I've always been one of those people who never remembers their dreams. I sleep like a rock and sometimes snore like a bear, but the little movies that run through my mind don't seep into my conscious thoughts upon waking. Last night was different.
The dream I had was chilling because it played out within completely normal life circumstances. It was also fearsome because it's actually happening right now, slowly, inexorably and, unless we completely change course, permanently.
It was a weekend or holiday, because it was mid-day and I wasn't working. I was out taking a relaxed walk on the street near my apartment, enjoying the sunshine. But something was very wrong. I couldn't put a finger on it. Then it hit me. There were almost no people on the street. The thought came over me that I needed to get off the street, to hide somewhere out of view.
I ran behind a small building near the local canal, squatting low among the adjacent shrubbery which was beginning to show new Spring growth. As I looked out, a truck rolled by, filled with National Guardsmen followed by another slightly smaller truck with cops in the bed. The second truck was towing a trailer. All the men were wearing riot gear and fully armed. There were also cops hanging on the sides of the cab, looking down the streets.
They approached the house across from me, stopped, and several ran up to the front door. A cop with gray hair knocked on the door, and an older woman answered. She was asked to step outside, and as she did, she was taken by the arm to a school bus and put aboard. Next, an old man came to the door, the cop said something to him, and he was also taken away. A small group of men went inside, and came back out with a shotgun, some papers and a cardboard box. I heard the senior military officer say to the old man, "You are charged with violation of the Weapons Act."
I took a back route back to my apartment, and when I got there, I knew I had to get my things and get away from there. There were two young people in the parking lot loading their car with bags. I turned on the TV and there were news reports of mass "anti-terrorism" arrests, including searches and arrests for possession of firearms in the New York metro area following "FBI infiltration of a White supremacist organization with ties to al-Qaeda". The news said the Feds had a huge list of people who were involved and were finding them, and taking them to six Federal detention centers. All of the people being arrested on the video were White.
Neither of the news anchors were White. None of the cops or Guardsmen I'd seen in the trucks were White. I put together a bag with my most valuable possessions. I loaded that into my car along with my toolbox and guns, and drove out of my complex. None of the people I passed on the street were White; almost all were Latino and Indian. On the radio, there was a report that a small nuclear bomb had been found in lower Manhattan, and a second in Union City, NJ. Scientists were attempting to disarm them. Rumors of neo-Nazi involvement was interspersed. Roads across northern New Jersey were jammed, said the radio. My knuckles were white from gripping the wheel.
I veered off onto a side road and knew I was going to need a different vehicle to get out of the area. I parked my car in a lot, quickly removed the license plates and pried off the VIN plate. There was an Indian couple nearby, sitting in their Hummer H3. I made an instant decision. I walked over, pulled out my pistol and commandeered the truck. My first thought was to get as far north as possible, and to take as many off-road routes as possible. I was shaking from the adrenaline rush, trying to avoid authorities, trying to figure out the right way to go, and saw distant flashing lights in my rearview mirror. I woke up bathed in sweat.
I took a long shower, then sat on my couch, thinking about the dream. Completely coincidentally, I saw an advertisement in an open "Wired" magazine talking about the expanding world population. We will have, said the ad, 70 million more people added to the world's population EVERY YEAR. And I thought about the projection that the total world population will be NINE BILLION in another 30 years. Of that increase, almost ALL of will be non-White.
The floodgates of White nations of the world have been opened to uncontrolled Third World immigration. White people aren't pouring into China, India, Africa, Indonesia or Mexico. But the reverse, as we all know, is certainly true. China could send out a contingent equal to the total population of the U.S. and STILL have over a BILLION people at home. Ditto India.
We are merely eight percent (8%) of the entire human population. Until recently, we were largely unaffected by the fact of our dwindling numbers, because we lived within land areas comprised almost entirely of our own kindred. While this was in effect, our numbers relative to the rest of the planet were inconsequential. We largely ignored the outside world.
The problem, the 800-lb. gorilla in the living room, the point that no reporter or politician or even White activist can or will express, is simple. The goal of the powers in charge, the zionists, the New World Order, the far Left, the internationalists, is to equalize the White population ratio in EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH. They want every country to contain no more than 8% White people. Once that's achieved, we will be further isolated, divided, reduced, worn away, and absorbed by the non-White masses until we are gone. Period.
This is the reason behind "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws which are ONLY directed at Whites. This is the reason behind the lumping of Latino and other non-Whites into the "White" perpetrator category in DOJ crime statistics, but not in the victim category. This is the reason for the celebration of Black majority takeover in South Africa, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Congo and Kenya, while at the same time decrying White majority opinion in Europe. It's the reason for the increasing torrent of portrayals of interracial relationships on TV and in films. It's why the strict immigration policies of the nations of Mexico, China, India and Israel are lauded, but any attempt to restrain immigration of non-Whites into Europe is condemned. It's why, according to the media, White history is filled with racists and genocidal maniacs, while Black history translates into an entire month of celebration. It's why Mexicans who have no legal right to be in the U.S. can hold mass demonstrations against the country they've invaded, while White Americans are considered criminals and smeared if they gather to promote their own cause.
We are having everything we've achieved stripped from us, every law we've created to protect our Rights torn away, and every land in which we live swarmed over. While this is going on, the White middle-class wordlessly worries and frets and does absolutely nothing to change it.
Soon enough, I think, my nightmare will begin to play out. Whites will become targets, simply because they are White. This has already happened in Africa and South America. It will also begin to happen in North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and wherever else we exist in numbers. It will accelerate. It will be fueled by the media. The power elites, the traitors to their own People, will isolate themselves, and the rest of us will pay the cost through our total destruction.
I am not going quietly into that long night, my Friends. The time to act is already upon us. The machinery for our destruction has been put into operation. What will you do? Will you stand and live, or lie down and die?
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Twenty Miles From Afar And Closing
In the past few days, I've read a lot about the front-running Presidential candidates. I number those at 3: Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama and John McCain.
Sen. Hillary Clinton: a checkered past involving S&L collapses, money laundering and possible assorted "hits" (Vince Foster, et al), the Senator "from" New York, is now lagging in polling. Maybe Americans have had enough of the Bush and Clinton families. Supports naturalization of CrimMigrants, including those, mostly Asian, who've violated H1-B visas. Accepts large donations from AIPAC (America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel PAC) and has spoken at their national meetings. She has lost much of her appeal at the polls, perhaps in part due to her crying incident, but who knows why? She will, I believe, be out of the running unless the media sells her harder.
