Apologies to Germany

This is hardly the time or place, and I am hardly the right person, and it is long overdue, but for what it is worth I should like to express my doubts about the morality of Britain's role in the outbreak of the First World War. Bethmann-Holweg, the German chancellor in 1914, acknowledged that Germany had wronged Belgium in attacking her. No matter how necessary it was for Germany to strike at France through Belgium~and necessity knows no law~Belgium did nothing to warrant the attack. And Germany owed Belgium.

And something similar would be true of Britain's declaration of war on Germany. Britain was under no obligation to go to war in defence of Belgium: the ostensible reason for hostilities. Had France struck at Germany through Belgium, it is inconceivable that Britain would automatically have declared war on France. It was simply necessary in the scheme of things. Britain was the world #1 topdog in 1914, at the top of the greasy pole; which position we would do anything to defend. And a German triumph threatened that supremacy. War was inevitable. But Germany didn't attack England.

Lloyd-George remarked at the Paris peace conference in 1919, faced with Germany's objections to the allied peace terms: 'I could not accept the German point of view without giving away our whole case for entering into the war.' Well, Britain had no case for entering into the war. It was just necessary, like the German attack on Belgium. (I know all about these things having just read 'Paris 1919' by Margaret Macmillan. A good read.)

The case for German responsibility for WWl rests largely on the fact that, when the heir to the Austrian throne was assassinated and Serbia was implicated and Austria had to respond, Germany offered her unqualified support: which was criminally insanely irresponsible. The famous blank cheque. It encouraged Austria to make demands which Serbia could not accept, leading Austria to attack Serbia, and so forth.

Well, by the same token, Britain was telling France for years before 1914 we would not allow her to be defeated in a war with Germany. Specifically France could move her fleet into the Mediterranean leaving her Atlantic coast to be defended by the Royal Navy. Britain would never allow German forces into the English Channel: It would obliterate our entire position of world naval domination.

What's the difference? Britain gave France the same blank cheque: an offer of unqualified support. So France could assure Russia not just of French support in the event of war but that of the British Empire; encouraging Russia to attack Germany in defence of Serbia. And so forth.

(There was an embarrassing moment in August 1914, after hostilities broke out between France and Germany, when France found her Channel coast and shipping undefended. Why didn't Britain declare war as promised? We writhed, until the the Germans obligingly invaded Belgium giving us the perfect pretext for war. It has occurred to me actually that Britain knew of the Schlieffen plan, for Germany to attack through Belgium. We only had to wait. That's the simple explanation.)

The final phase of the British Empire after 1870 was absurd, when we got Cyprus and the Suez canal, and control of the Red Sea and Arabia, and the lion's share of Africa. America was blocked by British bases in Canada and the West Indies. Russia was trapped in the Baltic and the Black Sea. France we could fuck any time by allying with Germany. And Britain cleaned up. Our only rival was Germany. But the British Empire had to go: It was utterly unsustainable. The only solution was to ally with Germany, but then Britain would be the junior partner, like Austria in her alliance with Germany. Which was unthinkable.

Meanwhile the Americans were sitting pretty. The world wars saw the British Empire stripped of its assets and world financial power transfered from London to New York. The current financial collapse may mark the end of 250 years of Anglo-Jewish world economic domination; since the Seven Years War. (The British Empire was always at heart an Anglo-Jewish corporate imperium.) We are living history.

To get back to the main thrust of this blog: I have been saying since the 1970's that working couples increased the price of housing. Feminism was good for property values. The wealth of the West, and much of the rest of the world, drained into house prices. Canada has been living on credit since Trudeau, and the US since Reagan, and all that money drained into residential real estate. And the balloon is now deflating audibly.

We must anticipate a colossal decline in jobs as a result of this financial implosion. It may be a good time now to rationalise the labourforce, with men as breadwinners with frontline jobs, and women as homemakers with part-time jobs. The time may be ripe for a homemaker allowance and a sexually-organised workforce instead of the gender-denying Feminist rigmarole. Read on!

P.S. I now know who the Ruthenians were. They were the Catholic Ukrainians. I bet you didn't know that! That's been bothering me for forty years.

The Abortion Impasse (revised Sept 2010)

If an issue cannot be resolved, it must be cleaned up. As with the Chernobyl nuclear accident: It will be a radioactive mess for eternity, so it just gets contained in a lead and concrete shield. Similarly with abortion: The issue cannot be resolved, so it can only be contained. Abortion is generally tolerable when the mother's life is threatened; but who is to say when the mother's life is threatened? Who are the most qualified people? And the answer is obvious: Women who have experienced childbirth and raised children, but who have also had an abortion. So we organise them to contain the issue. Cont...)

