el, is also violently against abortion.

Anyway, that is how we got here from there.  If you cannot afford to have a child or if you use crack, cocaine or are an alcoholic, have that child because it means SSDI, Section 8 housing, free medical care and Food Stamps.  A migrant worker pays $5 for his/her medical visits but most Americans have no insurance at all and pay hundreds each visit.  Why should they have insurance with their job?  They don't even HAVE jobs. Americans must pay the bill for those that are ruining our nation because THAT is our new job.

Friday, April 27, 2012

Very simple, very easy: The Edomites are the problem

Many people, especially today, argue about Jesus being a Jew.  He was not.  No one during His time was a Jew.  There were no Jews.  It wasn't until at least the 16th or 17th Century that the word 'jew' was first used and added to the Bible.

So who were these people that Jesus was so against?  All the people in the area including Judean citizens and Galileans celebrated the same ceremonies, had Rabbis, practiced the same traditions about food and holidays.  But why were the Rabbis and Pharisees in and around The Temple different than the others?

Very simple.  The group that later became known as the Jews were outcasts.  Their Rabbis were ruled by money and power and considered Jesus a threat to their security.  That is why Jesus upset the tables in The Temple.  That is why He cursed them.  That is why His apostles said His blood would always be upon them.  They were a mean, selfish group of misfits and should have broken off from the rest.

But they did not break off.  Instead, by the death of Jesus, they became more powerful.  They took the message of Christ and the goodness of the true Israelites and made it theirs.  Jesus' message got twisted around to be a message for the very enemy He was against.

A thousand years can do that.  After all, not many people could write back then anyway and Edomites could write whatever they wanted, whatever lie they wanted.

That is the true story.  The Jews of today were the enemies of Jesus a thousand years ago.  Why 'Christian Zionists' choose to ignore the truth and honor the Jews...I have no idea.

Sunday, April 22, 2012

The Users and the Takers...same thing

If 'good' people make things bad, then the good is bad.   Seems a simple enough concept but Americans don't get it.  If they did, our economy would not be in the tank, they would not be taking so many prescription drugs and our children would be happy and wholesome.  But things are bad.  So what is really 'good' and what is really 'bad?'

For those growing up in the 50s and 60s, Good was low taxes, small government, negligible welfare state, high morals and values, mother stayed at home with the kids, dad worked because there was industry and businesses.  But Jews running Civil Rights (according to Jewish professor Robert Weissberg) in the late 60s said all those things were Bad.  "Down with the Establishment."  That meant get rid of all that Good stuff and at the same time, introduce what Jews considered Good.

What did Jews consider Good?  Obviously they considered Civil Rights 'good' because that forced black people into schools not considered 'black' and gave jobs (Affirmative Action) to blacks just because they were black and bused black kids into white neighborhoods and visa versa.  What 'good' came out of all that? 

The 'good' that came out of all that was destruction of the family unit, destroyed neighborhoods, young girls having children without husbands, the welfare state bloating, violence, our industries going overseas, subsidized housing, illegals coming into our nation, refuge for Somalians and any other foreigner who wanted to come here including Turks.  The 'good' also introduced perverted and subversive movies, music and television shows.  Jews even took comic books and used adult, sexual format not to mention controlling the banking, credit bard and mortgage industries.

Along the way, the Catholic Church was destroyed along with the Masonic Temple and any other 'white' organization where men gathered.  Jews consider all this 'good' because it is good for the Jew.  Non-Jews consider this 'bad' but when they identify the Jew as the orchestrator of all this madness, he is branded "anti-Semitic,' a phrase created by the Jew.

Today our nation has over 20 million Christian Zionists that profess we must let Israel do what it wants otherwise non-Jews could not get to heaven.  I would think that living in filth on earth was a bit more important to overcome than favoring Jews and making them god.  But then, I lived during the 50s and 60s and know how our nation was and what it was founded upon.

Some of you might bring up the early 1900s as 'proof' Americans were 'anti-semitic' and 'hate blacks.'  And how was it to live back then?  Safe streets?  Minimal violence?  Low taxes?  People taking care of their families and helping others?  Farmers that ran their own farms?  Schools educating children both black and white?  Sounds like a lotta' bad going on there, right?

Jews used blacks during Civil Rights because they were perfect for that.  Why were they 'perfect?'  The blacks were living in their neighborhoods just as other races.  Yes, Jews were discriminated against.  It must have had something to do with happened in the Old Country.  So Jews latched onto the American black and TOLD them being a slave was 'bad,' (of course not mentioning white indentured servants that worked right beside them) and they needed to hurt the 'white' man because 'he is the reason for the black man's woes.'

Why would Jews want blacks to hurt white people?  Could it be because Jews were discriminated against and they used the black to open the doors for THEM?  Could be, if that is considered 'good.' 

When we compare what the KKK did to blacks after 1945 to what the blacks did to the whites after 1970, we find the behavior the same.  In other words, the blacks are doing the same thing to whites that they believe white people did to them.  Only, that was way before any white or black was living in the 60s.  Does the child take credit for what his father did?  Does the child owe anything for what the father did 'bad?'  Seems so, according to the Jew. 

If that were true that the child is responsible for the father then what about the Jews in Russia, the Bolsheviks, that murdered, tortured and overthrew the White Russians and murdered the Czar?  Shouldn't ALL Jews today be responsible for that?  Shouldn't all Jews be responsible for what the Rosenburg's did to our nation?  Shouldn't all Jews be responsible for lying about the German concentration camps?

It doesn't go both ways.  It only goes pro-Jew and pro-Israel because THAT is 'good' for the Jews.  Anything against the Jews such as naming the Jews that own 90% or our media or naming the Jews that wrote false books, or naming the Jews advising our president....that is anti-Semitic.

It was 'bad' when Americans stayed in their place.  That made the streets and schools safe and people were healthy, both black and white.  You worked up the ranks.  You earned your position.  You were polite to each other.   That was 'bad.'

