[cl-smtp-cvs] cl-smtp-cvs Digest, Vol 9, Issue 1

[Price, James (Recall)]

unsubscribe 

-----Original Message-----
From: cl-smtp-cvs-request at common-lisp.net
[mailto:cl-smtp-cvs-request at common-lisp.net] 
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 7:00 AM
To: cl-smtp-cvs at common-lisp.net
Subject: cl-smtp-cvs Digest, Vol 9, Issue 1

Send cl-smtp-cvs mailing list submissions to
	cl-smtp-cvs at common-lisp.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cl-smtp-cvs
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	cl-smtp-cvs-request at common-lisp.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	cl-smtp-cvs-owner at common-lisp.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of cl-smtp-cvs digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Is Israel a Democracy? -- The problem with intellectually
      insecure whites -- Should Christians Support Israeli Terrorism in
      Gaza? (Lawrence Auster)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:35:33 +0100
From: "Lawrence Auster" <gking at common-lisp.net>
Subject: [cl-smtp-cvs] Is Israel a Democracy? -- The problem with
	intellectually insecure whites -- Should Christians Support
Israeli
	Terrorism in Gaza?
To: cl-smtp-cvs at common-lisp.net
Message-ID: <20090123203545.TDSN25639.aarprv04.charter.net at 4k6l2>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="US-ASCII"

The Jewish State of Israel has no constitution, nor does it name its
borders. Israel's hidden constitution is Judaism. Israel's undeclared
borders range from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers. Israel's desired
jurisdiction extends over the entire Earth.

It could not be more clear that the Jewish State follows a foreign
policy which obeys Jewish Law as iterated in the Hebrew Bible, the
Talmud, Maimonedes, the Cabalah, and the many commentaries and
refinements of same. The Jews are genociding the native inhabitants of
Palestine, just as their religion advises, and because their religion
teaches them to do so. They treat non-Jews as if non-humans, just as
their religion requires them to do. They make perpetual war on every
nation on Earth, just as their genocidal Jewish God has instructed.

The Jews of Israel are simply being Jews. Jews are an existential threat
to the human race.

Israel contains one third of the Jews of the World. It is not some
aberration of the Jewish spirit, but the condensation and concentration
of the perverse Jewish mentality, which malady also pervades the
remaining two thirds of Jewry, who almost unanimously support the Jewish
State, and who certainly do unanimously support the Jewish People and
its consistent and constant crimes against the human race. Israel is
Jewry and the danger of Israel is the danger of the Jewish People to all
others, as the Jews have demonstrated each and every day of their
existence.

The Jews, the entire Jewish People of 15 million, will not relent until
they have wiped out all non-Jews in "Greater Israel". They will not stop
destroying all other cultures, nations, religions, ethnicities, races,
competition, etc. until they are either stopped, or succeed in their
ancient quest to destroy the human race.

What Israel is doing is not some reaction to outside forces, nor was the
formation of Israel a response to the Holocaust. Israel is simply
following the plan laid out in the Jews' religious texts. The Jews have
openly planned to take Palestine and genocide the native population of
Palestine for some 2,500 years before the Holocaust. The Jews have
openly complained that "anti-Semitism" is a threat that gives them the
right to genocide the Palestinians, not merely since the advent of
Nazism, but for some 2,500 years.

The Jewish religion is the Constitution of the Jewish State of Israel,
and, to a greater or lesser extent, the constitution of the nature of
every Jew alive. The borders of Israel are the range the Jew roams over
the entire World. The perverse Jewish mentality is inbred by a Jew's
exposure to his parents and to his community. Judaism passes in the spit
and slobber of Jewish mother telling her Jewish child that he is a
"Jew", as much as Judaism passes in the poison and pain of a Talmudic
tractate. The secular Jews did not suddenly come to life after the
Enlightenment and the Jewish Reformation a body of vampires that
appeared ex nihilo, in vacuo, mostly atheistical and undetached from
formally practiced Judaism. Judaism is the Jew. It is a mindset that
transcends and supercedes religion. It is a belief set, a way of life, a
perception of one's self and one's relation to the World that makes a
Jew, a Jew, and a danger to all of humanity.

In fact, the religious shell of Judaism is like the stretched and
infected skin of a lycanthropic pustule. When you lance it to cure the
infection, the virus only becomes more contagious and spills directly on
the non-Jew.

The secular Jew is a deliberate product of the hyper-religious Jew, a
monster created out of the hewed corpses of the fanatically religious
Jew, a Golem which is conjured up to enter the World of the non-Jew and
poison its blood, and boil its brain with a rabid lunacy that bites and
spreads, until the infected community feeds on itself and fills the
fields with rotting bloating bodies, where once human beings tilled the
soil and tended to their families. The religious Jew created the secular
Jew as an army of Esthers who seduce with open thighs, broad smiles, and
a Siren call that lures in the non-Jew to cast his skull upon the jagged
rocks and color the seas with his blood, sickened and blinded by the
venereal disease of Judaism in secular form.

Israel is not a secular democracy. It is a religious mockery. It is a
rabid bat flying to the ends of the Earth, to end the Earth. No one will
be free nor safe until the disease is quarantined and dies out.

Source:
http://www.ziopedia.org/articles/israel/how_can_israel_claim_to_be_a_%27
democracy%27_when_it_has_no_constitution_nor_borders?/`

--------------------

The problem with intellectually insecure whites By Kevin MacDonald
January 19, 2009

America will soon have a white minority. This is a much desired state of
affairs for the hostile elites who hold political power and shape public
opinion. But it certainly creates some management issues - at least in
the long run. After all, it's difficult to come up with an historical
example of a nation with a solid ethnic majority (90% white in 1950)
that has voluntarily decided to cede political and cultural power. Such
transformations are typically accomplished by military invasions, great
battles, and untold suffering.

And it's not as if everyone is doing it. Only Western nations view their
own demographic and cultural eclipse as a moral imperative. Indeed, as I
have noted previously, it is striking that racial nationalism has
triumphed in Israel at the same time that the Jewish intellectual and
political movements and the organized Jewish community have been the
most active and effective force for a non-white America. Indeed, a poll
in 2008 found that Avigdor Lieberman was the second most popular
politician in Israel. Lieberman has advocated expulsion of Arabs from
Israel and has declared himself a follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the
leading pioneer of racial Zionism. The most popular politician in the
poll was Benjamin Netanyahu - another admirer of Jabotinsky. Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni are also
Jabotinskyists.

The racial Zionists are now carrying out yet another orgy of mass murder
after a starvation-inducing blockade and the usual triggering assault
designed to provoke Palestinian retaliation - which then becomes the
cover for claims that Israel is merely defending itself against
terrorism. This monstrosity was approved by overwhelming majorities of
both Houses of Congress. The craven Bush administration did its part by
abstaining from a UN resolution designed by the US Secretary of State as
a result of a personal appeal by the Israeli Prime Minister. This is yet
another accomplishment of the Israel Lobby, but one they would rather
not have discussed in public. People might get the impression that the
Lobby really does dictate US foreign policy in the Mideast. Obviously,
such thoughts are only entertained by anti-Semites.

But I digress.

In managing the eclipse of white America, one strategy of the mainstream
media is to simply ignore the issue. Christopher Donovan  ("For the
media, the less whites think about their coming minority status, the
better") has noted that the media, and in particular, the New York
Times, are quite uninterested in doing stories that discuss what white
people think about this state of affairs.

It's not surprising that the New York Times - the Jewish-owned flagship
of anti-white, pro-multicultural media - ignores the issue. The issue is
also missing from so-called conservative media even though one would
think that conservatives would find the eclipse of white America to be
an important issue. Certainly, their audiences would find it
interesting.

Now we have an article "The End of White America" written by Hua Hsu, an
Assistant Professor of English at Vassar College. The article is a
rather depressing display of what passes for intellectual discourse on
the most important question confronting white people in America.

Hsu begins by quoting a passage in F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great
Gatsby in which a character, Tom Buchanan, states: "Have you read The
Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard?" ... Well, it's a fine
book, and everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don't look out
the white race will be-will be utterly submerged.
It's all scientific stuff; it's been proved."

Buchanan's comment is a thinly veiled reference to Lothrop Stoddard's
The Rising Tide of Color which Hsu describes as "rationalized hatred"
presented in a scholarly, gentlemanly, and scientific tone. (This
wording that will certainly help him when he comes up for tenure.) As
Hsu notes, Stoddard had a doctorate from Harvard and was a member of
many academic associations. His book was published by a major publisher.
It was therefore "precisely the kind of book that a 1920s man of
Buchanan's profile - wealthy, Ivy League-educated, at once pretentious
and intellectually insecure - might have been expected to bring up in
casual conversation."

Let's ponder that a bit. The simple reality is that in the year 2009 an
Ivy League-educated person, "at once pretentious and intellectually
insecure,"  would just as glibly assert the same sort of nonsense as
Hsu. To wit:

The coming white minority does not mean that the racial hierarchy of
American culture will suddenly become inverted, as in 1995's White Man's
Burden, an awful thought experiment of a film, starring John Travolta,
that envisions an upside-down world in which whites are subjugated to
their high-class black oppressors. There will be dislocations and
resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of the next 40
years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over
everyone's lives, producing a culture that's more likely than any before
to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste
or identity group.

The fact is that no one can say for certain what multicultural America
without a white majority will be like. There is no scientific or
historical basis for claims like "the demographic shifts of the next 40
years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over
everyone's lives, producing a culture that's more likely than any before
to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste
or identity group."

Indeed, there is no evidence at all that we are proceeding to a color
blind future. The election results continue to show that white people
are coalescing in the Republican Party, while the Democrats are
increasingly the party of a non-white soon-to-be majority.

Is it so hard to believe that when this coalition achieves a majority
that it will further compromise the interests of whites far beyond
contemporary concerns such as immigration policy and affirmative action?
Hsu anticipates a colorblind world, but affirmative action means that
blacks and other minorities are certainly not treated as individuals.
And it means that whites - especially white males - are losing out on
opportunities they would have had without these policies and without the
massive non-white immigration of the last few decades.

Given the intractability of changing intelligence and other traits
required for success in the contemporary economy, it is unlikely that 40
more years of affirmative action will attain the outcomes desired by the
minority lobbies. Indeed, in Obama's America, blacks are rioting in
Oakland over perceived racial injustices, and from 2002 -2007, black
juvenile homicide victims increased 31%, while black juvenile homicide
perpetrators increased 43%. Hence,  the reasonable outlook is for a
continuing need for affirmative action and for racial activism in these
groups, even after whites become a minority.

Whites will also lose out because of large-scale importation of
relatively talented immigrants from East Asia. Indeed, as I noted over a
decade ago, "The United States is well on the road to being dominated by
an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and
media elite."

Hsu shows that there already is considerable anxiety among whites about
the future. An advertizing executive says, "I think white people feel
like they're under siege right now - like it's not okay to be white
right now, especially if you're a white male. ... People are stressed
out about it. 'We used to be in control! We're losing control'" Another
says, "There's a lot of fear and a lot of resentment."

It's hard to see why these feelings won't increase in the future.

A huge problem for white people is lack of intellectual and cultural
confidence. Hsu quotes Christian (Stuff White People Like) Lander
saying, "I get it: as a straight white male, I'm the worst thing on
Earth." A professor comments that for his students "to be white is to be
culturally broke. The classic thing white students say when you ask them
to talk about who they are is, 'I don't have a culture.' They might be
privileged, they might be loaded socioeconomically, but they feel
bankrupt when it comes to culture ... They feel disadvantaged, and they
feel marginalized."

This lack of cultural confidence is no accident. For nearly 100 years
whites have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the
most prestigious academic and media institutions. And, as Hsu points
out, the most vibrant and influential aspect of American popular culture
is hip-hop-a product of the African American urban culture.

The only significant group of white people with any cultural confidence
centers itself around country music, NASCAR, and the small town values
of traditional white America. For this group of whites - and only this
group - there is  "a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and
that defines itself through cultural cues instead-a suspicion of
intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness and
plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a
working-class white minority with 'the real America.'"

This is what I term implicit whiteness - implicit because explicit
assertions of white identity have been banned by the anti-white elites
that dominate our politics and culture. It is a culture that, as Hsu
notes, "cannot speak its name."

But that implies that the submerged white identity of the white working
class and the lack of cultural confidence exhibited by the rest of white
America are imposed from outside. Although there may well be
characteristics of whites that facilitate this process, this suppression
of white identity and interests is certainly not the natural outcome of
modernization or any other force internal to whites as a people. In my
opinion, it is the result of the successful erection of a culture of
critique in the West dominated by Jewish intellectual and political
movements.

The result is that educated, intellectually insecure white people these
days are far more likely to believe in the utopian future described by
Hsu than in hard and cautious thinking about what the future might have
in store for them.

It's worth dwelling a bit on the intellectual insecurity of the whites
who mindlessly utter the mantras of multiculturalism that they have
soaked up from the school system and from the media. Most people do not
have much confidence in their intellectual ability and look to elite
opinion to shape their beliefs. As I noted elsewhere,

A critical component of the success of the culture of critique is that
it achieved control of the most prestigious and influential institutions
of the West, and it became a consensus among the elites, Jewish and
non-Jewish alike. Once this happened, it is not surprising that this
culture became widely accepted among people of very different levels of
education and among people of different social classes.

Most people are quite insecure about their intellectual ability. But
they know that the professors at Harvard, and the editorial page of the
New York Times and the Washington Post, and even conservative
commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are all on page when it
comes to racial and ethnic issues. This is a formidable array, to the
point that you almost have to be a crank to dissent from this consensus.

I think one of the greatest triumphs of the left has been to get people
to believe that people who assert white identity and interests or who
make unflattering portrayals of organized Jewish movements are morally
degenerate, stupid, and perhaps psychiatrically disturbed. Obviously,
all of these adjectives designate low status.

The reality is that the multicultural emperor has no clothes and,
because of its support for racial Zionism and the racialism of ethnic
minorities in America, it is massively hypocritical to boot. The New
York Times, the academic left, and the faux conservatives that dominate
elite discourse on race and ethnicity are intellectually bankrupt and
can only remain in power by ruthlessly suppressing or ignoring the
scientific findings.

This is particularly a problem for college-educated whites. Like
Fitzgerald's Tom Buchanan, such people have a strong need to feel that
their ideas are respectable and part of the mainstream. But the
respectable mainstream gives them absolutely nothing with which to
validate themselves except perhaps the idea that the world will be a
better place when people like them no longer have power. Hsu quotes the
pathetic Christian Lander: ""Like, I'm aware of all the horrible crimes
that my demographic has done in the world. ... And there's a bunch of
white people who are desperate - desperate - to say, 'You know what? My
skin's white, but I'm not one of the white people who's destroying the
world.'"

As a zombie leftist during the 1960s and 1970s, I know what that feeling
of desperation is like - what it's like to be a self-hating white. We
must get to the point where college-educated whites proudly and
confidently say they are white and that they do not want to become a
minority in America.

This reminds me of the recent docudrama Milk, which depicts the life of
gay activist Harvey Milk. Milk is sure be nominated for an Oscar as Best
Picture because it lovingly illustrates a triumph of the cultural left.
But is has an important message that should resonate with the millions
of whites who have been deprived of their confidence and their culture:
Be explicit. Just as Harvey Milk advocated being openly gay even in the
face of dire consequences, whites need to tell their family and their
friends that they have an identity as a white person and believe that
whites have legitimate interests as white people. They must accept the
consequences when they are harassed, fired from their jobs, or put in
prison for such beliefs. They must run for political office as openly
pro-white.

Milk shows that homosexuals were fired from their jobs and arrested for
congregating in public. Now it's the Southern Poverty Law Center and the
rest of the leftist intellectual and political establishment that
harasses and attempts to get people fired. But it's the same situation
with the roles reversed. No revolution was ever accomplished without
some martyrs. The revolution that restores the legitimacy of white
identity and the legitimacy of white interests will be no exception.

But it is a revolution that is absolutely necessary. The white majority
is foolish indeed to entrust its future to a utopian hope that racial
and ethnic identifications will disappear and that they won't continue
to influence public policy in ways that compromise the interests of
whites.

It does not take an overactive imagination to see that coalitions of
minority groups could compromise the interests of formerly dominant
whites. We already see numerous examples in which coalitions of minority
groups attempt to influence public policy, including immigration policy,
against the interests of the whites. Placing ourselves in a position of
vulnerability would be extremely risky, given the deep sense of
historical grievance fostered by many ethnic activists and organized
ethnic lobbies.

This is especially the case with Jews. Jewish organisations have been
unanimous in condemning Western societies, Western traditions, and
Christianity, for past crimes against Jews. Similar sentiments are
typical of a great many African Americans and Latinos, and especially
among the ethnic activists from these groups. The "God damn America"
sermon by President Obama's pastor comes to mind as a recent notorious
example.

The precedent of the early decades of the Soviet Union should give pause
to anyone who believes that surrendering ethnic hegemony does not carry
risks. The Bolshevik revolution had a pronounced ethnic angle: To a very
great extent, Jews and other non-Russians ruled over the Russian people,
with disastrous consequences for the Russians and other ethnic groups
that were not able to become part of the power structure. Jews formed a
hostile elite within this power structure - as they will in the future
white-minority America; Jews were "Stalin's willing executioners."

