25 September, 2009
World Leaders: Israel Has 3 Months to Halt Uranium Work
Posted by Socrates in 'Middle East', double standards, humor, Iran, Israel, Israel - the facts, Israeli war crimes, Jewish aggression, Jewish warmongering, Socrates, Zionism at 12:01 am | 
Permanent Link
Ha, just kidding. The war-mongering Jewish state isn’t required to do anything it doesn’t want to do. Yet how strange that Iran – which, unlike Israel, doesn’t usually start wars – is getting the 3-month mandate:
25 September, 2009 at 3:10 am
No evidence that Iran is doing anything other than working toward nuclear power generation mentioned.
This is the real prospect of a New World Order, where economic sanctions would have the desired effect of discouraging decisions in a peoples’ national interests.
25 September, 2009 at 3:25 am
The New World Order
By William Luther Pierce, Ph.D.
Today let’s talk about the New World Order. We’ve talked about it
before, and we’ll be talking a lot more about it in the future. I always
used to feel a little funny about using that term. It sounds like the
sort of terminology right-wing cranks use. And I think many people don’t
believe it’s real. They think it’s a concept invented by right-wing
cranks who are paranoid about the United Nations. Even when I was being
interviewed by the Voice of Iran last week, and I mentioned the New
World Order, the interviewer in Teheran asked me what that is, as if it
were something he had never heard of before.
Well, during the past few days it has become much easier to talk about
the New World Order without having to worry about being considered a
right-wing crank. That’s because the whole Clinton gang has begun
talking openly about it. Which is to say, the whole New World Order gang
has come out of the closet.
Earlier this month Susan Estrich spoke her mind on Clinton’s war against
Serbia. Susan Estrich, remember, is the militant radical feminist lawyer
– a Jewess, of course — who is a bosom pal of the Clintons and was
under consideration for a cabinet post not so long ago. She’s now a law
professor at the University of Southern California and a big-shot
Democratic Party activist. Estrich is ecstatic about the war. She just
loves it. It is, she said, and I quote: “. . . the first war of the 21st
century: a conflict not about communism, but about race and ethnicity,
being waged by committee, against a madman who is not himself a direct
threat to the countries waging war against him. . . . [T]he President is
committed, and the country is behind him. The number of Americans
willing to take the war to the next step — committing ground forces –
has in fact been increasing steadily. It speaks well for the future.” –
end of quote –
You know, that’s really breathtaking. This radical-feminist Jewess loves
this war because, first, it isn’t against communists but is against
people who are concerned about ethnicity; second, it is being waged by a
committee — feminists believe that everything should be done by a
committee; and third, it is a war being waged by countries who have not
been threatened in any way by the country they are attacking. In other
words, it is not a war to defend America but solely to force a sovereign
nation to change its internal policy to suit the tastes of Susan Estrich
and company: to force Serbia to stop trying to establish ethnic
homogeneity but instead to embrace multiculturalism. One gets the
impression that this Jewess also would approve of a war against, say,
Saudi Arabia to force that country to establish coed bathrooms in all
public buildings.
She says that American public support for escalating the war against
Serbia by sending in ground forces has been increasing steadily, and
that makes her feel good about the future. This Jewess also felt good
about Clinton’s popularity polls during his impeachment. Basically, what
she feels good about is the fact that her kinsmen in the media now have
a majority of the American electorate whom they are able to manipulate
in any way they choose. Just keep the ball games on TV — and the
“entitlement” checks in the mail — and they’ll cheer for the folks
signing the checks and broadcasting the ball games. Just keep their
refrigerators full of beer and they will give thumbs up to a President
who has been publicly exposed as a perjuror, a rapist, a degenerate, a
draft-dodger, a traitor, a money-launderer, and a cokehead. They really
don’t care. Start a war somewhere which they can watch on TV, and
they’ll support that too, if Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather and Peter
Jennings and the rest tell them to. When they get bored with watching
the smart bombs blow up apartment houses and passenger trains and our
fighter planes shoot up refugee columns, they’ll cheer the sending in of
ground troops so they’ll have something more exciting to watch on their
television screens.