I tried to find incidents of whites murdering blacks before 1970 but could find none.  I'm sure there are some out there.  Allegedly there were some white boys that drug a black behind a vehicle back 20 years ago but I could not locate it.  What I did find was blacks murdering white people, blacks murdering black people, blacks murdering Jewish people and Jews killing blacks.

The only 'race' that doesn't belong in this hateful and violent equation are white people.  They had nothing to do with desegregation or Civil Rights or busing or Affirmative Action.  There was no Affirmative Action out there when our European ancestors came to America nor would they have wanted a handout. 

White people should be cleared of any wrongdoing in the last 60 years.  They weren't involved.  They tried to defend the 'good' but were outgunned by Jews of the media and government.  My conclusion is that since Jews created all this chaos, this should be a 'war' between the Jews and blacks.  Whites didn't do it.  Whites stood for Good and somehow, according to Jews, that is Bad.

This is the first time in history that Jews have had somebody like the United States behind them....because there are too many Jews controlling it.  That would be comparable to the Roman Empire backing the Jews and enabling them to become powerful.  But the Italians wouldn't let that happen because to them, Jews were a problematic group of people that kept to themselves.  KEPT TO THEMSELVES.

And they still do.  Jews don't live in 'diverse' neighborhoods.  Jews now live wherever they want and that is usually in a gated community together or otherwise separated from the general population.  Look at Israel....they don't want Christians or Arabs in their (illegal) nation.  Yet, not many Americans speak about this, do they?  They are afraid to say 'the King has no robes.'  They are afraid to say the obvious.  That would be anti-Semitic.

Other Americans should not be in this squabble.  Jews are USING the American black TAKERS.  Therein lies the problem.  Jews and blacks need to hammer this out and leave other Americans out of it.

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Conversations with High School kids

I have conversations with high school kids all the time.  It is quite amazing to pick their brains and open their worlds.  Asking them to research 'the other side' is important because schools sometimes present time-worn books for them to read, many fiction, and parents rarely tell them the truth about the world because they don't know themselves.

The saddest thing to me is the drugging of our children in America.  That parents drug their child based on the suggestion of a teacher, Catholic or Public school, is one of the worst situations we are dealing with in America.

I spoke with a 17-year-old named 'Brittany' yesterday.  I noticed her because she had a blank stare, which reminded me of the movie 'Deliverance.'  She is a good-looking girl, however, and other than the droopy-eyed stare, seemed healthy.  She came up to me and we began talking.

After a few opinions about people that take advantage of others, she told me she has been taking the drug Concerta for four years and wants to get off of it.  She said her sister takes Ritalin.  Concerta is a time-released Ritalin and is given to students that 'look around too much' and basically, have a lot of energy and inquisitiveness.  They are happy.  Teachers today can't deal with that as they could 50 years ago and want a calm class so they suggest to the parent they drug the child to 'calm them down.'  They tell the parent the drug will make them get good grades (but they already are intelligent) and make them popular. 

The problem with drugs like these is that they also cause seizures and headaches and turn the child into a slow-moving zombie.  I spoke with her about ways to get off the drug, the first being to tell her mother she wants off of it 'for the summer.'  Next, to slowly wean herself off and third, to seek legal counsel. 

I have seen students that jump up on a table to fart in the face of other kids:  Male students that remove their shirts in class down to their bare skin.  These kids are not being given Ritalin, although they sorely need discipline and counseling.  If anyone should be given Ritalin, it should be the teacher and principles.

What do these intelligent, white children need instead of drugs?  Tutoring.  There are schools out there like the Silvan Learning Center that do this.  All the bright child needs is to learn how to study.  But instead of doing this correct thing, parents go the easy route and drug their child.  Heaven forbid they spend time helping the child with homework.

That ANY parent would do this; that ANY parent would jeopardize the health of their child based on what a school suggests, is to me the First Mortal Sin.  To sentence these parents for child endangerment would be appropriate.  These same parents probably do not feed their child healthy meals either. 

The second conversations I've had most with students is what they read.  A class was reading To Kill a Mockingbird.  They weren't sure what the title meant except they thought it had to do with killing a black person that didn't commit a crime.  I asked if the story was true and the girl said, "It is fiction."  I asked why they gave any credibility to a made-up story.  She didn't know.

I asked her if she had Googled white crime in America before Civil Rights and black crime in America after Civil Rights.  She had not.  I asked if she had researched black crime on white people, black on Jew, Jew on black or any other statistics.  She had not.  I suggested to her that she should research that.

Later, I spoke with a very talkative girl who could not stop talking and had many opinions.  She said she was joining the Army and that the reason we were fighting in the Middle East was because of oil.  I told her the United States gets around 6% of their oil from the Middle East.  We get our oil from South America, the Gulf and U.S. oil fields and Alaska.  I told her Canada produced much oil but does not send it to the U.S. because we have no refineries and instead send it to Europe.  Now, if the war was about oil, why does Canada send oil over there?  She didn't know.  I told her to research it.

I told this future military girl that the war is about supporting our allies, the major one being Israel.  I told her the war is about money and destroying nations to make money.  I asked for facts to support her opinion.  She had no facts.  But she is willing to join the Army and fight wars 'for oil.'  One thing the military will do, however, is stop her from talking so much.

It is not that our schools are teaching the wrong things.  It is that parents don't care to teach their children the right things.  Teaching an intelligent, energetic child that to solve a problem they should take drugs is NOT a message any of us agree with.  And yet I am certain you personally know parents that do this. 

Talk to a teenager.  Don't just talk TO them.  Listen.  You might learn something.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

"Blacks don't appreciate what the Jews have done for them," Robert Weissberg

I made an amazing discovery in 2010.  It was as great as the one I made in 1998.  The first discovery in 1998 came from Professor Robert Weissberg of American Renaissance.  He made audio tapes about the relationship between blacks and Jews.  He also sent me a paper entitled, ' Jews and Blacks:  Everything the Goyim Want to Know But Are Afraid to Ask.'  He convinced me that it wasn't the white politician that did Civil Rights to garner black votes.  He said the Jews did it and why.

