Vom Gedenkjahr bis zum Todesjahr (German translation of “The Year of Remembrance vs. the Year of Death: 1814, 1914, 1944, 2014…”)

DIE AULA (Graz, Juli & August, 2014) http://www.dieaula.at/  (German translation of “The Year of Remembrance vs. the Year of Death: 1814, 1914, 1944, 2014…“)

Jedes Gedenkjahr bringt die Erinnerung an vergangene Zeiten, die man entweder aufs neue wiederbeleben möchte oder für Andersdenkende als politisch-pädagogisches Jahr der Mahnung anzuwenden versucht. Das deutsche Wort „Gedenkjahr” läßt sich nicht leicht in andere Sprachen übersetzen, und oft ruft dieses Wort bei anderen Völkern schwere Mißverständnisse hervor. Das Wort „Gedenkjahr” wird auf Englisch oder Französisch zu-gleich als „Erinnerungsjahr” und als „Jubiläumsjahr” übersetzt — zwei völlig gegensätzliche politische Begriffe!

Je nach verschiedenen Völkern und ihren historischen Gesinnungen kann ein Gedenkjahr als Hoffnung, Freude, Sehnsucht, aber auch als Ermahnung, Androhung von Strafe und als Angstmittel benutzt werden. Im bezug auf unser eigenes Gedenkjahrfeiern erinnern wir uns heute an unsere Lebensdauer und schwärmen gerne von einem fröhlichem Datum in unserer Volksgeschichte. Auch wenn man seinen Geburtstag glücklich feiert und wenn man noch dazu als uralter Greise ein gutes Gedächtnis behält, wie z.B. Ernst Jünger oder Johann Wolfgang Goethe, dann kann man sagen, daß das Leben einen gewissen Sinn gehabt hat.

Auch wenn man seinen 60. Jahrestag hinter sich hat, soll man sich fragen, wozu man mehr Gedenkjahre braucht. Der französisch-rumänische Ultranihilist und Kulturpessimist, der Philosoph Emile Cioran, hat geschrieben, man sollte nicht länger als 40 Jahre leben. Anläßlich seines 70. Geburtstages sagte Cioran, daß ihm von nun an weitere Glückwünsche grotesk vorkommen. Einige Jahre vor seinem Tode, in einem Interview im Jahre 1987 für den französischen Herausgeber Laurence Tacou der Cahiers de L‘Herne, sagte er: „In fünf-zig Jahren wird Notre Dame eine Moschee sein.” Read more

The Rise and Demise of the EU: A Short History of A Big Failure

Several costly mistakes were made by the founding fathers of the European Union:

  • economics, and not politics, was thought to be the best tool to bring about the unification of Europe;
  • unclear plans about the limits of the enlargement of the European Union;
  • the unexpected and ongoing floods of non-European immigration as a result of the iron law of capitalism, combined with starry-eyed, guilt-feeling Christian inspired “love thy colored neighbor” ecumenism.

The first signs of the decline did not wait to occur.  The Amsterdam Treaty of 1997, the Nice Treaty of 2001, and the Lisbon Treaty of 2007 became face-saving attempts at rectifying the failures already embedded in the founding myth of the Maastricht Treaty of 1992.

Quite revealing is the fact that the predecessor of the European Union, the European Economic Community (EEC), following the Treaty of Rome in 1957, had adopted the “economic” name and not the name of “political community.” The underlying belief, inherent to liberalism, was that only thorough economic benefits — only through the removal of trade barriers and state borders, and with the free flux of people, goods and capital — would age-old interethnic hatreds among Europeans disappear. The results of such delusions are becoming visible every day. Read more

Featured Video Play Icon

The War on Whites

https://youtu.be/P4BBa61A590

Psykologiset syyt valkoisten syrjäyttämiselle, Finnish translation of “Psychological Mechanisms of White Dispossession”

 

Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby on Free Speech Laws

In the face of a coordinated and sustained campaign initiated and led by Jewish activists, the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has abandoned his 2013 election promise to water down or remove Section 18C of Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act which makes it unlawful to act in a manner likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone on the basis of race. Abbott said he had made a “leadership decision” to walk away from his pledge despite having promised to remove this outrageous restriction on the free speech after the law was used successfully against conservative columnist Andrew Bolt in 2011.