The most hideous nightmare human beings can experience is for parents to watch their daughter growing up and spreading her wings. Then one evening the daughter doesn't come home. The parents phone around and get told conflicting stories. Next morning she still doesn't appear. Their enquiries lead nowhere. The following evening she still doesn't come home.

Having a daughter go missing must be worse than being told she is dead. And the only person who can be of assistance isn't some goof like me saying, Cheer up old thing! but another parent who has been in the same position. So we organise these people with special experiences into support groups, and use them to contain the situation. When your child goes missing, you have a contact to phone. At least they know what you're feeling. It may not be much but it's better than nothing.

Similarly with abortion. There are now millions of mothers who have had children and raised families who have also had abortions. And they constitute a specially qualified group whose experience we would be foolish to waste. So we organise them into support goups or Motherhood Advisory Committees (MAC's) and use them to process the abortion business. When a woman is thinking of an abortion, she contacts a MAC, and thereafter everything is behind closed doors. The rest of us~~men, Feminists and Real Women~clear off and mind our own beeswax.

Then abortion would be processed under the right to kill in self-defence. Abortion would be against the law, except when the mother's life is threatened. And who is to say when the mother's life is threatened? The MAC's! Other women who have experienced the abortion issue from both sides.

(In Canada today I believe the police have the task of ruling whether a homicide is in self-defence. Once the police/crown counsel's office charge you with murder, it is difficult to plead self-defence: You must accept you did the killing. But I digress. I don't think it farfetched to allow that kind of discretion to an administrative body.)

Everything about abortion looks and sounds hideous. At least this way we can get the issue out of the public face. Abortion would be against the law except in self-defence: not just when the mother's life is threatened but her basic functioning. If a woman has ten children and would snap it she had another; or if it would drive her insane to bring to term a child conceived in a case of rape or incest: It's a trade-off: There is no benefit to society. But we don't legislate these exceptions: We leave them to the good sense of toofer women. If they can't handle the issue, Who can?

Abortion is close to absolute evil; but there are circumstances when it is right. And when evil is right, we are intellectually and morally paralysed. There is no absolute theoretical or legal solution to the abortion conundrum. We have to be satisfied with an administrative partial solution: Which can be morally satisfying in its own way.

Sucker! You Bought It! Sucker!

What have we done with 'women's equality'? We have gone from a system where one man's income was sufficient to raise a family, to a system where a husband's and wife's joint incomes are needed to raise the family. The standard of living has been cut in half since the Sixties. More than half actually, because we no longer have the nice homes and services and safe parks and playgrounds that depended on at-home mums.

Far worse in my opinion, young people are no longer being fast-tracked to maturity, but kept in dependancy: distracted with glitzy fabrications: all the while the corporate media giving us this rigmarole about 'wimminz eekwollitee wimminz eekwollitee'. Always the symbol: Never a word about the reality of working couples.

We have been sweet-talked out of our birthright. We had a champion 2400 square foot studio apartment. And some real estate sharpie talked us into trading it for a one bedroom apartment. So much nicer! Anyone would rather have a one-bedroom apartment. Studios are so confining. One bedroom apartments are much nicer: They offer superior life-styles. And we sold up, and bought the one bedroom. And it's a dump. It's 400 square feet. The living room is smaller than our old bathroom. The so-called 'bedroom' is a windowless cupboard smaller than the old can. (Remember when the can was separate from the bathroom?) And we bought it. Sucker! You bought it!

The entire 'women's equality' argument was couched in those terms. Do we believe in women's equality or do we think women are inferior? There was no mention of family: just the symbol. We were sold women's equality, but we bought working couples.

Go back to the Sixties. The unions were coming on strong, drawing much of their power from the idea that men as breadwinners were entitled to good jobs. The corporations determined to exploit women to break the men. Working couples were good for the economy. Two-income households increased the price of housing. Govt workers could double up. Pensioners could double-dip. Feminising the workforce required more management. Working couples are a social disaster. Feminism suited all the great anti-social interests: management, property values, govt workers, pensioners, minorities. Media social control consists in focussing on symbols to the exclusion of reality. And anyone who objects gets steamrollered.


A PRIMER IN POST-SEXUAL PSYCHO-BABBLE


Male is sexual life. Male is good. Male is sanity.
Neuter is castration. Neuter is evil. Neuter is insanity.
Female is a balancing act between male and neuter (in the words of Simone de Beauvoir). Everything female tends to neuter; the female being held in balance by the male.

The whole force of life is towards completion: Growing up. As opposed by an opposite force to grow back down. Which Freud called the castration complex. You start as an infant aware only of your own needs: Everything outside of you is a blur. As you mature, you become aware of the reality of the outside world and want to join in. As opposed by a tendency to hold back and think the pre-formed self is perfect.

