Home > Broadcasts > Radio Istina: Tuesday September 18, 2007

Radio Istina: Tuesday September 18, 2007

September 18th, 2007 Leave a comment Go to comments

mp3Pt1. Early Morning [44mb; 4hrs 15mins]
mp3Pt2. Late Night [24mb; 2hrs 19mins]
Discussion:

– Will discuss French revolution, de Sade, Wollstonecraft, consequences of sexual immorality, rationalism as explored in writings of E. Michael Jones, Capt. A. H. M. Ramsay, and Edmund Burke.

– Libido Dominandi, Sexual Liberation and Political Control (Jones)

– Begin Capt. A.H.M. Ramsay’s “The Nameless War”
http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Archibald.Maule.Ramsay/The.Nameless.War/00.Introduction.htm

– Reflections on the Revolution in France (Burke)

  1. September 19th, 2007 at 06:44 | #1

    Captain Ramsay was obviously a British ‘Henry Ford’!….good stuff again!…..F J P Veale’s ‘Advance to Barbarism’ is also a good reference for the jewish involvement in WWII

  2. September 19th, 2007 at 07:00 | #2

    ‘the new model army’ was the name given to Cromwell’s “round-heads” (also called: ‘the Parliamentary Army’, i think!) apropos Charles I’s “cavaliers”…..comes from living in a predominantly Anglo’ nation, formerly prt of the Brit’ Empire, m8!…

  3. September 19th, 2007 at 12:15 | #3

    Alex, some time I’d like you to discuss the question of the authenticity of the Protocols.

  4. New America
    September 19th, 2007 at 15:21 | #4

    Useful, easy to use tool for Linder:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=OtB6_D_toVQ

    Useful book for Rabbi Taperstein – solution to his bowel problem!

    http://www.alittleleaven.com/

    More to follow.

    THIS is what WN has needed; like Pierce, defining the terms on OUR terms.

    New America

    An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

  5. i
    September 19th, 2007 at 17:12 | #5

    Not surprisingly, ‘Tepperman’ is a real jewish surname.

  6. i
    September 19th, 2007 at 18:50 | #6

    Your insistence on partiinost as the origin of political correctness is basically wrong. It may be that loyalty to the Soviet line expressed itself in terms shared by leftism today – this would have to be demonstrated, of course – but that would be only topical. Partiinost means nothing more than what it says (party + ness [nost]), and apart from having been a mere survival strategy under the regime, is genetically dead. Socially it is no different from compulsory expressions of loyalty and mimicry under the rule of any other regime. Parteischaft had the same survival value, though circumstances were much less dire for party members. In any case, one shouldn’t take these refugees from the Soviet bloc too seriously; political correctness has its roots in American sociology and cultural anthropology, at most in the ascendancy of Red Diaper Babies and New York Trotskyites, who, however, defined themselves against Soviet orthodoxy. Political correctness isn’t “Soviet”, we’re not fighting “Marxism” or “Bolshevism”, Rockwell is dead and the 50’s are long gone. You’re on the wrong track: bottom line. It’s a shame you’ve jumped on the anti-Soviet bandwagon – even giving your show a Russian name – instead of digging further back into American precedents for leftist ideology. It may be a nice analogy – the American social climate resembles the Soviet, etc. – but is no more than that. Pure folly to believe there is a genetic link between the two.

  7. Olde Dutch
    September 19th, 2007 at 19:06 | #7

    I’m surprised Ramsay takes the Roman Catholic anti-Cromwell propaganda seriously.

    Cromwell’s struggle was with the Roman Catholics. As the author admits the jews were never allowed by law back into England.

    Look at Roman Catholic leadership today—Ted Kennedy trying to sneak his “hate crime bill” through the Congress.

  8. i
    September 19th, 2007 at 20:33 | #8

    Well hey — if it isn’t the spawn of Weishaupt, the Commies or the Freemasons, it’s gotta be them damn dagos!

    …Right?

  9. sgruber
    September 19th, 2007 at 21:05 | #9

    Wrong, “i says”.

    It’s the jews. Pay attention.

    E. Michael Jones doesn’t name the kike as kike, but he reveals the soul-destroying tech at least exploited by kikes. This tech is what Alex Linder was discussing.

    As to the Soviets: The Soviet system was a jew tumor, jew in origin, eating the White body. What Alex Linder is aiming at is the jew behind the curtain, whether the Curtain be iron or neocon.