Sen. Barack Obama: half-Black African, half-White. Currently supports most of the same things Clinton does. Wants to allow women to make their own decisions about partial-birth abortion. That would allow abortion at the point where we're dealing with viable human beings, and murder. He would "confront" China on our massive debt, on which they're holding most of the paper (if China calls in our debt, we go bankrupt, period). He wants something called "class-based" affirmative action, not just the race-based kind (although he insists he's for "equal rights" while supporting race-preferential programs). In other words, he wants everyone to have the same amount of income.
There are two ways to do that. You can "bring up" the lower income brackets (which are disproportionately non-White), and this idea has been trotted out in a dozen different suits, from Head Start to "No Child Left Behind". No possibility of success. Or, you can bring the upper echelons down. This can be done primarily through preferential or punitive taxation. Certain industries not in line with the President's policies get hammered, others, perhaps owned by certain individuals, get a boost. And of course, all the (disproportionately White) neo-Yuppies in their McMansions get crushed, in plummeting real estate prices, escalating property tax and personal credit costs, rising utility and toll costs, and so on.
Sen. John Sidney McCain: called "Insane McCain" by more than a few. McCain was by all accounts a pilot who stayed on course right into anti-aircraft fire. He was captured, with broken arms, and subjected to years of confinement and apparent torture. There are many veterans organizations which oppose McCain's candidacy, which seemed a strange thing until one reads the negative accounts of several of his co-captives. Be that as it may, it's witness testimony from potentially hostile witnesses and thus not a reason for me to be deterred.
What does deter me is McCain's history of serious waffling, his affiliations with Democrats on bad legislation, and his support of the continuation of the War Without End in Iraq. Soon, we should say under a McCain administration, to include Iran? Yes, it will. Then we can square off with the Russians over their primary source of foreign oil becoming an American domain.
John McCain changes his mind about important issues more often than a "vid-iot" changes cable channels. For a good look at his political bipolar disorder, check YouTube.
McCain has also sponsored legislation to limit free political speech (McCain-Feingold), and has worked with Ted Kennedy on three versions of an Amnesty bill to benefit the 20-30 Million CrimMigrants. If the government included them in their public publications, the population would officially be 330 Million, of which 45 Million would be "legal" hispanics*, and 30 Million more would be the illegal invaders. That places the physical hispanic percentage of the population at almost 23% right now. It also readjusts even the generous FedGov allocation of 65% White populace to 59% overall (we know that most Asians and almost all Blacks are legal citizens, so their numbers remain the same).
In 1964-65, a lying Ted Kennedy told America that reversing the immigration ratio from 90% European, 10% other nations, would not change the demographic makeup of the country. All three current mainstream candidates support naturalization of 20-30 million people, an unearned reward to those who broke the law coming here, with the support of "your" government and business community. All three of them support continued involvement in the undeclared War.
One candidate doesn't support any of this bullshit. However, the time for that candidacy is passing. So, a note on the Ron Paul candidacy.
Dr. Paul is the choice of many people of all political backgrounds. His pro-Constitution position, which should be the norm for anyone who considers his (or her) self competent to be the leader of the United States of America, endears him to freedom-loving voters.
However, Dr. Paul's personal priority is not in winning this particular election. He has stated, and continues to, that he will not, under any circumstances, run as an independent, or third-party, candidate. He will not leave the Republican party, so he can continue to run for Congress in his Texas home district. This means, to me, that Dr. Paul would prefer to retire from service to our country as a humble, and well-liked, Representative. Certainly, Dr. Paul has earned this, and at 72 years of age may have no desire to end his campaign as a thoroughly beaten candidate in the final contest in November. He lags behind the media-fueled mainstream contenders, and is a victim of the American fool's mentality of believing in backing a "winner".
Because Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination, because not enough voters will write him in on the Republican ticket, because he will not abandon the Republicans, and because he's a realist, Ron Paul is already finished.
But there IS something we can ask Dr. Paul to do. We can ask that he nominate his successor in the fight, a younger Constitutionalist who is not tied to the G.O.P., and can run on a third-party ticket. Maybe someone in their 40's, with a good deal of life experience but plenty of energy left. If this generation's greatest champion of the magnificent legacy of our Founders, and beloved elder statesman, put his imprimatur on someone, we'd know that person had the country's best interests in mind.
So, at this point, I would urge the good doctor to pass the torch. It would give the country time to get behind the new bearer of those true, Constitutionally-correct ideas and practices. That person could carry on the battle of Order over Chaos, and confront the pretenders to the Oval Office on both issues and conduct.
Maybe, just maybe, we could save the country for those who follow us, and make politics a more honest, forthright, benevolent and selfless endeavor. OK, one out of two is fine.
Note: "Hispanic" is a weasel-word of the Feds which avoids classifying Mexican tribesmen or mestizos (mixed Asiatic (AmerInd)-European blood) as a separate racial group, even though every American of any race understands that they are. Instead, they are "placed" in one or another group. Therefore, a pure Mexican national can call himself "White" although he has no European ancestry. This concept was preceded by a similar inclusion of Arabs, jews and gypsies in the Census Bureau's "White" classification criteria. It's also a good reason why Whites are not called "European-Americans" anywhere in official literature; to do so would admit that near-Eastern Asiatics are not "White" by definition.
Sen. Hillary Clinton: a checkered past involving S&L collapses, money laundering and possible assorted "hits" (Vince Foster, et al), the Senator "from" New York, is now lagging in polling. Maybe Americans have had enough of the Bush and Clinton families. Supports naturalization of CrimMigrants, including those, mostly Asian, who've violated H1-B visas. Accepts large donations from AIPAC (America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel PAC) and has spoken at their national meetings. She has lost much of her appeal at the polls, perhaps in part due to her crying incident, but who knows why? She will, I believe, be out of the running unless the media sells her harder.
Sen. Barack Obama: half-Black African, half-White. Currently supports most of the same things Clinton does. Wants to allow women to make their own decisions about partial-birth abortion. That would allow abortion at the point where we're dealing with viable human beings, and murder. He would "confront" China on our massive debt, on which they're holding most of the paper (if China calls in our debt, we go bankrupt, period). He wants something called "class-based" affirmative action, not just the race-based kind (although he insists he's for "equal rights" while supporting race-preferential programs). In other words, he wants everyone to have the same amount of income.
There are two ways to do that. You can "bring up" the lower income brackets (which are disproportionately non-White), and this idea has been trotted out in a dozen different suits, from Head Start to "No Child Left Behind". No possibility of success. Or, you can bring the upper echelons down. This can be done primarily through preferential or punitive taxation. Certain industries not in line with the President's policies get hammered, others, perhaps owned by certain individuals, get a boost. And of course, all the (disproportionately White) neo-Yuppies in their McMansions get crushed, in plummeting real estate prices, escalating property tax and personal credit costs, rising utility and toll costs, and so on.