Growing up is like putting a satellite into orbit against the gravitational pull of selfishness. The male tends to overshoot and go wild. The female tends to plop back to Number One. Men and women are kept in orbit by their influence on each other; which stops men from going wild and women from regressing into neuters.

Men are kept sane by asserting their requirements over the female. Women are kept sane by going along with men. Men stay sane by dominating women. Women stay sane by submitting to men. (Very crudely speaking.) Intelligence is always male over female. Form over function. Men experience intelligence when leading the female. Women experience intelligence when accepting male leadership. Men assert intelligence; women submit to intelligence. Assertive men are intelligent. Assertive women are stupid. Complaissant women are intelligent. Complaissant men are stupid.

As I keep remarking: All-out effort~athletics, education, frontline employment~is good for men but bad for women. It has a masculinising effect, turning a boy into a man, but a girl into a female eunuch.

Sauce for the goose can be poison for the gander.

Individual and Society

Which comes first? Without being too Fascistic, the fact is Society comes first. Decent individuals are a spinoff of decent Society. A large part of the Individual's maturing process consists in adapting to Society. You can't shape Individuals under hothouse conditions, stick them together, and get a decent Society. It takes a village to raise a child. The village comes first. The child has to be raised in a decent village. If you believe in the Individual as the ultimate end, you must believe in Society as the necessary means.

And the most important fact about Society is the breadwinnner and homemaker marriage. Individualistic middle-class society is based on a farmer and his wife (breadwinner and homemaker) pulling together as partners and not against each other as rivals.

If breadwinner and homemaker families mean middle-class society, two-income families imply lower-class society. Until the Sixties, Whites in America were advantaged: We had good homes and families. Blacks were disadvantaged: Their womenfolk had to work. Well guess what! To paraphrase the Prime Minister of my youth, Harold MacMillan, who shocked England with the remark, 'We are all working class now!' We are all niggers now!

Black to White standards in the Sixties were say 3:8. They are now 4:5. Blacks have grown from 3 to 4, but Whites have dropped from 8 to 5. We are achieving 'racial equality' not by raising Blacks up to White standards, but by dumbing Whites down to Black standards. And the key issue is family. Instead of helping Blacks achieve good families, we are denying good families to the Whites.

And the answer is a homemaker allowance: recognition of the breadwinner and homemaker marriage. Then we can promote Black breadwinners ahead of White singles. And eliminate the entire class of two-income government worker households, husband and wife each with government jobs, who have emerged as an artificial elite, protected from the general collapse.

The trouble is, Unreal Women prefer the choice of thousands of pairs of expensive shoes, none of which fit or will ever be worn, to one comfortable pair of all-purpose shoes that will last a lifetime. They feel empowered by 'women's equality' as an unworkable fantasy, and restricted by the working reality of the homemaker and breadwinner marriage. What are we to do?

Thank God for the Real Women!

'You Are Our Masters...'

Just read Churchill and the Jews by Martin Gilbert. Some observations.

Churchill wanted Palestine to be given to Belgium after the First World War. He circulated a memorandum to that effect in March 1915. That must have been the first intimation Palestine was a plum ripe for plucking, and the Zionists would have to move fast if they were to get it.

The Jewish state of Israel was the personal creation of Winston Churchill to the most extraordinary degree. For twenty years after WW1 Churchill forced the British govt to honour the Balfour Declaration. Nobody else understood why Britain should risk so much for the Jews. What had they done for us? My surmise is, Churchill knew of a deal behind the Balfour Declaration: You get America into the war and we'll give you Israel. Nobody else knew about that deal, without which British policy was incomprehensible. No wonder our Jew-fried media make such a fuss about Churchill. He fathered Israel.

Churchill was not gay. He was not an athlete or artist. He was not possessed of an aristocratic fortune. He was not a career officer: He used the army to advance his career. Similarly his writing. He was not a culture vulture or a party animal or a loner. He was not middle class or proletarian. He had no circle with which he could identify. Belonging nowhere, he fell in with the Jewish bigshot financial crowd to an embarrassing extent. I had no idea Churchill was so personally involved with Jews, or that he received so many favours from them.

Martin Gilbert comes across as a loyal Jewish Brit: He has admirable reservations about the Americans. President Truman: 'The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political, neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog...Put an underdog on top, and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire.' (My italics.)

Mindset is everything. Feminism, the Jews, the media, management, the 'corporations': They're all the same mindset. They're just a try-on. As I see it, they expanded into the vacuum created by the collapse of Protestantism, acquiring power without responsibility, and bloated into antisocial incubi. (See Castration Complex.)

