2009-07-30 If the sheet fits wear it (Australia)

[Hidden to Guests]

If the sheet fits wear it: white supremacy is, like, so passe

by Tory Shepherd

Admin Edit: Original source closed down. Use https://archive.is/DY7t5
 
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/If-the-sheet-fits-wear-it-white-supremacy-is-like-so-passe

WHITE supremacy is so yesterday, don’t you think?

But the skinheads are using a modern medium for their oh-so-1950s messages. And, as with so much online, it’s a rare chance to see inside a different world. A strangely amusing world.

I came across a couple of sites by accident, and before I knew it I was Googling around checking out the rantings of racists. With each new site, I was mentally preparing myself to be outraged, appalled. Filled with a towering sense of injustice.

But the white supremacist websites don’t produce that reaction. They’re a bit sad, generally amateurish, and just a bit funny.

In South Australia there’s a guy called Reverend Cailen Cambeul (he calls himself “the racist formerly known as Colin Campbell” and has a bit of a chequered history).

He runs “The Church of Creativity” down here –  its catchcry is “Creativity South Australia: For a Whiter and Brighter World”.

They’re the Napisan of race relations, with a mission statement that sounds like housewifey cheese. 

The Reverend is full of other gems such as:

“It is time White people awaken to reality and realise that doing what is best for the White race is best for themselves – it is a virtue. And doing what is bad for the White race is their own deathknell – it is a sin … Does that make me a racist … Does that make me a hater? If you knew me you’d find I hate most people. It’s just that I give White people a chance before I decide that I hate them… Wake Up Whitey!”

I’ll pause here just to say that I can see that this is offensive, that it would be fair to argue that I have no right to make light of these guys because I’m a pinkish blonde mongrel mix of mainly Euro descent. But I feel very strongly that these are not the guys we need to worry about.

Have a look through the forums, where there are rambling discussions of mixed marriages, immigration, multiculturalism, Jewish conspiracy theories, etc.  The members are predominantly men, predominantly bad at spelling, and consistently terrible at making a logical point.

They are a hodge-podge of disillusioned youth who need to get out more, definitely need to get laid, and would probably be cured of their bizarre beliefs with a bit of time or a bit of distraction.

Maybe these guys are still scary in a gonna-gun-someone-down-one-day kind of way, and the ideas are vile and reprehensible, but drifting through their websites the image that most strongly suggests itself is a pale guy with an overbite and thinning hair. Someone who got bullied at high school.

It’s the bizarre grammar that tickles, and the sheer incoherence that reassures.

The Creativity mob has some power in the US, but down here it’s just a few loners looking for something to do with all their hate, and they form little insulated black bubbles of nastiness and wallow around in them for a bit.

These are not the guys responsible for sustaining racism.

Oh no.

The Ku Klux Klan, who claim to be getting about a bit in Australia, are a bit scarier. Even though they are led by people called “Imperial Wizards”, which makes me picture guys in pointy hats on Quidditch-style broomsticks. They are organised, and seem to have a core structure that could suck in recruits.

But the really, really scary buggers are the slick, sly ones trotting out well-rehearsed arguments about limiting immigration and stopping the formation of ghettoes and talking about floods of boat people coming.

In the same way that it’s no longer Creationism you have to worry about, it’s Intelligent Design with its overlay of pseudo-scientific waffle, it’s when they start to get smart that we need to take notice.

I thought One Nation was pretty funny and nothing to worry about until I started hearing people say Pauline Hanson “sort of“  had a point.

Then you started to hear John Howard’s dog whistling, and before you knew it tolerance was taking a backwards step.

That’s why Australia needs to tune its ears to the dog whistles and remember that just because savvy people in business suits seem more evolved and make a bit more sense does not mean they’re not racist. They may look like creatures of the new century but their roots are firmly in the shameful past.

About the Author
https://twitter.com/toryshepherd
http://www.thepunch.com.au/author-bios/tory-shepherd

feedback@thepunch.com.au
Tory Shepherd faffed around for years before falling into journalism. After school she did an arts degree, where she learned to say interesting things in wanky ways. Then she spent a year backpacking around Australia and getting first-hand experience of slave labour. She came back to her home town of Adelaide to do an honours degree in anthropology, which she thought was her calling until she realised nobody really cared about UFO cults anymore. Two more years backpacking (Europe this time) flew past in a blur of beer and bunk beds. She ended up back home managing a national visual arts magazine, started a Masters in arts (some people never learn), and landed a “mature age” cadetship at The Advertiser in 2006. Since then Tory has covered police rounds, general news and politics, and she is now the health reporter. She also writes opinion pieces and receives bucketloads of hate mail. Tory is passionate about words, wine, chilli, soccer, and people (even the ones who hate her or keep praying for her soul).

Comment:

Don't be surprised if this Tory Shepherd is in this forum trolling for information; but then again, don't be surprised if she didn't bother to join this forum and instead has decided to take her information solely from my site at https://sacreator.com and make the rest up to keep the article in line with public misconceptions about White people who still have pride.

On the good side, at least fifty percent of the comments are from people who recognise the same problems in this world, that we do.

For those outside Australia: We now have the Australian Labor Party in control of the Federal Government. Anyone who is thought to be a supporter of the previous Liberal Government, is treated as a racist from a bygone era. Consider it this way: Liberal=Republican, Labor=Democrat, ex Prime Minister Howard=ex President Bush, and the current Prime Minister KRudd=HNIC President Obongo.

For those who are interested, my reply on my own site is rather longer:
https://sacreator.com/another-hypocritical-article-about-creativity-from-the-msm
https://creativityalliance.com/another-hypocritical-article-about-creativity-from-the-msm

I also copied and pasted a paragraph from my own site and pasted it as a comment on the original article's site, along with the link back to my site and mention of my "right of reply." We shall see for ourselves if any of it gets through unscathed. Update: It didn't.

Pontifex Cambeul.

[Hidden to Guests]

What an annoying little *! And that's all I'll say on here.

[Hidden to Guests]

WHITE supremacy is so yesterday, don’t you think?

But the skinheads are using a modern medium for their oh-so-1950s messages.

What about Jewish Supremacy with their 5,000 year old message and their imaginary god?  Of course this stupid slut has nothing to say about that. Gee, I wonder why.   


Some quotes from the Jew's holiest book, the Talmud:


11. "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts.,, -- Saba Mecia 114, 6.

12. "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves." -- Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D.

13. "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night." -Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L.


15. "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." -- .9boda Sarah 37a.

16. "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl." -- &ad. Shas. 2:2.

17. "A Jew may do to a non-Jewess what he can do. He may treat her as he treats a piece of meat." --Hadarine, 20, B; Schulchan 9ruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348.



19. " IF a goy kills a goy or a Jew he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy he is NOT responsible." --Tosefta. 9boda Za,-a 8, 5.

20. "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."--Schuichan Qruch, Choszen Hajpiszpat jog

21. "Thou shalt not do injury to thy neighbor (Bible), but it is not said, 'Thou shalt not do injury to a Goy.' " -- Mishna Sanhedryn 57.


27. "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general' "--Schalchan arach. Choszen Hasisxpat 348.



29. 'How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."--Tosefta, Qbda Zara VIRZ, 5.

30. "On the house of the goy one looks as on the fold of cattle." -- Tosefta, Erabin VZZ, 1.




32. "Everything a Jew needs for his church ritual no goy is permitted to manufacture, but only a Jew, because this must be manufactured by human beings and the Jew is not permitted to consider the goyim as human beings." -- Schulchan Oruch, Orach Chaiw 14, 20, 32, 33, 39. TaIDud Jebamoth 61.



35. "The Jews are strictly Forbidden to cheat their brothers and it is considered cheating already if onesixth of the value has been taken away from him. Whoever has cheated his brother has to return it to him. Naturally all that only holds towards the Jew, to cheat a goy he is permitted and he is not permitted to return to him what he cheated him out of. Because the Bible says: 'Thou shalt not cheat thy next brother,' but the non-Jews are not our brethren, but as mentioned above, worse than dogs." -- aruch hoszen Haniszpat 227.


Now, keep in mind, it is these *ing kikes who promote this diversity garbage in all White Nations.

 Jews Promote Genocide by Race Mixing for Everyone except Jews!

The Israeli government has launched a television and Internet advertising campaign urging Israelis to inform on Jewish friends and relatives abroad who may be in danger of marrying non-Jews.

http://www.alternet.org/world/142478/israeli_government_ads_warn_against_marrying_non-jews_


This was one of the replies from that link:

It's perfectly reasonable for an ethnic group to be concerned about the diluting of its group due to intermarrying. Jewish identity is at risk and marrying outsiders is the greatest threat since the Holocaust.

Remember when the Germans attempted to stop the dilution of their people, the world declared war on them. When Americans pulled their kids out of integrated schools, ZOG put guns to their backs and forced them back in.

Somehow when the Jews do it we're all supposed to agree that it is a good thing, as if the survival of the Jews is some kind of benefit, but we're all supposed to skip joyfully towards the extinction of our own people in the multicult chaos that has been deliberately pushed on us by none other than the Jews.

[Hidden to Guests]

WHY THE JEW PROMOTES DIVERSITY


Prof. MacDonald's most profound charge against Jews is not ethnocentrism but dishonesty -- that while claiming to be working for the good of mankind they have often worked for their own good and to the detriment of others. While attempting to promote the brotherhood of man by dissolving the ethnic identification of gentiles, Jews have maintained precisely the kind of intense group solidarity they decry as immoral in others.

Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and diversity -- but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within their own communities, and with regard to the state of Israel, they have often supported the very institutions they attack in gentile society.

Why is this in the interest of the Jews? Because the parochial group loyalty characteristic of the Jews attracts far less attention in a scociety that does not have a cohesive and cultural core. The Jewish determination not to assimilate fully, which accounts for their survival as a people for thousands of years -- even without a country -- has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in nations with well-defined national identities. In Prof. MacDonald's view it is therefore in the interest of the Jews to dilute and weaken the indentity of any people among whom they live. Jewish identity can flower in safety only when gentile identity is weak.

Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Prof. Charles Silberman: "American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief -- one firmly rooted in history -- that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse 'gay rights' and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called 'social' issues."

He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the diversity-is-our-strength argument it is in support of their real goal of diluting a society's homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They are couching a Jewish agenda in terms they think gentiles will accept. Likewise, as the second part of Silberman's quotation suggests, Jews may support deviant movements, not because they think it is good for the country but because it is good for the Jews.

Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish economist who thought that Republicans had more sensible economic policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate anyway. His reason? "I'd rather live in a country governed by the faces I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the Republican convention." This man apparently distrusts white gentiles and voted for a racially mixed party even if its economic policies were wrong. What is good for Jews appears to come before what is good for the country.

Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University makes the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing his satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the 21st century whites will be become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country." He is apparently prepared to displace the people and culture of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise of an anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and national continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews. This passage takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews as a distinct community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and influence.

In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, "We Jews have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible..." -- just as it tends to make the ultimate displacement of European culture irreversible.

_____


Prof. MacDonald traces the development of this diversity strategy to several sources. It is widely recognized that the German-Jewish immigrant Franz Boas (1858-1942) almost single-handedly established the current contours of anthropology, ridding it of all biological explanations for differences in human culture or behavior. Prof. MacDonald reports that he and his followers -- with the notable exceptions of Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict -- were all Jews with strong Jewish identities: "Jewish indentification and the pursuit of perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the 'invisible subject' of American anthropology."

By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological Association and by 1926 they headed every major university anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted the idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that environment counts for everything. They completely recast anthropology as to provide intellectual support for open immigration, integration, and miscegenation. They also laid the foundation for the idea that because all races have the same potential, the failures of non-whites must be blamed exclusively on white oppression.

The entire "civil rights" movement can be seen as a natural consequence of the triumpf of Boasian thinking. Since all races were equivalent, separation was immoral. The color line also sharpened white self-consciousness in ways that might make whites more aware of Jewish parochialism. Thus it was, according to Prof. MacDonald, that Jews almost single-handedly launched the desegregation movement. Without the leadership of Jews, the NAACP might never have been established, and until 1975 every one of its presidents was a Jew. Prof. MacDonald reports that in 1917, when the black separatist Marcus Garvey visited NAACP headquarters, he saw so many white faces that he stormed out, complaining that it was a white organization.

Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the "civil rights" transformation of America. He quotes a lawyer for the American Jewish Congress who claims that "many of these (civil rights) laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish staff people, introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into being by Jewish voters."

While the Boas school was promoting integration and racial equivalence, it was also critical of, in Prof. MacDonald's words, "American culture as overly homogeneous, hypocritical, emotionally and aesthetically repressive (especially with regard to sexuality). Central to this program was creating ethnographies of idyllic (Third-World) cultures that were free of the negatively perceived trits that were attributed to Western culture."

The role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything about Western society while glorifying everything primitive. Prof. MacDonald notes that Boasian portrayals of non-Western peoples deliberately ignored barbarism and cruelty or simply attributed it to contamination from the West. He sees this as a deliberate attempt to undermine the confidence of Western societies and to make them permeable to Third World influences and people. Today, this view is enshrined in the dogma that America must remain open to immigration because immigrants bring spirit and energy that natives somehow lack.


______


More from Hornbeck's review of Professor Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique...

Prof. MacDonald argues that it is entirely natural for Jews to promote open immigration. It brings about the "diversity" Jews find comforting and it keeps America open to persecuted co-religionists throughout the world. He says Jews are the only group that has always fought for mass immigration; a few European ethnic organizations have made sporadic efforts to make it easier for their own people to come, but only Jews have consistently promoted open borders for all comers. Moreover, whatever disagreements that they may have had on other issues, Jews of every political persuasion have always favored high immigration.

This, too, goes back many years, and Prof. MacDonald traces in considerable detail the sustained Jewish pro-immigration effort. Israel Zangwill, author of the 1908 play The Melting Pot, was of the view that "there is only one way to world peace, and that is the absolute abolition of passports, visas, frontiers, custom houses..." He was nevertheless an ardent Zionist and disapproved of Jewish intermarriage.

Prof. MacDonald has discovered that implausible arguments about diversity being a quintessentially American strength have been made by Jews for a long time. He reports that in 1948 the American Jewish Committee was urging Congress to believe that "Americanism is the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of all races, all religions, all nationalities." Of course, there has never been such a tradition. In 1952, the American Jewish Congress urged in hearings on immigration that "our national experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very stength lies in the diversity of our peoples." This, too, was at a time when U.S. immigration law was still explicitly designed to maintain a white majority.

It is often said that when the old immigration policy was scrapped in 1965, scarcely anyone knew, and no one predicted, that the new law would change the racial makeup of the country. Prof. MacDonald disputes this, arguing that this had been the objective of Jewish groups from the beginning.

Prof. MacDonald finds that Jews have been the foremost advocates of immigration in England, France, and Canada, and that Jewish groups were the most vocal opponents of independence for Quebec. Australian Jews led the effort to dismantle the "white Australia" policy, one reason for which was cited in an editorial in the Australian Jewish Democrat: "The strengthening of multi-cultural or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would feel more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian." Like Earl Raab writing about the United States, this Australian Jew is prepared to sacrifice the traditional culture, people, and identity of Australia to specifically Jewish interests. It would not be surprising if such an openly expressed objective did not have the opposite effect from the intended, and increase anti-Jewish sentiment.

_____


Jews have traditionally thought of themselves as a benevolent presence, even as a "light unto the nations" or a "chosen people." This is echoed today in the Jewish self-image as champions of the excluded and the oppressed. Most of the time what passes for "social justice" has the effect of undermining the traditions and loyalties of gentile society...

Prof. MacDonald argues that the success of Jewish-led intellectual movements has been possible only because their Jewish character was hidden. If multiculturalism or mass immigration had been promoted by Orthodox Jews in black coats the Jewish element would have been clear. Prof. MacDonald also claims that Jews have often tried to conceal the Jewish character of an intellectual movement by recruiting token gentiles for visible positions as spokesmen. He writes that this tactic was so common in the American Communist Party that gentiles often saw through it and resigned.

As Prof. MacDonald puts it, "Jewish-dominated intellectual movements were critical (necessary condition) for the triumph of the intellectual left in late twentieth-century Western societies." There can be no doubt that American Jews have had a disproportionate effect on the American intellect. He quotes Walter Kerr, writing in 1968, to the effect that "what has happened since World War II is that the American sensibility has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish as it is anything else...The literate American mind has come in some measure to think Jewishly."

...But how can motives ever be completely known? Prof. MacDonald sets a difficult test: "The best evidence that individuals have really ceased to have a Jewish identity is if they choose a political option that they perceive as clearly not in the interests of Jews as a group. In the absence of a clearly perceived conflict with Jewish interests, it remains possible that different political choices among ethnic Jews are only differences in tactics for how best to achieve Jewish interests."

This standard may seem unduly harsh -- until it is applied to white gentiles. Third-World immigration, affirmitive action, anti-discrimination laws, and forced integration are clearly not in the interests of whites, yet many whites embrace them, thus demonstrating how completely they have abandoned their racial identity...

Prof. MacDonald also believes Jews have worked together unfailingly on any question they consider necessary for survival: "Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor: cohesive groups out-compete individual strategies." He notes that there has never been a time when large numbers of white Americans favored non-white immigration; it was a cohesive, determined minority that beat down the disorganized resistance of the majority...

Just a few decades ago whites were a confident race, proud of their achievements, convinced of their fitness to dominate the globe. Today they are a declining, apologetic people, ashamed of their history and not even sure of their claim to lands they have occupied for centuries. It is very rare for fundamental concepts to be stood on their heads in the course of just a generation or two, as has happened with thinking about race. Such speed suggests there has been something more than natural change.

[Hidden to Guests]

Oh, and Cailen, that was a great response to this trash.