Thursday, December 30, 2010

South African Government policy: Whites out/Blacks in

Shame on Canada, Shame on Jason Kenney

The sign on the wall speaks for itself. The signs these lovely ladies carry advocate prison for white folks.
The South African Governments unofficial official policy is to incrementally and purposely remove Whites from the continent. Gradually life in South Africa will become so dangerous for White people that they will flee or parish. They are tourists according to the racist genocidal organization Blackwash.

Clearly the South African Government is a part of the genocide that is being perpetrated by the lack of strong decisive action to control the murderous criminal behaviour of black on white. White citizens are targeted and the response from the Minister responsible for Justice states in parliament that if people don’t like the crime in South Africa they can leave. It is clear to whom he is referring to.

To be fair South Africa is a dangerous place for anyone black or white however the systemic reverse racism practised by blacks both in the government and outside makes for an environment that is extremely dangerous for whites. The following comes from a complaint lodged against the South African Government by an unnamed Boer farmer addressing the tactics of the government to the UN:

According to his analysis, "the ANC started their highly effective clandestine policy of genocide and crimes against humanity through the deliberate implementation and very effective utilisation of extremely high rates of extreme violent crime against white Afrikaner farmers during 1986 whilst still in exile".
When the ANC took power in government in 1994, these attacks were "escalated through deliberate state inaction, state neglect and refusal to act against crime".
Gun laws, which he said made it difficult to own a firearm, had "greatly contributed" to the rapid increase of crimes committed against the Afrikaner.

'Arsenal of genocidal weapons'
It is all an extension of the ANC's armed struggle and its goal was to "remove the white minority from South Africa".
Men were especially being targeted.
The ANC's "very effective arsenal of genocidal weapons" included:

* Incitement by high-ranking government officials through speeches
* Inaction against crime
* Underutilisation of security forces
* Draconian gun laws
* Removal of the rural commando
* The threat of the nationalisation of land
* A proposed media tribunal
* Using former MK soldiers to take the fight to the white community
* The disuse of the police force
* affirmative action

The UN defines genocide as: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* killing members of the group
* causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
* deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole in part
* imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
* forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Factors behind it could include conflicts over land, power, security and expressions of group identity such as language, religion and culture; patterns of discrimination, overt justification for discriminatory practices; a history of genocide or human rights violations against a particular group; denial by the perpetrators; references to past human rights violations committed against a possible perpetrator group as justification.

The farmer wrote that a team led by President Jacob Zuma and ANC Youth League president Julius Malema, described as the "Jacob Zuma-Malema team", supported by the South African Communist Party, had the potential to destroy the economy within months if there was no international intervention.

He asked, among other things, that Deng investigate his claims of rape and torture, raise international awareness of them, and commission a study of crime in South Africa.

Comment was not immediately available from the UN's New York office. - Sapa
Copyright 2010, Mail & Guardian

* South African rape of both white women and men is the highest in the world. Nowhere is this crime more prevalent. It is a victory dance on the ruins of a submitted people only the people that are responsible for any grievance claims are untouchable or long gone.

Canadian judge knocks claims by SA 'refugee'
Nov 28, 2010 12:00 AM | By SASHNI PATHER
Brandon Carl Huntley's bid for refugee status has been dealt a major blow by a Canadian judge, who ordered the South African to start the process again, from scratch.

BECAUSE I'M WHITE: Would-be refugee Brandon Carl Huntley
Two years ago Huntley, a 32-year-old martial arts fanatic from Cape Town, asked to be granted asylum as a refugee from South Africa where, he said, he faced fear, discrimination, harassment and possible death because of his race.

Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board granted Huntley's application last August after finding him a credible witness.

But his application was appealed by the Canadian government and this week Judge James Russell of the Canadian Federal Court quashed the board's decision, saying it was badly flawed.
Huntley had claimed he was attacked by black South Africans on "at least six or seven occasions" because of his white skin - but did not report any of the alleged attacks to police.

Huntley's lawyer, Russell Kaplan, had called his sister, Lara Kaplan, to the refugee board panel to testify about a terrifying home invasion attack on their brother in South Africa.

Giving evidence in Huntley's initial application, Lara said the South African police were "corrupt" and in "cahoots with the criminals".

In the latest judgment, Judge Russell questioned Lara's credibility.

In oral evidence to the board, Huntley had told of an attack by the losing team during a game of rugby in 2000 in Cape Town. In his analysis of the case, Judge Russell said: "What is interesting and significant is that the respondent (Huntley) obviously had no fear of playing rugby against an all-black team in a small industrial town as part of a mixed team that had three white players and 12 black players."

Asked whether he was afraid to play a team of underprivileged blacks in an "African area" Huntley had answered : "It depends where."

