Friday, 29 March 2013


De Valera, Hitler & the visit of condolence May 1945

A terse paragraph in the Irish national dailies on 3 May 1945 started the avalanche of international protest. Under the heading ‘People and Places’, the Fianna Fáil-backed Irish Press reported laconically that the Taoiseach and Minister for External Affairs, Éamon de Valera, accompanied by the Secretary of External Affairs, Joseph Walshe, ‘called on Dr Hempel, the German minister, last evening, to express his condolences’. The condolences were for Hitler who had committed suicide on 30 April. The Irish Times was prevented by the censor from publishing the following report from Reuter on 3 May: ‘Éire delegation mourns Hitler. Lisbon, May 3. The Éireann Minister in Lisbon today hoisted the German swastika at half mast over the legation as a sign of mourning for Hitler’. While the report that de Valera had condoled with the German minister was accurate, the Lisbon report was incorrect on one count. The swastika did fly at half mast over the Irish legation in Lisbon; but it had not been placed there by an Irish diplomat. While the Irish occupied the ground floor, the headquarters of German intelligence for the Iberian peninsula was situated on the floor above. They, not the Irish, had hung out the swastika in sympathy.
    Both pieces of information—one accurate and the other false—were sent by the international wire agencies around the world. Éamon de Valera, the leader of neutral Ireland, was widely interpreted internationally as being pro-Axis and personally sympathetic to Hitler. The swastika at half mast was further proof, if proof were needed, that the Irish diplomatic service abroad had been instructed to show respect for Hitler and his fallen Reich. No such instruction had been issued by the Department of External Affairs to its mission abroad. One Irish envoy, Leopold Kerney, had, without instructions, called on 3 May at the German embassy in Madrid to express his condolences. The reports of his visit were carried by the Spanish news agency, EFE. Fortunately, for Ireland’s tattered reputation the letters of gratitude he received remained unpublished. A former Spanish foreign Minister and philo-Nazi, Ramon Serrano Suner, wrote with embarrassing warmth to Kerney about de Valera’s action:

The brave, Christian and human attitude of President de Valera [sic] moves me to write you these lines to express to you my admiration for your country and to assure you again of my friendship.

The Conde de Mayalde Jose Finat, who had been Spanish ambassador in Berlin, wrote to Kerney:

The sympathy which both as Spaniard and as Catholic I have always felt for the noble people that you represent has continually increased during the war before the Christian and dignified attitude of its government. Today, in the presence of the noble [cabelleroso] gesture of Mr de Valera, president of Ireland [sic], I desire to manifest to Your Excellency my admiration and respect.

In the meantime, Michael McDunphy, the secretary of President Douglas Hyde, had been reported on 4 May as having ‘called on the German minister [yesterday] to express condolence on behalf of the President’. That report, too, was carried in all the Irish dailies and sent around the world by the wire agencies.

Unwanted international attention

Within forty eight hours, de Valera’s Ireland—which had managed to remain below the radar for the duration of the war—was the subject of unwanted and unwarranted international attention. De Valera had been ‘begged’ by Frederick Boland, the assistant secretary of the Department of External Affairs, not to go. Although Walshe’s position is less clear, he probably took the same view as Boland. It is likely that de Valera was more influenced in his decision by the advice of cabinet colleagues who viewed the issue in its narrow, domestic context. The counsel of the professional diplomats, as was evident within hours of the ill-fated visit, proved the more reliable and trustworthy. Nevertheless, de Valera continued to try to rationalise his action and justify what he had done in the teeth of the international protests. He wrote to his close friend Robert Brennan, the Irish envoy in Washington, that he had ‘noted that my call on the German minister on the announcement of Hitler’s death was played up to the utmost. I expected this’, and he added:

I could have had a diplomatic illness but, as you know, I would scorn that sort of thing...So long as we retained our diplomatic relations with Germany, to have failed to call upon the German representative would have been an act of unpardonable discourtesy to the German nation and to Dr Hempel himself. During the whole of the war, Dr Hempel’s conduct was irreproachable. He was always friendly and invariably correct—in marked contrast with Gray. I certainly was not going to add to his humiliation in the hour of defeat.

De Valera felt that shirking his visit would have set a bad precedent. It was, he thought, of considerable importance that the formal acts of courtesy should be made on occasions such as the death of a head of state and that they should not have attached to them any further special significance, such as connoting approval or disapproval of the politics of the state in question or of its head: ‘It is important that it should never be inferred that these formal acts imply the passing of any judgements good or bad’, he concluded. In Dáil Éireann, de Valera stated that his visit ‘implied no question of approval or disapproval or judgement of any kind on the German people of the state represented here’. He added that there was little publicity given to the fact that the Dáil had been adjourned on the death of President Roosevelt.
Dev myopic and naive

De Valera appeared to be both myopic and naive. His considerable political skills deployed during the course of the war had won him the grudging respect of the US envoy and amateur diplomat, David Gray. The British representative, Sir John Maffey, understood de Valera better than his US counterpart. Exasperated as he had been on many occasions by de Valera during the course of the war, Maffey had come to admire the Irish leader. Both Maffey and Gray were fully aware that de Valera was not pro-Axis and that he had been of considerable covert assistance to the Allies during the course of the war. He had never shown any admiration for Hitler or for the Nazis during the 1930s or during the war years. Yet, Gray’s immediate response on confirming the news of de Valera’s visit was to suggest to Washington that he should be recalled in protest. He also encouraged Maffey to persuade London to follow the same course. Neither the US nor the British felt it necessary to take such an extreme course of action. But de Valera was left in absolutely no doubt about the depth of the anger of both Churchill and Truman. The victorious Allies knew how to exact retribution and the coldness of Washington and London was felt by Dublin when it came to trying to procure scarce supplies in the difficult months which followed the ending of the war.
    Although Frederick Boland had strongly advised against the visit, the Department of External affairs could hardly have anticipated the deluge of international criticism which descended on them. The Irish envoy in Washington, Robert Brennan, sent a telegram to Dublin within hours of the visit:

Radio Commentator announced item in bitter and caustic tone. Although similar action by Portugal is reported Chief gets headlines in all papers seen. Particularly because of horror atrocity stories of German prison camps during past months. Anti-German feeling was never so bitter as now.

The latter was a reference to the photo and film coverage of the liberation of the concentration camps which had, in the previous months, brought out the hidden horror of the Holocaust.