The connection here with my central thesis may be a bit obscure. Anyone can see I am looking for a fight with the establishment crowd: Feminists, media, corporations and the Jews. I believe in decent society, and they don't! And most ordinary people dive for cover. They can't fight that line-up. They can't withstand Jewish/Feminist bullying. They lack the intellectual oomph. And my job is to provide that framework of history, philosophy and psychology. My tactic is to offer you the choice of battle on ground where you can't lose. You can win with a homemaker allowance. You can really hurt that anti-social line-up. It won't be Waterloo. But it could be Trafalgar.

Churchill said to Chaim Weizman at a private dinner on 8 June 1937, 'You know, you are our masters...'

Freedom of Association

Is a gay men's bar entitled to exclude women? The Quebec Human Rights Commission has just ruled No! It is discrimination.

Birds of a feather flock together. It is known as Freedom of Association. Like-minded people engaged in a lawful object must be able to pursue their goal free from interference. That is the stuff of life. Most everything that has ever been created was achieved in that manner.

The offence is committed in the asking. (It comes under the 10th commandment: Thou shalt not covet.) A woman may not ask to join the YMCA. When you claim something that is not yours, you put the lawful owner on the spot. Taken by surprise, on the spur of the moment, he has to come up with a defence, which often involves violence, because the coveter is out of bounds~beyond reason in the first place~putting the lawful person in the wrong.

I am currently in Churchillian mode having just read Churchill and the Jews by Martin Gilbert. Churchill wanted to settle the Jews in Libya after WW2: their bit of Palestine being inadequate. Hitler wanted to settle them in Western Australia. Stalin tried to settle them in Siberia. Anywhere but my backyard! It would be laughable except that is how empires are made: by interfering with people. Once Churchill claimed Libya for the Jews, the onus was on the Libyans to come up with a defence, and the Jews stood to be compensated for not getting what they had no right to ask for. (President Truman saved the day!) Similarly with this trouble-making female wanting to access a gay men's bar. In any reasonable society, that would be a criminal offence. She is denying the right of the gay guys to their share of the action.

Dieta: Welcome to my blog. Just found your post. (I'm still a beginner here.) I can't access your blog, I'm afraid. Keep in touch. And thanx for the reply.

More Shayte!

I shan't know what I am looking for in the First World War until I find it. I think it's Jewish responsibility for the Holocaust: a quick way of reining in any Jew who thinks the world owes him a living. The Balfour Declaration may be the answer. Sketched out in 1916 and shown to Jewish leaders for feedback, but not published until 1917 after the American intervention, it was clearly a bribe: You get America into the war, and we'll give you Israel. And 100 million people suffered violent premature deaths in consequence, including the 6 million Jews of the Holocaust. I think that's what I'm looking for, but I'm not sure yet. The whole business of America in the First World War just haunts me. It gets more repulsive with every book I read.

The latest is, Last Days of Innocence by Meirion and Susie Harries, America at war 1917-18. Hard writing makes easy reading. It's very pro-American but no amount of whitewash can hide the discolouration. Lloyd George wanted peace with Germany in early 1918, after Russia's surrender at Brest-Litovsk, allowing Germany her gains in the east in exchange for the pre-war frontiers in the west. Woodrow Wilson thought that dishonourable! France at that point had lost 3 million dead, maimed and captured. Britain more than 1 million. America around 10 thousand. Russia, France and Britain were bound by a no-separate-peace agreement (which Russia broke) while America fought the war as an associate, free to walk out whenever she honourably felt like it. America wanted to continue the war, and honourably loan Britain the wherewithal. And honourably expect repayment with honourable interest.

The cynicism and self-interest of America in WW1 destroys me. The American economy grew 60% in less than 3 years after August 1914, fueled by British spending. America went from the world's #1 debtor nation to #1 creditor nation overnight. Only when Britain faced bankruptcy did America declare war. Even then, she would not consider any serious contribution before she was good and ready in Spring 1919. Events left the Americans high and dry.

You know that in the American Civil War in the 1860's, the Union North imposed an embargo on the Confederate South, which the British Empire respected. Britain relied on Southern cotton, and with her naval supremacy and bases in Bermuda and the West Indies could easily outrun the blockade. But in ordinary human decency (Gladstone and the Liberals notwithstanding) Britain stayed clear of the conflict. Such was the latest and best legal precedent in 1914: international law for what it was worth. Yet when Germany imposed a submarine blockade on Britain, America dreamed up some spurious right of neutrals to trade with belligerants; and went to war in defence of her right to kill Germans with impunity.

(In fairness it has to be said, however appalling their behaviour in WW1, America largely made up for it in WW2, when their peace deals in particular with Japan and Germany were outstanding. No wonder the American media like to focus on the latter conflict and forget the former.)

Again the Harries book mentioned the prominent role played by the New York Times in the lead-up to war. Could there be any truth in that idea of Noam Chomsky's, that the NYT is at the heart of a conspiracy to rig the agenda and twist events? Certainly the NYT leaked the story about yellowcake uranium that helped propel America into the present Iraq war. (There is a marked similarity between the way America was suckered into WW1 and this Iraq war, if you hadn't noticed. In both cases, there was a considerable Jewish interest. Only one of many factors of course, but possibly decisive.)

For twenty years during the Cold War, when America and NATO could not fight the Red Army conventionally, the policy of the West was a massive pre-emptive nuclear strike in the event of the slightest Soviet provocation. If some drunken hick commander of Soviet forces anywhere so much as loosed a shot in our direction, we would nuke the Soviet Union so totally they would never be able to organise a counter-strike: even if it meant killing 100+million Russkies. You and I signed on to that policy. Presumably in some weird collective sense, it is OK to hold pregnant babushkas responsible for the imperfections of the system.

The Holocaust was small potatoes by comparison.

The relevance of this stuff~apart from getting it off my chest~is that the males of the West are demoralised: They cannot withstand Jewish/Feminist bullying. (Same thing!) They lack a value system to replace the old Protestant work ethic, and a knowledge base. And are just getting the runaround for the fun of it. You take garbage from people and they give you garbage. You turn them into garbage. Jews and Feminists want to be full human beings but are reduced to caricatures when we publicly allow their garbage. Thought for the day!

The Abominable No-Man

In a moment of weakness at Christmas, I said Feminism was 90% scam and 10% honest feeble-mindedness. I said a retard could honestly confuse women's equality with racial equality. Let's expand that point.

Feminists expect half the staff in the CBC to be women. They never object that half the taxi drivers should be women; or the media should be 1% Jewish, at most. Currently there are 100 vacancies in the Vancouver police force. If 5000 qualified men apply for those jobs, and 50 women: What's the betting all 50 women would get jobs, and 50 of the 5000 men? Do the math. 50:50. Equality. 100%=1%. Feminist mathematics.

The Sun Newspaper here in Vancouver went on strike in 1978 (if memory serves. It was over-shadowed by the brewery strike.) In retaliation, management employed hordes of female eunuchs as scabs. It was the most blatant use of black labour I have ever encountered. And as cover, management and the Feminists argued that women compose 50% of the population: So Why Not?

We need a clear rationale why Jews and Blacks should be proportionately represented in the CBC for example but not women or children. And a really strong case is needed, because men are programmed to yield to women, no matter how unreasonable.

Let's start with the obvious. A married black man, with a wife and kids to support, should be able to bump a single white girl out of some dumb govt job: the post office or LCB. There is a clear moral need for equality between racial groups in a society. Black men = white men. Black women = white women. Black children = white children. But it is absurd to suggest that black men should have parity with white children; or white women with white men.

It abominates me when Feminists argue that single white women should be preferred before married black men. Racist white males love that one! They would rather a good job go to a single white female than to a married black man. Feminism is music to the corporate ear.

There is a clear moral imperative for parity between racial groups in a society. Races are whole populations, whereas genders are parts of a population. Racial differences are to be eliminated: gender differences should be rationalised. In the Richmond fire dept for example (a big issue in Vancouver) there is every reason to expect more Chinese firemen (Richmond being heavily Chinese). But it is absurd to suggest half the firefighters should be female. And if not half, Why any? Equality for women in the workplace only means when a woman is the best 'man' available. That is all that was ever assented to. Equality does not mean that anything should be half female.

Employment masculinises remember. Universally, it tends to turn boys into men, but girls into 'female eunuchs', as they have been called. Frontline employment is good for men, but problematic for women. Athletic men are handsome studs, meaningful approximations to the male ideal. Athletic women are meaningless: The comparable ideal for women would be something like Marilyn Monroe, pregnant.

The whole point is the realisation of the potential in people, as individuals and populations. Racial and religious groups fully realised would achieve comparable distributions. If 1% of the country is Jewish, 1% of the media would be Jewish. If 5% of whites have degrees, 5% of blacks would have degrees. With men and women however, most men would be breadwinners with full-time jobs; and most women would be homemakers with part-time jobs. That is the social ideal of maturity and partnership. The anti-social alternative, promoted by the corporate media, is a world of pre-sexual types in an arms-length relationship.

The central meaning of Equality remember is a world of private farms, each worked by a farmer and his wife, with little room for landowners and peons. In practical terms, we must choose between single-income couples, and working couples. Promoting the one means marginalising the other. Which is more important? Nice homes, or cheap labour? Stay focussed!

