Archive for 30 noviembre 2007

RAMANA MAHARSHI SPEAKS ABOUT ADOLF HITLER

30 noviembre 2007

Hitlerism and Hindudom
by Savitri Devi.
Published as “Hitlerism and the Hindu World” in The National Socialist, no. 2 (Fall 1980): 18-20.
“Hitlerism and Hindudom” was Savitri’s original title. The images and captions are from Irminsul’s Racial Nationalist Library
Edited by R.G. Fowler
Illustration: The Greek goddess Artemis as “Mistress of Beasts,” on a Boeotian vase, c. 700 BC.
Someone once asked Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950)– one of the greatest spiritual personalities of modern India – what he thought of Adolf Hitler. The answer was short and simple: “He is a ‘gnani’,” i.e., a sage; one who “knows,” who is, through personal experience, fully conscious of the eternal truths that express the Essence of the Universe; conscious of the hierarchic character of its visible (and invisible) manifestations in time and outside time; conscious of the nature and place of gods, men and other creatures, animate and inanimate, in the light of the One inexpressible Reality behind, within and above them all: the Brahman-Atman of the Hindu scriptures, thousands of years old. This implies, of course, consciousness of the great Laws of manifestations that preside over the birth, life, death, rebirth and liberation from the wheel of birth and rebirth, of all creatures, and therefore of the fundamental inequality of creatures, including people – and races – the inequality of souls as well as of bodies, and – on the social plane – the strivings for an order that would be the exact reflection of this inequality within the universal, divine hierarchy – of this unity within hierarchical diversity. In the mind of such a perfect Brahmin (in the etymological sense of the word: a man who has realized Brahman-Atman within himself and, in consequence, “knows” the truth) the word “gnani” cannot mean anything less than that.
It is a far greater praise than any recognition of our Leader’s importance in mere history. It means that his unique place in history is the mere outcome of Something deeper and more difficult to sense (for the common mind): his place among those at the very top of the hierarchy of creatures. As I said before, Ramana Maharshi represents the double aristocracy of Hindudom: both by his caste (he was a Brahmin) and by the fact that he was one of the few who were strictly worthy of belonging to that exalted caste. His judgment is of more import than that of millions of average, albeit “intellectual” people.

Sri Ramana Maharshi died in 1950.—Ed.

THE FATHERLESS CIVILIZATION

29 noviembre 2007
The Fatherless Civilization

By Fjordman

Created 2007-10-15 15:02

American columnist Diana West recently released her book The Death of the Grown-up, where she traces the decline of Western civilization to the permanent youth rebellions of the past two generations. The decade from the first half of the 1960s to the first half of the 1970s was clearly a major watershed in Western history, with the start of non-Western mass immigration in the USA, the birth of Eurabia in Western Europe and the rise of Multiculturalism and radical Feminism.

The paradox is that the people who viciously attacked their own civilization had enjoyed uninterrupted economic growth for decades, yet embraced Marxist-inspired ideologies and decided to undermine the very society which had allowed them to live privileged lives. Maybe this isn’t as strange as it seems. Karl Marx himself was aided by the wealth of Friedrich Engels, the son of a successful industrialist.

This was also the age of decolonization in Western Europe and desegregation in the USA, which created an atmosphere where Western civilization was seen as evil. Whatever the cause, we have since been stuck in a pattern of eternal opposition to our own civilization. Some of these problems may well have older roots, but they became institutionalized to an unprecedented degree during the 1960s.

According to Diana West, the organizing thesis of her book “is that the unprecedented transfer of cultural authority from adults to adolescents over the past half century or so has dire implications for the survival of the Western world.” Having redirected our natural development away from adulthood and maturity in order to strike the pop-influenced pose of eternally cool youth – ever-open, non-judgmental, self-absorbed, searching for (or just plain lacking) identity – we have fostered a society marked by these same traits. In short: Westerners live in a state of perpetual adolescence, but also with a corresponding perpetual identity crisis. West thinks maturity went out of style in the rebellious 1960s, “the biggest temper tantrum in the history of the world,” which flouted authority figures of any kind.

She also believes that although the most radical break with the past took place during the 60s and 70s, the roots of Western youth culture are to be found in the 1950s with the birth of rock and roll music, Elvis Presley and actors such as James Dean. Pop group The Beatles embodied this in the early 60s, but changed radically in favor of drugs and the rejection of established wisdom as they approached 1970, a shift which was reflected in the entire culture.

