NOT many movies are more charming and amusing than the 1951 British comedy, "The Man in the White Suit," available for free viewing on the Internet Archive. Starring Alec Guinness before he became Alec Guinness (the megastar), this Ealing Studios classic provides some gentle and truthful commentary on industrial capitalism. The witty script, written by Roger MacDougall, John Dighton and Alexander Mackendrick (who also directed the film) is about a young textile chemist, played by Guinness, who after much trial and error in the laboratory invents an indestructible, synthetic fabric. It's an unusual subject that takes you into a little-celebrated world and laboratories with absurdly bubbling and glowing test tubes. There's just enough exaggeration and just enough realism to make a great screen tale. From Wikipedia: Sidney ("Sid") Stratton, a brilliant young research chemist and former Cambridge scholarship recipient, has been dismissed from jobs at several textile mills in the north of England because of his demands for expensive facilities and his obsession with inventing an everlasting fibre. Whilst working as a labourer at the Birnley Mills, he accidentally becomes an unpaid researcher and invents an incredibly strong fibre which repels dirt and never wears out. From this fabric, a suit is made—which is brilliant white because it cannot absorb dye and slightly luminous because it includes radioactive elements. Stratton is lauded as a genius until both management and the trade unions realise the consequence of his invention; once consumers have purchased enough cloth, demand will drop precipitously and put the…

AH, the joys of multiculturalism.  

"THE priests, ministers of my Son, by their wicked lives, by their irreverence and their impiety in the celebration of the Holy Mysteries, by their love of money, their love of honors and pleasures, have become cesspools of impurity... vengeance is hanging over their heads." --- Our Lady of La Sallette, Sept. 19, 1846  

IN A 9,100-word article at The Unz Review, Larry Romanoff looks at the greatest mass murderers of modern times — Hitler isn’t remotely on the list.

They include Lazar Kaganovich, whom most Americans have never even heard of:

Lazar Kaganovich was a close associate of Joseph Stalin and the brother of Stalin’s wife. As noted above, Kaganovich was the Jewish head of the CHEKA and famous for his purges of those who opposed Jewish control of the country, having ordered the deaths of millions. Kaganovich openly boasted of personal responsibility for killing at least twenty million people. It was Kaganovich also who presided over the total destruction of Christian churches and clergy, the man famous for standing atop the rubble of a Russian church and proclaiming, “Mother Russia has been cast down! We have torn away her skirts!”.[23]

This Jew truly “made life a living hell” for the people of Russia, killing countless millions of innocent peasants in a sea of blood. Not everyone objected: One Jew in Hollywood was reported to have said, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs” and, in a statement variously attributed to both Stalin and Kaganovich, “The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic.” On the other hand, the Jewish Virtual Library seems to know only that Kaganovich “managed the construction of the Moscow underground”, and that, rather than being Stalin’s main Jewish handler, his “subservience to Stalin was made abundantly clear” in some obscure article he supposedly wrote.[24]

 Kaganovich was just one of the Jewish mass murderers; there were many other Jews who contributed to the massacre of Russians under the cruelest circumstances.

Romanoff states:

This topic is important not only for its own sake but because it provides linkages that help us to put other historical events in perspective, and even more because it is an astonishing, even astounding, example of how history is spun, of how the omission of only a few crucial facts can totally distort an entire vital segment of history. One result is that much of what we “know” of our history is factually wrong, but also it provokes us to despise innocent people while sympathising with the guilty.