US press coverage

    The major US papers reported the visit and carried scarifying editorial comment. The New York Times, under the heading ‘Mr de Valera’s regrets’ wrote that de Valera may have merely been following ‘what he believed to be the protocol required of a neutral state’. However, the editorial stated caustically: ‘Considering the character and the record of the man for whose death he was expressing grief, there is obviously something wrong with the protocol, the neutrality of Mr de Valera’. The Herald Tribune was even more forceful; it entitled its editorial ‘Neutrality gone mad’ and commented:

In this time of the breaking of nations when the stream of history becomes a rushing millrace, there is much to arrest the attention of the world. But, despite all preoccupation with greater events, there is still time for a glance and a gasp at the spectacle of the prime minister of Eire marching solemnly to the German legation to present his government’s condolences on the death of Adolf Hitler while the pious Dr Salazar places the flags of Portugal at halfmast to mourn the passing of the enemy of the human race.
    If this is neutrality, it is neutrality gone mad—neutrality carried into a diplomatic jungle—where good and evil alike vanish in the red-tape thickets: where conscience flounders helplessly in slogans of protocol, and there is no sustenance for the spirit but mouldy forms of desiccated ceremonies... Obviously, for all the colourless connotations of the word, neutrality can go rancid when it is kept too long.

The Washington Post headlined its editorial ‘Moral myopia’. The paper did not question the ‘correctness’ of de Valera’s action. Concluding that the visit provided an indication of ‘why diplomatic usages have fallen into such disrepute’, it added:

The neutrality which these governments practised throughout the course of the war was dictated by expediency... Now, however, the war in Europe has been won; the neutrals need no longer fear Hitler or the Reich. Can it be that the moral myopia they imposed upon themselves in the face of danger has now blinded them to all ethical values? Or is it merely that a preoccupation with protocol has atrophied their emotions? In sober truth, there could be no real neutrality in this war... Even in death, Hitler forced a choice upon the neutral governments. By their response, they have judged themselves and that judgement in the case of Éire and Portugal is a condemnation in the eyes of all free people.

What de Valera had quickly come to discover was that he appeared, at that time, to be unique in his action among the leaders of the Western democracies. Neither Switzerland nor Sweden had adhered to the protocol. That left the Irish leader in the dubious company of the Iberian dictators, Salazar of Portugal and Franco of Spain. All inquiries by the Department of External Affairs to their envoys abroad yielded the same answer—de Valera was alone in his adherence to the protocol.
    Brennan confirmed the gravity of the Irish situation in a telegram on 5 May:
Among general public, incident has attracted more attention than anything else arising from our neutrality. There is considerable adverse criticism among Irish and some defenders... I know how to answer all this...but I am not sure it is wise to have controversy at the present moment and think that I should wait for a few days, subject to your opinion.

That proved to be very solid advice. De Valera’s action was not capable of being understood objectively or sympathetically. It had been indefensible. But to engage in public debate with the leading US newspapers would simply have been foolhardy. The depth of antagonism among certain Irish Americans may be gauged by the following letter from Angela D. Walsh of New York:

Have you seen the motion pictures of the victims of German concentration camps, de Valera? Have you seen the crematoriums? Have you seen the bodies of little children murdered by Nazi hands? Have you seen the flourishing cabbages—cabbages for German food—flourishing because of the fertiliser, human remains of citizens from almost completely Catholic countries like Poland? These were citizens of a conquered country—and ÉIRE might easily have been a conquered country, neutrality or no neutrality. Have you seen the living dead, de Valera? Skin stretched over bone, and too weak to walk?

    Angela Walsh was not alone in her condemnation of de Valera. Irish American politicians, many loyal friends of the country, felt obliged to express their outrage at the visit. Those views were shared by their counterparts in Britain where the Irish High Commissioner, John Dulanty, found that his job had become all the more difficult in those early weeks of May 1945. Speaking to an unidentified senior politician [it may also have been a senior civil servant], described only as ‘a mutual friend’, he reported on 15 May that he had ‘shown a rather violent reaction to the visit of the Taoiseach and yourself [Joseph Walshe] to Herr Hempel’. He had been appalled at what struck him as ‘the diplomatic lack of wisdom of the Irish government’s action in regard to the death of Hitler’. The case was outlined in the following pragmatic terms by their ‘mutual friend’:

His point, which he put vehemently, was that England had won the war, that she now had it in her power to make conditions more easy or more difficult for Ireland in the future and that, consequently, it should be one of the first objects of the Irish government to please English opinion so far as it was consistent with its own interests.

While Dulanty attempted to explain the Irish position, the arguments failed to have any impact. The ‘mutual friend’ believed that in the circumstances surrounding the visit there had been no moral issue at all and no principle that mattered a damn:

Protocol was not principle. It was made for man, not man for it. Nor could he see that any question of dignity arose. Even if it did, the practical advantages of doing what our government had done would have seemed to him so immense that he would have brushed aside any question of national amour  propre.

That source then proceeded along the same pragmatic line of argument:

He could understand a policy which, so long as Germany was unbeaten, avoided offending her. But Germany was now beaten. The German State was in dissolution and it was not unlikely that any government of Germany during the future would curse the memory of Hitler. The effect of paying compliments on his death would, unless vigorous counteraction were taken, be to antagonise not only England and America and most of Europe, but antagonise German opinion as well.

Appreciation of the British Union of Fascists

That unnamed British voice said very much what Frederick Boland would have also been telling de Valera in the Department of External Affairs. And, if further proof were needed of the dubious company into which the visit had placed de Valera, it was supplied by Dulanty who sent the original of a letter to Iveagh House on 11 May with a laconic minute, ‘no comment’. From an underground address, came the following missive:

The British Union of Fascists, which is still in existence, although it had to go underground for the time being, have instructed me to write to your Excellency, and to express their deep appreciation of the news that the secretary to the president of Eire has called on the German minister in Dublin to express condolence on behalf of the president on the death of Adolf Hitler. The British Union of Fascists begs of your Excellency to convey its gratitude to the government of Eire for thus honouring the memory of the greatest German in      history.