Despite the fact that Miss Estrich is not a public official, her views
are worth noting. First, she is a member of the Clinton crowd; she
shares their values and opinions. Second, she is typical of the
arrogant, noisy campus Jews who during the 1960s were trashing deans’
offices and demanding all sorts of Politically Correct changes at
American universities. They also were burning ROTC buildings in protest
against the Vietnam war. That was a war against communists; remember? A
bad war. These Jews have grown up and taken over most of our influential
public institutions.
But what Estrich is saying is echoed by all the rest of the Jews and
their collaborators. America’s highest paid professional “Holocaust
survivor,” Elie Wiesel, showed up at the White House on April 12 to
cheer the bombing of Serbia and announce his support for sending in
ground troops. Ironically Wiesel is the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize
– but then so were Henry Kissinger and the late Israeli warlord
Menachem Begin. That’s what Nobel Peace Prizes are all about these days.
Probably the most important public figure to declare for the New World
Order is Britain’s Tony Blair, the tag-along, wannabee Clintonista that
British patriots sneeringly refer to as “Bambi.” In an essay in the
April 19 issue of Newsweek magazine Blair declares, and I quote: “This
is a conflict we are fighting not for territory but for values, for a
new internationalism where the brutal repression of whole ethnic groups
will no longer be tolerated, for a world where those responsible for
such crimes have nowhere to hide.” — end of quote — That’s
interesting. The key words here are: “We are not fighting for territory”
– and he might also have added, “We are not fighting to defend
ourselves or our national interests” — “but we are fighting for a new
internationalism,” Blair said.
And of course, “a new internationalism” is simply his way of saying “a
New World Order.” And that really is a radical departure from the past,
when America and Britain went to war to defend what they considered
their national interests, not to impose “a new internationalism” on some
other country which just wanted to be left alone. It’s good for
America’s soldiers to understand that the reason they’re deliberately
bombing civilian targets in Belgrade, shooting up passenger trains, and
so on — and occasionally even risking their own lives — is to impose
“a new internationalism” on the Serbs. To people like Estrich and Blair
and Clinton, having armed forces for the purpose of national defense is
old fashioned, an outmoded, 20th-century concept. The really trendy
thing now — the 21st-century thing — is to use your armed forces to
impose the will of the New World Order on countries too small to hit
back.
“Bambi” also said in the April 19 Newsweek that the Serb policy of
ethnic cleansing must not only be stopped but also “reversed.” Which
really ties in with the insistence of the whole New World Order crowd
that no ethnically clean countries will be tolerated in the 21st
century. Only “multicultural” countries will be permitted.
General Wesley Clark, the Clinton gang’s political general in charge of
NATO and of the current effort to impose “a new internationalism” on the
Serbs using cruise missiles, said it as plainly as anyone. Just a few
days ago General Clark enunciated the general philosophy of the New
World Order and the specific motivation for the assault on Yugoslavia
when he told a CNN reporter, and I quote: “There is no place in modern
Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th-century idea, and we
are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do
it with multi-ethnic states.” — end of quote –
You know, the specific phrasing may be new, but the attitude, the
mindset, behind it is quite old. We could subtract a thousand years from
General Clark’s statement, taking us back to the time just before the
Crusades, and it would read something like this: “There is no place in
modern Europe for pagans or heretics. Paganism is a ninth-century idea,
and we are trying to transition into the 11th century, and we are going
to do it with Christian states.” A little later one could simply replace
“pagan” and “Christian” with “Protestant” and “Catholic,” respectively
– or vice versa. That mindset prevailed during Europe’s numerous
religious wars up until the middle of the 17th century, a cruel and
bloody 650 years during which Europeans slaughtered not only Turks and
Arabs but also each other in their “conflicts for values,” as Bambi
would have put it.
You know, my main theme is that this change in the reason for which we
fight wars is not a good thing. It is not good to attack another country
which has not harmed or threatened us in any way and begin killing its
people in order to force them to run their country in accord with our
beliefs — assuming that the beliefs professed by the Clinton gang
actually were our beliefs. That sort of ideological bigotry really
smacks of the religious bigotry of the Middle Ages. But before we get
into that, let us note that not even the Susan Estriches and Tony Blairs
and Wesley Clarks really believe the ideological snake oil they’re
trying to sell to the public.