Personally, one of my favorite movies from the 1980s was Back to the Future. In one of the scenes, actor Michael J. Fox travels in time from 1985 to 1955. Before he leaves 1985, he hears the slogan “Re-elect Mayor….Progress is his middle name.” The same slogan is repeated in 1955, only with a different name. Politics is politics in any age. Writers Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale have stated that they chose the year 1955 as the setting of the movie because this was the age of the birth of teen culture: This was when the teenager started to rule, and he has ruled ever since.

As West says, many things changed in the economic boom in the decades following the Second World War: “When you talk about the postwar period, the vast new affluence is a big factor in reorienting the culture to adolescent desire. You see a shift in cultural authority going to the young. Instead of kids who might take a job to be able to help with household expenses, all of a sudden that pocket money was going into the manufacture of a massive new culture. That conferred such importance to a period of adolescence that had never been there before.” After generations of this celebration of youth, the adults have no confidence left: “Kids are planning expensive trips, going out unchaperoned, they are drinking, debauching, absolutely running amok, yet the parents say, ‘I can’t do anything about it.’ Parents have abdicated responsibilities to give in to adolescent desire.”

She believes that “Where womanhood stands today is deeply affected by the death of grown-up. I would say the sexualized female is part of the phenomenon I’m talking about, so I don’t think they’re immune to the death of the grown-up. Women are still emulating young fashion. Where sex is more available, there are no longer the same incentives building toward married life, which once was a big motivation toward the maturing process.”

Is she right? Have we become a civilization of Peter Pans refusing to grow up? Have we been cut off from the past by disparaging everything old as outmoded? I know blogger Conservative Swede, who likes Friedrich Nietzsche, thinks we suffer from “slave morality,” but I sometimes wonder whether we suffer from child morality rather than slave morality. However, there are other forces at work here as well.

The welfare state encourages an infantilization of society where people return to childhood by being provided for by others. This creates not just a culture obsessed with youth but with adolescent irresponsibility. Many people live in a constant state of rebellion against not just their parents but their nation, their culture and their civilization.

Writer Theodore Dalrymple thinks one reason for the epidemic of self-destructiveness in Western societies is the avoidance of boredom: “For people who have no transcendent purpose to their lives and cannot invent one through contributing to a cultural tradition (for example), in other words who have no religious belief and no intellectual interests to stimulate them, self-destruction and the creation of crises in their life is one way of warding off meaninglessness.”

According to him, what we are seeing now is “a society in which people demand to behave more or less as they wish, that is to say whimsically, in accordance with their kaleidoscopically changing desires, at the same time as being protected from the natural consequences of their own behaviour by agencies of the state. The result is a combination of Sodom and Gomorrah and a vast and impersonal bureaucracy of welfare.”

The welfare state deprives you of the possibility of deriving self-respect from your work. This can hurt a person’s self-respect, but more so for men than for women because masculine identity is closely tied to providing for others. Stripped of this, male self-respect declines and society with it. Dalrymple also worries about the end of fatherhood, and believes that the worst child abusers are governments promoting the very circumstances in which child abuse and neglect are most likely to take place: “He who promotes single parenthood is indifferent to the fate of children.” Fatherhood scarcely exists, except in the merest biological sense:

“I worked in a hospital in which had it not been for the children of Indian immigrants, the illegitimacy rate of children born there would have approached one hundred per cent. It became an almost indelicate question to ask of a young person who his or her father was; to me, it was still an astounding thing to be asked, ‘Do you mean my father now, at the moment?’ as if it could change at any time and had in fact changed several times before.”

This is because “women are to have children merely because they want them, as is their government-given right, irrespective of their ability to bring them up, or who has to pay for them, or the consequences to the children themselves. Men are to be permanently infantilised, their income being in essence pocket money for them to spend on their enjoyments, having no serious responsibilities at all (beyond paying tax). Henceforth, the state will be father to the child, and the father will be child of the state.”

As Swedish writer Per Bylund explains: “Most of us were not raised by our parents at all. We were raised by the authorities in state daycare centers from the time of infancy; then pushed on to public schools, public high schools, and public universities; and later to employment in the public sector and more education via the powerful labor unions and their educational associations. The state is ever-present and is to many the only means of survival – and its welfare benefits the only possible way to gain independence.”