Bubbling over with excitement, the letter further informed de Valera that the BUF had had ‘wonderful news from our comrades in Norway’ that the ‘Fuehrer is not dead’ but had escaped in a submarine together with other leading Nazis.
    Well, with friends like that...! Salazar, Franco and the British Union of Fascists were hardly the company to be keeping in May 1945. But de Valera’s visit had, quite predictably, placed him and the country in their society. He had worked successfully throughout the war to maintain Irish neutrality. He had clandestinely supported the Allies in a very active fashion. Ironically and paradoxically, he had made a decision—perhaps without deep reflection on its wider implications—to visit the German Minister to express his condolences on the death of Hitler. That action—and not his pro-Allied wartime record fixed his place in history for many tens of thousands of people who knew little—and cared less—about the Irish leader. The decision to visit Hempel may have been the first serious evidence that the man who had been born in 1882 and served as Taoiseach since 1932 was losing his diplomatic and political sharpness.
    Outside of this country, the arguments about the justification for the visit to the German legation get very short shrift. In Ireland, one finds people who will defend the act. In a review of my book, Ireland and Europe, 1919-1989, the late Brian Lenihan provided this formulation:

The terms ‘idealism’ and ‘realism’ do not tell us, for example whether a given decision is marked by moral integrity, a consideration which I believe was fundamental to de Valera’s thinking. Dev’s visit to the German legation on 2 May 1945, may be questioned, as Dr Keogh questions it, on a certain view of political realism, in a world in which Germans and Germany were at their lowest ebb.
    Perhaps one day we will all come to see the two world wars as a great European tragedy, and de Valera’s observance of protocol in the case of the German ambassador, Dr Hempel, will be understood as a far-sighted recognition of the inextinguishable rights of the German people, as of any other people, even at their darkest hour.

Perhaps, but for me that day and the dawning of that realisation has not yet come.

Dermot Keogh is Professor of History at University College Cork.

Further reading:

D. Keogh, Ireland and Europe, 1919-1989 (Dublin 1989).

D. Keogh, The Jewish Community and the Irish State (Cork 1997).

R. Fisk, In Time of War: Ireland, Ulster and the price of neutrality 1939-45 (Dublin 1983).

more here

Wednesday, 27 March 2013


Obama Puppet Goes To Israel



 Apparently one of Obama's Secret Service spooks shapeshifted into some weird humanoid during his speech at 2012 AIPAC Zionist Conference at the Washington Convention Center  LOL

Oreo Separation Pump Gun .

 It's a basic human desire to destroy an OREO cookie with a pump action crossbow. Some men simply love neither cookie nor creme, so sometimes a man just needs to invent a badass crossbow to do the hard work of shooting the two from a powerful homemade weapon. Today, that man is meat lover and cookie-destroyer Jörg Sprave. Watch him operate the repeating 14-shot weapon he created that separates OREO cookies into very fine (but separated) crumbles


Tuesday, 26 March 2013

Suicide with an escape clause lol


Jam is worth a watch


first episode here

The Most Famous Holocaust Photo a Fraud


full story here http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-most-famous-holocaust-photo-fraud.html?zx=c32883e93bffccb3


3D Printed Guns (Documentary)

Cody R Wilson has figured out how to print a semi-automatic rifle from the comfort of his own home. Now he's putting all the information online so that others will join him.
This is a story about the rapid evolution of a technology that has forced the American legal system to play catch up. Cody Wilson, a 24 year old University of Texas Law student, is an advocate for the open source production of firearms using 3D printing technology. This makes him a highly controversial figure on both sides of the gun control issue. MOTHERBOARD sat down with Cody in Austin, Texas to talk about the constitution, the legal system, and to watch him make and test-fire a 3D-printed gun

Jews Laughing in your Goyim face

Jews Laughing in your Goyim face .... hopefully not for much longer


“Castrate them!” “Burn them!” “Bullet in the head!”: Facebook Israelis react to photo of Palestinian kids


“Castrate them!” “Burn them!” “Bullet in the head!”: Facebook Israelis react to photo of Palestinian kids

25 March 2013, 15:14:29 | crescentandcrossGo to full article

An image of three Palestinian boys sparked an outpouring of violent and sadistic fantasies after it was reposted to an Israeli Facebook page
Having regularly documented the horrifying racism and violent fantasies frequently expressed by Israelis on Facebook or Instagram, I thought I had seen everything.
But this may be the worst yet. On Wednesday, the picture above of three Palestinian boys in a tent was posted on a popular Facebook page titled in Hebrew “We are all in favor of death to terrorists.” Under the picture is the following caption:
Arab boys in the illegal Arab outpost established near Maale Adumim. What should the Israeli army do to them?
This is an apparent reference to the peaceful “Bab al-Shams” encampment established by Palestinians near Jerusalem to protest Israel’s plans to seize more land for settlements. The protest was timed to coincide with the visit of US President Barack Obama.
“Run the tent over with a truck/Merkava tank/a bus/ whatever it takes to crush and kill these children,” suggested Facebook user Lidor Swisa.
As of Friday there were almost 200 comments under the post offering suggestions of what the Israeli army should do – the vast majority fantasizing extreme sadistic violence and murder.
What makes this even more than usually disturbing is many of the Israeli commentators appear to be high school students themselves – perhaps only a year or two from mandatory army service when they will be empowered to carry out their fantasies.

Soldiers and adults join in the virtual pogrom


Kfir Brigade sergeant Ohad Halevy believes Palestinian children peacefully protesting should be “slaughtered” (Source).
But others, such as Shlomo Levi, are clearly already army-age adults. His suggestion?

Shlomo Levi thinks Palestinian children should be gassed to death (Source).
“I’d have thrown nerve gas into the tent and closed it and made them breath it until the end”

Kfir Infantry Brigade member David Kozolovski justifies violence against Palestinian children (Source).
David Kozolovski wrote, “To all those comparing Jews to Nazis, Jews did not try to kill German civilians,” thereby justifying the orgy of violent fantasies against the children.
Kozolovski’s profile pictures on Facebook include images of him in his Israeli army uniform bearing the insignia of the Kfir Infantry Brigade.
Ohad Halevy, another soldier in the Kfir Brigade simply wrote “Slaughter them!” of the three children in the photo.

“May you die garbage Arabs, amen!”

This is only a small selection of therepresentative and typical comments posted under the picture of the three boys in the tent.
A minority of users objected to these pervasive comments. Lilach Lilush, said, “Excuse me … I disagree… what do you mean ‘eliminate?’ What are we, an arm of Hamas or Hizballah? We are more enlightened. We should just return them safely where they came from.”
Even in her objection Lilush could not but stereotype Arabs as monsters compared to “enlightened” Israelis. But still, hers was a very rare sentiment amid the frenzy of bloodlust that sees the three Palestinian boys in the picture as legitimate targets for extreme violence.