An Open Letter To Noam Chomsky

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? You really had it in for the New York Times in that lovely film of yours Manufacturing Consent. You held the NYT was the locus of a conspiracy to rig the agenda and subvert democracy. Which I thought excessive. But you know more about these things than I do. Mr Chomsky: Was the New York Times responsible for the Holocaust? in large measure.

Let's recap a few things. Possibly the most problematic event of the 20th Century was the American entry into the First World War, which altered the outcome of the war, necessitating a Second World War. The Holocaust was a prime result of that American intervention.

And there was a Jewish interest in America's entry into WW1. Specifically the Balfour Declaration, committing Britain and France to a Jewish homeland in Palestine, was worked out in 1916 and shown to Jewish leaders for feedback, but not published until 1917 after the American intervention. It is difficult not to see that as a bribe: You get America into the war, and we'll give you Israel.

There were other factors involved of course. But the war hysteria, that led to the American intervention in April 1917, was fanned by the eastern (Jewish) press; unlike the earlier Spanish-American war which was whipped up by the western (Hearst) press. Mr Chomsky: Did the New York Times play a leading role in suckering America into the First World War?

It was so obvious America was suckered into the current Iraq war at least partly in the Jewish interest. There were no weapons of mass destruction. A big part of that intelligence cock-up was due to Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, on whom the Americans rely for Middle-East intelligence. And something similar happened in the First World War.

All I know for sure is the media focus on the Second World War gets on my nerves. The Holocaust is not settling down as an historical event. There are pieces missing concerning Jewish guilt and responsibility. What were the million+ assimilated German Jews doing? The inventor of Zyklon-B was a Jew. The admiral of the Bismark was a Jew. The prime architect of the Holocaust, Himmler's right hand man, the head of the SS, the uber-Nazi who planned the death camps, the magnificent blond brute with the hips of a woman, Heydrich was a Jew. So many Jews dodged military service in WW1, in popular belief at least, the kaiser government ordered a review. (It's findings were never published. Thanx Amos Elon~The Pity Of It All~a lovely account of German Jewry to 1933.) The German Jews always disowned the ghetto Jews of eastern Europe, who bore the brunt of the Holocaust, while German Jewry came through the Hitler period relatively unscathed.

I would love to see an account of the Jewish-Germans under Hitler. There is so much guilt in the Jewish world today. They are not going to Israel as promised. Hundreds of thousands of Jews got out of Russia in the Brezhnev era saying they wanted to go to Israel~Which everyone respected!~but went to America instead. The Jews in the media are an outrage. And always the Holocaust is played to the last cent. I feel I must stand up to their bullying and manipulation. I hope you're not offended.

When Hitler floated the idea of resettling European Jewry in some gash part of the British Empire, western Canada or western Australia wherever, the Canadian govt did not offer Saskatchewan as a homeland. Even with the benefit of hindsight, we were not in the slightest obliged to offer Hans Island even, not even as a lease. If Jews couldn't help themselves, no power on earth could help them. Which may not be the whole story but it's a big part of it.

Over to you.

Our Dysfunctional Media

How to explain the dysfunctionality of the media? They have expanded into the vacuum created by the collapse of Protestantism. The media are now as powerful as the Church in the Dark Ages. In a Democracy, the government responds to the popular will, and the media fix the popular will. So they have power without responsibility.

To complicate matters, the media are under a brain-frying degree of Jewish control. The media are solidly 20-30% Jewish, mainly in terms of editors and talking heads. And the remaining 70-80% are a heterogeneous collection of individuals, who individually cannot fight that enormous Jewish over-representation, but are defeated by it and must collaborate with it. And that is the prevailing mindset today; not just in the media but in public life generally: a defeatist collaborationist mindset. The Jewish element is passively anti-social; the scabs are actively anti-social. The scabs are trashing the West to please the Jews. Or to get the Jews in trouble. Same difference.

Now let's calm down and take stock of the situation. Throughout this blog, we keep running into conflict between reality and symbol. Which is the ruling consideration? Which is to prevail? And the media focus on the symbol. The power of the media rests on their ability to determine symbols and block out reality. Women's Equality means equal coverage for women ski jumpers in the Olympic Games. It does not mean ballet events for women, and ski jumping for men. It does not mean Olympic Games for women separate from the men's games: like the paraplegic games. It does not mean women competing with men as equals (which would mean the end of women in the Olympics). No! Women's Equality must and can only mean the same coverage for women in copycat events. We must not remark the similarity in grace between a male hurdler and a gazelle, and a female hurdler and a hippopotamus. The public must not see any special virtue in male athletes, as representing an ideal for men: that male athletes glorify sex and life, while female athletes strive for sexlessness: the comparable ideal for women being some kind of pregnant Marilyn Monroe. Ask the media!