Though Sweden is arguably an extreme case, author Melanie Phillips notices the same trends in Britain, too: “Our culture is now deep into uncharted territory. Generations of family disintegration in turn are unravelling the fundamentals of civilised human behaviour. Committed fathers are crucial to their children’s emotional development. As a result of the incalculable irresponsibility of our elites, however, fathers have been seen for the past three decades as expendable and disposable. Lone parenthood stopped being a source of shame and turned instead into a woman’s inalienable right. The state has provided more and more inducements to women – through child benefit, council flats and other welfare provision – to have children without committed fathers. This has produced generations of women-only households, where emotionally needy girls so often become hopelessly inadequate mothers who abuse and neglect their own children – who, in turn, perpetuate the destructive pattern. This is culturally nothing less than suicidal.”

I sometimes wonder whether the modern West, and Western Europe in particular, should be dubbed the Fatherless Civilization. Fathers have been turned into a caricature and there is a striking demonization of traditional male values. Any person attempting to enforce rules and authority, a traditional male preserve, is seen as a Fascist and ridiculed, starting with God the Father. We end up with a society of vague fathers who can be replaced at the whim of the mothers at any given moment. Even the mothers have largely abdicated, leaving the upbringing of children to schools, kindergartens and television. In fashion and lifestyle, mothers imitate their daughters, not vice versa.

The elaborate welfare state model in Western Europe is frequently labelled “the nanny state,” but perhaps it could also be named “the husband state.” Why? Well, in a traditional society, the role of men was to physically protect and financially provide for their women. In our modern society, part of this task has been “outsourced” to the state, which helps explain why women in general give disproportionate support to high taxation and pro-welfare state parties. According to anthropologist Lionel Tiger, the ancient unit of a mother, a child and a father has morphed from monogamy into “bureaugamy,” a mother, a child and a bureaucrat. The state has become a substitute husband. In fact, it doesn’t replace just the husband, it replaces the entire nuclear and extended family, raises the children and cares for the elderly.

Øystein Djupedal, Minister of Education and Research from the Socialist Left Party and responsible for Norwegian education from kindergartens via high schools to PhD level, has stated: “I think that it’s simply a mistaken view of child-rearing to believe that parents are the best to raise children. ‘Children need a village,’ said Hillary Clinton. But we don’t have that. The village of our time is the kindergarten.” He later retracted this statement, saying that parents have the main responsibility for raising children, but that “kindergartens are a fantastic device for children, and it is good for children to spend time in kindergarten before [they] start school.”

The problem is that some of his colleagues use the kindergarten as the blueprint for society as a whole, even for adults. In the fall of 2007, Norway’s center-left government issued a warning to 140 companies that still hadn’t fulfilled the state-mandated quota of 40 percent women on their boards of directors. Equality minister Karita Bekkemellem stated that companies failing to meet the quota will face involuntary dissolution, despite the fact that many are within traditionally male-oriented branches like the offshore oil industry, shipping and finance. She called the law “historic and radical” and said it will be enforced.

Bekkemellem is thus punishing the naughty children who refuse to do as Mother State tells them to, even if these children happen to be private corporations. The state replaces the father in the sense that it provides for you financially, but it acts more like a mother in removing risks and turning society into a cozy, regulated kindergarten with ice cream and speech codes.

Blog reader Tim W. thinks women tend to be more selfish than men vis-a-vis the opposite sex: “Men show concern for women and children while women…. well, they show concern for themselves and children. I’m not saying that individual women don’t show concern for husbands or brothers, but as a group (or voting bloc) they have no particular interest in men’s well-being. Women’s problems are always a major concern but men’s problems aren’t. Every political candidate is expected to address women’s concerns, but a candidate even acknowledging that men might have concerns worth addressing would be ostracized.” What if men lived an average of five years and eight months longer than women? Well, if that were the case, we’d never hear the end of it: “Feminists and women candidates would walk around wearing buttons with ‘five years, eight months’ written on them to constantly remind themselves and the world about this horrendous inequity. That this would happen, and surely it would, says something about the differing natures of male and female voters.”

Bernard Chapin interviewed Dr. John Lott at Frontpage Magazine. According to Lott, “I think that women are generally more risk averse then men are and they see government as one way of providing insurance against life’s vagaries. I also think that divorced women with kids particularly turn towards government for protection. Simply giving women the right to vote explained at least a third of the growth in government for about 45 years.”

He thinks this “explains a lot of the government’s growth in the US but also the rest of the world over the last century. When states gave women the right to vote, government spending and tax revenue, even after adjusting for inflation and population, went from not growing at all to more than doubling in ten years. As women gradually made up a greater and greater share of the electorate, the size of government kept on increasing. This continued for 45 years as a lot of older women who hadn’t been used to voting when suffrage first passed were gradually replaced by younger women. After you get to the 1960s, the continued growth in government is driven by higher divorce rates. Divorce causes women with children to turn much more to government programs.” The liberalization of abortion also led to more single parent families.