Widespread incitement and racism

Again, I stress as in my previous posts, that this horrifying racism and sadism towards Arabs seems to be pervasive among Israelis who use social media and reflects the much broader phenomenon of escalating racism in Israel against Palestinians and Africans.
Haaretz noted, for instance, in a recent article that racist incitement by Israeli public figures doubled in 2012. It also reported on how the kind of crude and shocking racism seen in these comments is common among Israeli schoolchildren in Jerusalem.
Nurit Peled-Elhanan has also documented in her recent book the pervasive anti-Arab racism and stereotypes that Israeli children are exposed to at school which may contribute to this horrifying phenomenon.
It is also notable that the “We are all in favor of death to terrorists” Facebook group has more than 41,000 “Likes” and images of Palestinians, Arabs and Israelis deemed traitorous “leftists” are frequently posted attracting similarly vile comments.
In his speech in Jerusalem this week, President Obama also observed that “Israelis are so active on social media that every day seemed to bring a different Facebook campaign about where I should give this speech.”

The violence is not just virtual

In at least one case we know of, an Israeli soldier, Maxim Vinogradov, announced on Facebook his intention to assist in the “annihilation” of Arabs just days before he went out and shot father of two Ziad Jilani at a checkpoint in Jerusalem for no known reason in 2010.
An example of the Israeli army’s routine brutality against children was on display on the very day Obama landed when dozens of children as young as eight were abused and kidnapped by Israeli soldiers as they were on their way to school in Hebron  a harrowing scene caught on video.

Saturday, 23 March 2013


From http://holywar.org/jewishtr/wvr.htm

This site is dedicated to a pan-human, universalistic, non-violent, anti-hate, and anti-racist world view.
It supports free speech and public discussion about controversial issues.
It argues against international bullies and all forms of Thought Police.
It seeks justice, proportionate balance, and fairness for all people.
It investigates hypocrisy, bigotry, and dual moral standards.
It argues that all sides of any issue should be known.

Is this site "anti-Semitic?"

Click on PART 1 and then PART 2 of an investigation into how virtually anyone and anything
is considered by popular Jewish convention to be anti-Semitic, and how this all-encompassing
smear of irrational bigotry is used to ward off all morally justifiable criticism of
Jewish-inspired injustice and Israel.

Criticism of the powerful is not immoral. It is a necessary part of any truly open society.

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
                                                  --Herbert Spencer


Is the profoundly disproportionate social, cultural, economic,
and political influence upon America and the western world
by a small, largely ethnocentric, international minority
group healthy for democracy? And is it healthy,
ultimately, for the minority itself?


What elephant in the living room? Do you mean
the one we're forbidden to talk about?


     "Over representation in the economic elite of a visible ethnic minority of the degree found in Poland and Hungary was certain to cause trouble regardless of the identity of the group: if Belgians, Bulgarians, or Bolivians had constituted 62 per cent of the highest income-earners of Hungary, rather than Jews, that would certainly engendered resentment against them ... To us [Jews], European antisemitism appears to be a weapon of the strong against the weak, a kind of ideological sadism. To European right-wing nationalists of the post-1870 period, however, antisemitism appeared to be a weapon of the weak against the strong, an attempt (as they saw it) by a downtrodden nation to regain control over its resources from a separate, distinctive minority which appeared to dominate the economy -- an aim not unlike that of anti-colonial movements in the Third World vis-a-vis the Europeans and foreign entrepreneurial minorities (like the Chinese throughout South-East Asia). The Zionist movement understood this perfectly well, however disturbing such a perspective may seem to us viewed with post-Holocaust eyes.
     Moreover, research is most likely to demonstrate a very considerable actual Jewish over-representation in many other social and political areas which figured largely in the litany of continental antisemitism of the post-1870 period, especially Jewish participation in the radical left, the liberal professions, in journalism, and in the media."

-- W. D. Rubinstein, Jewish Journal of Sociology, Vol. 42, nos. 1 and 2, 2000, p. 18-19

The Present:

Follow the blue "Open Book" button above, or click here, to read the book When Victims Rule. A Critique of Jewish Pre-eminence in America, a clearinghouse for information featuring over 10,000 citations from about 4,000 (scholarly and mainstream media) bibliographic sources.

Friday, 22 March 2013

Sheik Down: How Arabs Own Everything by Alex Jones


Alex Jones explains who really owns Hollywood...the Arabs!

To his fans:
Hoaxes and Lies are not "Truth". And having a different dream is not "waking up". 

The Misplaced Minister: Ireland and Israel’s Alan Shatter

the shitter on the irish people




For the past two years Ireland’s immigration policy has been in the hands of Alan Shatter, a Jew and an outspoken partisan of Israel. Alan Shatter, born and bred in Dublin of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, has made it Irish policy to increase Third World immigration to the Emerald Isle. As Minister of Justice, Equality, and Defence, Shatter is exerting his considerable clout to skew the Republic’s Middle East policy, formerly supportive of the Palestinians and critical of Israel, toward Zionist aims. 

Before Shatter, the Irish government had taken steps to reduce non-European immigration, including abolishing automatic citizenship for children born to foreigners in Ireland and drastically reducing the admission of asylum seekers. Since taking office in early 2011, after his Fine Gael party ousted the ruling Fianna Fail amid Ireland’s continuing economic woes, Shatter has busied himself with increasing the numbers of Africans and Asians resident in Ireland.

Immigration to Ireland from outside Europe during 2011 was twice that of the previous year. Last year, the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service granted visas to 91 percent of the 88,000 non-Europeans who applied for them (citizens of the twenty-six other member states of the European Union can travel to Ireland without having to obtain a visa). An additional 115,000 migrants from outside Europe were given permission to remain in Ireland in 2012, with India, China, Nigeria, Turkey, and the Philippines among the top six countries of origin. To be sure, the number of permits to non-Europeans to reside in Ireland has declined over the previous two years—but only because Shatter’s ministry has been granting them citizenship, at several times the rate of the preceding years.


Shatter is aggressively promoting new measures to further increase non-European immigration, including making immigration easier for investors and entrepreneurs and their families. More ominously still, he is working industriously to replace existing Irish legislation on foreign immigration, including applications for asylum, with a bill that will, according to Shatter’s stated priorities for the current year, will “radically reform and modernize” Irish immigration law

Shatter has attempted to veil his immigration policies under the subterfuge of streamlining administrative procedures. After all, while exposed to the same globalist propaganda and pressures as America, the Republic of Ireland is a small and still largely homogeneous nation. It is also a land in which cant about “a nation of immigrants” won’t sell: until only a couple of decades ago, Ireland was a nation of emigrants. And today, Irish unemployment continues to hover at around 15 percent, twice the stated rate in the U.S.

What was Shatter to do? Why play the Holocaust trump card, of course!  

Now, Ireland has not been known for its role in World War II anti-Jewish measures. Like most countries at the time, however, including Germany’s fiercest opponents, Ireland was reluctant to accept large numbers of Jewish immigrants.

So, last fall, in a speech in honor of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish businessman who traveled to Hungary at American instigation in 1944 to impede deportation of Jews to German concentration camps, Ireland’s Jewish immigration czar attempted to justify flooding his homeland with Third World immigrants by attacking Ireland’s World War II immigration policy:

There were many who did nothing in the face of the industrialised genocide and the destruction of European Jewish civilisation. Indeed the Irish Government of the day sat on its hands. And even after the death camps were liberated, the Irish Government denied Jews refuge in Ireland.

It won’t surprise TOO readers to learn that, for all his efforts to pass as a champion of universalist ethics (“It is not enough to bear witness. We must also honor our fundamental moral obligation to protect our common humanity against inhumanity.”), Shatter has been anything but a protector of the Palestinians’ humanity. What may surprise is that, in a nation virtually devoid of Jews, and one which has been more supportive of the Palestinians than most Western countries, the extent to which Shatter has been a strident voice in defense of Israel’s ruthless policies, in the Gaza Strip or on the West Bank.

As a member of the Irish legislature, Shatter defended Israel’s brutal 2009 invasion of Gaza. He opposed the “freedom flotillas” organized in 2010 and 2011 to breach the Israeli blockade of the already impoverished Gaza strip, although each of the aid expeditions included a ship from Ireland (although Shatter did a brief turnabout after Israeli commandos killed nine men aboard a ship in the first flotilla). He has opposed visas for members of organizations hostile to Israeli policies, and resoundingly condemned calls for the Irish to boycott performances in Israel as “cultural fascism.”

It would be interesting to know what Ireland’s minister of justice thinks of Israel’s recent strict measures to control and to curtail Third World immigration—but he seems to have maintained a prudent silence in that regard.

Shatter has not merely parroted Israel’s justifications for oppressive policies aimed at preserving Israel as a Jewish state for a Jewish people, he has in effect served as a second Israeli ambassador to Ireland, functioning without the diplomatic constraints of the former. 

We may take it, then, that Ireland’s Jewish minister of justice is moved by something other than an abstract sense of fairness that, however misguidedly, invites the world’s “wretched refuse” (as a very influential tribune of indiscriminate immigration once called it) to Ireland’s shores. Seen in the light of his dedication to a dogma that the United Nations General Assembly once declared racist, Shatter’s promotion of Third World immigration, as well as his long career as a lawyer promoting birth control, abortion, and gay marriage—takes on a more sinister hue, as do such recent initiatives as his condemning Ireland’s national television network for failing to depict today’s “intercultural Ireland” rather than the homogeneous Irish people of decades past.

In other words, Shatter has at best dual loyalties—but his double standard on Israel and Ireland would seem to indicate that his loyalty is primarily, if not exclusively, to the Zionist state rather than the Emerald Isle. What factor his Jewish loyalties play in promoting an immigration that is at most minimally Jewish, yet increasingly non-White, to the land of his birth remains an unanswered, though provocative, question. Nevertheless, Shatter’s attitudes are entirely in sync with those of the organized Jewish diaspora communities throughout the West. As often noted in TOO (see also here, p. 241ff), Jewish attitudes on immigration in the West are best explained as Jewish ethnic strategizing motivated by hostility toward the traditional people and culture of the West because of historical anti-Semitism (e.g., Shatter’s construction of Ireland’s role in the Holocaust) combined with fear that ethnically homogeneous populations may eventually rise up against Jews.

As noted, Alan Shatter is also Ireland’s minister of defence. In that role, he has announced that Ireland will continue to buy arms from Israel. As one of his critics has observed, “It is not unusual for a Defence Minister to be steeped in nationalism, but for the ‘nation’ in question to be a foreign state, and a rogue state at that, must be unprecedented.”

It’s hard to imagine the mirror image of Alan Shatter in Israel. Just imagine one Alan O’Slattery, devoted to promoting non-Jewish immigration to the Zionist state and putting the military and diplomatic needs of Ireland above those of the nation he serves, wielding comparable power in Israel!

But it’s not so difficult to imagine Alan Shatter finding a ministerial role in yet another country. In the eyes of John McCain and Lindsay Graham, Shatter might well be eminently more qualified to serve as U.S. Secretary of Defense than Chuck Hagel. After all, Hagel has the wrong loyalties, and Shatter has the right ones.


an evil jew bastard

 the occidental observer


Shatter promises “deepened and extended ties” with Israel 

The Irish government wants to “deepen and extend ties” with the Jewish apartheid state, Justice, Equality and Defense Minister of Ireland Alan Shatter claimed on Thursday.
300px Alan Shatter Shatter promises deepened and extended ties with Israel
Alan Shatter TD at a Fine Gael press conference during the 2011 General Election (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Shatter, who came to Israel on Monday for a short visit, said the Irish government believes that Israel and Ireland have a lot of common economic interests, and that “a great deal more can be done.”
He said that Ireland has a new government, in power now for some two years, that has taken a “balanced approach to the Palestinian issue.”
“Ireland is a friend of Israel,” he said.
Shatter, who is Jewish, has over the years come under sharp criticism in his country for speaking out in support of Israel.
For the past two years Ireland’s immigration policy has been in Shatter’s hands, and he is committed to increasing non-European immigrant to his host country.
Jerusalem Post

Read more http://www.destroyzionism.com/2013/03/18/shatter-promises-deepened-and-extended-ties-with-the-jewish-state/