In his justification for the bombing of Belgrade and the killing of
Serbs Tony Blair wrote in Newsweek, and I quote: “We need to enter a new
millennium where dictators know that they cannot get away with ethnic
cleansing or repress their peoples with impunity.” That’s a crooked
statement. Blair understands perfectly well that Slobodan Milosevic is
no dictator repressing his people; he is the democratically elected
leader of his people and has their strong support. And Blair also
understands that the conflict between the government of Yugoslavia and
the Albanians in Yugoslavia’s Kosovo province arose in the first place
because his good buddy Bill Clinton approved the covert arming and
financing of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army — the KLA — which
aimed at driving out the Serbs and establishing an ethnically cleansed
Albanian Kosovo.
But even if Bambi has conveniently forgotten these facts, he is not
opposed to ethnic cleansing on principle. You can safely bet your bottom
dollar that if Milosevic had not moved decisively and crushed the KLA,
and the KLA were now doing to the Serbs what the Serbs are doing to the
Albanians, Bambi would not be writing indignant essays about it for
Newsweek magazine, and Madleine Albright would not be sending her cruise
missiles against Tirana instead of against Belgrade. This New World
Order gang, which makes such a pretense of being opposed to ethnic
cleansing, has not lifted a finger to stop it in a dozen other parts of
the world in the last few years. Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians
is the prime example of this, but many other examples also can be cited:
Turkey’s treatment of the Kurds, for example.
All of these New World Order “humanitarians” speak with forked tongues.
The simple fact is that they have a plan for Yugoslavia, and for
Serbia’s mineral-rich Kosovo province in particular, and the Serbs don’t
want to go along. The New World Order gang want Kosovo under Albanian
control, because Albanians will take orders from them, while the Serbs
won’t. That’s what this war boils down to: making an example out of the
Serbs because they’re too independent and are in the way of a plan the
New World Order gangsters have for rearranging Europe.
Now let’s look, from a strictly American point of view, at what these
gangsters are doing and what they are planning for the future. America’s
wars in the 21st century, they are telling us — beginning, actually,
with the war against Serbia now — will not be wars to defend our
territory or our vital interests but to force other countries to handle
their internal affairs in accord with our ideas — or more corectly, in
accord with the ideas professed by people like Susan Estrich, General
Wesley Clark, and Tony Blair.
Bill Clinton is a bit less forthright about this than the aforementioned
gangsters: one of the reasons he has been giving us for the war against
Serbia is that it is to protect American jobs by keeping Europe stable
and prosperous so that it will remain a good market for American
products. That explanation is, of course, sheer nonsense. The war
against Yugoslavia is hardly doing anything to stabilize Europe, and Mr.
Clinton, with his enthusiasm for Chinese imports, certainly isn’t
concerned about saving the jobs of American workers.
What the gangsters are doing is transforming America’s armed forces from
a national defense force to an enforcer for the New World Order. They
are transforming American soldiers from defenders of the American people
and the American nation to mercenaries in the service of the New World
Order. And they’re actually sending our armed forces out to bomb and
kill under these new auspices. The Jewish radicals like Susan Estrich
are all for it. The Jewish media bosses are all for it. The 1960s style
leftists like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair who grew up chanting for Ho
Chi Minh and trashing the dean’s office are all for it. And the
political careerists in the military, like General Wesley Clark, are
willing to go along with it. The politicians in the Congress are willing
to go along too, just as they are willing to go along with anything else
the media bosses want.
But what about the American people? What about our Constitution? What
about our traditions and our national interests? I realize that the
Susan Estriches and Wesley Clarks and Bill Clintons of this world have
only contempt for these 19th-century and even older things, but not all
of us share their feelings. There are a lot of us who still believe that
the affairs of our nation ought to be governed by law, not by whatever
the Jewish media bosses and the aging campus radicals left over from the
1960s decide is fashionable for the 21st century.