Diana West thinks what we saw in the counterculture of the 1960s was a leveling of all sorts of hierarchies, both of learning and of authority. From that emerged the leveling of culture and by extension Multiculturalism. She also links this trend to the nanny state:

“In considering the strong links between an increasingly paternalistic nanny state and the death of the grown-up, I found that Tocqueville (of course) had long ago made the connections. He tried to imagine under what conditions despotism could come to the United States. He came up with a vision of the nation characterized, on the one hand, by an ‘innumerable multitude of men, alike and equal, constantly circling around in pursuit of the petty and banal pleasures with which they glut their souls,’ and, on the other, by the ‘immense protective power’ of the state. ‘Banal pleasures’ and ‘immense state power’ might have sounded downright science-fictional in the middle of the 19th century; by the start of the 21st century, it begins to sound all too familiar. Indeed, speaking of the all-powerful state, he wrote: ‘It would resemble parental authority if, fatherlike, it tried to prepare its charges for a man’s life, but, on the contrary, it only tries to keep them in perpetual childhood.’ Perhaps the extent to which we, liberals and conservatives alike, have acquiesced to our state’s parental authority shows how far along we, as a culture, have reached Tocqueville’s state of ‘perpetual childhood.'”

This problem is even worse in Western Europe, a region with more elaborate welfare states than the USA and which has lived under the American military umbrella for generations, thus further enhancing the tendency for adolescent behavior.

The question, which was indirectly raised by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s in his book Democracy in America, is this: If democracy of universal suffrage means that everybody’s opinion is as good as everybody else’s, will this sooner or later turn into a society where everybody’s choices are also as good as everybody else’s, which leads to cultural relativism? Tocqueville wrote at a time when only men had the vote. Will universal suffrage also lead to a situation where women vote themselves into possession of men’s finances while reducing their authority and creating powerful state regulation of everything?

I don’t know the answer to that. What I do know is that the current situation isn’t sustainable. The absence of fatherhood has created a society full of social pathologies, and the lack of male self-confidence has made us easy prey for our enemies. If the West is to survive, we need to reassert a healthy dose of male authority. In order to do so we need to roll back the welfare state. Perhaps we need to roll back some of the excesses of Western Feminism, too.

—-

Source URL:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2572

 

QUIEN ES JUDIO? WHO IS A JEW?