Not a single Jew died in a gas chamber [Holocaust revisionism] The Tighe2001

Fair Play To You Padré


Kai Murros - Moscow Speech 2010, the Concept - Part One

Kai Murros - Moscow Speech 2010, the Concept - Part Two

Thursday, 21 March 2013

Varg Vikernes on Extremism

Varg Vikernes
The commonly held persecption today is that people like me are extremists, and of course they tell us that extremism is dangerous! They make most of us believe that just about all the problems in our world are caused and created by extremists like myself. Ergo we are dangerous. We probably should at least be stripped of our right to express any of our abhorrently extreme views…
Sorry, but no; I am not an extremist. To do your best to conserve traditional values, customs, rites and religions is not extreme at all. To fight for the survival of your race and nation is not extreme at all – no matter how you do it or what lengths you go to in this context. It is in fact much more extreme not to rise and revolt when everything of value in your society is under direct threat and at risk of being exterminated and removed. To think men are and should be different from women is not extreme at all. What people like me represent is about as moderate and normal as it can get. In the history of man about 99% of everyone has shared my world view for 99% of the time.
It is extreme to think gay marriage is okay, or to think that homosexuality is perfectly normal. It is extreme to think men should do the work of women and women the work of men. It is extreme to think that your own biological group, your race, should be mongrelized to such a degree that it ceases to exist. It is extreme to think that foreigners want you and your people all the best and that they will not favour their own at the expense of you and your people. It is extreme to tolerate mass immigration to your country, and not least mass immigration of people from a different race who follow a religion clearly stating that it is their duty to either convert you to their religion or kill you if they fail to do so. It is extreme to allow foreigners to come to your country and rape your women, and then let them stay after they have done so. It is extreme to allow Jews to destroy your culture, to let them entertain your children with lies and to let them cultivate racism towards your own people in your own homeland. It is extreme to believe in the gods of another species. It is extreme to allow Jews to enslave you and your children, using the banking system to achieve this. It is extreme to allow Jews to poison your children with «vaccines» containing mercury, which they inject directly into the blood system of your infants. It is extreme to allow the government to brainwash your children for at least 13 years before they are allowed to work. It is extreme to allow the state to take over most of the education and upbringing of your own children! You are the extremists here! How do you dare call me an extremist?
Yes! Extremism is dangerous! Extremists like those in power today are completely mad and utterly dangerous! They are so dangerous that because of them and their genocidal anti-European politics we went from being the masters of the world to facing extinction on our own continent in some 70 years or so. E. g. the English went from controlling 1/5th of the planet to struggling for control of it’s own streets in their own capital.
Now, don’t get me wrong; I don’t think it is our right to colonize other lands or control others, but I wish to show you how far Europe has fallen in such a short time because of the extremists who have been allowed to rule in Europe the last 70 years or so. The same individuals who call me an extremist.
Dear friends and passers-by, and dear brainwahsed countrymen too; please take your time to think this over! Please join us in our struggle for a return to normality, to a traditional, healthy and viable lifestyle. We are not the extremists here. We are just some who slipped through their blood-stained fingers when they grabbed our nations by the neck to suffocate them – and we resist the extremists who do so. HailaR WôðanaR!
Some of the most dangerous extremists in our world;
nicolas,sarkozy,israel  images (2) Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel in Israel 2008 1217-770

thanks brian for the link

Endless hot water without electricity! engineer775

I built a water heater out of used parts and used a Stovetec Rocket stove to start the thermo siphoning process.
Coil vid ...


Greenhouse by texasprepper2

A how-to video on building a portable, inexpensive greenhouse. It's VERY easy to build.
It is a design I call "TexasPrepper's Greenhouse". I did an earlier video showing the finished greenhouse, but this one details the construction. The finished greenhouse will cost you about 150 bucks and a few hours of your time.
If you are interested in the materials list, and the drawings of the frame, you can get the PDF. Just use the Sign Up Form at:

Here's a link for a 20X25' sheet of 6 mil plastic:

Here's the link for the Automatic Vent Door Opener:

Here's a link to the Cattle Panels: http://www.tractorsupply.com/en/store...



90 minutes after the 9/11 attack Ehud Barak the former Israel prime minister gives an interview on BBC world service.......