[This post is not an endorsement of all of Romanoff’s writings, especially his views on Russia today.] (more…)

"WHEN the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people will hate the new world order and will die protesting against it." "When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people." -- H.G. Wells, The New World Order, 1939  

THE economic writer Werner Sombart (1863-1941) described the “buy local” spirit of European economic life before the rise of modern capitalism, when even advertising was considered unseemly:

The centre of this whole was the individual man. Whether as producer or as consumer, his interests determined the attitude of the community as of its units, determined the law regulating economic activities and the practices of commercial life. Every such law was personal in its intent; and all who contributed to the life of the nation had a personal outlook. Not that each person could do as he liked. On the contrary, a code of restrictions hedged about his activities in every direction. But the point is that the restrictions were born of the individualistic spirit. Commodities were produced and bought and sold in order that consumers might have their wants sufficiently satisfied. On the other hand, producers and traders were to receive fair wages and fair profits. What was fair, and what sufficient for your need, tradition and custom determined. (more…)

 HERE IS the scene from "A Man for All Seasons," the 1966 historical drama, in which  Sir Thomas More, the Lord Chancellor of England under King Henry VIII is convicted of treason and sentenced to death. More, played here by Paul Scofield, refused to recognize Henry VIII's marriage to Ann Boleyn and take an Oath of Supremacy declaring Henry Supreme Head of the Church of England. More stated: I am the King's true subject, and I pray for him and all the realm. I do none harm. I say none harm. I think none harm. If this be not enough to keep a man alive, then in good faith, I long not to live. The scene takes place in Westminster Hall, where Queen Elizabeth II lay in state this week. Westminster Hall, a reader points out, was also "where Edmund Campion and his fellow defendants were tried, and during which he declared: 'In condemning us, you condemn all your own ancestors, all our ancient bishops and kings, all that was once the glory of England — the island of saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter.'"  

A READER writes: [1532: Henry VIII, after having divorced Catherine Aragon, his wife of 24 years, participates in a secret wedding service with Anne Boleyn, leading ultimately to the establishment of the Anglican Church and the severing of England from the rest of Christendom.] 1930s: Edward VIII gives up the throne to wed a double-divorcée. The abdication is necessitated by the Anglican Church prohibition on remarriage when a partner has a living, legitimate spouse. Edward's action will eventually allow his niece Elizabeth to become queen. 1950s: Elizabeth refuses assent for her sister, Princess Margaret, to marry a divorced British war hero who has a legitimate spouse. Margaret submits. (She later marries and divorces another man.) 1990s: Elizabeth orders the divorce of her son Charles from Princess Diana. The legal action becomes final the year after Charles's paramour divorces her own husband. During that decade, three of the queen's four children divorce their spouses. Diana dies in 1997. 2000s: Charles marries his divorced paramour despite that her husband remains alive. 2010s: Charles and Diana's son Harry marries a divorcée. 2020s: Charles, as king, becomes Anglican Defender of the Faith, the first divorced person to hold that title since Henry VIII, who founded the church in a series of actions stemming from his desire to escape a marriage. So, as we can see: In some ways this timeline reflects an Anglican decline, but ultimately is faithful to that heretical religion's roots.  

IN THIS video, the British commentator "Way of the World" comes to a liberating realization. I'm not very familiar with his work and like many dissident videos, there are some amateur moments here. But his description of his personal discovery is moving. "Way of the World" realizes there are no political solutions to the moral chaos we see or to the conquest of once Christian nations. "Our zombie civilization has fallen because men have lost sight of their divine purpose ... As the West abandoned God, God abandoned the West." The answer, he says, is for the people of the West to return to God, especially in their hearts and minds. "God is not a distraction from the issues we face, but the key to understanding and dealing with them." Our purpose in this world is simple in the end. It's not to elevate ourselves, nothing that we are, but to bring glory to God.  