25 noviembre 2007

zapatero-pgirado.jpgmenorah.jpg

En memoria de los mártires judíos condenados por la Inquisición
PRIMER PROYECTO DE LA RED TARBUT SEFARAD EN MEMORIA DE LOS MÁRTIRES JUDIOS 
“Lista de nombres de los judíos muertos, torturados y condenados por la Inquisición”Carta de Mario Saban, presidente de Tarbut Sefarad La Junta Directiva de TARBUT SEFARAD lanza por primera vez la idea de la reconstrucción de todos los nombres y apellidos de los mártires judíos quemados vivos, quemados muertos, torturados, penitenciados y juzgados por el Santo Oficio de la Inquisición.Así como el Yad Vashem en Jerusalén está realizado el trabajo monumental de otorgarle identidad a cada judío muerto en la Shoa, nosotros, los descendientes de los judíos españoles expulsados, los descendientes de los anusim (forzados) y los amigos de la cultura hebrea hemos decidido crear un banco de datos en internet, abierto a todo el público de los miles de judíos que fueron  juzgados, asesinados y torturados por la Inquisición. Nuestro objetivo es la reconstrucción de las listas de todos los mártires judíos que fueron objeto de la brutal persecución inquisitorial.También pediremos a las autoridades educativas portuguesas y españolas la inclusión en sus asignaturas de historia la asignatura de la “Historia de la persecución a los hebreos en España, Portugal y dominios americanos”.Con un fraternal abrazo,Mario Saban, Presidente de TARBUT SEFARADhttp://www.tarbutsefarad.com/ El periodista Adar Primor, del diario israelí Haaretz, asegura que una charla con Carlos Casajuana, asesor diplomático del presidente del Gobierno, concluyó con “una pequeña revelación”, según sus palabras:“Muchos de los judíos españoles tenían apellidos que indicaban profesiones. Zapatero es al parecer uno de ellos”.El origen judío de Zapatero parece un secreto a voces en determinados círculos de la Madrid, a tenor de las palabras del empresario Martin Varsavsky, fundador de las empresas Jazztel y Ya.com y autor de Por qué quiero a Israel, quien deja entrever también este extremo: “En España mucha gente tiene antepasados judíos (en 1492, antes de su expulsión, los judíos eran más del 10% de la población). Es probable que el propio presidente de Gobierno, Zapatero, sea de origen judío ya que los apellidos asociados con las profesiones muchas veces lo son. “.En medios diplomáticos israelíes se recuerda que el propio Zapatero, en otro artículo publicado en mayo en el diario Yediot Ajaronot, el de mayor tirada en Israel, confirmaba este ascendente por parte de su abuelo paterno, militar y masón, aspecto este último desvelado por el historiador Ricardo de la Cierva. Estas mismas fuentes señalan que el ministro de Exteriores israelí, Silvan Shalom, también le ha escuchado decir al presidente “yo soy de ascendencia judía”, pues le confesó que encontró parentesco en su árbol genealógico con los Anusim de España. Siempre según estas fuentes, en esa conversación el presidente se habría quejado de que su entonces homólogo Ariel Sharon no le hubiera llamado para felicitarle cuando asumió el cargo, como hicieron muchos otros líderes, pues le indicó a su titular de Exteriores que si criticaba a Israel era porque su ascendencia judía se lo permitía. El periódico La Vanguardia ha abierto un foro que dirige el genealogista Oriol Martí Ceballos donde se dice: “Ferreiro es un apellido muy común, de origen judío, como la mayoría de los apellidos relacionados con profesiones, lugares o muy católicos: Santamaría, Cruz, Trinidad, Ferreiro, como Zapatero, es un apellido judío. También lo son De La Vega (lugar) y Moratinos, cuyo origen judío es bien conocido. “.
http://www.elsemanaldigital.com/articulos.asp?idarticulo=76137Nota de YRANIA: Los apellidos derivados de lugar geográfico, de oficio o de significación exaltadamente cristiana denotan, a veces,  que quien lo utiliza es judío.Así por ejemplo, el apellido Rosenberg (Montaña de rosas) fue compartido por el famoso matrimonio judío Rosenberg, ajusticiado en USA entregar secretos de armamento atómico a la Unión Soviética  y por el  filósofo  báltico-alemán Alfred Rosenberg, ideologo del NSDAP y autor de “El mito del siglo XX”, siendo  la  “raza” la  clave de la interpretación de la historia. En el caso del judaísmo hay opiniones diversas sobre si es una etnia, una cultura, una religión o un mestizaje.

PORNOGRAFIA PARA DESTRUIR LA MORAL COMBATIVA

22 noviembre 2007

asian_jew_md-porno-isrealita.jpg

 Dentro de la guerra psicológica es ya conocido el hecho de que para destruir la moral  de un pueblo, para hacerlo más débil y manipulable,  o para anular el espíritu combativo de una nación enemiga, uno de los medios utilizados, aparte de la propaganda pacifista y del uso de las drogas, es  la difusión de la adición a la pornografía, la cual acarrea una morbosidad sexual que puede tener graves consecuencias para la salud y para la estabilidad de la institución familiar.

Un caso particular del uso de la pornografia con fines políticos y bélicos es el que recoge la pagina web http://iblnews.com/story.php?id=28685 (28/08/07)

.Dice asi:

“(…) la edición electrónica del diario “Yediot Aharonot” informa de que operadores de numerosos sitios porno israelíes en internet son visitados con asiduidad por navegantes de Arabia Saudí, Túnez, Jordania, Egipto y los territorios palestinos.Los responsables de las páginas web calculan que las visitas de estos usuarios rondan entre el 2 y el 10 por ciento del total, e incluso algunos sitios dedicados al erotismo y el porno han llegado a ofrecer servicios en árabe para estos fieles clientes.Nir Shahar, que regenta la página porno israelí “Ratuv” (húmedo, en hebreo), explica que su compañía ha producido películas con contenido típicamente local.En ellas aparecen chicas vestidas de soldado, de policía y de agentes del Mosad, los servicios de inteligencia israelita en el extranjero.El responsable señala que en los últimos tiempos se ha incrementado la demanda de estos contenidos en los países árabes.Shahar añade que debido a la demanda de visitantes de países que no mantienen relaciones diplomáticas con Israel como Irak, Arabia Saudí o Kuwait, se decidió incluir una versión árabe de la página.

“Hemos recibido numerosos mensajes de agradecimiento de los clientes árabes.