The second discovery was in 2010 from the same professor.  After I interviewed him for my radio show about his new book, Bad Students, Not Bad Schools, that states blacks and Hispanics have low IQs, he told me that 'blacks don't appreciate what the Jews have done for them' and the Jews want to unburden themselves from the black cause but can't.  http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-20064/TS-308338.mp3

Now, understand, I was pleased as punch to finally find Professor Weissberg in 2010 since he was the person that set me on the correct path as to who was causing American destruction. He is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Illinois.

 I was impressed with this Jew for telling the truth and wanted to interview him.   But the shock that his original information was put out NOT to inform the American public that Jews did Civil Rights, et el, but because Jews want to get rid of the American black cause....was a huge eye opener.  Blacks were no longer useful to the Jew.

So, recently, I have seen stories circulating about black on white crime and a possible race war.  Jews would love that.  It would cause chaos, which brings in money for them, and cements their mantra that the white man is the problem.  However, Jews live in protected communities, the laws they enabled protect them from violence, and the illegal state created for them on Palestinian land does not abide by the same rules they inflict on the United States and other nations.  In other words, they do not practice what they preach and the American people think that is okey dokey. 

The Catholic Church, after Vatican II in 1963, does not exist.  The Masonic Temple is now associated with high-powered Jews.  Christians now preach that Israel has the right to exist because otherwise, we could not get to heaven.  Israel is guilty of human rights violations, are allowed to continue to steal Palestinian land, American soldiers are dying fighting their hateful wars and yet....Americans stand by because now they can  "get to heaven."

An article by Dylan Byers on April 12, 2011, states in part about Robert Weissberg, "As part of the National Review's effort to disassociate itself with racism, occasional contributor Robert Weissberg was let go yesterday because he gave a speech at a white supremacy conference. The severing of those ties -- not terribly significant for Weissberg, given that he was an unpaid, occasional contributor -- followed the Review's decision to fire longtime contributor John Derbyshire.

The article continues, "But Weissberg, who describes himself to me as a "1960s color-blind liberal" and said his speech at the conference was "anti-white nationalism," feels that the Review's response was "bizarre," and even compared it to a Soviet show trial.

"White nationalism is not really an ideology, its obnoxious," he said. "As I told them at the conference, you’re better off being called a child molester than a white nationalist. So, I said, if you are a white nationalist, why not move to a place that’s all white?"


Weissberg was fired!!  And again, was he fired for the right reason?  Was he fired because he likes what Jews did to American blacks or the power that Jewish institutions now have?  No.  He was fired because he spoke at a white supremacy conference.  And why did he do that?

Well, I know.  Weissberg wants people to believe he is on the 'white' side and not the black.  He wants people to believe he is white.  He wants people to follow him in his cause to rid the Jews of the black and most importantly, he wants the Jews and Israel to remain in power.  In other words, he is using white people as he used the black people.  He is using white people, the very people he destroyed with Civil Rights.

"Tut, tut, child.  Every story has a moral if only you can find it" the Queen said to Alice.  And what is the moral of THIS story?  The moral is, don't be fooled by smooth-talking Jews.  Weissberg's site, American Renaissance, puts out stories about black on white crime.  What does he care?  He's not white.  American Renaissance puts out books and information on how stupid the black is and the white members eat it up because they want to believe they are superior to the black.  If they were superior, they would not have to be reminded, don't ya think?

Weissberg stated concerning his speech at the conference, "White nationalism is not really an ideology, its obnoxious," he said. "As I told them at the conference, you’re better off being called a child molester than a white nationalist. So, I said, if you are a white nationalist, why not move to a place that’s all white?"

White people fell for the race card ideology that Jews introduced in the 60s.  Now many Americans are using the word 'white' and many are sending around American Renaissance's biased information ONLY because it is against blacks.  Remember, it is against blacks because Jews are trying to get rid of them and a race war would be mighty convenient.  Weissberg is bringing up the White Nationalism mantra because he wants the conversation to continue!  He wants that race war--but not against the Jews--so he feeds into the Civil Rights hatred of blacks, the very hatred JEWS created.  That is obnoxious!

But many Americans can't see all that.  American blacks can.  They know the Jews used them.  Remember in 1997 when Michael Jackson came out with his song, 'They don't really care about us" that told of his Jewish handlers?  In the song lyrics you can hear, "Kike me."  The Jewish handlers were upset about this.  Michael is dead.  A black can't do that....they are supposed to appreciate what the Jews have done for them.

So, you see, if you research and don't let your personal feelings and expectations get in the way, you can find the truth.  The question then becomes:  Will you believe it?

Read Robert Weissberg's complete paper below.

Paper by Professor Robert Weissberg

Jews and Blacks:  Everything the Goyim Want to Know But Are Afraid to Ask

Robert Weissberg

            What explains continued Jewish support for black causes long after blacks have unequivocally turned against their erstwhile ally?  Or, in modern psychobabble, "Why does she still stay in the abusive relationship?"  Moreover, how might this Jewish co-dependency be undermined?  Is there a handy twelve-step program for this disorder?  Given that the entire contemporary civil rights political agenda (affirmative action and related "color sensitive" evils) might collapse into a mere nuisance without Jewish money, brains and dynamism, these are hardly trivial questions. 

            The Historical Record
            To begin with, let me read into the record two facts as one submits court documents.  Exhibit A is the Jewish contribution to black well being.  This monumental bestowal properly requires a massive tome.  Jews have already assisted as prominent leaders and financial benefactors.  The Julius Rosenwald Foundation virtually single-handedly bankrolled the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund (Rosenwald's generosity likewise once helped educate 25 to 40% of Southern black children!).  Decades back the Jewish philanthropists Jacob Shiff and Felix Warburg were similarly munificent.  More than half the lawyers and freedom riders assisting Southern black civil rights activists during the 1960s were Jewish.  Martin Luther King, Jr., James Farmer, among many others, all relied on Jewish advisors (and Jewish gelt [money]).  The Jewish Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, and the American Jewish Committee (among numerous other Jewish organizations) have been "movement" stalwarts.  Elected Jewish leaders have uniformly been pro-civil rights, while ordinary Jews are the most racially liberal demographic group.  The Wall Street Journal recently noted that nearly all high-ranking black executives worked in Jewish run corporations.  And on and on.  Perhaps only Israel has drawn more fervent support in the pantheon of Jewish causes!

            Exhibit B is wretched black anti-Semitism.  The facts are again plain--even Ivory Tower academics admit it.  Repeated national polls show blacks more anti-Semitic than whites, even when statistically adjusting for socio-economic status.  A 1992 survey revealed that blacks were often twice as likely as whites to endorse anti-Jewish stereotypical, e.g., Jews favor shady business practices or have excessive economic power.  More telling is explicit Jew-hating permeating black popular culture.  The virulent anti-Jewish messages of Public Enemy, Professor Griff and other rap artists evidently do not offend black audiences judging by the millions of records sold.  Damning Jewish Ghetto merchants (even long after they have sold their stores) is apparently an honored black tradition.  That both Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan have risen to respected mainstream figures among ordinary blacks (and NAACP, as well) despite praising Hitler's killing of six million Jews speaks louder than any poll.

            Overshadowing these outcroppings is the character of this antipathy.  It is not confined to ill-educated, destitute blacks easily seduced by gutter rhetoric, through it surely thrives in such environs.  Shockingly, it is more pervasive among educated African-Americans who, at least in principle, should be aware of their debts as well as the foolishness of alienating willing allies.  Black intellectuals, and we are not just talking of Leonard Jeffries, openly despise Jewish support, even occasionally seeing it as an anti-black plot.  Talk of "Jews running the slave trade" or "Jewish merchants sucking the blood from black communities" is often a "scholarly" given.  One is reminded of Gladstone's retort when informed that a Londoner spreading terrible lies about him.  "Why," he replied, "I never once did the man a favor?"
            Anti-Semitic professionals among wannabe black leaders often seem obligatory.  As Benjamin Ginsberg's The Fatal Embrace convincingly argues, professing "fervent commitment" to youthful Ghetto Brothers, nothing outshines open Jew-baiting.  In a bizarre psycho-logic, Jesse Jackson (let alone Louis Farrakhan) gains "authenticity" by biting the Hymietown hand that feeds them.  Meanwhile, black leaders "knowing better" must resist anti-Semitism circumspectly lest they be accused of selling out to "the Man."  The "attack a Jew, gain stature" nexus means that all the dialoguing, "education," let alone Jewish generosity, will come to naught.  Black anti-Semitism is not a passing lumpenproletariat disorder.
            Traditional Explanation of this Odd Relationship
            The scholarly literature abounds with theories explaining this Jewish affinity.  All make perfect sense...until about thirty years ago when this kinship became dysfunctional, if not pathological.  For those seeking a religions justification, one need look no further than the Torah with its emphasis on righteousness, performing of good deeds, charity, and respect for the less fortunate.  Rachmones--compassion, pity--is absolutely central to Judaism, and who is a better recipient than the long-suffering African-Americans?  Add Jewish traditional association with the central state, the ambitious, benevolent Monarch granting protection in exchange for commercial vigor.  The modern incarnation would be New Deal-Great Society bureaucratic liberalism with its promise of shielding all the downtrodden, regardless of creed or coloration.  Some Jews undoubtedly subscribe to a domino theory of repression--once "they" get the blacks, the Jews are next, so let's fight the battle now.  There is also the "kinship of suffering" hypothesis so popular among first or second-generation Jewish immigrants struggling against a common enemy, the white gentile.  Here helping blacks simultaneously helps Jews.  Lastly, those Jews desperately seeking escape from their own Jewish angst might find the black cause a key step towards building a white bread Utopia unbothered by racial or ethical distinction.
            All contain ample truth, and perhaps explain lingering habits.  What is puzzling is that objective conditions (as the Soviets liked to say), makes a mockery of today's affinity.  There should be a mass exodus, but, alas, a liberating Moses has failed to arrive.  Jewish-Black politics has become bitterly zero-sum, occasionally violently confrontational as the Crown Heights riot illustrated.  The black assault on merit punishes Jews (and Asians) well beyond college admissions or civil service jobs.  Jews by the thousands have had their life-chances diminished "thanks" to gains by undeserving African-Americans (often, ironically, assisted by misguided Jewish activist).  Surely Jews in "changing neighborhoods" cannot welcome urban incivility--crime, panhandlers, vandalism and blight--so endemic to African American communities.  Black rampant anti-intellectualism, most concretely displayed in the physical destruction of urban schools, in and of itself, should forever distance Jews from this putative "soul mate."  And truth to tell, try imagining two more adversarial cultures measured by family life, educational attainment, hedonistic indulgence, and nearly all else defining "culture."
            Perhaps the only valid justification for not annulling this marriage is both parties share an infatuation with the modern bureaucratic state.  In that African-American Utopia or programs, outreaches, mentors, role models, counselors, interventions and all the other do-goodism statist paraphernalia, Jews gain civil service jobs and a modicum of power.  A few Jewish intellectuals also find blacks useful soldiers for advancing their compulsive subversion of Western Civilization (e.g., cultural relativism, post modernism, and untold other Jewish contrived "insights").  Nevertheless, overall, if this partnership were taken to family court, even the most hidebound judge would grant an immediate divorce.
            The Schwartza
            To grasp fully why this dog does not bark, one must dig deeper, namely how Jews (at least those over 40) typically "conceptualize" African-Americans or, to use the Yiddish term, Schwartza.  This, the goyim seldom know, but it is central to explaining relationship longevity.  Leo Rosten's The Joys of Yiddish, tersely defines "Schwartza" as "a black person."  This is seriously misleading by omission; "Schwartza" comes with immense, highly nuanced cultural baggage.  It is not a synonym for "black" or "Negro," though these terms might appear inter-changeable to outsiders.  Once properly understood, this deeply embedded "conceptualization" helps account for Jews still tolerating black misbehavior, even anti-Semitism.
            Let's begin positively--the term has nothing to do with the "N word" or related derogatory slurs.  Nothing!  A little affection might even be sporadically detected.  Elderly kibitzing Jews would be genuinely horrified if a friend inserted "nigger" or "coon" to achieve lexiconic variety.  To be sure, and this cannot be over-estimated, exceedingly few Jews like blacks personally; nearly all will go to great lengths to avoid living among them.  The Jewish-black intermarriage rate is trivial.  Still, this personal aversion should not be confused with commonplace ethic hatred.
            Second, "Schwartza" always implies a cognitive inferiority.  This mental picture is true even for pro-civil rights Jews, regardless of contrary protestations or refusal to use the "S" word.  Adding "dumb" to Schwartza is somewhat superfluous, reserved only for egregious stupidity.  Invisible baggage likewise included gullibility, emotional excitability and a weakness for here-and-now conspicuous consumption.  Violence, especially inter-personal alcohol induced mayhem, is also associated with "Schwartza."  The correspondence with traditional Southern folklore is hardly accidental.  To repeat, none of this is fundamentally pejorative--this "fact of life" denotation is no different from 2+2=4 and was surely daily reinforced by childhood contact with black cleaning ladies, handymen, and school-related experiences.  This learning undoubtedly predated the racial liberalism acquired during adolescence.
            Third, and crucial, at least in my generation, it was always believed that any Jew could ultimately outsmart any Schwartza, save being confronted with a demented gunman.  Despite immense cultural chasms, Jews held themselves innately capable of finessing blacks, thanks to their superior wits, verbal talent, and mastery of black psychology.  The unmatched success of Jewish Ghetto merchants (and, ironically, Jewish civil rights activists in leadership positions) proclaimed this truth.  Even today, Jews may secretly brag about their success in beguiling blacks in contentious inter-personal relationships.
            Where personal manipulation might fail, the storehouse of survival tactics sufficed exceedingly well.  Black pathologies are bearable, especially since most black mayhem is self-inflicted.  Jews might even profit from these disorders as merchants or nanny state therapists.  Threatened Jews can flee deteriorating neighborhoods, enroll their children in private school, hire security guards, co-opt black leaders financially, or otherwise escape.  These adjustments are hardly cost free, but they can be borne and are culturally acceptable.  Jews see no conflict between righteously defending black criminals as "political prisoners" and living in fortress style buildings.  Jews permanently "at-risk" from black disorders are rare.
