Topics

Why don't these 'chosen' bastards take the hint?

A fascinating documentary about the ancient White natives and civilisation of Peru.

"They are the whitest and most handsome of all the people that I have seen, and their wives were so beautiful that because of their gentleness, many of them deserved to be the Incas' wives and to also be taken to the Sun Temple." -Spanish Conquistador from the 16th Century.

BBC iPlayer - Lost Kingdoms of South America: People of the Clouds


http://www.therightperspective.org/2008/12/05/the-legenday-w​hite-skinned-cloud-people-of-peru/


If you struggle to view this BBC link, check out the torrent link below:


http://forums.mvgroup.org/torrents/BBC.Lost.Kingdoms.of.Sout​h.America.1of4.People.of.the.Clouds.720p.HDTV.x264.AAC.MVGrou​p.org.mkv.torrent

In this short clip a member of the 'chosen' tribe of Judah, Dr Sam Vaknin, frankly states the attitude and intentions of his brethren.

Spread this disturbing video far and wide. Make as many people as possible aware of the sheer evil and wickedness that rules over us in this perverted world of ours.

Warning: This video clip is so ominous and outrageous it may well cause you to throw your computer at the wall in pure outrage.

Confession of a Jew

Not sure if any of you heard this radio show featuring Will Williams. I was surprised to discover that the former Hasta Primus has a thick Southern drawl. I have read some of his writing a while back, and even read about him in Klassen's works, so imagined he would have more of a 'Standard American' accent. I also found the host, Carolyn Yeager, to be rather biased in favour of the crackpot Christian guest, William Finck, often interjecting in his defence and contradicting others. Overall, though she may have the best intentions, I thought she wasn't the best mediator or Moderator.

The Heretics' Hour: Will Williams meets William Finck
http://carolynyeager.net/node/1130

http://carolynyeager.net/system/files/tWn_The_Heretics_Hour_20130121.mp3

http://carolynyeager.net/system/files/tWn_The_Heretics_Hour_20130121.mp3

I (& members of the Creativity Alliance) have transcribed the Klassen Letters Part One into a more user friendly and accessible PDF format. Enjoy.


https://creativityalliance.com/eBook-BenKlassen-KlassenLetters1(Text).pdf

[A Choice of Terms]

A Choice of Terms
Aryan, White Race, or White Volk?


No matter what nomenclature is selected, none of the above accurately describes the group of people for whose survival, expansion and advancement Creativity is waging an all-out battle. Since there is no one and only, it is therefore more a matter of choosing the most appropriate term to describe that select group of humanity that is Nature's Finest. Should we refer to them as Aryans, or as the White Race, or perhaps as the White Volk?

In all my writings I have rejected from the very beginning of Creativity the "Aryan" terminology as being completely inadequate. And the reason I have done so is because the term is so vague, so nondescript as to be meaningless. Like the much bandied about word "spirit", when critically examined, nobody knows what it is, or what they are talking about. Like the "spirit" idea, why make such a big to-do about something when you don't even know what that something is? (See 'What is a Spirit?" Racial Loyalty, Issue No. 29.) So it is with the term Aryan. What does it mean? Nobody knows. If so, why use it?

The word Aryan, is a technical term, derived from the Sanskrit arya, or the Zend airya. In later Sanskrit arya means "of a good family." In modern usage the word has become a fictitious concept, a meaningless word, that has done more to confuse our racial identity and biological heritage than it has to clarify or enhance it.

The word Aryan has been brought into prominence in the latter part of the nineteenth century, by such writers as Arthur Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and in the twentieth century, by Hitler's ideological mentor, Alfred Rosenberg, and others. However, it was the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany that really made it a household word, a word that had become extremely emotionally charged and highly controversial. It has remained such ever since, and has the connotation of somehow being part of the Nazi idea, if not their sole invention. Yet, nobody really defined it specifically, not even Rosenberg or Adolf Hitler.

What then, if anything, does it mean?