It is a measure of the power wielded by organized Jewry in Australia that the Prime Minister would rather damage his political credibility by breaking a clear election promise than suffer the consequences of defying the single most powerful group in Australian society. Abbott, who made the announcement while outlining an extension of anti-terrorism laws, attempted to justify his broken promise by claiming “I don’t want to do anything that puts our national unity at risk at this time and so those proposals are now off the table.” Abbott’s apparent desire to not further alienate Australia’s problematic Islamic community by repealing Section 18C (at a time when the government is set to strengthen laws against terrorism) is an obvious political smokescreen. The veteran Jewish journalist, Michael Gawenda, writing in the Business Spectator, identified the real reason behind the Prime Minister walking away from his election commitment:

While Abbott said that the decision to ditch the plan to rid the Racial Discrimination Act of section 18C was taken because of “complications” in dealing with Islamic communities in the context of the proposed tough new terrorism laws, it seems likely that more was involved in this decision. The conflict in Gaza and the coverage and reaction to this appalling, heartbreaking conflagration, in my opinion, made it virtually certain that any move to change or abolish section 18C would extract too high a political price.

The repeal of section 18C was vigorously opposed by the leadership of virtually every ethnic community in the country. But it would be fair to say — without wishing to give succor to those who reckon the Jews are too powerful — that Jewish community leaders have played a crucial role in organizing the opposition to any potential change to the RDA.  It is the opposition of the Jewish communal leaders that had been of major concern to [Attorney General] Brandis and, to a significant extent, Tony Abbott.

Read more

How to talk about Jewish money influencing politics without getting into trouble

Here is Matt Yglesias talking about how Jewish money is what is making Congress so pro-Israel, my brackets and bolding:

What drives the overwhelming congressional support for Israel that’s such a striking element of American politics? For some members, it’s genuine passion. For others, it has to do with public opinion [shaped by whom?]. But another real consideration that’s rarely discussed in daylight is fundraising. Memos written by consultants working for Michelle Nunn, the Democrats’ candidate in Georgia, and leaked to National Review in an effort to make Nunn look bad lay it out. This excerpt, in particular, is a great window into how it works [note the casual-yet-patronizing SWPL-speak]: Screen_Shot_2014-07-28_at_1.42.54_PM This is getting spun in certain circles as a damning indictment of Nunn or her staff, as if she is planning to tailor her entire foreign policy around fundraising concerns. But really it’s just people doing their jobs. Sheri and Steve Labovitz are wealthy individuals who are active in the Atlanta Jewish community, as is Elaine Alexander. The author of the memo is informing the campaign that these individuals are likely sympathetic to Nunn’s broad policy outlook, and are promising candidates to help Nunn raise money. But they are also cautioning that taking the appropriate line on Israel is likely to be a litmus test for these donors. It’s not the place of a finance memo writer to come up with Nunn’s Israel policy, but the memo cautions that there are fundraising implications to what Nunn chooses to say about this. To anyone who’s familiar with Democratic Party fundraising — particularly for non-incumbent underdogs, who typically have trouble raising money — this won’t be too surprising.

So plutocrats’ using their financial clout to exploit U.S. foreign policy to further ethnic interests and politicians’ pandering to said interests are normal, basically. Yglesias also mentions the (self-)censorship:

Jewish donors are very important to Democratic Party finances, some of these donors have strongly held hawkish views on Israel, and the financial clout of AIPAC is the stuff of legend. At the same time, talk of rich Jews throwing their financial muscle around to influence policy in favor of Israel touches far too many anti-semitic tropes to be regularly mentioned in political discourse. But the concrete world of political fundraising doesn’t leave a ton of time for beating around the bush, so we get a little window here into how it looks to the finance people: if Nunn wants to maximize her donations, she needs to take the right stance.

Of course none of this is news to anyone who has been paying attention for the past 30 (40, 50, 100, 200, 500…?) years. But it is interesting to see this discussed in the mainstream. Vox is run by Ezra Klein. The article was tweeted by Glenn Greenwald. Read more

Anthony Cumia joins James Edwards on The Political Cesspool Radio Program

It was very much our pleasure to welcome Anthony Cumia as our featured guest last night. Mr. Cumia, star of the massively popular Opie & Anthony Show, was famously dismissed by Sirius / XM Satellite Radio last month for not having enjoyed the multicultural experience of allegedly being attacked by a black woman in New York City. The incident spawned national news coverage.

Here’s an hour by hour breakdown of the August 2 broadcast:

Radio Show Hour 1

Host James Edwards opens one of the most memorable shows in program history. Topics addressed this hour: Still enjoying the work, celebrate family, and popular children’s television series Thomas and Friends is accused of “racism”.

Also: Scoop Stanton calls in with a report from his visit to Capitol Hill with a TPC fan!

Radio Show Hour 2

Topics addressed include: Free beer for Latino heritage, Cleveland Indians offend Indians, woman’s father and husband become women, and another example of special privileges for minorities.

Radio Show Hour 3

Guest: Anthony Cumia – The radio legend discusses with us the next phase of his career and his plan to talk openly and honestly about racial issues. This is what a REAL conversation about race sounds like, Mr. Holder.

Here is a video of the interview.

The entire interview can be accessed by clicking here to access our most recent program podcasts; or click here to access the complete broadcast archive dating back to 2004. tpc-logo-for-posts

Read more