Sen. John Sidney McCain: called "Insane McCain" by more than a few. McCain was by all accounts a pilot who stayed on course right into anti-aircraft fire. He was captured, with broken arms, and subjected to years of confinement and apparent torture. There are many veterans organizations which oppose McCain's candidacy, which seemed a strange thing until one reads the negative accounts of several of his co-captives. Be that as it may, it's witness testimony from potentially hostile witnesses and thus not a reason for me to be deterred.
What does deter me is McCain's history of serious waffling, his affiliations with Democrats on bad legislation, and his support of the continuation of the War Without End in Iraq. Soon, we should say under a McCain administration, to include Iran? Yes, it will. Then we can square off with the Russians over their primary source of foreign oil becoming an American domain.
John McCain changes his mind about important issues more often than a "vid-iot" changes cable channels. For a good look at his political bipolar disorder, check YouTube.
McCain has also sponsored legislation to limit free political speech (McCain-Feingold), and has worked with Ted Kennedy on three versions of an Amnesty bill to benefit the 20-30 Million CrimMigrants. If the government included them in their public publications, the population would officially be 330 Million, of which 45 Million would be "legal" hispanics*, and 30 Million more would be the illegal invaders. That places the physical hispanic percentage of the population at almost 23% right now. It also readjusts even the generous FedGov allocation of 65% White populace to 59% overall (we know that most Asians and almost all Blacks are legal citizens, so their numbers remain the same).
In 1964-65, a lying Ted Kennedy told America that reversing the immigration ratio from 90% European, 10% other nations, would not change the demographic makeup of the country. All three current mainstream candidates support naturalization of 20-30 million people, an unearned reward to those who broke the law coming here, with the support of "your" government and business community. All three of them support continued involvement in the undeclared War.
One candidate doesn't support any of this bullshit. However, the time for that candidacy is passing. So, a note on the Ron Paul candidacy.
Dr. Paul is the choice of many people of all political backgrounds. His pro-Constitution position, which should be the norm for anyone who considers his (or her) self competent to be the leader of the United States of America, endears him to freedom-loving voters.
However, Dr. Paul's personal priority is not in winning this particular election. He has stated, and continues to, that he will not, under any circumstances, run as an independent, or third-party, candidate. He will not leave the Republican party, so he can continue to run for Congress in his Texas home district. This means, to me, that Dr. Paul would prefer to retire from service to our country as a humble, and well-liked, Representative. Certainly, Dr. Paul has earned this, and at 72 years of age may have no desire to end his campaign as a thoroughly beaten candidate in the final contest in November. He lags behind the media-fueled mainstream contenders, and is a victim of the American fool's mentality of believing in backing a "winner".
Because Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination, because not enough voters will write him in on the Republican ticket, because he will not abandon the Republicans, and because he's a realist, Ron Paul is already finished.
But there IS something we can ask Dr. Paul to do. We can ask that he nominate his successor in the fight, a younger Constitutionalist who is not tied to the G.O.P., and can run on a third-party ticket. Maybe someone in their 40's, with a good deal of life experience but plenty of energy left. If this generation's greatest champion of the magnificent legacy of our Founders, and beloved elder statesman, put his imprimatur on someone, we'd know that person had the country's best interests in mind.
So, at this point, I would urge the good doctor to pass the torch. It would give the country time to get behind the new bearer of those true, Constitutionally-correct ideas and practices. That person could carry on the battle of Order over Chaos, and confront the pretenders to the Oval Office on both issues and conduct.
Maybe, just maybe, we could save the country for those who follow us, and make politics a more honest, forthright, benevolent and selfless endeavor. OK, one out of two is fine.
Note: "Hispanic" is a weasel-word of the Feds which avoids classifying Mexican tribesmen or mestizos (mixed Asiatic (AmerInd)-European blood) as a separate racial group, even though every American of any race understands that they are. Instead, they are "placed" in one or another group. Therefore, a pure Mexican national can call himself "White" although he has no European ancestry. This concept was preceded by a similar inclusion of Arabs, jews and gypsies in the Census Bureau's "White" classification criteria. It's also a good reason why Whites are not called "European-Americans" anywhere in official literature; to do so would admit that near-Eastern Asiatics are not "White" by definition.
Monday, February 4, 2008
StereoTripe
Last night, while listening to the radio on the drive home, I heard someone talking about the use of stereotypes and how abhorrent it was. However, during the same talk, the same guy disagreed with a caller regarding one group. He said that the stereotype in that case was "all in fun". The group was White people in the rural South, the so-called American "rednecks".
Why, I wondered, is it OK for the media to blatantly abuse that particular group?
Southern Whites are descended from mostly Scots-Irish immigrants who were not welcome on the English-noble-controlled Irish plantations except as indentured servants or laborers. They came to the colonies and found that things here were in many ways a reflection of their homeland, so they retreated to the wilds of the Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky. They managed to build homes, plant crops, raise families and live their lives with a Bible in one hand and a long gun in the other. They faced hostile native tribes and wild animals with equal resolve. And they did all this without any help from the outsiders in the more urban areas, simply asking to be "let alone". Over time, of course, their isolation was broken.
These people were, to outside standards, "uneducated". Yet, they had a deep understanding of, and appreciation for, the land they lived on. They made an art form out of "making do". They were not "book smart", but were intelligent enough to operate a very viable and vibrant society in a marginal part of the frontier. They generally lived under a strict moral system with very well-defined limits of acceptable behavior.
So, why the hostility which extends to this very day? In large part, it's two-fold. First, the Southern people (or "Southrons") are vehemently independent. They don't meld easily into the prevailing mentality emanating from the North or the West. They maintain their own counsel, and don't need outsiders. So this creates a negative reaction in those who would impose themselves. That negativity has already expressed itself in the form of an unConstitutional "civil" war started by the imperialist Lincoln and his Northern mercantilist cohorts.
But more importantly, they are not city-dwellers, steeped in liberal academia, but rather are rural ultra-realists about everyday life. And this infuriates the cosmopolitan, internationalist Leftists, especially those of jewish extraction, who thrive on opening borders, flooding the locals with foreign influences and destroying local sovereignty. The Southrons, with their history of resistance, represent a nail for those urbanites to hammer down.
But that's not all. This morning, on the Opie & Anthony program on XM, there was a debate about the stereotyping of Italians as mobsters in the New Jersey Lottery's new promotion, called "Bada-Bling!". In this commercial, Sopranos-types tout the new ticket with affected "goon" accents and mannerisms. The members of the show were quick to point out that while "of course" not ALL Italian-Americans are that kind of person, SOME were (or are), and therefore no offense should be taken.
Again, why is it OK for the State of New Jersey to single out one of its largest White ethnic groups for such portrayal?