            There is a notable irony here.  On the one hand, Jews dread blacks physically.  This enduring cowardliness cannot be over-estimated in explaining outward Jewish political cravenness.  They dutifully pay the Danegelt though, unquestionably, they realize that this only emboldens the Dane.  Yet, simultaneously, they also realize that even the worst black disorders are surmountable.  Jews have historically faced far, far worse, and flourished.
            And now to raise some eyebrows.  Ultimately, public affirmations aside, for most Jews the goyim (technically, white goyim since Schwartza, like the Chinese, are never categorized as goyim) still pose the greatest potential threat.  Trust me--contrary fact-based arguments fall on deaf ears.  Forget that Richard Nixon steadfastly helped Israel during the Yum Kippur War.  Ditto for all the gushy kindness publicly showered on Israel by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwall and other Fundamentalist luminaries.  The yearly Brotherhood dinners in which earnest Reformed Rabbis and enlightened Episcopal Ministers appeal for "mutual understanding and tolerance" are immaterial.  Disregard everything else, too, no matter how assuring.  Down deep, Al Sharpton or  Steve Cokely (the Chicago mayoral aid insisting that Jewish doctors inject black babies with AIDS) and judged less dangerous than Gary Bauer.
            And why, you should ask?  It's obvious.  Historically Jews have long experienced erstwhile "friends" who took great delight in genocide.  This 2000 year-old sorrowful fact is, I would argue, indelibly etched into every Jew's subconscious.  Centuries will pass before this fear evaporates.  Call it paranoia, if you want, but this occurs over and over and over--it is the very essence of our history.  W W I I events in Germany, the Ukraine, France, Romania, Hungary, Poland and so on are all of a piece--you can't trust the goyim in calamities though, assuredly, many will give their lives to save us.  The slaughter under Marxism, despite Jews in leadership positions, was just as bad.  All that it takes is a few, and the goyim can't be relied on, especially the ambitious, smart ones.  Jews of my parent's generation who worshiped FDR cannot forget that he turned back thousands of Jewish refugees, many of them ultimately perishing.  This ambivalence towards "friends" is the woeful Jewish baggage.  I have personally heard this "good goy turns bad goy" narrative repeated from those who barely escaped with their lives.  The ostensible "exemplary goy" metamorphosing into the opportunistic Gauleiter comes with mother's milk.
            And what, pray tell, about the Schwartza?  Are they not also potential Cossacks or Iron Guards?  Here's the punch line: they're incapable of such well-organized horror unless directed by nefarious whites.  Yes, they can briefly terrorize Crown Heights, chase Jewish teachers out of Ocean Hill-Brownsville, or even torch Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem.  A full-scale pogrom is far beyond their capacity, however.  Anti-Semitic outrages are episodes, not enduring campaigns.  Can you imagine blacks systematically rounding up thousands of Jews or even keeping tabs on Jewish neighborhoods?  This, too, would require a Great Society-like massive bureaucratic intervention program assisted by self-hating energetic Jews.  As Karl von Clausewitz reminds us, assess enemies by capabilities, not intentions.  If you multiply present-day anti-Semitism by potential for calamities, correcting for escapability, the Schwartza  pose minimal risk.
            A Political Homeland?
            To return to the image of a long-standing marriage gone sour, here's how the current Jewish-black relationship might be depicted.  The children (civil rights legislation, full legal equality, the demise of petty segregation etc.) have all grown up and left home.  Everything obtainable (and moral) has been accomplished.  Yet, the Jewish partner still sticks around, contributing money, energy and brainpower despite mounting psychological and physical abuse.  And antagonisms grow worse yearly.  The historical explanations for "staying together, if only for appearances sake" are mere covers to deceive the children.  The magic has vanished, both parties sleep in separate rooms, conversing only when the truce collapses into turmoil.  But, alas, this alliance still meanders along though privately the Jewish partner falls into depressing resignation.
            Grasping why Jews "stick with it" despite all the reasons to leave, is easy: there is no place better to go.  Imagine that tomorrow morning every Jew in American woke up and shouted "Enough already with the Schwartza!  Genug es genug!"  [enough is enough]  With the scales now fallen from their eyes, the question is:  "What now?"  Where will they go to reverse this deplorable situation?  The marriage metaphor offers a powerful clue:  men seldom divorce Ye Olde Wife (no matter how dreary) until a new squeeze appears.  If one visited a dating service specializing in "Fresh Ideological partners for Politically Abused Racial Liberal Jews in Remission," disappointment awaits.  Consider this landscape of "available others."  As per preceding analysis, alternatives are far worse than dutifully sticking with it.  At best, freshly enlightened Jews will kvetch [complain] privately but say nothing in public.
            A massive shift to the GOP is one occasionally mentioned possibility so Jews can be part of the solution, not part of the problem.  Only remotely feasible, and a rotten deal, too.  Surrendered would be the tenacious allure of meretricious big do-goodism government (with its tangible benefits to untold Jewish service providers) plus decades of careful Democratic influence cultivation.  This would be exchanged for an unreliable promise of meritocracy, refurbishing civil society, and all else that would flow when Washington ceased flattering the civil rights agenda.  Hardly enticing, even if politically deliverable.  More telling, does anybody sincerely believe that Republicans are committed to discharging their end of this bargain?  The palpable record, as demonstrated by indifference to measure such as California's Proposition 209 (and much more), hardly evinces optimism.  Jews may be addicted to pie-in-the-sky ideology, but stupid negotiators we are not.  Only a steady procession of Ronald Reagan types "standing up to them" might weaken suspicion of GOP cowardice.  Such a wholesale partisan conversion, no doubt, would make Middle East "land-for-peace" swaps look comparatively irresistible.
            The one nominally conservative sect outside the troubled marriage offering a safe home is neoconservatism.  Here, not surprisingly given its Jewish flavor, Jews generally feel welcome--it is avidly pro-Israel, pro-immigration, internationalist, pro-capitalism, attentive to traditional morality, socially compassionate, and critical for our purposes, openly hostile to racial tribalism.  Might Norman Podhoretz and his Wise Men deliver Jews out of Democratic bondage into some awaiting Promised Land color-blind coalition?  Pure fantasy in today's politics.  Not only are neocons persona non grata on the Right for untold non-negotiable programmatic reasons, but, despite its prestige and financial resources, neoconservatism is not a suitable Exodus vehicle.  The neocon movement is incapable of mobilizing ordinary Jews.  Its apparatchiki would comfortably fit into a few large upper West-side pre-war rent stabilized apartments.  Commentary and The Weekly Standard are powerless to propagate the faith among the multitudes.  Established neocons crave respectability, and clearly communicating opposition to today's civil rights agenda to ordinary people becomes "racism," the death of coveted respectability.  To boot, the movement's public side is too cerebral and "too Jewish" for many secularized, materialistic Jews.  I am reminded of a former colleague's wife who complained that the long-winded Commentary letters to the editor (let alone the turgid essays) "gave her a headache."  Overall, neoconservatism seems wholly incapable of budging Jews away from old habits.