Two passages from my review of Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century seem
particularly appropriate here. The first passage reminds me of the many
American Jews who adopt a veneer of support for leftist versions of
social justice and racial tolerance while nevertheless managing to
support racial Zionism and the mass murder, torture, and incarceration
of the Palestinian people in one of the largest prison systems the world
has ever seen. Such people may be very different when they become a
hostile elite in a white-minority America.

Many of the commentators on Jewish Bolsheviks noted the "transformation"
of Jews [after the Bolshevik Revolution]. In the words of [a] Jewish
commentator, G. A. Landau, "cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed
alien to a nation so far removed from physical activity." And another
Jewish commentator, Ia. A. Bromberg, noted
that:

the formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of
"unheard-of-despotic arbitrariness".... The convinced and unconditional
opponent of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for the
most heinous offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken being
killed, has been transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a
revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness. ...

After the Revolution, ... there was active suppression of any remnants
of the older order and their descendants. ... The mass murder of
peasants and nationalists was combined with the systematic exclusion of
the previously existing non-Jewish middle class. The wife of a Leningrad
University professor noted, "in all the institutions, only workers and
Israelites are admitted; the life of the intelligentsia is very hard"
(p. 243). Even at the end of the 1930s, prior to the Russification that
accompanied World War II, "the Russian Federation...was still doing
penance for its imperial past while also serving as an example of an
ethnicity-free society" (p. 276).
While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and
encouraged to keep their ethnic identities, the revolution remained an
anti-majoritarian movement.

The difference from the Soviet Union may well be that in white-minority
America it will not be workers and Israelites who are favored, but
non-whites and Israelites. Whites may dream that they are entering the
post-racial utopia imagined by their erstwhile intellectual superiors.
But it is quite possible that they are entering into a racial dystopia
of unimaginable cruelty in which whites will be systematically excluded
in favor of the new elites recruited from the soon-to-be majority. It's
happened before.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State
University-Long Beach.

Permanent URL with hyperlinks:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Hsu.html

-----------


Should Christians Support Israeli Terrorism in Gaza?

A timely discussion between Rev. Ted Pike and Dr. David Duke, one
especially important for the Christians in our audience

http://www.davidduke.com/mp3/dukeradio090122DukeandPikeonGaza.mp3

In this vital discussion, Rev. Pike and Dr. Duke explore the Pro-Israel
attitude of some Christian evangelical organizations, and why their
position not only goes directly against Christian morality and decency,
but actually is directly opposite of that expressed by Christian
Scriptures. Today, Many Christians are instructed that Jews and today's
Israel has a special covenant" with God. In fact, the New Testament in
the clearest of language states that the Jews "continued not in my
covenant, and I considered them not, saith the Lord." Here's the quote
that Christians aren't supposed to notice.:

8:10 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in
the day when I took them by the hand out of the land of Egypt; because
they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the
Lord. (Hebrews 8:10)

They also don't seem to notice that a 2000 year old Judaic war against
Christianity that has been waged since time of Jesus Christ and still
goes on today with the most powerful Jewish organizations attempting to
destroy European and American traditions, that has even become a war on
our Christmas traditions.

Dr. Duke and Ted Pike also speak about how over a hundred thousand
Christian Palestinians have suffered with their families from
anti-Christian Israel! Christian support of Israel has resulted in the
very birthplace of Jesus Christ, go from 90 percent Palestinian
Christians to 35 percent today because of Israeli terror and occupation.
They ask, "How could any Christian in good conscience support the
anti-Christian state of Israel, bombing the homes, killing and maiming,
torturing and oppressing fellow Christian men, women and children?"

This is a vital show for every Christian reader and listener of
DavidDuke.com. Next time, you hear someone say, "God tells us that we
must support Israel" you will have the clear Christian answer that just
the opposite is true!

For documentation on this be sure to read some of the well-footnoted,
sample chapters of Jewish Supremacism and My Awakening.

Source :
http://www.davidduke.com/general/should-christians-support-israeli-terro
rism-in-gaza_7282.html


-------------------------------------

You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to the
Lawrence Auster Newletter. If you wish to unsubscribe from our mailing
list, please let us know by calling to 1 212 865 1284

Thanks,

Lawrence Auster,
238 W 101 St Apt. 3B
New York, NY  10025
Contact: lawrence.auster at att.net
-------------------------------------



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
cl-smtp-cvs mailing list
cl-smtp-cvs at common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cl-smtp-cvs


End of cl-smtp-cvs Digest, Vol 9, Issue 1
*****************************************