TRANS22 youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc3Iv4vy4-o

Shocking Differences by Dr. William Pierce

Shocking Differences


by Dr. William Pierce


During the past couple of weeks we've spoken a bit about the "diversity" being pushed so vigorously by the government and by the Jewish media, and I apparently made some irreverent remarks on this very sensitive topic which greatly offended some of our more Politically Correct listeners, because I've received a number of letters from listeners who were practically in tears. The general tenor of these letters is: "Why can't we all just learn to get along with each other? We're really all the same. The only difference between us is skin color; why is that so important to you? Why do you hate people just because they're from a different country? By coming here with their different customs they enrich our lives." Et cetera. Some of the letters were more on the weepy, hand-wringing side, and some were more on the belligerent, hateful side, but they were all written by folks who are distressed that I want to stop the flow of non-White immigrants into America, boot out the ones who're already here, and then hunt down and hang the people who arranged to bring them here. Some folks just can't understand why I want to do that. I must have spoken with a dozen interviewers for the mass media who asked me: "What's wrong with multiculturalism? Why do you think it's bad?" That's exactly what I was asked by a pretty, young woman reporter for a German television news program last week. And I believe that she was sincere. She really didn't understand. That's the lemming factor. The girl wasn't stupid. It's just that her brain is wired in such a way that she is incapable of absorbing any information or reaching any conclusion that is Politically Incorrect. If multiculturalism and diversity were not promoted by the controlled mass media -- if wanting to have a clean, White America were still Politically Correct, the way it was here, say, 50 years ago, and also the way it was in her country until 1945 -- then she would be able to understand perfectly well why multiculturalism is socially, culturally, and racially destructive. She would agree completely with me. But because it is unfashionable to understand such things now, she can't. And I don't mean that she doesn't want to understand; I mean that she can't understand. That is the way lemmings function. I've often thought about how we might rearrange the wiring in a lemming's brain and permit him or her to understand what is blocked out by the overwhelming compulsion to conform, to be fashionable. I've spoken in the past, only half jokingly, about the oak-table-leg method of persuasion: about putting a lemming on a diet of 500 calories a day and beating him half to death with an oak table leg about once a day until he gets his thinking straightened out. That's the method the communists used in their so-called "labor reeducation" camps, and it seems to have worked pretty well. It's also the method the Allies used on the German population after the Second World War to make them realize the error of their ways in supporting Hitler. Eventually they had most of the Germans blaming Hitler for their suffering instead of the people who were raping, beating, looting, and starving them. Well, of course, I can't use trauma and privation as an educational method, but perhaps it is nevertheless possible to shock a lemming to his senses. I don't know, but it is something you might like to try for yourself. So with that in mind let's talk for a moment about the Chinese. The Chinese are a people with whom we are rapidly becoming more and more closely involved, both through trade and through immigration. And the properly conditioned lemming will tell you that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The Chinese, after all, are exactly like us, except that they speak a different language, are a little darker, and have slanted eyes. They add wonderfully to our "diversity" here. They enrich our culture by their presence. Well, actually they're not quite like us. They have different customs, and those different customs come from a different way of looking at the world, a different attitude toward life, and that different attitude evolved over the course of thousands of generations of living in a different environment from the environment in which our ancestors lived. For example, the Chinese eat babies and see nothing wrong in it. And what they do to cats and dogs they get their hands on is too horrible, too sickening, for me to describe here. What they do to cats and dogs is much worse than just eating them. But to get back to babies: I had heard reports from time to time about the Chinese custom of eating babies in the belief that it is an especially healthy thing to do. For a modern nuclear superpower, the Chinese have some strange ideas about health. These ideas have nearly wiped out a number of species of wild animals because of the insatiable Chinese demand for their body parts. Ground rhinoceros horn is in such demand that it has seriously threatened the rhinoceros with extinction. The same sort of demand exists for tiger penises and various bear parts. Human babies are harder to get for eating, and I imagine that there are laws in China about killing babies for that purpose. But there seems to be no law against eating aborted human fetuses. A number of hospitals in China that perform abortions sell the aborted fetuses for eating. The smaller fetuses are cooked in a soup. The late-term fetuses are eaten more like roast suckling pig. The Chinese government understandably is a little bashful about having Western journalists publicize this sort of thing, just as it is bashful about having Western journalists film what the Chinese do to cats and dogs. Not to worry, though: Western journalists understand that it would be the worst kind of "no, no" to publish such information in the West; it might dampen the public's enthusiasm for more togetherness with the Chinese. Despite the effort on both sides to keep these peculiar customs of the Chinese from becoming better known in the West, information is available to the diligent seeker. I recently acquired photographs taken in a restaurant in China of a Chinese man eating what is quite plainly recognizable as a late-term human fetus. The photographs are shocking and disgusting to me, and I imagine that they also will be shocking and disgusting to the average American lemming. They won't be shocking to Chinese, of course. Eating fetuses is no stranger to them than, say, the habit of eating snails in garlic sauce is to a Frenchman. The significance I see in the Chinese habit of eating fetuses, even if only the wealthier Chinese can afford them, is more than simply a difference between us and the Chinese in culinary tastes or in ideas of what's healthy. A society that sees nothing wrong in eating babies, a race that finds this habit acceptable, is profoundly different from ours. The difference is far deeper than language or skin color or facial features. Now, I don't hate the Chinese because they aren't White. I don't hate them for being different. I don't even hate them because they see nothing wrong in eating aborted babies. That's their business. I do have stronger feelings about what they do to cats and dogs, and if I had the power to do so I would depopulate China in order to put a stop to that. But if they want to eat Chinese fetuses, I don't care -- so long as they do it in China, not here. But they will be doing it here if we permit the criminal insanity of multiculturalism to continue. And it won't be just Chinese who'll be doing it. Think how much the customs and the morals of White Americans already have changed under the influence of the multiculturalism we already have here. I'm not telling you that if more Chinese come to America we'll all be eating babies. I believe that most of us, even our lemmings, will retain an instinctive block against that sort of thing. But the Chinese nevertheless will change our culture. More important, they will change our attitudes, our morals. If we have a lot of Chinese immigrants in America eating fetuses, you can bet your bottom dollar that any White American who publicly expresses his disgust, his disapproval of this habit, will be denounced by our Jewish media as a "hater," a "bigot," a "racist," and so on. Christian preachers will be issuing a call for more tolerance. Politically ambitious prosecutors and police officials will announce to the media that they are looking into the possibility of filing "hate speech" charges against the White person who made the offensive remarks. You know that's what would happen because it's what already has been happening with other phases of the campaign to multiculturalize America. The lemmings adjust to it the same way frogs in a kettle over a fire adjust to the gradually increasing temperature of the water. But at this time the idea of eating babies probably still will shock most lemmings, just as taking a frog from a kettle of cold water and dropping him into a kettle of boiling water will shock the frog. Would you like to try it? Send me a 9-inch by 12-inch, self-addressed envelope with 55 cents postage on it, and I'll send you two photographs, each approximately eight by ten inches in size. One is of a Chinese man in a restaurant in China carrying a plate with a large, late-term human fetus. The other photograph shows him sitting at a table and eating the dismembered fetus. The head of the fetus is still attached to the torso, and the features are clearly distinguishable. They are horrible, shocking, disgusting photographs. I'll send these photographs to you free if you send me your envelope with 55 cents postage on it and