For the sake of argument, let us assume the media are honest: that responsible people cannot function in the media and only stunted anal types remain, who cannot conceive of double concepts, like a breadwinner and homemaker marriage. In anal thinking, a breadwinner is one thing, and a homemaker another thing: two things, not one. The media are obsessed with Number One, and a breadwinner and homemaker are not two Number Ones. Each does not aspire to completion in itself but in a compound with the other. And that is beyond the media. The anal intellect grips an aspect, and shuts down: 'Sunbathing increases the risk of skin cancer. Sunbathing is bad for you. Don't sunbathe!' The argument is the conclusion, in anal period thinking. The aspect is the idea.

(One of my problems with a homemaker allowance is the linkage with working couples and survivor's pensions, which are integral to a solid concept. That's too much for the linear intellect. No wonder none of you signed my petition!)


HOW DO THE CORPORATIONS, THE MEDIA AND FEMINISM CONNECT?


Let's try you to the max. Subject to qualification in future blogs, let's just say: the Feminists are the shock troops of the corporate New World Order. Fighting men cannot fight women. And corporate types utilise this instinct to subjugate the alpha males. Before Feminism, the Old World Order was based on men as breadwinners and women as homemakers in single-income homes. Alpha males were empowered: They had a right to high wages. But the 'corporations' detest empowered working men; and determined to use women as black labour to break the unions essentially. And Feminism was music to the corporate ear. The Feminists denied the men's right to high wages. The media shove Feminism in our faces. And the rest is Herstory.

If you saw the Noam Chomsky film Manufacturing Consent, you will recall him railing against the media, the New York Times in particular, which he saw as the locus of a conspiracy to rig the agenda and subvert Democracy. I see the behaviour as more pathological than conspiratorial. Famously the media have been compared with a flock of starlings: One lands on the wire, they all land on the wire: One flies off, they all fly off.

You see how reasonable I am!

I have just experienced a flash of insight. Next blog!

I Don't Believe In Symbols!

When I read about the petition to try Willie Pickton with another 20 murders (on gopetition.com) I checked it out, and found a left brain/right brain quiz; which I completed; and scored absolute 0 zip 0 zero for belief in symbols.

People believe in Women's Equality as a symbol in a manner of which I am incapable. To me, reality is everything. Meaning and value attach to reality NOT the symbol. We are faced with a choice between two realities. Do we want working couples? or single-income marriages? Promoting the one involves marginalising the other (see below). That's how my brain is hard-wired. A fireman's wife is the equal of a fireman. A lady firefighter is a wannabee. She is not some glorious realisation of symbolic Equality; as the media would have us believe.

Do I believe in Women's Equality! As a symbol, No! In reality, Yes! I am convinced a woman homemaker is the equal of a man breadwinner. I am effectively sure any woman can take the place of any man in almost any group activity. A team of ten men and one woman is as cohesive as a team of eleven men. A pregnant woman is as beautiful as a prime male athlete. That's how I relate to women's equality. A woman who makes a false accusation against a man is as repulsive as a man who resorts to violence against a woman. We are equal. We don't have to turn the world upside down.

Whereas Feminists would destroy men and women in order to make us equal. They are infatuated with the symbol and have no regard for actual people. Female eunuchs would desex everyone to make us equal.

I am trying to be nice. I am trying not to say that people who believe in symbols are anal freaks. (You could try harder than that!) Being nice to women is the first rule of life. But you draw the line at giving away the farm. With Feminism, we gave away the farm. We went from independent farmers to peonage.

I sometimes think I am the only person who actually thinks women are the equals of men in reality. We must get our act together. If women pull blindly against men as equals, we'll get nowhere. Breadwinner and homemaker marriages are the answer.

Corporate Colonialism

I'll tell you what troubles me. There is a similarity between the western world today with the collapse of Protestantism, and the Indian world in the 1700's with the collapse of Moghul rule. The unifying force has gone. The centre cannot hold, leaving a void into which all manner of illicit elements are drawn. India came under the sneaky control of the British East India Company; and the West today is coming under a similar kind of illicit corporate control. There is a troubling similarity between corporate rule today and Company rule in India.

The big issue~certainly as far as this blog is concerned~is the use of women to antagonise the men: a favourite trick of colonial regimes. The British Empire virtually bred sexually-non-performing women to interface with the natives. Fighting men cannot fight women and~let's call them~beta males can utilise this instinct to overthrow the alpha males. The normal male instinct is to protect and provide for women; whereas runts hide behind women. Warrior males fight for women: They fight each other, and compete, and struggle, and work for women. So when Feminists demand parity with warrior males, our fighting men are clueless. Their existence is negated. The Pheminists phuck the alpha males off the phace of the earth, and the runt males can't stop sniggering: Yippee for Pheminism!