            And now for disconcerting news, at least to conservatives awaiting Jewish racial apostasy.  For those untold Jews on the verge of conversion, shopping the rightward political mall for a new political identity will only bring alarm.  Better stick with the decrepit old lady.  The GOP may be a disagreeable bargain, and the neocons an exercise in futility, but "real conservatism" in all of its multiple flavors is worse.  Even scary, to be honest.  Can anyone think of a genuine conservative impulse that was not somewhere anti-Semitic?  At best, a few momentary organization-to-organization alliances might confront common issues, for example, support for religious education or resistance to the public validation of homosexuality.  For ordinary Jews to enlist as enthusiastic foot soldiers is inconceivable.  The lingering DNA-imbedded fear of the innocent appearing goy every willing to profit form Jewish misfortune is irrepressible, and if this goy is a "Right-winger," the fear is a hundred times worse.
            The historic conflation of "the Right" with anti-Semitism continues regardless of toned down rhetoric.  Sad to say, Jews venturing into conservative territory will in due time encounter "incidents" stirring up deep, often hard-to-put-your-finger-on unease.  There is a grim inevitability about this, no matter how sincerely inviting the conservative outreach.  Primordial, visceral emotion will trump objective conditions.  Mind you, nothing, absolutely nothing, about these incidents may be overly anti-Semitic; much is perfectly, absolutely defensible pedestrian politics and factually correct.  Yet, the disconcerting psychological outcome is unmistakable.  Impact derives from the combination of what is said coupled with the speaker's capacity.  Remember, even the psychotic black anti-Semite is discounted when his or her modest talents enter the equation.  If Louis Farrakhan and his minions were rocket scientists (or even failed post card painters) there would be cause for genuine alarm and Jews might flee rightward.
            Quite clearly "stylistic" conflicts abound.  The wonderful match between Jews and non-Jewish high cultures, even an appetite for the dreaded blond Shiksa [blond gentile female], does not translate into a political affinity at the personal level.  Jews tend to be overly talkative, a bit boisterous, prone to boastfulness, aggressively argumentative, smart-assed, intellectually conceited, and clannish, i.e., fascinated by alleged Jewish identities.  Small town Protestants, the backbone of traditional US conservatism, are nearly mirror opposites.  Most Jews will secretly confess that they feel uncomfortable in echt conservative circles since their instinctive behaviors, all regularly re-enforced as the pre-requisites to worldly success, now subtly engender discomfort.  The opposite is equally true.  Tom Fleming would assuredly rather fall on his Roman sword than suffer a typical four-hour shamelessly aggressive UJA fund-raising dinner, even if the intent was a Chronicles bail out.
            Still, Jews can temporarily tolerate white bread and mayonnaise tuna sandwiches.  Apprehension deepens significantly when Jews encounter applause-line rhetoric about "America being a Christian nation," "Hollywood immorality" and similar platitudes peppering conservative convocations.  Let us be clear:   these statements, in my estimation, are generally factually correct and a serious case can be made that Left-infatuated Jews have disproportionately subverted traditional American values.  Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (and untold other Stalinist Jews) are not vast Rightwing chimeras.  Yet, and this is paramount, these heartfelt conservative utterances are intuitively interpreted as subterranean anti-Jewish hostility among Jews themselves.  To repeat:  objective truth is irrelevant.
            I honestly believe that conservatives are habitually oblivious to this impact.  I can recall one ultra-conservative (and absolutely harmless) gathering and being lectured on how "certain wealthy, big-city, articulate types" were ruining America.  My instinctive, visceral reaction was acute unease.  These to me were code phrases, no different form Stalin's "rootless cosmopolitans."  Likewise, Jews cannot help but notice the emotional fervor when "real conservatives" denounce "the neocons" often sans details, as if everyone grasped the hidden agenda.  Ditto for the unqualified fulminations against immigration qua immigration.  This makes Jews exceedingly suspicious.  Might it not be possible to denounce just illegal immigration, the entry of criminals or welfare parasites?  Conservatives should never forget that millions of today's Jews lost family due to restrictive immigration policies.  If anti-immigration conservatives want Jewish support, this stance has to be far more nuanced.
            Finally, and most disconcerting, conservatives exhibit a near instinctive infatuation with Quixotic traife (i.e., not kosher) causes and personalities guaranteed to frighten potential Jewish converts.  For most Jews, the "political right" historically conjures up rigid racial segregation, nativist demagogues, anti-intellectualism, the militias, or the likes of Gerald L.K. Smith.  Alas, a goodly portion of contemporary conservatism seems untroubled by this meshugga [crazy] tradition.  This cannot be repeated enough:  the Right, however misdirected, still means anti-Semitic kookdom and little else.  To insist to Jews that "the Right" might be embraced "on balance" so as to escape the pernicious racial spoils system is a bit like saying "She would make a marvelous wife despite having AIDS."  Outsiders cannot imagine the anguish associated with a Jew publicly coming out as "a Right-winger."  What will his mother tell "the girls" in the building?  My son, the famous reactionary?
            We can argue this point forever, but I'd wager that nearly every Jew believes Pat Buchanan to be an anti-Semite Nazi sympathizer.  And when conservatives passionately rush to his defense (see, for example, the January 2000 Chronicles), Jews must wonder why, given his obvious political inconsequentiality.  Why the proclivity for snide gratuitous remarks about Commentary to clinch the defense?  The approving treatment afforded Le Pen's Front National or Jorg Haider's Freedom Party in Austria only exacerbates the unease.  When I tell Jews that I gladly associate with an organization endorsing these figures, they are flabbergasted.  A Jewish Nazi, they must assume.  Imagine parental reaction when I confess contributing essays for a magazine still fighting the War of Southern Independence, still celebrating small town provincialism, and untold other "odd" views?  The dreaded inter-marriage pales by comparison.
            This has been a disheartening account, but things are not quite so bad as they might initially appear.  The naive might still suppose that Jews en mass are still promoting racial foolishness judged by who defends weird racial quota lawsuits or which professors assault politically incorrect research.  Moreover, blacks still depend on talented Jews despite their best racial purification efforts.  Nevertheless, if one observes closely and talks frankly, nearly all Jews grow more sensible regarding their true interests.  Finally, genug es genug.  The knee-jerk support has vanished save a few jungle holdouts insisting on personally surrendering their sword to the Emperor.  The historical Jewish-black passionate alliance is evolving into an historical relic in Jewish consciousness.  This abnormal infatuation certainly possess no allure for orthodox Jews, the fastest growing Jewish community.  Crown Heights (and the lingering secret disdain for the Schwartza) now overshadow the Freedom Marches, though these heretical thoughts remain silent--why risk a klop in kopf? [hit on the head]  Continued assimilation (hastened by soaring inter-marriage) will no doubt further undermine the historic Jewish-black romance.
            Still, those longing for political conversion will be disappointed.  Jews may flock in droves to see The Ring (especially performed by renowned Jewish conductors specializing in Wagner) or intermarry with a passion, but getting into bed politically with the Right-Wing goyim is too risky.  That painful historical lesson cannot be shaken, and today's conservatives are often all too willing to reawaken--albeit often unintentionally--the fears.  This dread even holds for Jews so secularized that they will barely confess their "Hebrew faith."  The upshot, then, is political homelessness though, to be sure, a handful of misguided, high-profile Jews remain.  Outside of these deviants, however, we wander about, still mouthing racial liberal cliches, though as with the Hebrew prayers at the Reformed service, the words are but empty gestures.  We stay with out loathed ally because we suspect that abandonment will make things worse.  Such a deal, but it's the best that can be expected.