The first error made by the show's hosts was, the Mafia was never an all-Italian enterprise. Jews made up a huge chunk of the management of the operations. Consider "Murder, Inc.", run by Meyer Lansky, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter and George "Bugsy" Siegel, all jewish. They handled much of the money (of course), and committed many of the bloodiest killings. And today's "Russian" Mafiya is not Russian at all, but comprised almost entirely of Russian jews.
But the Italian element is the one that the jewish-dominated media chooses to put out front, so they carry the load of the stereotypical mobster.
Even allowing for this, how would the media or public react to a lottery promotion involving swindling money-lenders, a la Shakespeare's "Shylock", complete with irritating yiddish accent? Or one portraying Blacks as violent, fast-talking, lazy drug abusers? Or how about one showing Mexicans as low-rider-driving, woman-slapping, hairnet-wearing gangsters?
The point is, the only acceptable prejudicial treatment allowed to the general public involves the denigration of White people, whether in specific socioeconomic or regional groups (like the Southerners), or by ethnicity (Italian-Americans), or by gender (the eternally-stupid White male father portrayed in commercials who is always outsmarted by his wife and kids), or by position (currently, all authority figures in TV shows or commercials are non-White and/or female). The media never airs anything without an underlying agenda. In these cases, that agenda is plain and simple: the denigration and destruction of the White majority as a power base in the Western world.
I'm sick of it, and I want it stopped. Maybe you do, too.
Why, I wondered, is it OK for the media to blatantly abuse that particular group?
Southern Whites are descended from mostly Scots-Irish immigrants who were not welcome on the English-noble-controlled Irish plantations except as indentured servants or laborers. They came to the colonies and found that things here were in many ways a reflection of their homeland, so they retreated to the wilds of the Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky. They managed to build homes, plant crops, raise families and live their lives with a Bible in one hand and a long gun in the other. They faced hostile native tribes and wild animals with equal resolve. And they did all this without any help from the outsiders in the more urban areas, simply asking to be "let alone". Over time, of course, their isolation was broken.
These people were, to outside standards, "uneducated". Yet, they had a deep understanding of, and appreciation for, the land they lived on. They made an art form out of "making do". They were not "book smart", but were intelligent enough to operate a very viable and vibrant society in a marginal part of the frontier. They generally lived under a strict moral system with very well-defined limits of acceptable behavior.
So, why the hostility which extends to this very day? In large part, it's two-fold. First, the Southern people (or "Southrons") are vehemently independent. They don't meld easily into the prevailing mentality emanating from the North or the West. They maintain their own counsel, and don't need outsiders. So this creates a negative reaction in those who would impose themselves. That negativity has already expressed itself in the form of an unConstitutional "civil" war started by the imperialist Lincoln and his Northern mercantilist cohorts.
But more importantly, they are not city-dwellers, steeped in liberal academia, but rather are rural ultra-realists about everyday life. And this infuriates the cosmopolitan, internationalist Leftists, especially those of jewish extraction, who thrive on opening borders, flooding the locals with foreign influences and destroying local sovereignty. The Southrons, with their history of resistance, represent a nail for those urbanites to hammer down.
But that's not all. This morning, on the Opie & Anthony program on XM, there was a debate about the stereotyping of Italians as mobsters in the New Jersey Lottery's new promotion, called "Bada-Bling!". In this commercial, Sopranos-types tout the new ticket with affected "goon" accents and mannerisms. The members of the show were quick to point out that while "of course" not ALL Italian-Americans are that kind of person, SOME were (or are), and therefore no offense should be taken.
Again, why is it OK for the State of New Jersey to single out one of its largest White ethnic groups for such portrayal?
The first error made by the show's hosts was, the Mafia was never an all-Italian enterprise. Jews made up a huge chunk of the management of the operations. Consider "Murder, Inc.", run by Meyer Lansky, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter and George "Bugsy" Siegel, all jewish. They handled much of the money (of course), and committed many of the bloodiest killings. And today's "Russian" Mafiya is not Russian at all, but comprised almost entirely of Russian jews.
But the Italian element is the one that the jewish-dominated media chooses to put out front, so they carry the load of the stereotypical mobster.
Even allowing for this, how would the media or public react to a lottery promotion involving swindling money-lenders, a la Shakespeare's "Shylock", complete with irritating yiddish accent? Or one portraying Blacks as violent, fast-talking, lazy drug abusers? Or how about one showing Mexicans as low-rider-driving, woman-slapping, hairnet-wearing gangsters?
The point is, the only acceptable prejudicial treatment allowed to the general public involves the denigration of White people, whether in specific socioeconomic or regional groups (like the Southerners), or by ethnicity (Italian-Americans), or by gender (the eternally-stupid White male father portrayed in commercials who is always outsmarted by his wife and kids), or by position (currently, all authority figures in TV shows or commercials are non-White and/or female). The media never airs anything without an underlying agenda. In these cases, that agenda is plain and simple: the denigration and destruction of the White majority as a power base in the Western world.
I'm sick of it, and I want it stopped. Maybe you do, too.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Cutting The Paul Hype
As everyone on the internet knows, but almost no one who watches cable news, Dr. Ron Paul is running for President.
I have two things to say about him. He is not a real Republican. He is saying and doing nothing extraordinary.
Dr. Paul is not a Republican. He may have been when Republicans stood for individual and property rights, no foreign entanglements, and support for personal achievement. But today's Republicans are indistinguishable in most ways from their counterparts across the aisle. This is by design.
The money behind the politics needs the race fixed. Like the old sideshow promise, it wants, and gets, a winner every time. We've had two primary elections, and New Hampshire's is already under official recount. Hand counted ballots, matching 4 statewide opinion polls, showed an entirely different outcome (in favor of Obama) in the Democrat primary results. There are allegations about Diebold's programmable voting machines creating potential vote count fraud. Why not only paper ballots?, a sober person asks.
Nobody gets to be a mainstream candidate unless he or she is approved. That approval used to come from the people. Now it comes from media bosses, spin-doctored polls, international banksters, and at least one foreign government. All of those elements have to agree on a candidate, and must be certain that their puppet truly works for them.
Today, popular approval's making a comeback.
Enter Ron Paul, a U.S. Representative from Texas, a member of the people's house of the legislature. He's a man outside the lines of the party he's long been affiliated with. Over the years, Dr. Paul has remained true to Republican ideals, while his peers have not. He has a consistently Constitutional voting record, because he swore to uphold it and takes that oath seriously. At this point in time, as Dr. Paul himself pointed out, being in favor of the Constitution is highly politically incorrect. And, it's apparently offensive to the Parties and the media. So, no, Dr. Paul is a RINO, a "Republican In Name Only", a patriot in goat's clothing. Good thing, because the country deserves no less.