Huntley told the board of another attack: "Yeah, well my friend and I were at the, like the market you guys have here, we were at our version of the one in Cape Town and we were on our way home in the car and we seen an African trying to what looked like steal the car and we tried to stop him.

"About five of them came out from hiding and I got, my hand got, the palm of my hand got sliced and my friend got stabbed in the buttocks."

The court found there was no evidence to show that the attack was racially motivated.

Said Judge Russell: "There is no evidence that the black perpetrator knew he was trying to break into the car of a white person or indeed that it was a car belonging to a white person. The respondent and his friend came upon a crime in progress, decided to intervene and were just set upon by the gang. That is it."

Speaking after the decision this week, Huntley's legal counsel, Rocco Galati, said he was disappointed that a "selective view" of the matter had been taken.

"I feel it is an exercise in political correctness," he said.

Galati said his client would appeal the decision.

The court's decision compels the board to start afresh with a differently constituted panel. The hearing is likely to happen in a few months.

Huntley will remain in Canada until the finalisation of the legal processes.

Canada should kick political correctness down the road and let this fellow remain in Canada and become a citizen. Indeed Canada should open its doors to many more whites from South Africa. We accept people from every corner of the world as refugees but apparently only if you are of the Politically Correct pigment, that being any shade other than white.

Shame on us, shame, shame on YOU Mr. Kenney.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Why Are Jews So Smart?

By Lewis Regenstein

The question has intrigued and baffled researchers for centuries. We all know people who defy the stereotype, yet it persists, demanding our attention. It leaves us wondering whether there is validity to the widespread belief that Jews are so much smarter than other people
But there can be little doubt that Jews have for centuries been substantially over-represented in many fields of learning and accomplishment. One must wonder, how could such a tiny, numerically insignificant group produce so many of the world’s smartest, most accomplished, and most influential people?
Jews comprise an amazing number of history’s most important figures, people who have had a profound impact on humanity: the Patriarch Abraham, whose life and teachings are considered sacred by Jews, Christians, and Moslems; Moses, the lawgiver to Jews and Christians; Jesus and his disciple, Paul, who founded and spread Christianity.
Looking back into the 20th century alone, one can clearly see that Jews have played many a key role in shaping the modern world (if not always in a positive way): physicist Albert Einstein; the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud; Communism’s Karl Marx; developers of the polio vaccine Dr’s Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin; and the leading developers of the first atomic bomb, as inspired by Einstein’s theories – among them, Felix Bloch, Niels Bohr, Otto Frisch, Robert Oppenheimer, Leo Szilard, and Edward Teller. Indeed, Jews were so dominant in the field of nuclear physics in Europe throughout the 1930’s that it was often referred to as “Jewish physics.”
There is even some evidence of Elvis’ having Jewish ancestry!
Jews may not be history’s most popular people, but no other group has even come close to matching, proportionally, Jewish abilities and accomplishments. Combined with other commonly perceived Jewish traits such as ambition, curiosity, energy, imagination, and persistence, Jewish intelligence has elevated an incredible number of Jews to the top ranks of various fields.