Friday, April 6, 2012

Trade 'white' dominance for Jew dominance.....does that sound right to you?

Things that do not make sense have always bothered me.  Destroying 'white' dominance in America and replacing it with Jewish dominance is one of those things.

If anyone is old enough to remember, people in this nation never said 'this is a white nation' before Civil Rights.  Yes, those in positions of power were not black or Jewish but that is sensible because Jews and blacks are in the minority.  All that changed after Civil Rights and the 60s Revolution.  'Revolution' is a bad word....ask any Russian.

So before 1970, all Americans lived in an idyllic, albeit sheltered world.  Crime before 1970 was committed mostly by white people for things like 'walking while intoxicated,' burglary, assault and robbery.  After 1970, when Civil Rights (run by Jews according to Prof. Robert Weissberg of American Renaissance) arrived, they told American blacks that the reason they were 'oppressed' was because of the white man.  Crime became violent and black.

I entered arrest statistics for the period starting in about 1930 and past 1970.  I saw the pattern.  It was white, non-violent crime and then it became black violent crime after Civil Rights.  Facts don't lie.  Request these stats from Public Records.

So the question is; did we trade white dominance in America for Jewish dominance?  Gene Autry owned many radio stations.  Walt Disney owned Disney Studios.  Henry Ford built the production-line auto industry.  Non-Jews ran the newspapers.  Morality and spirituality dominated our society.  Society controlled behavior by not accepting bad behavior.  The state didn't tell people what to do....they knew what was right.  No one had to say to school kids, 'Good job,' 'You are a hero,' 'You are a leader,' 'I love you.'  No one had to remind anyone that you don't bully other people.  No one had to tell us how to wipe our butts.  We knew how.

Rupert Murdoch is now our radio and television station owner.  Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, Dreamworks movies, MGM, magazine and comic books, newspapers, are all owned/run by people with Jewish names.  We traded the white for the Jew!!

And what is 'white' anyway?  Is it EVERYONE ELSE but the black and the Jew?  That's a lot of people to be pushed aside by minorities.  Is it the people that built civilizations in Rome, Europe and Egypt?  Is it the Greeks that created government run by the people?  Is it Leonard da Vinci, Augustus Cesar, John F. Kennedy or Mother Teresa?  Do you ever in history remember anything built by Edomites or Jews?  Or is it as Bobby Fisher said, "Jews are destroyers." 
And we didn't see it coming.  Look at it this way:  Russia before 1917 wasn't perfect but people lived in peace and many peasants were becoming wealthy.  Jews, thanks to Karl Marx, began telling the peasants and working class that they were oppressed.  Sound familiar?  So, what did the peasants and working class people do?  The same as what the American blacks did.....they took up arms against the Whites.  And what became of Russia?  It became Communist.

Hummmmm.  Could there be a pattern here?  Instead of 'fair and equitable treatment' we got EQUALITY FOR ALL.  Is everyone equal?  No, but the Jews never said that.  The Jews never said that once the American blacks tore up our society, that the Jews would push them aside because they had outlived their usefulness.  During that time, Jews would step into place as the Jewish Establishment replaced the White Establishment, the very same thing the 60s Revolution revolted against.  Remember that slogan?  "Down with the Establishment."

Well, the Jews used the same slogan in 1917 Russia.  "Down with the Aristocracy." 

The facts are there when you research the last hundred years.  We replaced a society/government that WAS working, for a Jewish-run monstrosity that has given us violence, pharmaceutical-dependent unhealthy adults, drugged up kids, violent crime, no jobs, food stamps for white people that have no job, a tanked economy, illegals, an inferior public school system, Hate Crime and Health Care bills.....anything to 'help' people deal with the misery.

Heck, at least Flavius built the Roman Colosseum to entertain the people while he taxed them to death.  And he opened up a few bars to entertain the citizens also but that caused a bit too much violence, so he closed them up.  Oh wait......Jews did the same thing in America.  What was I thinking?

We do have entertainment!  Lots of it.  We have ignorant and immoral television shows produced by Jews.  Violent movies produced by Jews.  Even movies for children are rated PG for sexual content.  Rap music incites sexual perversion and hate and newspapers/television, owned by Jews, refuse to print the truth about what is really happening.  Instead they make people believe they have only TWO presidential candidates to vote for.

So, did our nation 'move up' when the Jews replaced white people?  Did we improve or digress?  I believe we were bamboozled and tricked.  I believe Jews told us a bunch of lies, used their money to buy up our media and strategically place themselves in our government.  We 'thought' these lies were coming from the white politician for forty years.  We were wrong.  Robert Weissberg states in his 1998 paper, 'Jews and blacks.  Everything the goyim want to know but were afraid to ask' that JEWS did it. 

Jews even tell us they did it yet Americans are intimidated into believing they will be insensitive if they speak the truth.....if a fat person really is fat.....if a stupid person really can't learn.....if an illegal really is illegal.....if a poor person really is poor....You can't say that anymore.  You are not allowed to speak the truth.  We have been neutered.

Jews have taken away our right to speak the truth because they don't want to be exposed.  The Anti-Defamation League tells police departments that 'the terrorists are Moooooslims.'  Lt. Fred Bowditch, Homeland Security of the Columbus Police department, told me, "We investigate Hamas and Hezbollah, Susan, not the Mossad."   Can you get any clearer??

I prefer my old nation back, run by the best and brightest.  If they happen to be mostly white, that's the way it is.  I want my industries back.  I want our jobs back.  I want our taxes lowered by getting rid of bloated institutions such as Welfare and Child Protective Services.  I want the mental hospitals and orphanages back.  I want my job to again pay for my health insurance.  I want hospitals for the poor back.  I want perversion and violence gone and the only way to do that is to get rid of the current 'Establishment.'