    “Red Diaper” babies, despite their internecine conflicts with other kikes, were all kikes, and presented the same Gorgon face to the goyim, whether calling themselves Bolshevik, Menshevik, Trotskyite, Oblomovite, Stakhanovite, Straussian, New American Centurion, Austrian Economist, Frankfurtite, Neocon, Freeper, et al. ad infinitum.

    The cute terminology of “Pravda” vs. “Istina” identifies – not a

  10. sgruber
    September 19th, 2007 at 21:08 | #10

    (cont’d)

    small distinction from dusty Russian history – but a FUNDAMENTAL contrast: insane idealism vs. realism. (Lies-insisted-on-as-real vs. the actually real. Politically correct vs. factually correct. Etc.) It’s pointed since most of these neokahns are merely commies in different skins.

  11. i
    September 19th, 2007 at 22:00 | #11

    A condescending fucking idiot, as always. It’s line-sucking assholes like you who retard all constructive discourse, left or right. Dur hur, pay attention.

  12. New America
    September 19th, 2007 at 22:58 | #12

    in reply to i Say:

    you wrote:
    Your insistence on partiinost as the origin of political correctness is basically wrong. It may be that loyalty to the Soviet line expressed itself in terms shared by leftism today – this would have to be demonstrated, of course – but that would be only topical. Partiinost means nothing more than what it says (party + ness [nost]), and apart from having been a mere survival strategy under the regime, is genetically dead. Socially it is no different from compulsory expressions of loyalty and mimicry under the rule of any other regime. Parteischaft had the same survival value, though circumstances were much less dire for party members. In any case, one shouldn’t take these refugees from the Soviet bloc too seriously; political correctness has its roots in American sociology and cultural anthropology, at most in the ascendancy of Red Diaper Babies and New York Trotskyites, who, however, defined themselves against Soviet orthodoxy.

    in reply:
    The exact phrase, political correctness, was used by Lenin, and was the hallmark of the educational platform of demonic Jew-controlled “Soviet” Russia.

    Control the Mind, and your will control the people; control the thoughts, and you will control the Mind.

    Simple as that.

    The Spirit is another matter…

    The demons-who-walk-the-Earth-known-as-Jews are, after all, of their Father, the Devil.

    They share his Spirit, at the Racial level.

    i Says wrote:
    Political correctness isn’t “Soviet”, we’re not fighting “Marxism” or “Bolshevism”, Rockwell is dead and the 50’s are long gone. You’re on the wrong track: bottom line. It’s a shame you’ve jumped on the anti-Soviet bandwagon – even giving your show a Russian name – instead of digging further back into American precedents for leftist ideology. It may be a nice analogy – the American social climate resembles the Soviet, etc. – but is no more than that. Pure folly to believe there is a genetic link between the two.

    in reply:
    “Soviet” isn’t really the proper term; remember, that term, in practice, is a Jewish creation, and was a verbal symbol of an organization that claimed to be under the control of “the workers”; in fact, of course, it was under the control of the demonic Jews.

    The “genetic link” is stronger than you might think; in many ways, we have become a Soviet, as Yockey noted in his analysis of the American Revolution of 1933.

    Hate speech, for example simply makes the point for us.

    Indeed, one of the first laws passed by the Bolshevik government was to make “anti-Semitism,” in virtually all forms of expression, a capital offense.

    In time. with their power to make the inversion of the Truth the politically correct “Truth,” “anti-Semitism” will mean, not opposition to Judaism, but insufficiently enthusiastic support for Judaism.

    The demonic Jews, of course, will get to define these, and their definitions will certainly be both politically correct, and politically enforceable…

    This will begin by having the sanctions applied to those who threaten the rule of their puppets – the illegals, the crackhead niggers, you get the idea. Extraordinary sanctions will be applied at the slightest excuse as “minorities” effectively dispossess the White Majority that made this a great country. Ask Shaun Walker…

    The War we are engaged in is a RACIAL War; the demonic Jews have always fought it as a RACIAL War, while we haven’t.

    This will change.

    New America

    An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

  13. sgruber
    September 20th, 2007 at 10:53 | #13

    “Well hey — if it isn’t the spawn of Weishaupt, the Commies or the Freemasons, it’s gotta be them damn dagos!