promise to show the photographs to other people and get them to listen to an American Dissident Voices broadcast with you. I want to emphasize to you again: I don't hate Chinese because some of them in China eat babies, and the rest of them think that's all right. I don't hate Blacks because of some of the things they do in Africa that I find disgusting. That's their business -- as long as they stay in China or in Africa, as the case may be. I just don't want them here. I don't want to see them. I don't want to hear them. I don't want to smell them. I don't want to hear liberals or Jews making excuses for them. I don't even want to think about them. Well, the Chinese are not the only exotic ingredient in America's multicultural stew. The Jews are a much more important exotic element because they wield so much more power in American society through their control of our mass media of news and entertainment. And there are people who will tell you, "So what? What difference does it make if the Jews control Hollywood and television? They're just like us, except that they have a different religion." That is what the lemmings have been taught to believe about the Jews. But in fact, the Jews are as profoundly different from us as the Chinese are, and the difference consists in much more than the Jews' uncanny ability to accumulate money. The Jews, like the Chinese, have a fundamentally different way of looking at the world, and this difference is based in thousands of generations of separate evolution in a different environment. I'll give you just one example of this difference today. This is something I first noticed when I was a junior high school student in Dallas, Texas. The school I attended was in one of Dallas' wealthier suburbs, and there were a number of Jews in the school. What I and several of my classmates noticed about the Jews was their uniquely Jewish sense of humor. One doesn't expect much delicacy in the jokes told by 14-year-olds, of course, but the thing that made the jokes that appealed especially to the Jews stand out was their scatological content. Nearly every Jewish joke involved excrement in one way or another. As I said, this Jewish tendency was so pronounced that I and my Gentile classmates noticed it and commented on it, even though we didn't understand it. And it wasn't that we had an exceptionally large number of budding Howard Sterns among our Jewish classmates. The inclination toward scatology is a general Jewish characteristic. Jews themselves, including Jewish psychologists, have commented on this Jewish trait often, explaining it in terms of the collective Jewish experience throughout history. It is real, and it is quite noticeable. The Jews who control America's entertainment media are men who as much as anything else want to make money, and they understand the need to keep their Jewishness from being too obvious in the entertainment they produce for Gentile consumption. At least, they used to understand that, but in the last decade or so they've become a lot cockier, a lot bolder. They believe that they have such a tight grip on the minds and morals of the Gentiles now that they can do and say anything they want on the television screen without danger of a Gentile reaction. They believe that they now can let all of their Jewishness hang out. And I'm not talking just about the Howard Stern types. I'm talking about the ultra-rich and powerful mainstream media moguls, Jews such as Michael Eisner and Gerald Levin and Sumner Redstone. Sumner Redstone's MTV has been described by students of the media as the single most powerful influence on the attitudes and behavior of teenaged White girls. I don't watch MTV myself, and I suspect that most White parents of teenaged girls, even very liberal and trendy parents, also don't pay attention to what their daughters are being indoctrinated with by Sumner Redstone's MTV. An example of which I recently became aware was brought to my attention by the filing just last week of a lawsuit against MTV in Los Angeles Superior Court. Let me give you the details: three months ago, on January 21, MTV was taping a pilot for a new show called Dude, This Sucks. Some teenaged girls were visiting the studio during the taping. A studio employee instructed them to stand on the stage in a certain place for a part of the show in which a pair of performers known as the "Shower Rangers" were to go through their routine. The girls were not told what the performance would be or how they would be involved in it. The "Shower Rangers" were two men dressed in Boy Scout uniforms. They came on stage, turned their backs to the camera and to the teenaged spectators on the stage, dropped their trousers, bent over, and let fly with a shower of semi-liquid feces, spattering the unsuspecting girls from head to foot. Apparently they had dosed themselves with a powerful laxative prior to the performance. To Jews, including billionaire Jewish media moguls like the owner of CBS and MTV, Sumner Redstone, this sort of thing is hilariously funny. It's their idea of humor. Unfortunately for MTV, however, the girls who were sprayed by MTV's "Shower Rangers" weren't amused, nor were their parents. Last week two of the girls sued. One of them told the court:
We were having a good time until the second act of Dude, This Sucks went on. All of a sudden I was smelling something disgusting, and I started to gag. I looked around at my friends. They were covered in something. As I looked down at myself I realized that I was too.
Another of the plaintiffs, 14-year-old Kelly Sloat, spoke of the humiliation the girls felt when they returned to school:
Everyone knew about it, even some of the teachers. Most of the kids were cracking jokes or wouldn't come near us because, even though we washed off the feces, they said we smelled. I will never, ever forget what a horrible experience this was.
The girls' lawsuit charges MTV with "infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and battery. I would charge MTV and Sumner Redstone with much more than that. I would charge Mr. Redstone and his fellow Jews with a deliberate effort to degrade White culture, White standards, White morality. I would charge them with attempting to destroy all traditional ideas in young people's minds of what is right and just and noble and beautiful and replace those traditional ideas and values with a Jewish concoction of filth and degeneracy designed to make our young people accept a Jew-dominated, multicultural pigsty society. And in my book, that's a hanging offense. And I assure you that when the time for hanging comes, it will not be just this one incident with the "Shower Rangers" which leaves Sumner Redstone and all of his kosher crew dancing on air. This incident is merely an illustration of a general pattern of behavior over a long period of time. I chose this illustration not just because it is current, but because it is a matter of court record. You can verify all the details for yourself. You certainly won't get those details from the other Jewish media. I also chose this incident because it cannot be written off as an aberration, like some piece of Howard Stern scatology. Sumner Redstone is a mainstream Jew: one of the wealthiest, most powerful, and most influential Jews in the world. He is a leader of the Jews, a Jew to whom nearly all the other Jews look up. No one can call him an aberration. He is the essence of Jewish influence on our society. He is a Jew who is welcomed with open arms at the White House, regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican is in residence. And he believes that what teenaged White girls need is more exposure to the "Shower Rangers." That will loosen them up, make them more open-minded, and prepare them for sex with Black boys. And if you've been paying any attention at all to the trends in entertainment for teens, you'll understand that there's nothing exceptional about the "Shower Rangers." They are just one more step in the direction the Jews have been going all along: not just Sumner Redstone, but all of them, from the time they first began taking over control of our entertainment media. In the 1930s Gentile leaders, most of them Christians, were able to threaten Jews effectively with boycotts if they violated standards of decency. One of the most effective leaders of this effort was Joseph Breen, who helped establish the Production Code for Hollywood in 1934. Breen knew exactly what he was up against. Of Jewish filmmakers Breen wrote in 1932:
These lousy Jews ... are simply a vile bunch of people with no respect for anything but the making of money.... These Jews seem to think of nothing but money-making and sexual indulgence.... [They] are the men and women who decide what the film fare of the nation is to be.
The Production Code constrained the Jews for a couple of decades, but with the advent of television the Jews gained far more influence over public attitudes and behavior than the churches had. The Jews could safely ignore the Code, and in the 1960s they began pushing again in the same direction Sumner Redstone is still pushing with the "Shower Rangers." So you see, Jews really are different. They're not just like us any more than the Chinese are. And let me tell you something: I and a lot of other White Americans have had just about as much of the Chinese and the Jews and the Blacks and the rest of the multicultural filth here as we will tolerate. We've been pushed about as far as we're willing to let ourselves be pushed. We want our country back, and we intend to take it back, and if a lot of soccer moms and yuppies and Politically Correct journalists who can't understand that get in the way, they're going to be hurt.

© 2000 National Vanguard Books · Box 330 · Hillsboro ·WV 24946 · USA