Now, about that second point. Because he is doing exactly what our Founders laid out in the body of the Constitution, Dr. Paul's message is in no way strange or even noteworthy. At least it wouldn't be, if our country were living those principles. It wouldn't be if our children were taught about their inherent rights which that document protects. It wouldn't be if government were limited. It wouldn't be if the Congress were doing their duty and performing checks and balances on the President. It wouldn't be if private bankers didn't print our money, and charge us both a printing fee and interest on it. It wouldn't be if we viewed gun ownership as a means of family, neighborhood and national protection rather than as a right only of criminals and the State. And it probably wouldn't be if we kept our earnings free from the Federal pickpockets in the IRS.
Everything Dr. Paul espouses is written down for everyone to see. We don't need all this government, and we sure as sunrise don't need a criminal government at all. We have rights, inherent and untouchable rights, not grants by government. Those rights were laid down for us, specifically so as to prevent the government from taking them. The first time a law was passed which limited absolute free speech, or restrained gun ownership, or allowed violative searches, or assigned States' rights to the Feds, we lost a part of ourselves, our values and our country. Enough's enough.
As a man, Dr. Paul is simply a candidate. He is by all accounts a quiet, intelligent, friendly, loyal and thoroughly decent man. He is running for President, of course, but while many people genuinely like him, he himself is not important. Like the title character in "V for Vendetta", he is just the carrier of an idea. Personally, I like the man: his manner, his genuine character and his honesty. But in this year, my vote will not really be for Ron Paul, but for the resurrection of the United States Constitution. For once, I hope every American voter casts their ballot with that thought in mind.
I have two things to say about him. He is not a real Republican. He is saying and doing nothing extraordinary.
Dr. Paul is not a Republican. He may have been when Republicans stood for individual and property rights, no foreign entanglements, and support for personal achievement. But today's Republicans are indistinguishable in most ways from their counterparts across the aisle. This is by design.
The money behind the politics needs the race fixed. Like the old sideshow promise, it wants, and gets, a winner every time. We've had two primary elections, and New Hampshire's is already under official recount. Hand counted ballots, matching 4 statewide opinion polls, showed an entirely different outcome (in favor of Obama) in the Democrat primary results. There are allegations about Diebold's programmable voting machines creating potential vote count fraud. Why not only paper ballots?, a sober person asks.
Nobody gets to be a mainstream candidate unless he or she is approved. That approval used to come from the people. Now it comes from media bosses, spin-doctored polls, international banksters, and at least one foreign government. All of those elements have to agree on a candidate, and must be certain that their puppet truly works for them.
Today, popular approval's making a comeback.
Enter Ron Paul, a U.S. Representative from Texas, a member of the people's house of the legislature. He's a man outside the lines of the party he's long been affiliated with. Over the years, Dr. Paul has remained true to Republican ideals, while his peers have not. He has a consistently Constitutional voting record, because he swore to uphold it and takes that oath seriously. At this point in time, as Dr. Paul himself pointed out, being in favor of the Constitution is highly politically incorrect. And, it's apparently offensive to the Parties and the media. So, no, Dr. Paul is a RINO, a "Republican In Name Only", a patriot in goat's clothing. Good thing, because the country deserves no less.
Now, about that second point. Because he is doing exactly what our Founders laid out in the body of the Constitution, Dr. Paul's message is in no way strange or even noteworthy. At least it wouldn't be, if our country were living those principles. It wouldn't be if our children were taught about their inherent rights which that document protects. It wouldn't be if government were limited. It wouldn't be if the Congress were doing their duty and performing checks and balances on the President. It wouldn't be if private bankers didn't print our money, and charge us both a printing fee and interest on it. It wouldn't be if we viewed gun ownership as a means of family, neighborhood and national protection rather than as a right only of criminals and the State. And it probably wouldn't be if we kept our earnings free from the Federal pickpockets in the IRS.
Everything Dr. Paul espouses is written down for everyone to see. We don't need all this government, and we sure as sunrise don't need a criminal government at all. We have rights, inherent and untouchable rights, not grants by government. Those rights were laid down for us, specifically so as to prevent the government from taking them. The first time a law was passed which limited absolute free speech, or restrained gun ownership, or allowed violative searches, or assigned States' rights to the Feds, we lost a part of ourselves, our values and our country. Enough's enough.
As a man, Dr. Paul is simply a candidate. He is by all accounts a quiet, intelligent, friendly, loyal and thoroughly decent man. He is running for President, of course, but while many people genuinely like him, he himself is not important. Like the title character in "V for Vendetta", he is just the carrier of an idea. Personally, I like the man: his manner, his genuine character and his honesty. But in this year, my vote will not really be for Ron Paul, but for the resurrection of the United States Constitution. For once, I hope every American voter casts their ballot with that thought in mind.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Why Ron Paul?
Lately, the controlled media has begun to mount a serious campaign of both disinclusion and disinformation about Dr. Ron Paul in his campaign for the Republican party nomination for the Presidency. This comes as no surprise. As the moment, Fox News (or more properly, "Faux News"), is attempting to exercise its usual standards of fairness by excluding Dr. Paul from the Republican forum it's hosting.
While this is enough to set one's teeth on edge, it's just a part-and-parcel tactic of the entrenched power structure. If they fail to televise him, they reason, he will lose any chance of success. They believe that he will be left to give lectures at colleges or on local radio, and be unable to muster any real support. Unfortunately for Murdoch & Co., the new Party-crasher, the internet, is allowing Dr. Paul to propagate a truly grass-roots base of support. The Matrix has holes. And from coast to coast, those pledge-days, such as the recent "Tea Party 2008", raise colossal sums of money for the candidate.
The latest salvo from the MSM news-distortion machines is that Ron Paul should be excluded because he "accepted money from white supremacists" [sic]. The website Stormfront.org and its owner, Don Black, gave a sum of money to Dr. Paul's campaign. Of course, the same media refuses to acknowledge that, for instance, Barack Obama's campaign accepted money from both the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam, both anti-White organizations. And that same media suppressed reporting on the Whitewater/Madison S&L money-laundering, kickback and skimming scams of Sen. Hillary Clinton, as well as the sensitive U.S. military satellite technology that her Lothario husband sold to China in exchange for cash under the table.
In fact, White Racialists (please drop the "supremacist" nonsense, that tarnished silver bullet has no effect) support Dr. Paul for the same reason that anyone else who cares about this country does: because, in this time of government repression and mendacity, he represents a return to the values of the extraordinary men and women who were the Founders of these United States. These values resonate not just with any one particular group. But many who stand to lose their "favorite child" status are digging in against him.