    “…Right?”

    This from “i says” who criticizes people being “condescending” and “retarding all constructive discourse.”

    Yeah, buddy. That’s right. Alex thinks it’s “them damn dagos.” We’re all a bunch of stupid anti-semites and conspiracy theorists here, according to you. Are you a jew?

  14. Old Raven
    September 20th, 2007 at 11:57 | #14

    Great education work Alex! Now if we can only get this stuff piped into the pubic shuls, right?

    I studied Gramsci’s “Long March Through The Institutions” over 20 years ago, and saw this happening at universities and bureaucracies. At the time I wasn’t jeware and thought it was all about “marxists”, etc. Of late I’ve seen the “common denominator” these marchers all seem to share: all all escapees from the kikery. Who let the jooooz out???

    The frosting on the educational cake was, for me, when you explained that even 700+ years ago, when the euro-kikes were trying to figure out how to deal with getting kicked out of wherever they were, their sanhedrin council recommended the strategy of “playing possum” and infiltrating all the institutional power spots. Sounds like Gramsci was NOT the originator of this idea after all! They’ve been marching through the institutions for hundreds of years, all the while in Aryan drag.

    Nothing new to folk here, but good to get more confirmation. How about having a VNN sub-site called Istina University. Nah, somehow I don’t think “they” will credential this ed. institution! But, hey, “We don’t need no stinkin’ diplomas” anyway … just the truth!

  15. September 20th, 2007 at 12:26 | #15

    Olde Dutch — as a fellow Protestant, I urge you to be open to considering several evils of Cromwellism that we might wish were not the case.

    Remember, the Presbyterians at the time opposed him almost as vigorously as the RCs.

    If it proves to be true that he bargained with Jews to accomplish his aims, then I say, off with his head.

  16. Olde Dutch
    September 20th, 2007 at 16:10 | #16

    Don’t forget the Roman Catholic church during this era was killing people who translated the New Testament into English.

    Cromwell said something to the effect, that the only way there would be a Catholic restoration in England, would be over his dead body.

  17. September 20th, 2007 at 17:06 | #17

    Dutch — no, that was a hundred years earlier.

    Moreover, that fact would not justify treating all RCs with vengeance.

    Also, there were plenty of leaders that would have resisted an RC restoration equally strongly without the crazy fanaticism of Cromwell.

  18. September 21st, 2007 at 00:51 | #18

    the jews were prominently positioned on both sides! of the ‘religious dispute’; re: catholic/protestant; their aim then, as it is now, was to destroy the White Race; Hitler saw through this and, wisely, never overtly associated National Socialism with Roman Catholicism or Protestanism/Lutherans!

    Klassen also correctly identified ‘religious bigotry’ as one of the three areas (along with: ‘petty nationalism’ & ‘class war-fare'[and its sub-set: ‘feminism’!]) where the jew focusses his attack on Aryans!

  19. Olde Dutch
    September 21st, 2007 at 12:08 | #19

    If Cromwell had lost to the papists, he and the other Protestant leaders would have been drawn & quartered, beheaded, and had their bones burned. That was standard procedure in those days.

    The Roman Catholics to this day still consider the Pope infallible.

  20. September 21st, 2007 at 20:07 | #20

    Dutch — the doctrine of papal infallibility wasn’t promulgated until 1870ish.

    It would be a mistake to say that everything Cromwell did was wrong, but it would also be a mistake to say nothing was. We must learn to have the confidence to look at these questions from all sides. This is what we can learn from Alex.

    I’ve had my say. You get the last word.

  21. Olde Dutch
    September 21st, 2007 at 21:10 | #21

    No. Papal infallibility has been around since the bishops’ of Rome started declaring themselves supreme pontiff taking over the pagan Roman office of Pontificus Maximus. Although, it is true that Papal Infallibillity was not “defined” until 1870—it existed prior to 1870 without definition!

    There are various quotes about the jews attributed to Cromwell. One quote is very similar to a Thomas Jefferson quote, and who knows possibly Jefferson was quoting Cromwell on the jews when he said the jews were a people destined to live apart…

  22. Mary O
    October 24th, 2007 at 22:54 | #22

    Not sure if I should ask, but we haven’t heard from you in a while. Is everything okay?

    Hope that you and your family are well. Mary

  1. No trackbacks yet.