Consider the following:
~The proportion of Jews with IQ’s of 140 or more is estimated to be about six times the proportion of any other ethnic group.
~ Although Jews constitute only about two-tenths of one percent of the world’s population, Jews won 29 percent of the Nobel Prizes in literature, medicine, physics and chemistry in the second half of the 20thcentury. So far this century, the figure is 32 percent. And these Jews of whom we speak were almost exclusively male Jews primarily of western European ancestry (less than one-tenth of one percent of the world’s population), in spite of pervasive discrimination, numerous legal barriers, frequent persecution, and the Holocaust.
~From 1870 until 1950, Jewish leadership in such fields as literature, music, visual arts, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and philosophy equaled somewhere from four to fourteen times the Jewish proportion of the population in Europe and North America.
~In 1954, 28 children in the New York City public school system were found to have IQ’s of 170 or higher – 24 of these were Jewish.
And, of course, the extraordinarily high proportion of Jews in such fields as medicine, law, finance, literature, science, creative arts and the media is as obvious as it is astonishing. To some, these facts are awkward and even embarrassing, feeding stereotypes of “crafty” and “clever” Jews good at making money and flaunting their superiority to non-Jews. Indeed, the subject – the fact, if you will now allow -- of Jewish intellectual superiority is rarely if ever discussed in Jewish publications.
To explain this, we have a self-described “Scots-Irish gentile from Iowa,” Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute, author of the solidly documented “The Bell Curve”, which in 1994 stirred up a storm of controversy by discussing in not always politically correct language “differences in intellectual capacity among people and groups, and what those differences mean for America’s future.”
Murray has recently written a brilliant and convincing essay for the respected Jewish publication “Commentary,” on “Jewish Genius,” citing many of the above facts and material on which this article is based . This is the first time the magazine has systematically discussed this normally taboo topic that so many Jews are reluctant publicly to acknowledge.
Murray observes that the two most influential works of literature ever were written by and about Jews: the Hebrew and the Christian bibles, the so-called Old and New Testaments, and he goes on to cite numerous other examples of what can only be called Jewish intellectual supremacy.
Murray argues persuasively that “elevated Jewish intelligence is grounded in genetics” rather than being environmentally caused (by such factors as having books in the home), and that it is ‘substantially heritable.” And Jews, especially the Ashkenazim of central and western Europe, have been engaging for centuries in what basically amounts to selective mating and merging genes to produce children of high intelligence.
The Talmud (Pesahim 49a) says that “A man should sell all he possesses in order to marry the daughter of a scholar, as well as marry his daughter to a scholar.” In the Jewish community of the Middle Ages, the smartest men often became rabbis, and these learned men of high status were able to marry the daughters of successful merchants, thus “selecting” in favor of high intelligence.
At the same time, Christians were doing just the opposite: priests and monks of the dominant Roman Catholic Church – also usually among the best and brightest in their communities– were prohibited from marrying, thus “selecting out” through celibacy most of these intellectually superior men from the gene pool.
Murray also observes that “Sephardi Jews rose to distinction in many of the countries where they settled. Some economic historians have traced the decline of Spain after 1500 [following the expulsion of the Jews], and the subsequent rise of the Netherlands, in part to the Sephardi commercial talent that was transferred from one to the other.”
Murray’s scholarly and extensively documented article cites many other reasons for Jewish intellectual superiority in verbal and reasoning skills, including two crucial factors, which are often overlooked.
The most important of these can be found in an article entitled, “Jewish Occupational Selection,” and written by two scholars, Maristella Botticini and Zvi Eckstein. They focus on a decree issued in 64 C.E. by the martyred sage Joshua ben Gamla, high priest in the last years of the Second Temple, requiring that all males be enrolled in school by age six. The ordinance was largely adhered to, and, in the words of Murray, “Within about a century, the Jews, uniquely among the peoples of the world, had effectively established universal male literacy and numeracy.”
Moreover, throughout the centuries, Jewish males have had to study and learn the law, a process one never completes, and to read –often aloud in public -- in order to practice their faith and teach their children. Murray speculates that many Jews of low intelligence, who could not read well or fulfill the intellectual demands of their religion, tended to drift away from it.
Murray also cites a thesis of the geneticist Cyril Darlington, arguing that Jews were “decisively shaped much earlier,” during the period of the fall of Jerusalem and captivity under Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C.E. According to the Bible (2 Kings 24:10-14), only the elite among the Israelites were taken to Babylon, leaving behind the unskilled and presumably less intelligent. The king “carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour… and all the craftsmen and the smiths; none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land.”
By the time the Israelites returned more than a century later, many of those who had remained had been killed off or had married foreigners and been absorbed by other peoples. The returned exiles reconstituted a Jewish community comprised largely of descendants of its most intelligent members. Ever since, practicing Jews have continued to try to perpetuate their “ethnic purity,” usually marrying within their own group, and resisting intermarriage with and assimilation by their neighbors.
But, still not satisfied by the evidence he so impressively presents, Murray continues to wonder about the intellectual prowess demonstrated from the very beginning by the Jewish people. “Why should one particular tribe at the time of Moses, living in the same environment as other nomadic and agricultural peoples of the Middle East, have already evolved elevated intelligence when others did not?”
The answer, speculates Murray, may be his “happily irrefutable’ hypothesis, drawn from the Jews’ earliest and most famous literary work: “The Jews are God’s chosen people.”

Monday, December 27, 2010

Kissinger, court Jews and ant-Semites

This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post by Isi Leibler

Few would be shocked with details of further anti-Semitic outbursts by former president Richard Nixon revealed in the latest transcripts of tapes released from the Nixon library. He was a vulgar man whose foul mouthing extended beyond Jews to Afro-Americans, Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans and other ethnic groups. 

It is nevertheless ironic that Nixon's name tends to enrage most Jews who view him as an evil psychotic, whilst they continue to adore President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who during the Holocaust, denied entry to the US to Jews who could have been saved and was personally responsible for vetoing all efforts to intervene on behalf of European Jews being butchered by the Nazis. In fact, one could say that he acted in accordance with the Kissinger formula that "putting Jews into gas chambers was not an American concern." 

I believe that politicians must be judged by their deeds not by their words and their prejudices Nixon's anti-Semitism primarily amounted to appalling negative stereotyping. But he did employ a Jewish Secretary of State and, according to his Jewish speechwriter William Safire, his heroes included Benjamin Disraeli, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter and Herman Wouk. 