For example, Dr. Paul is a privately religious man and an obstetrician by training, who is personally not in support of abortion. Many feminists have alleged that he will "do away with Roe v. Wade". In fact, they're right, but for the wrong reasons and with the wrong outcome in mind. As Dr. Paul has pointed out, the Constitution doesn't empower the federal government to rule on abortion. Per Amendment IX and X, because it's not granted to the feds, decisions about abortion laws reside in the individual States and the people who live in them. That takes the Supreme Court out of the mix as well. So the voters in each state decide, and some states may decide against. Thus in this case, the democratic process, which the feminists and other Leftists publicly support, enrages them.
Another case involves minority preferences and set-asides, such as affirmative action, HeadStart, "No Child Left Behind", RIF and others. There have been 50+ years of such programs and policies involving minorities. These are truly the clearest indication of the inherent true racism of the Left; the neo-Communists firmly believe that, without help from the White majority, minorities can not compete in the modern world. Their programs employ a reduction of excellence in order to create the "level playing field" these folks crave.
Dr. Paul, as a libertarian, believes that we must see each individual through their own merits or faults. He wants to put Martin Luther King's words into practice, judging people purely on the "content of their character". This Constitutionally-sound position says, we do not assume that people of a certain group are unable to function on their own, nor can we shower them with perpetual hand-outs and booster-seats.
This translates into an elimination of many policies now enforced by the feds. Non-White college applicants, for instance, would no longer receive preferences for simply not being White. This would have exactly no effect on many students. But it would ensure that the surgeon about to operate on your heart isn't there because he looked good on the school's diversity report and garnered them more money from the federal trough. Those who had the ability and desire to finish a college program would do so, and their degrees would again matter. Others would pursue trades, crafts, or other respectable work.
In addition, there is no Constitutional provision for unrestricted federal welfare payments. Those who stay at home and sponge would be forced to get jobs. As even Lenin finally admitted in a rare lucid moment, "those who do not work, do not eat". Again, most welfare recipients who are legitimately in need would remain covered, but responsibility for such programs would pass to the State and county level where voters could more closely regulate it.
Lastly, as President, Dr. Paul would take seriously his oath, his pledge to support the Constitution in all its aspects. And he would make this same requirement of Congress. One of their stated duties includes the use of "...the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (Article I, Section 8, "Powers of Congress"). "Invasions" would most certainly include the unprecedented and illegal mass entry of perhaps 30-MILLION mostly Mexican criminal aliens. Whatever the reason for their presence, they constitute a de facto invasion force which directly threatens the sovereignty of this country and the "commonweal" of the American people.
Those and many other ramifications of a Constitutionally-based governance are the reasons that anyone who believes in the vision of our Founders, will be voting for Ron Paul in the primaries and in the general election next Fall. And this even includes the proud White people so despised by the media.
Ron Paul's Campaign Website
Ron Paul's Myspace Website
While this is enough to set one's teeth on edge, it's just a part-and-parcel tactic of the entrenched power structure. If they fail to televise him, they reason, he will lose any chance of success. They believe that he will be left to give lectures at colleges or on local radio, and be unable to muster any real support. Unfortunately for Murdoch & Co., the new Party-crasher, the internet, is allowing Dr. Paul to propagate a truly grass-roots base of support. The Matrix has holes. And from coast to coast, those pledge-days, such as the recent "Tea Party 2008", raise colossal sums of money for the candidate.
The latest salvo from the MSM news-distortion machines is that Ron Paul should be excluded because he "accepted money from white supremacists" [sic]. The website Stormfront.org and its owner, Don Black, gave a sum of money to Dr. Paul's campaign. Of course, the same media refuses to acknowledge that, for instance, Barack Obama's campaign accepted money from both the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam, both anti-White organizations. And that same media suppressed reporting on the Whitewater/Madison S&L money-laundering, kickback and skimming scams of Sen. Hillary Clinton, as well as the sensitive U.S. military satellite technology that her Lothario husband sold to China in exchange for cash under the table.
In fact, White Racialists (please drop the "supremacist" nonsense, that tarnished silver bullet has no effect) support Dr. Paul for the same reason that anyone else who cares about this country does: because, in this time of government repression and mendacity, he represents a return to the values of the extraordinary men and women who were the Founders of these United States. These values resonate not just with any one particular group. But many who stand to lose their "favorite child" status are digging in against him.
For example, Dr. Paul is a privately religious man and an obstetrician by training, who is personally not in support of abortion. Many feminists have alleged that he will "do away with Roe v. Wade". In fact, they're right, but for the wrong reasons and with the wrong outcome in mind. As Dr. Paul has pointed out, the Constitution doesn't empower the federal government to rule on abortion. Per Amendment IX and X, because it's not granted to the feds, decisions about abortion laws reside in the individual States and the people who live in them. That takes the Supreme Court out of the mix as well. So the voters in each state decide, and some states may decide against. Thus in this case, the democratic process, which the feminists and other Leftists publicly support, enrages them.
Another case involves minority preferences and set-asides, such as affirmative action, HeadStart, "No Child Left Behind", RIF and others. There have been 50+ years of such programs and policies involving minorities. These are truly the clearest indication of the inherent true racism of the Left; the neo-Communists firmly believe that, without help from the White majority, minorities can not compete in the modern world. Their programs employ a reduction of excellence in order to create the "level playing field" these folks crave.
Dr. Paul, as a libertarian, believes that we must see each individual through their own merits or faults. He wants to put Martin Luther King's words into practice, judging people purely on the "content of their character". This Constitutionally-sound position says, we do not assume that people of a certain group are unable to function on their own, nor can we shower them with perpetual hand-outs and booster-seats.
This translates into an elimination of many policies now enforced by the feds. Non-White college applicants, for instance, would no longer receive preferences for simply not being White. This would have exactly no effect on many students. But it would ensure that the surgeon about to operate on your heart isn't there because he looked good on the school's diversity report and garnered them more money from the federal trough. Those who had the ability and desire to finish a college program would do so, and their degrees would again matter. Others would pursue trades, crafts, or other respectable work.
In addition, there is no Constitutional provision for unrestricted federal welfare payments. Those who stay at home and sponge would be forced to get jobs. As even Lenin finally admitted in a rare lucid moment, "those who do not work, do not eat". Again, most welfare recipients who are legitimately in need would remain covered, but responsibility for such programs would pass to the State and county level where voters could more closely regulate it.
Lastly, as President, Dr. Paul would take seriously his oath, his pledge to support the Constitution in all its aspects. And he would make this same requirement of Congress. One of their stated duties includes the use of "...the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (Article I, Section 8, "Powers of Congress"). "Invasions" would most certainly include the unprecedented and illegal mass entry of perhaps 30-MILLION mostly Mexican criminal aliens. Whatever the reason for their presence, they constitute a de facto invasion force which directly threatens the sovereignty of this country and the "commonweal" of the American people.