That is the context in which I see a homemaker allowance. It is a means of stopping the corporations from exploiting our women as black labour.


* * * * *


A government programme need not be perfect to be worth doing. The solution to the great depression of the 1930's was unemployment insurance. 'Pogey' didn't solve anything: It didn't mean an end to unemployment, but a limit to the waste and disorganisation and accompanying sense of impotence. It empowered people whether or not they ever collected. Like the old age pension, UI expresses the kind of people we wish to be in the kind of world we wish to live in. It acted as a nucleus around which thought and action could aggregate. So you may object a homemaker allowance will not solve anything, but it should give us a handle on our problems of irrelevance, selfishness and infantilism induced by nice homes among other things.

The alternative approach would be to legislate first-rate breadwinner and homemaker marriages, and second-rate companionative marriages. Which I find horrible. I would much rather a voluntary, administrative partial solution.

I feel like someone in the 1740's advocating an income tax. Public finance was a shambles: In England, we were taxing windows. And the answer was some kind of direct tax on incomes. For a hundred years, the idea was kicking around; but the nobility wouldn't hear of it. And it wasn't until the war of the French Revolution that the measure was finally introduced. The second thing the French did, after chopping off the nobles' heads, was to introduce an income tax, enabling the Revolution to mobilise the full potential of the French nation. And England and the rest of the world had to follow suit to keep up with the French: the income tax emerging as one of the great ordering principles of society.

Curious thought: Under the ancien regime, anyone could advocate an income tax undermining noble privilege. Under today's corporate regime, with a government guaranteed right to freedom of expression, nobody may mention the breadwinner and homemaker marriage ??because it threatens the privileged new class of two-income govt worker households?? Which is more important? Freedom of expression~Or freedom of the media to censor expression?

Who was worse? Hitler or Woodrow Wilson?

After 800 years of expansion, starting with the Crusades around 1100, the European world imploded in a vast War To End All Wars, 1914-1945: The War of the British Succession, as AJPTaylor called it. Who was to succeed Britain as ruler and prime beneficiary of the world economy? And America succeeded Britain. That was her destiny all along. Like Fortinbras, America need only show up for the kill.

Feel free please to submit this entry to the Guiness Book of Records as the weirdest blog ever. Our warrior males are defeated in my view: They cannot defend society from the anti-social. They lack a coherent world view. A good appreciation of the Thirty-One Years War may put some backbone into them.

An avalanche is caused NOT by the dislodged pebble but by the instability of the slope. Murder in Sarajevo just triggered the avalanche: The collapse of sloppy old Europe was caused by the overgrowth of the Russian and British empires. They were unsustainable. They had to go. And they have gone. Now we can breathe.

Russia gratuitously launched a major European war in 1914. Britain gratuitously turned it into a world war. Austria, France and Germany fought in self-defence: because they were attacked essentially. Britain and Russia were not attacked: They fought to protect their place in the pecking order. Italy intervened again in her interest: sacre egoismo. And most problematic was the American entry.

When you consider the Second World War and the Holocaust were the direct result of the American intervention in the First World War, which reversed its outcome, the issue starts to focus.

THE JEWISH FACTOR

The British Empire was always an alliance between the English, Scots, Irish and Jews. The Scots were the professionals: the doctors and engineers. The Irish were the military: the protestant landowners were a born officer class~our Junkers~while the catholic tenantry provided the empire's stout-skulled soldiery. Little effort was wasted motivating the Irish to fight! The English provided the navy, the administrators, and the political and legal framework. And the Jews took care of business: the financial side of the British Empire was disproportionately Jewish-run.

To digress for one paragraph: The British empire got underway with Oliver Cromwell in the 1650's. England was totally militarised during the civil war in the 1640's: every able-bodied man was under arms. So when Cromwell came to power, he found himself in charge of an enormous military capability, which he lost no time in putting to use. First, he beat up the usual suspects, the Scots and the Irish. Then he turned on the Dutch and the Spanish. Europe had just come through the Thirty Years War. Spain was exhausted, so Cromwell could easily rip off Jamaica. Holland meanwhile had grown rich during the Thirty Years War: She had stayed neutral and attracted the money crowd, largely Jews fleeing the Inquisition. Amsterdam was now the financial capital of Europe; and Cromwell lusted in his heart. He re-admitted the Jews into England, and whumped the Dutch in the First Dutch War. The money crowd spotted England as a potential winner, and covered their bets. And the British Empire was off to a flying start.

But it was their stewardship of the financial side of the British Empire that gave the Jews their role and power in the world: that created world Jewry as we have known it this last 300 years. The Jews rode the British Empire to fame and fortune, and when we foundered in World War One, they switched horses, and clambered on board America.

to be continued