"IT is a law of history often verified that social egalitarianism, whether in the form of democratic radicalism or socialism and communism, is the most favorable to Big Business and money makers, because it breaks the political and social frameworks and families that impede the preeminence and the absolutism of money. Under an economic conception of civilization, egalitarianism appears both as a ransom and as a lever. It is always the middle classes, especially the rural classes, representing the largest wealth in the diffuse and fragmented state, which bear the brunt of egalitarian social movements, for the benefit of big businessmen, financial magnates and complicit demagogues. It should be added that from a strictly financial point of view, the disasters of history, the wars or revolutions, do not ever represent disasters to the handlers of money and shrewd businessmen, who can profit from everything, on the condition of knowing in advance, of being informed. This is why International Finance, placed on the very ground of [Capitalism's economic theorist David] Ricardo, to combat him, many of his conceptions, his arguments, his theories and his conclusions. "The mysterious bond, the secret affinity that unites despite everything the Mercantilists and Puritan businessmen with the Bolsheviks come from the fact that they have in common, while drawing different conclusions and ends, the same design and the same worldview." --- George Batault, 1921  

FROM Stewart Ogilvie:

The so-called “twin towers” were flagship structures in NY Port Authority’s new World Trade Center in which five other smaller ones were constructed. Building 7, which eventually achieved notoriety due to its “photographed” demolition late in the day on 9/11, was roughly half the height of the twin towers. The Port Authority’s 1964 cost estimate for the project was $350 million. By September 1965 it had risen to $525 million. By December 1966 it was $575 million. There was no stopping this highly touted project to construct the world’s tallest buildings despite serious financial reservations. Bid at $750 million, the final construction cost was $1.2 billion. (more…)

FROM the work of Simon Shack at September Clues:

If you have come to terms with the fact that 9/11 was a massive money-making scheme and – of course – a pretext to wage hugely profitable wars, the basic rationale behind this Grand Deception should, hopefully, become clearer. It is essential to consider all the variables which such an audacious false-flag operation would entail and what precautions its plotters must have observed: The Grand Deception plan was undoubtedly meant to be foolproof and, ideally, free of unnecessary elements of risk and opposition. There was simply no rationale for the 9/11 plotters to commit a mass murder of some 3,000, mostly white-collar professionals (brokers, bankers, financial analysts, etc.) whose families would likely have access to first-rate, ‘uptown’ legal assistance. Surely, killing that many people would have been an utterly senseless, self-inflicted aggravation on the part of the perpetrators. Since they could reliably rely on the fully compliant ‘top-brass’ of the mainstream media, they would have used this unique, exclusive asset to its full potential.

Ever since day one, the major hurdle for many people to even start considering 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ has been: “I can’t believe my own government would murder 3000 of their own people”. Once that psychological obstacle is removed, it should become apparent that the whole operation consisted essentially of a covert demolition of a redundant, asbestos-filled building complex. To kill thousands of people in the process never was an envisaged proposition as it would have encountered severe resistance among the insiders involved. The second objective was to blame this destruction on a foreign enemy; an inanely fanciful, outlandish tale involving hijacked airliners used as missiles was concocted, to be supported by digital imagery and special movie effects. How this was done is thoroughly illustrated in my September Clues video analyses. (more…)

GEORGE CARLIN, who died in 2008, was a wildly popular Irish American comedian, author, and actor who emerged as a supposed representative of the Common Man and social critic during the 60s and is still widely quoted and revered today. Regarded as one of the most important and influential stand-up comedians of all time, he was dubbed "the dean of counterculture comedians". He was known for his black comedy and reflections on politics, the English language, psychology, religion, and taboo subjects. His "seven dirty words" routine was central to the 1978 United States Supreme Court case F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, in which a 5–4 decision affirmed the government's power to censor indecent material on public airwaves. (Wikipedia) Carlin raged against "greedy, well-fed white people" and ridiculed religion. Wyatt Stag examines Carlin's  legacy in this video: [Carlin] has been heralded as everything from a sage to a prophet, attracting an almost cult-like devotion among his fan-based. These devotees, convinced of the value of Carlin's many observations and insights, treat his words as words to live by. Carlin, however, was no authentic counter-cultural figure, but a manufactured product of the very system of power he pretended to critique. Over the course of his five-decade career as a comedian, he served as a willing mouthpiece for the subverted cultural establishment, helping to promote the tenets of the death cult that has hijacked Western civilization, all the while masquerading as a rebel ... This…