Those and many other ramifications of a Constitutionally-based governance are the reasons that anyone who believes in the vision of our Founders, will be voting for Ron Paul in the primaries and in the general election next Fall. And this even includes the proud White people so despised by the media.
Ron Paul's Campaign Website
Ron Paul's Myspace Website
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Disclaimers
All of us have watched TV commercials in which a truck is leaping across a ravine, or somebody is skateboarding on the interstate; in small type at the bottom of the screen we read, "Professional driver, closed course, do not attempt!". Disclaimers are, unfortunately, a mandatory element in today's world, worded in such a way as to stave off lawsuits and other liabilities.
But disclaimers are not limited to the world of commerce. People often use them in conversations, such as when we hear comments like, "Well, personally, I like Bill but...". They are often a preface to negative contexts, serving to provide a positive contextual backdrop to what follows. Another example of this is the phrase, "Some of my best friends are +[insert racial/ethnic group designator here]". Again, it sets a positive overtone to any subsequent negative statements.
The reason I'm bringing this up at all has to do with a group called "Heathens Against Hate". It seems that every one of their members must publicly post disclaimers about their faith and any related racial perspective. This takes the form of a comment such as: "I deplore anyone who tries to use [Odinism, Asatru, etc.] as a racist tool to harass or harm non-Northern European people!"
On its face, this is the equivalent of saying, "I hate people who beat up little kids". It's a statement designed to prevent argument. Obviously, no one could oppose using one's religion as a club to repress others, right?
There's a big problem with this.
One piece concerns social normative behaviors, the things we do because they are expected of us by "society". In this case, it's a pandering tool to reinforce White guilt. It is such a pervasive bludgeon that, even when not asked, many White people leap out of their chairs to proclaim their tolerance and love of everyone not like themselves. They have been pressured into this robotic behavior by decades of anti-White propaganda spewed by the media, schools and the entertainment business. To such people, and they form the majority of White culture at this point, any suggestion that anything might be set aside for ourselves, whether religious, cultural, athletic, academic or other area, is strictly verboten, as they say in the language of the German people. All things which White people seek to keep to themselves MUST be open to all, although the reverse is never true.
This societal dissolution of anything involving White cohesiveness has gained a lot of traction, and serves to reinforce the self-destructive behaviors many Whites stupidly accept as "progressive" when referred to by the Left, although called "lunatic" when noted by realists.
The real bottom-line is, only White people, that is, White heathens, must apologize for the tenets of their faith.
Christians never apologize for having tortured and massacred thousands of heathens and pagans while destroying those same native faiths, or burning women they declared "witches", or promoting unrestricted over-population in Africa, Asia and the "hispanic" world to fill their pews and collection plates, nor (in one branch) continuing to trust a community filled with unmarried pederasts to be role models. Nor do they see any dichotomy in believing in the words of peace spouted by Jesus of Nazereth, while bombing children in Baghdad.
Muslims don't apologize for their conquest of the Iberian peninsula, nor for their subjugation of women, nor for their repression of learning, nor for their militancy which has put them at odds with everyone else they've been in contact with for hundreds of years.
And lastly, what of the Jews? What of the zionists, who've displaced two million Palestinians so they could launch a permanent base of operations? What of jewish insistence that jewishness and Judaism are synonymous, even though atheist jews are still 100% jewish? What of their relentless attacks on public religious symbols of other faiths, from the cross to the crescent to pentagrams to runes? What do we make of their statement that they are "the Chosen People" of the Yahweh god?
Over its history, the native faith of Northern Europe has NEVER been used, per se, to beat up, subjugate or conquer ANYone. Our forefathers never tried to "convert" others at the point of a sword or gun, nor did they use our faith as an instrument of victimhood or sympathy, nor proclaim it the "one true religion". It was ALWAYS recognized as a regional, tribal religion tying US to OUR gods. It was always exclusive because it was always about our racial/ethnic FAMILY. And it still is.
If Asatru or Odinism were a faith of Africa, or South America, no practitioner would ever write a disclaimer. If it were out to make money from donations, or focused on conquering the internal operational systems of its host countries, or were on a steady march to force others to "submit", it would not publish such statements.
For myself, I refuse to kowtow to the politically correct, the timid or the passive-aggressive among our Folk who persist in disclaiming our history and our genetics. Their debasement of our principles, and their conflation of White unity, pride and heritage through our faith into some equivalent of "hatred" disgusts me.
But disclaimers are not limited to the world of commerce. People often use them in conversations, such as when we hear comments like, "Well, personally, I like Bill but...". They are often a preface to negative contexts, serving to provide a positive contextual backdrop to what follows. Another example of this is the phrase, "Some of my best friends are +[insert racial/ethnic group designator here]". Again, it sets a positive overtone to any subsequent negative statements.
The reason I'm bringing this up at all has to do with a group called "Heathens Against Hate". It seems that every one of their members must publicly post disclaimers about their faith and any related racial perspective. This takes the form of a comment such as: "I deplore anyone who tries to use [Odinism, Asatru, etc.] as a racist tool to harass or harm non-Northern European people!"
On its face, this is the equivalent of saying, "I hate people who beat up little kids". It's a statement designed to prevent argument. Obviously, no one could oppose using one's religion as a club to repress others, right?
There's a big problem with this.
One piece concerns social normative behaviors, the things we do because they are expected of us by "society". In this case, it's a pandering tool to reinforce White guilt. It is such a pervasive bludgeon that, even when not asked, many White people leap out of their chairs to proclaim their tolerance and love of everyone not like themselves. They have been pressured into this robotic behavior by decades of anti-White propaganda spewed by the media, schools and the entertainment business. To such people, and they form the majority of White culture at this point, any suggestion that anything might be set aside for ourselves, whether religious, cultural, athletic, academic or other area, is strictly verboten, as they say in the language of the German people. All things which White people seek to keep to themselves MUST be open to all, although the reverse is never true.
This societal dissolution of anything involving White cohesiveness has gained a lot of traction, and serves to reinforce the self-destructive behaviors many Whites stupidly accept as "progressive" when referred to by the Left, although called "lunatic" when noted by realists.
The real bottom-line is, only White people, that is, White heathens, must apologize for the tenets of their faith.
Christians never apologize for having tortured and massacred thousands of heathens and pagans while destroying those same native faiths, or burning women they declared "witches", or promoting unrestricted over-population in Africa, Asia and the "hispanic" world to fill their pews and collection plates, nor (in one branch) continuing to trust a community filled with unmarried pederasts to be role models. Nor do they see any dichotomy in believing in the words of peace spouted by Jesus of Nazereth, while bombing children in Baghdad.
Muslims don't apologize for their conquest of the Iberian peninsula, nor for their subjugation of women, nor for their repression of learning, nor for their militancy which has put them at odds with everyone else they've been in contact with for hundreds of years.
And lastly, what of the Jews? What of the zionists, who've displaced two million Palestinians so they could launch a permanent base of operations? What of jewish insistence that jewishness and Judaism are synonymous, even though atheist jews are still 100% jewish? What of their relentless attacks on public religious symbols of other faiths, from the cross to the crescent to pentagrams to runes? What do we make of their statement that they are "the Chosen People" of the Yahweh god?
Over its history, the native faith of Northern Europe has NEVER been used, per se, to beat up, subjugate or conquer ANYone. Our forefathers never tried to "convert" others at the point of a sword or gun, nor did they use our faith as an instrument of victimhood or sympathy, nor proclaim it the "one true religion". It was ALWAYS recognized as a regional, tribal religion tying US to OUR gods. It was always exclusive because it was always about our racial/ethnic FAMILY. And it still is.
If Asatru or Odinism were a faith of Africa, or South America, no practitioner would ever write a disclaimer. If it were out to make money from donations, or focused on conquering the internal operational systems of its host countries, or were on a steady march to force others to "submit", it would not publish such statements.
For myself, I refuse to kowtow to the politically correct, the timid or the passive-aggressive among our Folk who persist in disclaiming our history and our genetics. Their debasement of our principles, and their conflation of White unity, pride and heritage through our faith into some equivalent of "hatred" disgusts me.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Big Mother Is Watching You
MySpace Admits Censorship Of Prison Planet.com
Moderator says anything containing URL of website is filtered out
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, May 11, 2007
In a telling slip-up, a MySpace moderator has admitted that it is MySpace.com policy to censor and filter out posts containing links to the Prison Planet.com website, adding that the MySpace server automatically blocks such information.
Earlier this week MySpace was accused of censoring information pertaining to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign but the social networking site denied the allegations and later featured Paul’s profile on their main page.
But a deliberate policy to block Prison Planet.com has been exposed after a moderator unwittingly admitted the fact that Alex Jones’ Prison Planet website is filtered out from messageboards and bulletin posts.
In a discussion thread, a MySpace user complained that his Ron Paul post had been censored, to which a MySpace moderator responded, “Ron Paul wasn’t being censored, it was the prisonplanet.com part of the message that was being filtered out.”
The moderator later clarifies that it was beyond his control and that “prisonplanet.com” is on a list of URL’s that are automatically blocked by MySpace’s servers. The screenshot can be viewed below.
To be clear, moderators are not in the employ of MySpace but are invited to monitor message threads and delete off-topic material. The filtering of prison planet.com was not an act of any moderator but forms a deliberate policy on behalf of MySpace.
The excuse given is that prison planet.com is used so many times that MySpace’s servers automatically classify it as spam and ban it - but this is neither justified or believable. We have managed multiple MySpace accounts for well over a year and continually are forced to delete the same spam advertising and assorted trash that repeatedly finds its way to our inbox and on our profile comment board.
Why is this kind of material left alone and yet prison planet is banned?
Does it have anything to do with the fact that our involvement with MySpace was born simply as a means of exposing the fact that Rupert Murdoch’s social networking giant was an orgy of censorship and a trojan horse for the introduction of Internet 2?
This followed media reports in January 2006, shortly after Neo-Con ideologue Murdoch had bought the company for $580 million, concerning the fact that MySpace was deliberately blocking URL’s from rival websites and others they simply didn’t like. When thousands complained on a messageboard, MySpace simply shut down the messageboard and pretended it was a technical error.
If MySpace and Rupert Murdoch are that frightened of websites like Prison Planet threatening the corporate interests that sustain them, as with the bury brigade at Digg, fair enough - we have no divine right to appear on your website - but don’t lie to the people and pretend you are some kind of online democracy where free speech is encouraged and permitted - because it’s simply not true.
No doubt they will also claim that the censorship of Prison Planet.com - one of the foremost Internet critics of the same gaggle of Neo-Cons that Rupert Murdoch fronts for, is just a mistake or a technicality. What do you think?
Link to PrisonPlanet article here
Moderator says anything containing URL of website is filtered out
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, May 11, 2007
In a telling slip-up, a MySpace moderator has admitted that it is MySpace.com policy to censor and filter out posts containing links to the Prison Planet.com website, adding that the MySpace server automatically blocks such information.
Earlier this week MySpace was accused of censoring information pertaining to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign but the social networking site denied the allegations and later featured Paul’s profile on their main page.
But a deliberate policy to block Prison Planet.com has been exposed after a moderator unwittingly admitted the fact that Alex Jones’ Prison Planet website is filtered out from messageboards and bulletin posts.
In a discussion thread, a MySpace user complained that his Ron Paul post had been censored, to which a MySpace moderator responded, “Ron Paul wasn’t being censored, it was the prisonplanet.com part of the message that was being filtered out.”
The moderator later clarifies that it was beyond his control and that “prisonplanet.com” is on a list of URL’s that are automatically blocked by MySpace’s servers. The screenshot can be viewed below.
To be clear, moderators are not in the employ of MySpace but are invited to monitor message threads and delete off-topic material. The filtering of prison planet.com was not an act of any moderator but forms a deliberate policy on behalf of MySpace.
The excuse given is that prison planet.com is used so many times that MySpace’s servers automatically classify it as spam and ban it - but this is neither justified or believable. We have managed multiple MySpace accounts for well over a year and continually are forced to delete the same spam advertising and assorted trash that repeatedly finds its way to our inbox and on our profile comment board.
Why is this kind of material left alone and yet prison planet is banned?
Does it have anything to do with the fact that our involvement with MySpace was born simply as a means of exposing the fact that Rupert Murdoch’s social networking giant was an orgy of censorship and a trojan horse for the introduction of Internet 2?
This followed media reports in January 2006, shortly after Neo-Con ideologue Murdoch had bought the company for $580 million, concerning the fact that MySpace was deliberately blocking URL’s from rival websites and others they simply didn’t like. When thousands complained on a messageboard, MySpace simply shut down the messageboard and pretended it was a technical error.
If MySpace and Rupert Murdoch are that frightened of websites like Prison Planet threatening the corporate interests that sustain them, as with the bury brigade at Digg, fair enough - we have no divine right to appear on your website - but don’t lie to the people and pretend you are some kind of online democracy where free speech is encouraged and permitted - because it’s simply not true.
No doubt they will also claim that the censorship of Prison Planet.com - one of the foremost Internet critics of the same gaggle of Neo-Cons that Rupert Murdoch fronts for, is just a mistake or a technicality. What do you think?
Link to PrisonPlanet article here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