Does it encompass all of the "White Race"? No, emphatically, it does not if it has any meaning at all. It excludes large segments of it. It would by and large exclude the Slavs, most of the Italians, the Spaniards, the Rumanians, large segments of the French, and even of the Germans and the Austrians, to name a few. It is doubtful that even the exemplary British would qualify as being Aryan, since English is not considered to be an Aryan language. A stinking, black Hindu or Pakistani could technically be considered as being more Aryan than a solid White Anglo-Saxon.

Does Aryan mean the same thing as the Nordic? When we talk of Nordics, we recall an image of blonde haired and blue eyed peoples, a dying species, such as are still found in northern Germany, in Holland, the Scandinavian countries, and to a diminishing degree, even in the United States. But are the words Nordic and Aryan synonymous? By no means. By such definition, even Hitler would not be an Aryan, since although he had blue eyes, he certainly was not blonde. Nor would that foremost propagandist of the Nazi idea, Joseph Goebbels, qualify. He was a dark, physically diminutive and poorly constituted individual, certainly a far cry from the Nordic ideal. Nor were many other luminaries of the Nazi hierarchy, such as Heinrich Himmler and a host of others. Nor were such notable Fascist leaders as Mussolini of Italy, nor Francisco Franco of Spain, blonde haired and blue eyed. So it would be idiotic to use the two terms, Aryan and Nordic, interchangeably.

Again, when we examine the term Aryan, we get pushed further and further into the negative position of what it is not. Like the term "spirit", every time I ask a preacher what it is, he keeps postulating and expounding in an endless harangue of what it is not, never what it is.

Let us go back to as neutral a ground as we can possibly find, a source that carries some weight of authority, and one that goes back to the time prior to when Hitler and the Nazi movement made the word Aryan an emotional, a partisan and a controversial word. Let us go back to Volume II of the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA, New American Supplement, 20th Century Edition, 1904. This is probably the most intellectual, factual and unbiased set of books available, compiled at a time before the Jew got his slimy hands on the company and managed to corrupt and render worthless the succeeding editions. Here is some of the information it provides.

ARYAN, a technical term, applied to one of the great families of language, which extends from India to Europe, and which, for that reason, is called INDO-EUROPEAN. Friedrich Schlegel, who first recognized the family relationship of these languages (Die Sprache and Weisheft der Indier, 1808) assigned to them the name INDO-GERMANIC, a name still used by preference by many scholars in Germany.

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA then goes on to criticize both of these terms as being inaccurate and completely inadequate. It recalls other attempts to define this group of languages, such as Indo-Celtic, and Indo-Classic, since there are many languages in Europe that do not belong to this family. Other alternatives have also been offered, such as Sanskrit and Japhetic. However Encyclopedia Brittanica rejects both of these as also being inaccurate. Sanskrit would imply that all members of this family would be derived from Sanskrit, which is not true. Japhetic would seem to revive the Jewish conception of the three ancestors of the human race Shem, Ham and Japhet. This, as I have pointed out repeatedly, is based on an idiotic Jewish fairytale and must be rejected out of hand by any thinking, intelligent individual (See "The Story of Noah" Racial Loyalty, Issue No. 38.) Another term in an attempt to classify these languages is INDO-IRANIAN, as comprehending the language of India and Persia, which constitute the south-eastern as distinct from the north-western (Greek, Latin, Celtic, Teutonic, Slavonic) branch of the family. (We again quote from Encyclopedia Brittanica.)

Encyclopedia Brittanica goes on to say that the word Aryan became popular because it was short, it was of foreign origin (therefore had an exotic ring, presumably) and it covered a whole range of unexplained misconceptions. Nowhere in its long dissertation does Encyclopedia Brittanica ever even imply that it describes any race of people, or any biological group. It merely attempts to group a family of languages, and even in this it fails badly.

Are we therefore any closer in defining the word Aryan as a racial term? No, far from it. It is at best a confusing and misleading term for language groups and even in this category it fails miserably.

We now come to the present day scene in America and find such groups as the Nazis and Identity people and the Aryan Nations, trying to capitalize on this word. But they, too, have never attempted to tell us what it means. The Nazis take for granted that since Hitler, Rosenberg, and the Nazi movement used it extensively, we all should know what it means. But as I have already pointed out, they too left it in a vacuum and left the world as confused about its meaning as have the Christian preachers about the word "spirit".