To me, Nixon was the president who, despite his unsavory character and negative traits, will be recorded in history as the leader who during the 1973 Yom Kippur War overruled his Jewish Secretary of State who sought to delay arms to Israel in order to boost Sadat and make Israel more pliable in negotiating with the Egyptians. Nixon's massive weapons airlift provided Israel with desperately needed arms. That he harbored dark prejudices against American Jews [who voted overwhelmingly against him] but admired Israelis, is ultimately of minor consequence. We should remain eternally grateful to him for having avoided countless additional Israeli casualties and possibly even having averted a disaster for the Jewish State. 

This brings us to Henry Kissinger, who people like Marty Perez of the New Republic, to this day still mistakenly credit with having influenced Nixon in 1973 to act on behalf of Israel. 

One need only read Yehuda Avner's recent book "The Prime Ministers" [pages 246-248], which provides transcripts of the Nixon tapes clearly demonstrating that it was the president who overruled his Jewish Secretary of State, ordering him to pull out all the stops to airfreight weapons to Israel at a critical turning point in the war. 

We are now privy to Kissinger's notorious outburst to Nixon following a meeting with Golda Meir during which she pleaded for the White House to support efforts to free Soviet Jews. What he subsequently said will undoubtedly haunt him for the rest of his life: 

"The immigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern." He ended this obscene remark by conceding that gassing Jews "may be a humanitarian concern." 

Even in his worst moments, Nixon never suggested that he would stand aside whilst a replay of the Holocaust took place. It was Kissinger, the Jewish Secretary of State and himself a refugee from Nazi persecution who had he remained in Germany would probably have been gassed, made this obscene remark. As it was, he lost 13 of his close relatives during the Shoa. 

Had Louis Farrakhan or Mel Gibson said something remotely similar, there would rightly have been an impassioned outcry. 

Some argue that, without disputing the obscene nature of such a remark, allowances should be made for Kissinger, the archetypal Court Jew, who was so desperate to compensate for his Jewishness that he may "unconsciously" have been seeking to reassure his anti-Semitic President that he was not under the influence of the "Elders of Zion." 

In his book, Yehuda Avner quotes Willie Fort, a psychiatrist and fellow refugee acquainted with the Kissinger family before they left Germany, observing that some people tend "to lean over backward in favor of the other side to prove being evenhanded and objective". Fort believed that Kissinger was so consumed with his Jewish refugee complex and need to demonstrate his loyalty to Nixon that he simply could not cope with the situation. [See Avner p.269] 

Nixon recognized this saying: "what it is, is the insecurity. It's the latent insecurity. Most Jewish people are insecure and that's why they have to prove things." 

Far from apologizing now for his outburst Kissinger justified it. In an email to the JTA, he insisted that the most callous statement about Jews ever recorded by a senior US official "had to be viewed in the context of what was happening". 

Kissinger at the time had just lost a tough battle with Senator Henry Jackson who had managed to persuade Congress to adopt the Jackson-Vanik amendment linking trade with the Soviet Union to the extension of human rights and freedom of emigration. Whilst this proved to be a turning point and a major victory for the campaign to free Soviet Jewry, it was enormously frustrating for Kissinger, whose principal objective was to bring about detente with the Soviet Union, even if that required ignoring human rights violations including the persecution of his own people. But even allowing for ruthless realpolitik could that conceivably have warranted such an unconscionable outburst? 

There were other occasions when Kissinger adopted inexplicably negative attitudes relating to Jews. For example, he opposed the construction of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington claiming that it would provide too high a profile for the Jews and reignite anti-Semitism. Yet this did not prevent him in 2007 from being the keynote speaker at the New York Holocaust commemoration at the Museum of the Jewish Heritage. 

In a column in the New York Jewish Week, Menachem Rosensaft of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors called on Jewish organizations which had previously honored Kissinger, to strip him of his honorary doctorates, medals and awards. He caustically suggested that Kissinger still felt closer to Germany than to his Jewishness, noting that in 2007 when receiving a medal from the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg, Kissinger had referred vaguely to "the difficulties of my childhood" and then went on to lavishly praise Germany without making any reference to Nazism or the Holocaust. 

One can only say God help us from dependency on Jews appointed or elected to public office who subsequently feel a need to grovel to their peers about their loyalty by demonstrating that their Jewishness is inconsequential. 

On the other hand, there is a profound difference between "court Jews" like Kissinger and those Jews who worked under both Democratic and Republican Administrations and had no inhibitions or psychological constraints about their Jewish affiliation. They performed far better in their positions than those desperately seeking to display aloofness from their Jewish background.