The men who wrote our Constitution certainly understood that we might
have to fight wars in order to defend our territory or our national
interests. They had just come through a war against Britain themselves
for the sake of securing our freedom and independence. And in the
Constitution they provided for such possibilities in the future. But
they certainly did not condone the United States sending its armed
forces off to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries which
were not harming or threatening us. Nor did they intend for our armed
forces to be the plaything of the President or anyone else in our
government, to be used for furthering some pet project of his overseas.
They specifically reserved to the elected representatives of the people
the power to wage war against another country.
Now, Mr. Clinton may want to quibble over the meaning of the word “war,”
just as he quibbled over the meaning of the word “is” during the great
national embarrassment that he visited upon us so recently, but not one
of America’s Founding Fathers would call what we are doing in Yugoslavia
now anything but “war.” And they would consider it war waged in
violation of the Constitution, since the House of Representatives has
not authorized it.
I hope you don’t mind my quibbling about these details, about these
old-fashioned legalities. I mean, I realize that the same rabble which
didn’t want Clinton impeached are happy enough with his war now. And the
way the Clinton crowd looks at it, whenever a majority is in favor of
something then it’s all right to do it. It makes no difference how
debased and irresponsible that majority is; as long as you’re ahead in
the polls, you’re OK. And of course, this Clinton-favoring,
bread-and-circuses majority couldn’t care less about old-fashioned
legalities. And I’m sorry to say, the gang in the Congress isn’t much
more responsible than the majority which still approves of Clinton and
his war. Congressmen can count heads as well as the pollsters, and they
aren’t going to make much of a fuss about not having actually voted for
war against Yugoslavia as long as the media bosses are for it and the
rabble don’t care.
I suppose the real question here is not whether Clinton’s war is illegal
or not. I mean, we’ve pretty well established the principle now that
it’s OK for the President to do illegal things, so long as his polls are
up. The real question is, what are we old-fashioned, 19th- and
20th-century-style Americans going to do about the misappropriation of
our country and our future by the New World Order gang? These people,
these Estriches and Clarks and Clintons, have agreed among themselves
that from now on they’ll run the world and tell everybody else what to
do, committee style, because we’re moving into the 21st century and the
rabble will back them. We’re supposed to go along meekly and not make
any trouble for them.
Well, I’ll tell you right now, I’m not going to do that. I’ve always
been a law-abiding person, but I’m not inclined to let this gang
interpret our laws in their way and tell me that from now on everything
is going to be different because the polls say it’s OK for them to do
whatever they want. From my viewpoint it’s the Clinton gang who are the
outlaws, the violators of our Constitution and of all of our
old-fashioned legal and moral principles, and anything that we do to
oppose them is legal and is morally justified. Anyone who goes along
with them is a traitor, in the strict, old-fashioned sense of the word,
and anyone who sits on his hands now and refuses to oppose the Clinton
gang is not much better.
This trendy, new crowd, which likes to do everything with committees,
really believes that all it takes to make anything legal and OK is a
majority. I guess they call that democracy. When the majority is what it
has become in the United States today, a better name is mobocracy. But
really, it’s much worse than mob rule. It is rule by a self-appointed
elite of utterly evil and destructive people who have in their hands the
tools for controlling and guiding the mob. They’re pretty cocky now –
so cocky, in fact, that they’re making statements of the sort I’ve
quoted today. They’re cocky because they believe that no one can take
away from them their tools for controlling the mob, and that as time
passes and America becomes darker and more degenerate, their grip on the
mob will only become firmer. Our job is to prove them wrong. It’s a big
job, and we’d better get started.
25 September, 2009 at 8:15 am
This is because the jews have gotten so good at hiding themselves when they start a war for us, not at all like their meager beginnings with the USS Liberty.
I’d say our government is actually afraid of their devious possibilities.
25 September, 2009 at 8:48 am
Barf Alert.
I happened to be over at a friends house the other night, and they were channel surfing – and all of a sudden – that enormous pile of nauseating, evil, hebrew excrement Netanyahu appears on the screen. Now, knowing full well that this piece of scum was complicit in the September 11, 2001 attacks on America – the mere sight of his demonic face is usually enough to put me into a state of rage that is almost too difficult to describe. But, on this night – there this fat maggot was – whining about the holohoax and about Ahmadinejad’s speech before the United Nations, and I watched for a few minutes and a thought came through my mind that Netanyahu really isn’t a very good liar.
He sounded weak, just like Dr. Pierce once said Mike Wallace sounded, during one of the 60 minutes interviews he did a few years before he passed away.
I think Bibi needs to be strapped to a chair and forced to watch One Third of the Holocaust – and then put on trial as a terrorist and war criminal, tried, convicted, and then gassed in a real oven instead of the fantasy ovens that he and his fellow thieving Jews are always bitching about.
25 September, 2009 at 10:41 am
World Leaders: Israel Has 3 Months to Halt Uranium Production
Turn that into a spoof press release or wire service story. I’m sure some of you can? Btw, that Pierce screed is too long—tighten it up.
25 September, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Kudos to Doctor Ahmadinejad of Iran for telling the world the TRUTH about the Holohoax. He’s right, it’s just a LIE used by Jewry to justify the creation of a Zionist State in Palestine. And then ol’ Bibi gets up at the podium at the UN and desparately waves some piece of paper around, claiming it’s the Nazi document that was used to authorize the liquidation of 6 million Jews. Yeah, right. He even called it a “protocol”, as in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, perhaps?
I’d say that almost every non-White person in the world today knows that the Holohoax is a lie, whereas only a minority of Whites have enough sense or guts to realize that truth. But even if it did happen (which it didn’t, unfortunately), SO WHAT? I don’t care about the Jews at all and most non-Whites feel the same way.
And so, I’d like to nominate Doctor Ahmadinejad, along with Hugo Chavez and the late, great Saddam Hussein, for the prestigious title of Honorary Aryan. They all have/had the guts to stand up to the Jew World Order and US/Zionist aggression, something no White leader has been able or willing to do since Uncle Adolf.
25 September, 2009 at 4:56 pm
If I were a betting man I’d bet a year’s salary that military action will be taken against Iran. Big jew has the plans ready once the glove puppet in the White House is given his orders.
The question we need to ask ourselves, how can we benefit from the consequences once the jew has broken cover and can be seen manipulating events?
25 September, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Don’t forget Gadhafi’s speech at the UN. He called for a new investigation into JFK’s assassination, claiming Israel did it because Kennedy was looking into Israels nuclear capability. (Final Judgement by Michael Collins Piper.) As for Iran, maybe Israel will hit first. USA World Police Force Inc. is so stretched that maybe ZOG will give the go ahead to Izzy. (As if they need permission.) IF JewSA hits Iran it will probably be airstrikes and maybe even the nuclear option? Boy, Obongo is gonna be in a tough spot. Cant wait to see all the moronic leftists and niggers who supported him try and make excuses after he gives the go ahead to blitz Iran.
27 September, 2009 at 6:58 pm
I don’t think the yids will attack Iran, unless we go in with them. Don’t forget the Iranian’s little shoving match with Iraq that lasted eight years.
The casualties were in the hundreds of thousands on both sides, Israel doesn’t have the stomach for that, that’s why they have been so keen to get us to make the first move.
28 September, 2009 at 5:45 am
The right-wing Kahnservatards don’t seem to remember that Saddam Hussein was an ally of President Reagan. In fact, Reagan sent noneother than Donals Rumsfeld over to Baghdad in 1983 to assure Saddam that the US would help him fight against Iran. Yes, Saddam was our ally in the War against Islamic Fundamentalism. Imagine that.
Memory-hole incidents like that prove once again that the American public couldn’t be more stupid and passive if it tried. All it would take to rule over this Idiocracy would be 50,000 to 100, 000 fanatically dedicated, hardcorps White racist revolutionaries, men who would absolutely refuse to put up with ANY whining from the liberals, queers, race-mixers, the gimme-gimme entitlement crowd or the Christards. I think we’ll have to import a few thousand really tough Russian and Ukrainian bullyboys to get the job done, as I fear most White American men no longer have the stomach to do what needs to be done.
28 September, 2009 at 1:16 pm
saddam was given the key to detroit.
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2064887/detail.html
28 September, 2009 at 5:24 pm
The job could probably be done with as few as 20,000 hard-core true believers. These men would have to be an elite and earn the respect of a thankful White populace.
It’s been done before, William of Normandy managed to control England with about 500 fanatical knights. Of course his task was made easier by CEO Harold and his management team deciding to fight to the finish at the Battle of Hastings. Big jew won’t be so obliging.
28 September, 2009 at 8:36 pm
CW-2, how did King William and the Normans deal with the Anglo-Saxon nobility after the Conquest? Were the Saxons allowed to keep their estates and titles of nobility, or were they kicked out, or were they absorbed into the Norman aristocracy? Sir Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe gives an interesting account of England in those times.
One more thing…Did the Normans bring the Jews into England, or did the Romans do that several centuries earlier? I could be wrong, but it seems there isn’t anything in the historical record about Shylock in the British Isles until after the Conquest.
29 September, 2009 at 4:37 am
Tim, yes there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence of jews arriving post 1066 to work as tax collectors. Some things don’t change!
Most of the top Anglo-Saxon nobility were killed at Hastings so William was able to parcel out the land to his key supporters without much armed resistance, although guerrilla actions in the Danish areas of northern England are recorded in contemporary accounts.
Incidentally, it can be argued that Harold made a number of tactical an strategic mistakes during that fateful year. His biggest mistake was to send all his forces north to York and repel a very strong army from Norway. When he heard of William’s invasion of the south coast he was forced to march south and engaged in battle too soon. Maybe there is a lesson for us. The zionist and globalists are in an alliance of convenience, they are bound to fall out sooner or later, let them fight each other while we hold our forces in reserve.
29 September, 2009 at 8:42 am
CW-2,using hardcore dedicated white nationalists has been tried before and worked extremely well, they were called the SA and the SS.
4 October, 2009 at 2:53 am
“how did King William and the Normans deal with the Anglo-Saxon nobility after the Conquest? Were the Saxons allowed to keep their estates and titles of nobility, or were they kicked out, or were they absorbed into the Norman aristocracy?
William’s Norman army actually included many non-Norman adventurers who signed up from all over northern Europe — especially the Low Countries and Germany. It was a motley bunch. The AS nobles who acknlwledged him were generally kept and they eventually blended in to the new regime. However, there was bitter resistance that went on all over the island and various revolts for years afterward. The last resistance was put down at Ely, north of London. I’d have to check, but it was maybe about 30 years after the Conquest. William was a ruthless conqueror who built many fortresses and cememted his rule on the kingdom. The treatment given to those who resisted was very horrible.
The AS royal court with much of the nobility and the remaining army fled to the continent, to the other Saxon lands, where they wandered around for some time in Central Europe, from one court to another. They were treated politely but nervously, and not welcomed for too long, as no ruler was comfortable having an army of well armed and angry soldiers as his guests. So they moved on, eventually arriving in Hungary where they were finally welcomed by the newly Christianized King Stephen (St. Stephen of Hungary). They settled down in Hungary , intermarried with the nobility, and formed part of the new Hungarian nation (Magyars, Szekely, and Saxons). Parts of Hungary are still Saxon to this day.
A very interesting point: Eventually, after several centuries, through royal marriage the royal AS blood line returned to the throne of England via Hungary, Norway, and Scotland. I think it was Margaret, Maid of Norway [?] (if I recall correctly, without checking). Because of this, the name, Margaret, , became extremely popular in Scotland, England and Ireland in the Middle Ages, and remains so to this day; but it is a name of Hungarian origin. (There is a Margaret Island in Budapest.)
One more thing…Did the Normans bring the Jews into England, or did the Romans do that several centuries earlier?
There were doubtless Jews in Britain during Roman times, since they followed on the tails of the Roman armies as merchants and slave traders. But they were supposedly all driven out, or simply vanished or fled, after the Romans left , and during the AS conquest. They returned, once again, on the tails of the conquering Norman army, to plague the island again for the next couple of centuries.
4 October, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I did some brushing up this morning. It’s a very long time since I read that story, and I wrote the above from memory. I see that I got some of the facts a bit garbled (eg. King Stephen was already dead in 1066), but the Hungarian connection is essentially correct, give or take some dates and names.
St. Margaret of Scotland (an Anglo- Saxon, born in Hungary)
http://www.pitt.edu/~eflst4/MofScotland.html