With both, the preachers and the Nazis, it is a case of trying to hang a whole battleship on a flimsy coathook.

Strangely, the Aryan Nations and the Identity people take a completely different tack from that of the Nazis. They claim we the Aryans, are descendants of the ten "lost" tribes of Israel, who somehow, about 1000 B.C.E., barged into Europe and settled a vacant continent, and now we White peoples are the true Israelites, the chosen of God. This idea is so preposterous, so contrary to the real facts of history, that it hardly needs further refutation. (See Racial Loyalty, Issue No. 32 "White Men Wandering in the Wilderness".) It could only appeal to those poor individuals whose minds have been deranged by an overly massive dose of Jewish-Christian mind manipulation to the point where they themselves would like to become Jews.

So much for the term Aryan. In my writings since the inception of Creativity (and even before) I have consistently used the term the White Race, because I consider it vastly superior to the term Aryan. However at the same time. I have repeatedly admitted that it is far from perfect in describing Nature's Finest. It is, at best, an approximate term, not an accurate definition, but it does have real meaning in that it differentiates us from the mud races - the niggers, the Semites, the Hindus, the Indians and the Orientals. Like the Atlantic Ocean, its boundaries in some areas are vague and undefined, but nevertheless, everybody knows what and where the Atlantic Ocean is. So it is with the White Race, which although technically does not have enough cohesiveness in its genes to even be defined as a race at all, nevertheless, everybody knows what the White Race is, especially so its multitude of enemies, the mud races.

So we have chosen to run with this term, the White Race, because we believe it is the best there is. You will notice that on the cover of this book I use the term The White Volk. The word Volk is a German word that has a meaning similar to the word people, yet it has more of an ethnic connotation than the English word. Hitler used it repeatedly in his speeches and writings (Das Deutsche Volk) and whereas it also is not the perfect word, it is more accurate in the meaning we wish to convey than the word race. I point out this distinction in answer to those critics who will critique us that technically the White Race is not a race at all. In this they are correct, and for them I have substituted the world Volk as an alternative.

Nevertheless, accurate or not, I still believe the term White Race is the best there is, that it is most widely accepted and understood, and we Creators will continue to use it as our standard terminology. When we succeed in persuading the White Race that it has a wonderful legacy in its genes to pass on to future generations; that it has every right to claim this Planet Earth for its very own; that when it embraces Creativity as its own natural religion and practices Eugenics as inherent in such religion, then the time will come when the White Race will truly be a race in its finest biological sense and the undisputed master of this Planet.

Is Religion Evil or Beneficial?
And the Futility of the 'Humanist'
(Social Marxist) Atheist Movement

I am sure most of you will be familiar with the many so-called 'militant atheists' that seem to be overly represented on the Internet. From hundreds of websites to blogs, and especially on video sites such as YouTube, these activists are tireless in promoting the message that 'religion is evil', barbaric, a throwback to the stone age.

You most probably have an image in your mind as to what these people are like. The type that just love to shout and holler about the stupidity and ludicrousness of 'creationism', religion, and how such gullible believers in the supernatural need to extricate themselves from delusion and embrace science and 'reason'.

They also boast that atheists are 'winning the battle' against the 'religious crazies'. All well and good you might think... that is, until you learn of the less than savoury agendas that these people are often trying to push. Such as homosexuality and other sexual deviancy that the vast majority of us are repulsed by.

So, is all religion the heinous force that these people claim it is? And are the secular humanists of the 'godless movement' truly winning the battle in their 'war on god'?

Only recently, on the 24th March 2012, there was an event held in Washington D.C., which went by the provocative title of the 'Reason Rally'. I assume this choice of title is meant to send a message to those who may not agree with these paragons of enlightenment - agree with us or you are 'unreasonable'. How about that to rub you up the wrong way?

The gathering featured some of the most prominent, 'leading atheists' from around the world (an 'all-star, international line-up', as a certain Internet activist, Mr. Philip (Thunderf00t) Mason, put it) who were to give godless sermons to a crowd of (so they claim) around 20,000 of their most dedicated fellow heretics, howling about the evils of 'religion' and praising the benefits of a 'secular' society. The event was hailed as the 'Woodstock for atheists and sceptics'.

The line-up, according to various online sources, included such reprobates as Eddie Izzard, the transvestite and alleged comedian; television host and all-round anti-White worm Bill Maher; Tim Minchin, who appears to be some kind of mascara wearing hipster and (again) alleged comedian (of whom, I must confess, I had never seen or heard of before viewing a certain video clip promoting this rally); that big mouthed, oversized, irritating illusionist Penn Jillette (who should keep to his day job in my opinion), various politicians, social commentators and many other so-called 'hip' and 'trendy' celebrities from the world of entertainment.

And, of course, keynote speaker, the author of 'The God Delusion' and 'lion' of the 'atheist movement', was none other than Richard Dawkins himself. All rejoiced that they were 'winning the battle' for hearts and minds in the name of atheism.

This event had been promoted on the web for quite a while (with activists offering a chance to win a three course meal with Richard Dawkins, etc.), so I had been aware of it for the last couple of months, though quite honestly I tried to ignore it. But after watching a nauseating - yet breathtakingly laughable - presentation on YouTube, where many of these nerdy, weak looking specimens (activists and supporters) showed such emphatic optimism for their 'unholy cause' (a cause that is, I believe, surely *doomed to failure*), I couldn't resist expressing my thoughts to these people:

About how they are completely delusional if they think they could 'win the battle' against 'religious crazies', especially with a one world, pro-deviancy world view that encourages all the scum of the third world to proliferate, invade former-White homelands, bringing with them the 'gods of their far-off lands' (namely Islam), their superstitions, their prejudices, their diseases and - worst of all - contaminating our precious White gene pool with their filthy seed...

How many of the participants at this event (both the crowd and the speakers) appeared to be the kind of degenerates that most normal, decent people frown upon and are disgusted by. Or if they are not disgusted, they certainly do not feel comfortable having their agendas rammed down their throats...

And of course, how broadcasting themselves as the epitome of progressive thinking - despite promoting degenerative lifestyles, race-mixing etc. - would surely anger many people.

I argued that such a mentality was intentionally divisive and would undoubtedly lead more traditionalist and moral minded people to side with the 'religious crazies', whether they are into spook chasing or not.

That inevitably provoked a barrage of foulmouthed responses from these 'disciples of reason'. Predictably, the rabid - frothing at the mouth -hyenas, that we might call 'militant (social-marxist) atheists,' shouted me down with their usual invective and down-thumbed my comments into oblivion.

However, truly, it does seem that these people are - guided, of course, by the largely 'chosen' intellectuals - happy to stoke the flames of such dissension, which their activism will inevitably lead to.

So, remind me again, how on earth do these people intend to prevail? Both in this sea of racial madness and their obnoxious posturing? Sounds like a recipe for disaster - and even genocide to me.

Regarding the 'humanist atheist' argument that 'all religion' has a detrimental effect on a society, I cannot help but disagree. We must remember, religion and the affinity of mankind for religion is an inborn trait with which Nature has endowed us, and is inbred in our genes. Obviously if we are talking about the Abrahamic religions (the favourite and most unchallenging punchbag of the atheist), such as parasitic Judaism (detrimental to us!), race-mixing Islam and suicidal ('love your enemies', 'give all you have to the poor') Christianity, then, of course, there would be little argument and I would have to agree, they are bad religions - especially for White people, the only people I am concerned about.

However, if we are talking about a *Racial Religion*, such as the one and only, true and revolutionary White Racial Religion *Creativity* - which is based on the eternal laws of Nature, history, logic and common sense - and whose adherents strive for the redemption and resurrection ('survival, expansion and advancement') of the White race, then clearly it is a benign and beneficial religion - again, for White people, that is.

Religion is like fire - it can be both evil or it can be benevolent, depending on how you use it. Or as the Great Founder of Creativity, Ben Klassen, put it:

'Religion, like fire, is a powerful force, but, like fire, it can be either constructive or destructive depending on how it is used, by whom, and on whom.'

Actually, it can be argued that the fanatical ('humanist') atheism, as espoused by the likes of Sam Harris, Eddie Izzard, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Fry and the many entertainers, comedians and other celebrities, is every bit the bad 'religion' that they so fervently seek to overthrow. They are certainly as dogmatic as any other religion, even though its adherents claim to be 'free thinkers'.

So though I think we White Loyalists can agree with the 'atheists' that the spooks in the sky is a lot of piffle - and Richard Dawkins indeed lays the argument out so eruditely in 'The God Delusion' - that is where our similarities end. The world view of these people is dominated largely by (Jewish) 'humanism', which is - to put it mildly - completely at odds, is hostile to the racial loyalist position, even though many of those who identify as 'humanists' may actually agree with us (at least behind closed doors) on the issue of racial differences and so forth.

As these people do not embrace the racial loyalist position - let alone even come close to addressing the 'chosen' question - they are doomed to failure regardless of how flawless and 'reasoned' their argument about the non-existence of spooks and the supernatural. In fact, this entire so-called 'reason' movement is completely dominated by Jews and Jewish thought. To confirm this, one only has to type in 'The 25 Most Influential Living Atheists' or the 'FFRF honour board' into the Google search engine. There you will see a practical Jewish wedding of academics - who are all (rather strangely one might think - at least to the uninitiated) intensely proud of their Jewishness. Those that are not Jewish will be completely under the influence of the chosen tribe and the most fanatical apologists for them. And that is only scratching the surface.

So in conclusion, it is plain to see that the 'atheists' are never going to succeed in converting, for example, the masses of the muslim world to their way of thinking. Actually, it is clear that the more non-whites (especially the more primitive variety) that enter former White ('western') countries, the more prevalent and powerful such backward religions as Islam and Christianity become. So they will never be able to tackle these vital issues, whether it be spook craft, militant Islam or anything else - unless they come to grips with that most urgent issue of all - the issue of race! That and the Jewish question. Until these 'atheists' see through Jewish lies - and that is looking like a near impossibility, so befuddled are they - they will continue to be led by the nose into pointless, phoney causes. So extinction it is.

What we White people of the world actually need is not  humanist atheism - as espoused by Dawkins, Sam Harris, the now deceased Christopher Hitchens (etc.) and their largely degenerate and befuddled fan base - or even a nationalist political ideology.  What we most desperately need is a *Racial Religion* of our own. That racial religion is *Creativity.*

With our religion, Creativity, we have no desire to convert the masses of the third world to our way of thinking. In fact, they have *absolutely* no place in our future - not if we can help it. We seek only to spread the gospel of White Racial Loyalty to White people and White people exclusively, wherever they may live upon the face of this planet. We also have no interest in promoting sexual deviancy or any other immoral and degenerative lifestyle. What we promote is simply healthy White families, up-breeding of the White Race through eugenics and all round Salubrious Living.

If we can take anything from the 'militant atheists', it is - dare we say - their religious zeal. They are fanatical in promoting their ideas, degenerate or otherwise. We must do likewise. We must be tireless. We must be assiduous, dogged and indefatigable in promoting the holy message of White Racial Loyalty. If we do not do this - quite simply - *we are doomed!* We will be condemned to the scrapheap of evolution along with these muddleheaded 'atheists'.

'We now have a religion of our own, a White Man's religion, established for the survival of the White Race, for the White Man's benefit. It is called Creativity. Since religion is like fire, let us make sure we utilize ours to burn down the treacherous facade that is being used against us, and to fuel our own engines to steamroller the Jews and other mud races out of our culture.' (Ben Klassen - On the Brink of a Bloody Racial War.)

Read Natures Eternal Religion today and embrace *your* racial religion - Creativity.

Found this on the web ...

I am sure most of you will by now have heard of the recent death of Marxist journalist Christopher Hitchens, that supposed 'great polemicist' of our age. He died from pneumonia, a complication of the oesophageal cancer he had, at a Texas hospital on 15th December.

Funnily enough, I first heard about his death after sampling a miniature bottle of Johnny Walker Black Label, as I had heard it was Christopher's favourite tipple ('accept no substitute... the best blended scotch in the history of the world' he once exhorted to an audience, according to Wikipedia). So I wanted to know what all the fuss was about.

So I took a quick sip - remembering to spit it out, as I do not drink these days - and needless to say, this particular brand is a powerful blended whiskey that would no doubt bring out the nasty side - or 'evil twin' - in even the most mild-mannered individual. No wonder Hitchens was always so eager to mercilessly spit venom at his opponents with such cruel relish and apparent ease. No doubt this particular brand of whisky was a major contributor to that - and it would certainly have contributed to his spectacular decline in health.

However, that very night, a Friday as it happens - as I was writing a small review of the whisky in my iPod - I was sent a text message: 'Chris Hitchens has bit the dust'. What a coincidence.

On checking out the Daily Hitchens website, I found a number of tributes to the man from his friends and colleagues. His brother, Peter Hitchens, had already dedicated an article to him (which he repeated on his blog), describing him as a 'courageous' man. I see that there were many hundreds of responses to that particular post, many of which were messages of condolence.

There was also a 'memoriam' to him in Vanity Fair, which praised him as one of the greatest minds of our time.

We then got a video from TheAnalCoprophile (aka, TheAmazingAtheist) praising him as a man of such great intellect that he 'went unchallenged' intellectually. Excuse me!

Obviously due to social norms, good taste and ones desire to be a gentleman at such times, there is a certain reluctance for us to speak ill of the dead. But in the case of this individual - despicable archenemy of White people and the Leadership Principle if ever there was one - I believe it is more than warranted. For would this individual be inclined to refrain from speaking ill of a White Loyalist in the wake of his or her death? Certainly not. If he wasn't able to hold back his venom after the death of a certain Christian preacher (Jerry Falwell if I recall), there is little chance that those of our persuasion would fare any better. However, regardless - though we would not wish this particular disease that he suffered from on anybody - we have an obligation to call out those that seek our destruction. So we shall proceed.

Hitchens' brother, Peter, claims that he was 'courageous' from a young age. With exception perhaps to his willingness to name and shame such a high flyer as Henry Kissinger for alleged war crimes in his 'The Trial of Henry Kissinger' (perhaps one of the few things he should be commended for), I don't really see it. Was it demonstrated when he allowed himself to be subjected to water-boarding interrogation, lasting a mere couple of seconds?

One thing is for sure, it took little courage for him to jump on the anti-White bandwagon (in the form of 'humanism'), along with his social-marxist comrades. In fact, there was no time that brought out his passion as when he was bashing what he narrowly referred to as 'fascism'. In this regard, he certainly kept his 'chosen' masters contented. Or more accurately, he felt a kindred spirit with them that was no doubt due to his own partial 'chosen' ancestry, of which he was openly so proud. For if he was not wholly 'chosen' by descent, he more than compensated for it with his actions. As can be seen by the many tributes in Vanity Fair and other publications - and the 'chosen' names of those leading those tributes - they are eternally grateful to him.

White Loyalists should make no mistake, with his influence and rabid anti-white rhetoric, disguised in grandiloquent platitudes of his distain for 'totalitarianism', 'fascism' and a crusade against religion, both he and his ilk have helped to fuel some of the most unreasonable hostility towards White Loyalists. This can be seen so often in the news media, in the bile that is spewed by so many 'educated' individuals - in particular the impressionable young students that have been taught to look up to and emulate such despicable people.

So often do we hear these same racial traitors casually talking about how 'racists' are evil, deserve to be killed, locked up indefinitely or even placed under the care of lunatic asylums. Take the recent case of Emma West as a good example. Remember the sickening comments on that viral YouTube video (My Tram Experience) and the treatment she received by the authorities. Or how about the TheAnalCoprophile, who loves nothing more than to rant and rave that 'White people are ****ing stupid!' and attacks White Loyalists at every turn with an unreasonable hatred that one would expect to be reserved for somebody who had raped or murdered a family member.

These are just a few examples of the brain pollution in progress. The likes of Hitchens - despite his hollow drivel - would no doubt raise a gleeful crooked smile after witnessing this kind of self-destructive poison. For Hitchens and his comrades have raised a vicious brood that any back alley dog fighter would be proud to call his own.

As for TheAnalCoprophile's claim that Hitchens was so far ahead of the field intellectually and went so long going unchallenged, that is news to me. I have viewed a number of debates featuring Hitchens. Yes, he was indeed an impressive orator. But despite usually having audiences largely in favour of his positions on atheism, etc. (remember, he is *so* radical and controversial!), seldom did I see him actually destroy his opponents. Yes, indeed, the man had quite an impressive - flamboyant, glib and grandiloquent - grasp of the English language which would often wow his audiences. But aside from regurgitating the usual social-marxist cliches in his own impressively articulate manner, he did little better than most others that I have seen in terms of actual substance. In fact many of his debates that I recollect were either too close to call, or he failed miserably. And each time, when the chips were down, he fell back on his favourite weapon - his biting wit and flowery vocabulary. That is where he was in his comfort zone. Now that is what I call 'courageous'!

In his debate with George galloway for example, he failed miserably in his attempt to persuade the audience that the Iraq war and subsequent occupation was justified (though I think the 'chosen' must have had to fork out a small penny to have such a prestigious 'intellectual' on board).

The showdown with his brother Peter in the American Midwest - he won on (Semitic) religion (wow! Difficult!) but, if I recall, lost again when it came to the vote on Iraq and Afghanistan. However, regardless of the vote - I care little for such things - at no point did Christopher wipe the proverbial floor with his brother.

Then we had the most recent debate with Tony Blair on religion. Even with one of the most unpopular men of the century as an opponent, he was still barely able to sway the majority of the 'don't know' voters, even though they should have naturally gravitated towards his position given the education that these people have been subjected to. Is this really what an 'unchallenged' intellect looks like? I think not. But what can we expect from a grotesque, biased and self-obsessed coprophile as TAA?

Christopher hitchens always struck me as a hideous, sinister looking individual with a face like a bulldog and malice in his eyes. Just pure ugliness. A man with a sonorous British speaking voice, eloquence and literary powers that most would be envious of - though a right thinking person would dismiss him as a poor mans Winston Churchill. He did, however, use these gifts to great effect in order to capture, confuse, confound and ultimately misguide his impressionable fan base.

No thoughtful and right minded person would believe for a moment that Hitchens was a good person with benevolent intentions. Rather his intent was both malevolent and purely self-serving. He was an eristic individual whose aim in life was to prove that he was able to beat others down with his rhetoric, undermine traditional White values and simply debate others solely for the sake of it. A true narcissist. A degenerate piece of excrement cloaked in robes of respectability. No, there was nothing good about him - and he was certainly not a person deserving of widespread praise and commendation. Rather he is deserving of our utmost contempt. Good riddance is what we should all be saying. May the Marxist-humanist ideology that he so ardenty championed quickly die along with him, for all our sakes.

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas - Review.

I was recently asked by a couple of family members what my thoughts were on the film 'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas'. Not ever having had the misfortune of watching this pile of trash, I decided to watch it and write my own short review. Please excuse my unpolished words.

As can be expected from this kind of slanted WW2 film, it portrays Germans as either cold blooded, goose-stepping 'Nazi' murderers, as exemplified by the cruel and fiendish Lieutenant Kotler, or as those 'good Germans' that were completely oblivious to 'what was going on' and who are horrified when they did eventually find out.

And of course, to be expected, members of the 'chosen' tribe are portrayed as innocent victims that would never harm a fly. One such 'chosen' character is Pavel, the one time doctor turned potato peeler, who is later beaten to death by Kotler for the 'wicked crime' of spilling a glass of wine. The other main 'chosen' character is the young camp inmate, Shmuel, who later befriends Bruno from inside the concentration camp.

I have to say that as far as I could see from the outset, so many things just did not add up. This film just did not even make the slightest bit of sense, which didn't at all surprise me. The film begins with a young German boy, eight year old Bruno, who is the son of an SS officer who relocates with his family from Berlin to the countryside.

Bruno is an adventurous young scamp that, on arrival at his new home, grows increasingly bored due to his lack of interaction with other children of his own age. To quell this boredom, he seeks adventure. On seeing a plume of smoke rising up from a 'farm' to the rear of his house as he plays on a makeshift swing, he sets out on a journey to find the source of this smoke.

The young Bruno demonstrates throughout the film that he is of above average intelligence, is independently minded, sceptical and does not take the word of his superiors at face value, seeking evidence before coming to a conclusion. He even asks his father at one point where the bellowing smoke came from and what was the cause of it. His father, played by David Thewlis - whose weak and feeble performance does a rank injustice to any SS officer -, casually dismisses the smoke as just burning clothes, wood etc. and that young Bruno should not worry about it.

Strangely, after first showing such promise, Bruno goes on to not only show an unbelievable level of naivety - even for an eight year old - regarding the concentration camp that is not far from his backyard, he later allows himself to be lured into the camp by a young member of the 'chosen' tribe. This even after being instructed by his tutor, his sister and his father (etc.) that these people were not to be fraternised with under any circumstances. And once inside the camp, he barely makes so much as a squeal as he is led into a 'shower' along with the rest of the poor innocent 'chosen'.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but my initial thoughts on watching this film were, would not the young Bruno have been put off from going near that camp by the horrific stench? These 'chosen' had after all (according to the film) been living in conditions of filth and squaller for months and perhaps years on end.

Why didn't his father make it abundantly clear even before Bruno inquired about the origin of the 'smoke', that if he went near the camp he could be either electrocuted by the electric fence, murdered by the dangerous inmates or even catch a terrible disease, such a typhus etc.?

When Bruno was later being lured into the concentration camp by the 'innocent' young 'chosen' Shmuel (was he really so innocent, even by the films standards?), why didn't this ring alarm bells? Surely even an eight year old sceptic who wished to learn the truth about these people for himself would have reservations about entering such a camp that he had been taught was filled with some of the most dangerous and untrustworthy 'humanoids' on the planet. I mean seriously, can you imagine anybody, let alone a bright young pup, being stupid enough to allow themselves to be lured into a Supermax prison or lunatic asylum filled with dangerous psychopaths, even after they had been told time and time again that these people were extremely dangerous?

After proving himself a candidate for the Darwin award by putting on 'pyjamas', digging a hole and entering the camp underneath the fence, why didn't Bruno scream for his dear little life after witnessing the filthy conditions and being led into the 'shower', take off his prison hat and make it crystal clear to the camp guards that he was a fellow German?

I might add that I have a seven year old brother that is a mischievous scamp - a little more so than the character of Bruno - and I know for certain that if he sensed for a moment that he was in danger or even if he thought he was being forced to do something against his will, he would soon raise alarm bells. He would undoubtedly scream bloody murder. He would not hesitate to air his concerns, that is for sure. And he certainly would not allow himself to get into such an idiotic, ridiculous situation. I mean, who would? You would quite literally have to be a blithering, drooling imbecile to do so.

I find it hard to believe that any young child, especially one of Bruno's calibre as portrayed in the film, would allow himself to get into this kind of ridiculous situation without uttering a peep. It just would not happen. Not in the real world.

At the end of the film, we see Bruno's parents frantically searching through the woods, around the perimeter of the camps fence and finally inside the concentration camp itself trying to find the young Bruno, who by this point has been 'gassed' along with the rest of the camp inmates. This whole scenario is just completely ridiculous. 

My verdict: Pure propaganda drivel. Needless to say, this film being a typical production of this kind, it was an absolute pile of nonsense designed to demonise Germans and get an emotional reaction from a gullible audience. Sadly, the average person watching this will get teary-eyed and fall for it every time. Many people will even come away hating the German people and believing that this pile of garbage is based on a true story.