Por su parte, Gil Naftali, propietario de otro operador hebreo de porno, “SexV”, explica que su sitio “recibe centenares de navegantes de países en los que el porno está prohibido.

Según los cálculos de esta dirección, más de 2.000 “surfers” de Riad, capital de Arabia Saudí, visitaron en julio la página. El tiempo promedio de las visitas fue de 17,23 minutos.

Un residente de la ciudad cisjordana de Jenín explicó a Efe que cada vez son más los jóvenes, chicos y chicas, que entran en este tipo de páginas, como “una manera de dar rienda suelta a su imaginación y superar las barreras culturales y religiosas que se imponen en una sociedad árabe como es la palestina”.

“Van a los cibercafés porque en sus casas tendrían que esperar a que toda la familia durmiese para poder conectarse a estos sitios”, explicó ese habitante de Cisjordania, sede de la Autoridad Nacional Palestina (ANP).

En ese otro territorio palestino,en Gaza, controlado por el Movimiento de la Resistencia Islámica (Hamas), los activistas islámicos han incendiado en los últimos meses varios cibercafés en los que, según dicen, se incitaba a jóvenes y adultos a ver porno.

Tzahi, uno de los responsables de la web de contenido sexual mas popular de Israel, “Domina”, resume bien la situación: en el caso de esa página, hasta el 10 por ciento de los visitantes es árabe-parlante.

Interrogado sobre si las visitas suponen una forma de comunicación con los árabes, Tzahi responde con una negativa, antes de precisar que se trata de “un mero negocio”.

“El porno no nos traerá la paz pero al menos obtenemos algo de dinero de los bolsillos de nuestros enemigos”, concluye.

http://iblnews.com/story.php?id=28685

 

 

GAY MANIFESTO o sea “Manifiesto marica”

14 noviembre 2007

starainbow.jpg

Michael Swift ( pseudonym ) :

“Gay Revolutionary”

from

Gay Community News, Feb. 15-21, 1987

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.html

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators,your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.

We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.

The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence–will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

“We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

“We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks. http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/GayAgendaSwiftText.html

VASCOS DE EUSKALHERRIA

11 noviembre 2007

los_vascos_y_europa.jpg0005365810-pv-ns-lauburo.jpg14843920_a14b16ab76_m-pvns.jpg 

Me ha pasado César un enlace de algún tipo de grupo nazi que reclama una HYPERLINK “http://libreopinion.com/members/euskalherria/principios.html”HYPERLINK “http://libreopinion.com/members/euskalherria/principios.html”Euskal Herria nacionalsocialista. Su declaración de principios no tiene desperdicio: Euskalherria Nacionalsocialista rechaza resueltamente:· La masonería, que tiene clavadas sus garras en Occidente.· El ateísmo y el materialismo, que son hijos del liberalismo, niegan al hombre una dimensión espiritual y fomentan todo el desorden, el hedonismo y la mentalidad del “todo vale” que caracterizan al decadente “mundo moderno”.· La mezcla de razas, que es fomentada por el judío y la masonería para acabar con los demás pueblos.· El aborto, cuya despenalización en toda Europa (salvo Irlanda) demuestra la gran perversidad y decadencia de las llamadas “democracias”, cómplices en un genocidio silencioso que, a diferencia del mito de los seis millones, existe.· La homosexualidad, hoy en día justificada y a veces glorificada por una sociedad decadente en grado sumo, constituye un atentado a la raza, a la familia y al orden natural que el Nacionalsocialismo defiende.· Drogas y alcohol, enemigos peligrosísimos de la raza y de la buena forma física del Hombre Nuevo que el Nacionalsocialismo desea. Un Nacionalsocialista jamás tomará drogas.· El Estado terrorista de Israel, que en su tiranía sobre el territorio palestino demuestra su verdadera cara, la del judío talmudiano, y todos sus cómplices.· Las mentiras de los medios de comunicación, controlados por la masonería y cuyo fin es evitar el inevitable y necesario resurgimiento del gran Movimiento Nacionalsocialista. Me llama especialmente la atención la defensa a ultranza la raza vasca, “una de las mejores de Europa”. “Lo demuestran los hechos”, dicen.Por cierto, avisan que, si la web no está en Euskera, no es porque no sepan, sino por falta de recursos. HYPERLINK “http://asinosonlascosas.blogspot.com/2005/05/euskal-herria-nacionalsocialista.html”http://asinosonlascosas.blogspot.com/2005/05/euskal-herria-nacionalsocialista.html http://pehua.blogspot.com/

 


A %d blogueros les gusta esto: