Fighting for your Diversity freedom

Fighting for your Diversity freedom


You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.


Fighting for your Diversity

(by ‘’Satanic Orthodoxy’’ Think Tank in Greece)


Let us assume that we earthlings want to inhabit,

for specific purposes, a planet inhospitable to us

and our needs. Let's also assume that we have no

other choice or time, to look for a compatible

planet with a similar environment. What should we

do? We would have to, of necessity, either find a

way to survive in the inhospitable environment by

artificial means, or rebuild the planet's environment

to our own standards. If there was no atmosphere,

to try to create it, if there was no water, to make

sure to reproduce it, if there was no fresh air, to try

to create it. In other words, form a familiar

environment for us, tearing down the old and

inhospitable environment. Thus, every generation

that would come into the world, would live within

the framework of the new reality. And so the

survival of man on this planet would simply be a

matter of the will and management of the

inhabitants. The same is true of ideologies and

systems/frameworks at the social and state/political

level. And in the same way ecumenism (or

Globalization in other words) works in our time:

...Ecumenism is what its name says: the Union of

the Ecumenical (=Global Union) in the economic

field first, in the political field then, in the cultural

field then, in the social field finally.


It could also be called Planetism...Ecumenism

leads to the elimination of all natural human

differences, races, peoples, temperaments,

attitudes, traditions, customs, cultures, in a

Planetary Container, where neither states nor

nations will exist...It is an inalienable right for

every community and tribal family, to preserve,

cultivate and develop those hereditary

characteristics that differentiate it from the others.

Therefore, the attempt to impose or implant in a

community or tribal family, cultural or biological

contexts different from their own, is a gross

violation of natural laws and an unnatural

interference with the work of natural evolution of

humans. Human who are subjected to this "rape",

instinctively defend themselves against it... It is the

definition of Tribalism. And this "rape" is the

definition of Ecumenism...Ecumenism devoted all

its efforts to the homogenization of societies.

Having "Equality for all and for everything" as a

basic principle, he fought (and fights) the natural

law of Differentiation. Given, however, that

nothing is equal and similar in Nature, this

"Equality" could only be achieved by "Downward



Those who have naturally limited physical-spiritual

capabilities cannot of course increase them.

However, those who have great potential can be

prevented - in various ways - from developing

them! Ecumenism has a political purpose: The

disappearance of all the differences of the peoples.

The disappearance of all nations as conscious

individuals in organic social connection with

destiny. The disappearance of all differences in

religions, cultures and their homogenization...

Ecumenism also has a social purpose: The

disappearance of all "differences", the natural

differentiations between races, peoples, nations

and individuals and their degeneracy into uniform,

colourless, disjointed, inorganic, "rounded"

individuals, obedient and submissive. The

disappearance - the "end" - of History. Given that

History is the exact result of the Law of

Differentiation, of contrasts, of different

tendencies, impulses, capacities and potentials of

peoples - nations, people without knowledge of

history change into people without connection with

the past and the present. They change into "beings"

easy to make and easy to use...


BOOK, Athens 1995




Damnatio memoriae is a modern Latin phrase

meaning "condemnation of memory", indicating

that a person is to be excluded from official

accounts. Depending on the extent, it can be a case

of historical negationism. There are and have been

many routes to damnatio memoriae, including the

destruction of depictions, the removal of names

from inscriptions and documents, and even largescale

rewritings of history.


The term can be applied to other instances of

official scrubbing; in history the practice is seen as

long ago as the aftermath of the reign of the

Egyptian Pharaohs Akhenaten in the 14th century


- From Wikipedia









Cleopatra was the queen of Egypt and a proud


She is a descendant of the Ptolemaic family

Her family was HELLENIC from Macedonia

Her great grandfather is Ptolemy I, one of the

generals /bodyguards of Alexander the Great

She is the last “Greek HELLENIC Ruler” of Egypt

- She was not Egyptian

- She was not African

- She was and forever will be Hellenic


“Out of Africa” Theory Officially Debunked

Scientific evidence refuting the theory of modern

humanity’s African genesis is common knowledge

among those familiar with the most recent

scientific papers on the human Genome,

Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes.

Regrettably, within mainstream press and academia

circles, there seems to be a conspicuous – and dare

we say it – deliberate vacuum when it comes to

reporting news of these recent studies and their

obvious implications.

Australian historian Greg Jefferys explains that,

«The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in

the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to

remove the concept of Race.


When I did my degree they all spent a lot of time

on the ‘Out of Africa’ thing but it’s been

completely disproved by genetics. Mainstream still

hold on to it».

It did begin the early 90’s. And the academics most

responsible for cementing both the Out-of Africa

theory and the complementary common ancestral

African mother – given the name of “Eve” – in the

public arena and nearly every curriculum, were

Professors Alan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann.

In their defense, the authors of this paper were fully

aware that genealogy is not in any way linked to

geography, and that their placement of Eve in

Africa was an assumption, never an assertion.


A very recent paper on Y-chromosomes published

in 2012, (Re-Examing the “Out of Africa” Theory

and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the

Light of DNA Genealogy written by Anatole A.

Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski) only confirms the

denial of any African ancestry in non-Africans, and

strongly supports the existence of a “common

ancestor” who “would not necessarily be in Africa.

In fact, it was never proven that he lived in Africa.”

Central to results of this extensive examination of

haplogroups (7,556) was the absence of any

African genes. So lacking was the sampling of

African genetic involvement, the researchers stated

in their introduction that, “the finding that the

Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from

“African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the

fact that bearers of the Europeoid, as well as all

non-African groups do not carry either SNI’s M91,

P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262”.

With the haplogroups not present in any African

genes and an absence of dozens of African genetic

markers, it is very difficult nigh on impossible to

sustain any link to Africa.


The researchers are adamant that their extensive

study “offers evidence to re-examine the validity of

the Out-of-Africa concept”.

They see no genetic proof substantiating an African

precedence in the Homo sapien tree, and maintain

that “a more plausible interpretation might have

been that both current Africans and non-Africans

descended separately from a more ancient common

ancestor, thus forming a proverbial fork”.

We regard the claim of “a more plausible

explanation” as a gross understatement, since there

is absolutely nothing plausibly African turning up

in any test tubes. In fact, the researchers made note

of their repeated absence stating “not one non-

African participant out of more than 400

individuals in the Project tested positive to any of

thirteen ‘African’ sub-clades of haplogroup A”.

The only remaining uncertainty relates to the

identity of this “more ancient common ancestor”.

All that can be stated with confidence is that

humanity’s ancestor did not reside in Africa.


Unfounded accusations of racism have become

common as the prevailing Afrocentric hypothesis is

constantly being challenged by the growing

mountain of conflicting scientific evidence,

especially in the evolving field of genetics.

It is now scientifically irrefutable fact that the

«human species» has been found to contain a

substantial quantity of DNA (at least 20%) from

other hominid populations not classified as Homo

sapien; such as Neanderthal, Denisovan, African

archaic, Homo erectus, and now possibly even

«Hobbit» (Homo floresiensis).

From: https://redice.tv/news/out-of-africa-theoryofficially-debunked




(i.e. White Race as Demi-God is more superior

from the other simply human races):


Genesis, 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the

woman, and between your offspring and hers; he

will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.

‘’First, adultery came into being, afterward

murder. And he (Cain) was begotten in adultery,

for he was the child of the Serpent. So he became a

murderer, just like his father, and he killed his

brother. Indeed, every act of sexual intercourse

which has occurred between those unlike one

another is adultery’’

– The Gospel of Philip

‘’After Adam and his wife sinned, and the serpent

had intercourse with Eve and injected filth into her,

Eve bore Cain. He had the shape from above and

from below (the earth)…Therefore, he was the first

to bring death into the world, caused by his side, as

he came from the filth of the serpent. The nature of

the serpent is to lurk, so as to kill, and his issue,

Cain, learned his ways’’

– Zohar Pekudei 21 (The Zohar, Volume 13,

Pekudei, Section 21. Breastplate and Efod, 203)

‘’…the members of the mixed multitude are the

children of the primordial serpent that seduced

Chavah (Eve) by the tree of knowledge, so the

mixed multitude is indeed the impurity that the


serpent injected into Chavah. From this impurity,

which is considered the mixed multitude, Kayin

(Cain) came forth and slew Hevel (Abel)…’’

– Zohar 2 Beresheet A28 (The Zohar, Volume 1,

Beresheet A, Section 28. Hevel-Moshe, 285)

‘’The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and

afterward, when the sons of God went to the

daughters of men and had children by them. They

were heroes of old, men of renown’’

– Genesis 6:4

Ancient DNA reveals that Biblical-era Philistines

may have originated in Europe

(CNN) The Philistines were related to Europeans,

according to DNA evidence in a study published

Wednesday in the journal Science Advances.


Scientists looked at the genomes of 10 Bronze and

Iron Age individuals from Ashkelon, which is on

the Mediterranean Sea about 40 miles west of

Jerusalem and which was known in ancient times

as one of five cities of the Philistines.

The ancient group, immortalized in the Hebrew

Bible, arrived in the area in the 12th century BC.

They found that the Philistines were genetically

distinct from human remains from other ancient

groups who lived in the area because they had a set

of genes linked to Europeans.

«Of the available contemporaneous populations,

we model the southern European gene pool as the

best proxy for this incoming gene flow», the

scientists wrote in the study.

The Philistines may have had southern European


Comparing results from the earliest-available

Philistines with DNA from later Iron Age remains

in the area, the scientists found that the European

genes did not continue. These early European

immigrants into what is now Israel would have

essentially been absorbed into the existing

population and would not have had a longer-term

effect on the genetic makeup of people in the area.


The Philistines are perhaps best-known as a group

the Israelites were fighting in scenes depicted in the

Book of Samuel.

The Philistines sent out their great warrior Goliath,

challenging the Israelites to put forth a fighter of

their own so that the entire conflict would rest on

the outcome of the duel.

A young Israelite volunteered and killed the giant

using a sling, propelling a small lethal stone at

Goliath’s head.

So every time you talk about an underdog story as

«David vs. Goliath», you’re making a Philistine


Results come from decades of archaeological work

In 2016, archaeologists announced that they had

unearthed the first Philistine cemetery, calling it the

culmination of three decades of work.

«This cemetery is going to teach us a whole lot

about the Philistines that we’ve never known

before,» Daniel Master, a professor at Wheaton

College and co-director of the expedition in

Ashkelon, said at the time.


After 108 sets of skeletal remains were excavated,

and 10 had enough DNA to be studied in depth.

Master is also a co-author on the latest study.

Over the years, scientists at the Ashkelon site have

excavated Philistine houses and delved into what

they would have eaten and who they would have

traded with. The new study gives us the closest

look yet at the people themselves and sheds light

on their unusual origins.

From: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/04/world/phil



The Book of Enoch, by R.H. Charles, [1917], at

sacredtexts.com FRAGMENT OF THE BOOK OF


some days my son Methuselah took a wife for his

son Lamech, and she became p. 151 pregnant by

him and bore a son. 2. And his body was white as

snow and red as the blooming of a rose, and the

hair of his head †and his long locks were white as

wool, and his eyes beautiful†.


And when he opened his eyes, he lighted up the

whole house like the sun, and the whole house was

very bright…



















Race and empathy matter on neural level


April 27, 2010


Northwestern University


Race matters on a neurological level when it comes

to empathy for African-Americans in distress,

according to a new study. In a rare neuroscience

look at racial minorities, the study shows that

African-Americans showed greater empathy for

African-Americans facing adversity -- in this case

for victims of Hurricane Katrina -- than Caucasians

demonstrated for Caucasian-Americans in pain.


Race matters on a neurological level when it comes

to empathy for African-Americans in distress,

according to a new Northwestern University study.

In a rare neuroscience look at racial minorities, the

study shows that African-Americans showed

greater empathy for African-Americans facing

adversity -- in this case for victims of Hurricane

Katrina -- than Caucasians demonstrated for

Caucasian-Americans in pain.

"We found that everybody reported empathy

toward the Hurricane Katrina victims," said Joan Y.

Chiao, assistant professor of psychology and author

of the study. "But African-Americans additionally

showed greater empathic response to other African-

Americans in emotional pain."

The more African-Americans identified as African-

American the more likely they were to show

greater empathic preference for African-

Americans, the study showed.

Initially, Chiao thought that both African-

Americans and Caucasian-Americans would either

show no pattern of in-group bias or both show

some sort of preference.


The take-home point to Chiao: our ability to

identify with another person dramatically changes

how much we can feel the pain of another and how

much we're willing to help them.

"It's just that feeling of that person is like me, or

that person is similar to me," she said. "That

experience can really lead to what we're calling

'extraordinary empathy and altruistic motivation.'

It's empathy and altruistic motivation above and

beyond what you would do for another human."

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, the

study included an equal number of African-

American and Caucasian-American study

participants. They were shown pictures depicting

either African-American or Caucasian-American

individuals in a painful (i.e. in the midst of a

natural disaster) or neutral (attending an outdoor


"We think this is really interesting because it

suggests mechanisms by which we can enhance our

empathy and altruistic motivation simply by

finding ways in which we have commonality across

individuals and across groups," Chiao said.


Chiao, who works at one of only two labs in the

world dedicated to cultural and social neuroscience,

is particularly interested in how social identities

related to gender or race modulate the biological

process underlying feeling and reason. (The Web

address for the Social and Cultural Neuroscience

Lab at Northwestern is






Human brain recognizes and reacts to race


April 27, 2010


University of Toronto


The human brain fires differently when dealing

with people outside of one's own race, according to

new research.


The human brain fires differently when dealing

with people outside of one's own race, according to

new research out of the University of Toronto


This research, conducted by social neuroscientists

at University of Toronto-Scarborough, explored the

sensitivity of the "mirror-neuron-system" to race

and ethnicity. The researchers had study

participants view a series of videos while hooked

up to electroencephalogram (EEG) machines. The

participants -- all white -- watched simple videos in

which men of different races picked up a glass and

took a sip of water. They watched white, black,

South Asian and East Asian men perform the task.

Typically, when people observe others perform a

simple task, their motor cortex region fires

similarly to when they are performing the task

themselves. However, the U of T research team, led

by PhD student Jennifer Gutsell and Assistant

Professor Dr. Michael Inzlicht, found that

participants' motor cortex was significantly less

likely to fire when they watched the visible

minority men perform the simple task.


In some cases when participants watched the nonwhite

men performing the task, their brains actually

registered as little activity as when they watched a

blank screen.

"Previous research shows people are less likely to

feel connected to people outside their own ethnic

groups, and we wanted to know why," says Gutsell.

"What we found is that there is a basic difference in

the way peoples' brains react to those from other

ethnic backgrounds. Observing someone of a

different race produced significantly less motorcortex

activity than observing a person of one's

own race. In other words, people were less likely to

mentally simulate the actions of other-race than

same-race people"

The trend was even more pronounced for

participants who scored high on a test measuring

subtle racism, says Gutsell.

"The so-called mirror-neuron-system is thought to

be an important building block for empathy by

allowing people to 'mirror' other people's actions

and emotions; our research indicates that this basic

building block is less reactive to people who

belong to a different race than you," says Inzlicht.


However, the team says cognitive perspective

taking exercises, for example, can increase

empathy and understanding, thereby offering hope

to reduce prejudice. Gutsell and Inzlicht are now

investigating if this form of perspective-taking can

have measurable effects in the brain.

The team's findings are published in the Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology.





















Slavery wasn't only for Africans

Rory Carroll

Guardian Weekly

North African pirates abducted and enslaved more

than 1 million Europeans between 1530 and 1780

in a series of raids that depopulated coastal towns

from Sicily to Cornwall, according to new


Thousands of white Christians were seized every

year to work as galley slaves, labourers and

concubines for Muslim overlords in what is today

Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya, it is claimed.

Scholars have long known of the slave raids on

Europe. But US historian Robert Davis has

calculated that the total number captured -

although small compared with the 12 million

Africans shipped to the Americas in later years -

was far higher than previously recognised.

His new book, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters:

White Slavery In The Mediterranean, The Barbary

Coast, And Italy, 1500-1800, concluded that 1

million to 1.3 million ended up in bondage.


Historians were split over whether Prof Davis's

unorthodox methodology has produced plausible

estimates, but they welcomed any attempt to fill a

gap in the little-known story of Africans

subjugating Europeans.

By collating different sources of information from

Europe over three centuries, the University of Ohio

professor has painted a picture of a continent at the

mercy of pirates from the Barbary Coast, known as


Villages and towns on the coast of Italy, Spain,

Portugal and France were hardest hit but the

raiders also seized people in Britain, Ireland and

Iceland. According to one account they even

captured 130 American seamen from ships that

they boarded in the Atlantic and Mediterranean

between 1785 and 1793.

In the absence of customs forms, Prof Davis

decided to extrapolate from the best records

available indicating how many slaves were at a

particular location at a single time and calculate

how many new slaves were needed to replace those

who died, escaped or were freed.


To keep the slave population stable, around onequarter

had to be replaced each year, which for the

period 1580 to 1680 meant around 8,500 new

slaves a year, totalling 850,000. The same

methodology would suggest 475,000 were abducted

in the previous and following centuries.

"Much of what has been written gives the

impression that there were not many slaves and

minimises the impact that slavery had on Europe,"

Prof Davis said last week. "Most accounts only

look at slavery in one place, or only for a short

period of time. But when you take a broader,

longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and

its powerful impact become clear."

According to one estimate, 7,000 English people

were abducted between 1622-1644, many of them

ships' crews and passengers. But the corsairs also

landed on unguarded beaches, often at night, to

snatch the unwary.

Almost all the inhabitants of the village of

Baltimore, in Ireland, were captured in 1631, and

there were other raids in Devon and Cornwall.

Reverend Devereux Spratt recorded being captured

by "Algerines" while crossing the Irish sea from

Cork to England in April 1641, and in 1661 Samuel


Pepys wrote about two men, Captain Mootham and

Mr Dawes, who were also abducted.

Last year it was announced one of the richest

treasure wrecks found off England - at Salcombe,

Devon - was a 16th-century Barbary ship en route

to catch slaves.

Although the black Africans enslaved and shipped

to the Americas over four centuries outnumbered

Prof Davis's estimates of white European taken to

Africa by 12-1, it is probable they shared the same

grim conditions.

"One of the things that both the public and many

scholars have tended to take as given is that

slavery was always racial in nature - that only

blacks have been slaves. But that is not true," said

the author.














American History – X

A Study in Propaganda


its propaganda message, rather than dealing with

reality. It takes facts and ties them to violence and

other unacceptable behavior, in the mind of the

viewing audience. It takes a fictional character,

builds him up as «THE skinhead,» and then moves

him to reject his race.


It completely ignores the facts of life, and the

unavoidable repercussions of the real changes

going on in our society today. It tries to equate or

balance the two murders of members of the White

Vinyard family — an unarmed fireman doing his

job, and an unarmed kid in school — with the

murder of two Black hooligans, in the process of

committing an armed crime.

The movie brushes on the changes that have taken

place in Venice beach, California, where this story

took place. When the Vinyard family moved there

originally, it was mostly a White town. As time

went by, just like the rest of America, thanks to the

Leftists, it became more and more Nonwhite. This

increased the crime and decreased the presence of

White culture. Now White kids are attacked in the

school rest rooms by Black kids. Now racial

tensions blanket all areas where kids live their

lives. Now violence is continually just around the

corner. But the movie is not about that. In fact,

once it brushes against this piece of reality, it pulls

back to continue the study of one man’s path of



The director of the movie admits that what he

wanted to do was to create a character, Derek

Vinyard, that skinheads would relate to, someone

that they would be excited about and want to be

like. Then the director wanted to portray that

character giving up his point of view for a «better»

one. That way, the skinheads in the audience would

do the same. If anyone in the audience is as stupid

and controlled as the White characters in the movie

were, they should run right out and join the ADL

and the Simon Wisenthal Center in trying to

destroy our race. Those morons in the movie were

going to do nothing but screw things up anyway,

and they can do more good for the White race

disrupting the enemy camp by joining it than they

ever could in ours.

And yet the real implication of the story was to say

that there is no positive way to save America. We

are told to face up to the fact that America is going

to be destroyed, and it is going to become a

completely Nonwhite nation, and there is nothing

positive that you can do about it. The only

«positive» reaction left you, is to curl up and hope

they don’t beat you too badly as they are kicking

you and robbing you of your land and your future.

Anything else is «hate.»


The propaganda in the movie was out in the open

for anyone who cared to look for it:

Derek made an impassioned speech for the

elimination of Nonwhite immigration, even putting

out some correct and important facts. Then, in a

typical propaganda ploy, all of those facts and all

of his points were tied to evil, in the form of

violence. No actual rebuttal of the information was

used or required because the group he was talking

to immediately committed violence. They put on

masks (and since they had masks all ready to go,

the implication was that it was not the only time

this had happened) and then ran into a Korean

owned store, beating up the males working there

and forcing a female worker down on her back and

pouring various liquids onto her face. It appears

that we are supposed to forget that Koreans had to

break out the guns to protect themselves from

Black rioters in LA, not White ones.

What is the real issue is the loss of White

neighborhoods and what can be done to stop that

process, but that issue is ignored and only the

symptoms of the illness is dealt with.


It is terrible to see passengers fighting over life

rafts, but the real problem is the sinking ship. If

you stop the ship from sinking, the fighting will

naturally stop.

Derek make another speech at the dinner table

where he brought out some excellent facts and

statistics. He made some very strong points but

once again all of his commentary was turned to

farce by the director. Derek became obnoxious to a

Jewish guest, and very rude and physical with his

sister. His mother even threw him out of her house

because of it. The emotion, the confrontation, and

the bad manners had taken all of the critical points

Derek had made and relegated them to the landfill

by his later actions. In the future when a member of

the viewing audience will be exposed to the same

facts, he will not think about the facts, but will

instead think about Derek’s unacceptable behavior.

That is the purpose of propaganda: to destroy a

point of view, not with reason, but with emotion.

A big stupid fat man named Seth was used as an

effective propaganda device. He spewed out racial

slurs and stupid sounding ideas, and even Derek

had no respect for him.


Derek’s sister ridiculed him openly for being fat

and stupid, something that would be considered

«hate» from the leftists who made this movie, if it

were not directed at a safe target. Hypocrisy is the

main characteristic of the Leftist, and the reason for

that is that they feel no need to be honest or

honorable. They focus on their goal, and all else is

only material to be used in achieving that goal. You

can call a handicapped man a cripple if he is a

racist. You can call an overweight person a fat pig

if he is a racist. You can hate and be as intolerant as

you want against a racist. According to the Leftist,

the total array of PC condemned activities, up to

and including violence with the dreaded handgun,

is completely acceptable to be used if you are using

it against the enemies of the Left.

The sad thing is that the average White is so

brainwashed that he doesn’t even see it. In fact,

because he is forced to repress his natural feelings

of disgust for certain things by the totalitarian

Leftists running our society, when he can finally

release them against a safe target, his hatred is even

more intense. Having a big fat, stupid racist to

laugh at, and to feel superior to, makes him feel

stronger and more powerful, but it also programs

his mind to think of White racial awareness as


something that is loathsome and disgusting. From

now on, he will have a natural tendency to avoid

even listening to what is said by anyone who is

even the least bit racist. In other words the

propaganda, using emotions rather than reason,


Derek catches 3 Blacks breaking into his car. One

of them is armed, with a loaded gun in his hand.

Derek opened fire on them, killing the armed Black

instantly and wounding a second fleeing Black.

The third one got away in his car. Up to this point

there was nothing to fault Derek for. He had killed

a Black man armed with a hand gun, which was out

and in his hand, standing on Derek’s front porch.

He had shot another Black man who had shattered

a car window, and who had been inside Derek’s car

trying to find something to steal, and then who

tried to run away. It is as American as apple pie to

defend yourself and your property. There is nothing

at all wrong with that, except in the mind of the

disruptive Marxist.

Of course the director of the movie knew that this

would not be an effective propaganda piece if he let

it go at that.


If the wounded man had just been killed outright,

the audience just might rightly be sympathetic to

Derek, and that would never do. So, the vandal was

made to appear to be only wounded, and then

Derek slid him out into the street, put the Black

man’s open mouth against the curb, and then

stomped the back of his head with his boot,

crushing the skull. Now the audience could react

the way they should. Now they could be properly

repulsed by a man who had been roused from his

bed to defend himself and his property from some

Black thugs who had come to his house with

criminal intent. Now, instead of rightly appearing

as the victim, this action made him appear as the

villain, which was the desired result. With this one

addition, all of the things that Derek had said, or

believed in, were suddenly made to appear to be

the ideas of a mad man. Yet he was shown to be

driven mad, not because of any physiological

disorder, but merely because of his beliefs. All he

had to do was change his beliefs and he would be

restored to total mental health. The propaganda

here used the emotions created by watching a

brutal, hateful action, to convey the concept that

complete insanity controls any White who might

even dream of being racially aware.


In prison Derek was raped by the White gang. It

was clearly indicated in the movie that the only

reason that Derek was not raped or murdered by the

Blacks in the prison was, at first because the White

gang protected him, and later because a Black guy

had interceded for him. The audience was supposed

to ignore this fact of normal Black violence, being

spared actually seeing it in action, and was instead

expected to dwell on the cannibalistic Whites who

would prey on their own. (Another point ignored is

the fact that the Whites only attacked him once as a

punishment for what they perceived as an bad

behavior, and never bothered him again, while

Derek’s actual survival was said to be threatened

by the Blacks.) The movie strove to convey the

idea that since these Whites were animals and

unthinking, all Whites who are supposedly in

support of their own race are just like that. No

reason, just emotion. No thought about the fact that

these were convicts, who often have attitudes that

are contrary to the mainstream of society. Do we

judge how we are going to believe and act in any

other facet of life based upon the beliefs and

activities of prisoners?


After the White gang raped Derek, he was visited

by a Black teacher. Only a Black man could save

him from his hatred. Only a Black man could

console his troubled soul. There was no White on

earth that cared for him, but this Black man did.

And another Black man, the one he worked with in

the laundry every day, talked with the other Blacks,

and saved him from a Black attack for an entire 6

months later on. All of the Whites that Derek dealt

with in prison were complete jerks with no

redeeming qualities. The two Blacks we saw him

dealing with were wonderful human beings. The

Black convict was said to even be wrongly

imprisoned, as if to try and explain the huge

number of Blacks in our prisons today as nothing

but racial injustice. Propaganda, the emotion ruling

over the intellect. Whites as a group are evil and

untrustworthy, Blacks are honorable and caring,

even though they are put upon by the evil White


The leader of the racist group that Derek and his

younger brother Daniel belonged to, was run by a

slimy character, Cameron Alexander, who had

turned on his friends years ago to avoid prison and

who was using a bunch of loser kids to further his

own aims. He was phony and a user.


He was using Daniel during the time that Derek

was in prison and when Derek got out of prison, he

went after Cameron, in order to get Daniel out of

the group. The final confrontation between these

two was intended to show how crazy the whole

pro-White idea is and how the only sane reaction is

to meet it with violence and revulsion. Once you

have rid yourself of any pro-White feelings then

everything will be fine and you can return to the

mental health of your sheeply existence. This

sleazeball, Alexander, was someone anyone would

despise. He had no backbone and was using kids to

further his own private aims. He did not believe in

what he was doing, he was merely using it to gain

money and power. He inspired the kids to violence,

while keeping himself safe in the background.

When Derek left him laying on the floor bleeding

and cursing, the audience was given an image of

how to treat those who would promote anything

White. They were left with the idea that anyone

who is interested in saving his race and his nation

is as despicable as Cameron Alexander. It is very

much like portraying Benedict Arnold as the image

of all Americans. It is easy to hate an image like

that, and it works on emotions, not intellect, just

like all real propaganda does.


The final scene of the movie was the last

opportunity for propaganda, and the director did

not waste his chance. Daniel was fatally shot in the

boys rest room in school, and Derek ran in and held

his dead body in his arms rocking back and forth in

tears. The audience was given the idea that Derek

was finally paying the real price for his previous

insanity, and he just might be forgiven for it, if

only he will use the rest of his life to combat the

evils of being White. That is what the emotion of

the scene was crying out for, and that was the

propaganda aspect of it. However…

For someone who stepped back from the bloody

and heart wrenching scene for a moment and

thought about it, they would see that that Daniel

was shot by a little Black thug who was in the

school because of forced integration, and society’s

move towards diversity. Earlier Derek’s father had

been murdered because of Blacks in their society,

and now, so was his brother. His own prison

sentence was as a result of his own reaction to

Black criminals, and none of this would have

happened at all if he had lived in a White society

like almost all of America was before 1965. If the

movie had been slanted to show this reality instead

of the forced and phony message that it intended,


the movie would have been decried as a hate

mongering piece of trash, and would never even

have made it into production, let alone distribution.

There were other points of propaganda in the

movie, like the absurd and phony looking swastika

on Derek’s chest, and the scene where he is having

sex with is girlfriend while she has her combat

boots on. If you wish to go through the movie with

a fine toothed comb, you will see a number of

subtle and not so subtle brain manipulating tactics

all intended to lead the viewer away from thinking,

and instead towards emotionally hating any White

who would be so brazen as to stand up for his

people and his nation.

One of the most amazing things in our society

today is that such a one sided view of the world is

portrayed from all media outlets. However,

everyone goes around ignoring that «elephant in

their living room.» In a free society, where people

can really think their own thoughts, there cannot be

only one point of view expressed. It is only in a

controlled society where just one point of view is

tolerated in general discussion. It is only in a

controlled media where only one voice is heard.


Such is the society where we live, and just like in

all movies and television programming today, that

one view is clearly shown in the movie, American


From: http://love.flawlesslogic.com/html/historyx.h


In 1922 he founded the "Pan Europe" movement in

Vienna, which aimed to create a New World Order,

based on a federation of nations under the

leadership of the United States. European

unification would be the first step towards the

creation of a world government.


Among its early supporters were Czech politicians

Tomáš Masaryk and Edvard Beneš as well as

banker Max Warburg, who issued the first 60,000

marks. Austrian Chancellor Ignaz Seipel and the

next Austrian President Karl Renner then took

charge of leading the "Pan Europe" movement.

Later, French politicians such as Léon Bloum,

Aristide Briand, the Italian politician Alcide De

Gasperi and others will offer their help. With the

rise of Fascism in Europe, the project was put

under anesthesia, and the "Pan-European"

movement was forced to dissolve, but after the

Second World War Kalergi, thanks to a frantic and

tireless activity, as well as the support of Winston

Churchill, of the Jewish Masonic lodge B'nai B'rith

and important newspapers such as the New York

Times, he manages to get his plan accepted by the

United States government. Then the CIA takes over

the completion of the plan of the united Europe.


In his book "Praktischer Idealismus", Kalergi states

that the inhabitants of the future "United States of

Europe" will not be the ancient peoples of the Old

Continent, but a species of subhumans that will

come from interbreeding. He states clearly, that the

peoples of Europe should be crossed with Asiatic

and colored races, so as to create a multinational

herd without quality and easily controlled by the

ruling class. Kalergi proclaims the abolition of

peoples' right to self-determination and then the

elimination of nations through ethnic separatist

movements or mass immigration. In order for

Europe to be controlled by an elite, it wants to turn

the homogeneous people into a mixed race of

blacks, whites, and Asians. But who is this elite?

Kalergi is particularly enlightening on this: "The

man of the future will be of mixed racial origin.

The races and classes of today will gradually

disappear due to the elimination of space, time and

prejudice. The Eurasian-Negro race of the future,

similar in appearance to the ancient Egyptians, will

replace the diversity of peoples and the diversity of

individuals. Instead of destroying European

Judaism, Europe, against its will, ennobled and

educated this people, leading it to its future status

as a leading nation through this artificial


evolutionary process. It is not surprising that this

people who escaped from the Ghetto-prisons,

developed into an intellectual aristocracy of

Europe. Thus merciful providence gave Europe a

new race of aristocracy with the grace of the spirit.

This happened at the time when the European

feudal aristocracy fell, because of the emancipation

of the Jews [meaning the orders and measures

taken by the French revolution]”.

Although no textbook mentions Kalergi, his ideas

are the guiding principles of today's European

Union. The belief that the peoples of Europe should

mix with Africans and Asians, to destroy identity

and create a single mixed race, is the basis of all

Community policies aimed at the integration and

protection of minorities. This is not done for

humanitarian reasons, but because of directives

issued with ruthless determination to achieve the

greatest genocide in history. In his honor, the

European Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize was

established, with which Europeans who have

excelled in promoting his criminal plan are

awarded every two years. Among those awarded

are Angela Merkel and Herman Van Rompuy.






Political correctness is defined as “a term that

describes language, ideas, policies, and behavior

seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional

offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural,

sexual orientation, religious belief, disability, and

age-related contexts.”


Cultural Marxism can be a controversial term—

some assert there’s no such thing, and others use

the term as a catch-all for anything they see as

undermining society. In short, cultural Marxism is

a revolutionary leftist idea that traditional culture is

the source of oppression in the modern world.

Cultural Marxism is often linked to an insistence

upon political correctness, multiculturalism, and

perpetual attacks on the foundations of culture: the

nuclear family, marriage, patriotism, traditional

morality, law and order, etc. Cultural Marxists are

assumed to be committed to establishing economic

Marxism, in which case their cultural attacks are a

necessary preparation for their ultimate goal.

After World War I, some Marxist philosophers felt

the need to modify their political strategy. Karl

Marx generally saw culture as a secondary concern.

His successors realized that culture was, in fact,

critical to social change. When a society is willing

to criticize its institutions, it is ready to make

changes. The result of these ideas was the Frankfurt

School, a generic term for Marxist philosophy

focused on social criticism and bottom-up change.


In particular, the Frankfurt School rejected the idea

of absolute truth and promoted aggressive criticism

of all aspects of life and society. Some early

observers referred to this new approach as cultural

Marxism to distinguish it from the earlier, classical

forms of Marxism. More orthodox Marxists do not

see cultural Marxism as Marxist at all.

The philosophy of cultural Marxism endures today,

although the term itself is rarely used by those who

subscribe to the Frankfurt School of thought. In

actual practice, cultural Marxism is often used as a

derogatory term for various left-leaning,

progressive, or liberal practices.

From: https://www.gotquestions.org/

Sensitivity readers: no better than Medieval statue



‘Yeah, the good news is that this is a right-wing

source that is probably blowing it out of proportion.

But it does feel like we might be getting to the

breaking-d*cks-off-statues phase of society again.’

Or so went a recent comment on a Reddit forum

discussing the censorship of Ladybird’s fairy tales


It’s a slightly clunky if not accurate reference to the

stump-less marble lads littered throughout the

Vatican and other European museums. Each carved

figure has their butchered manhood covered by a

decorative fig leaf, no doubt to hide the shame of

the person who took a chisel to these ancient works

of art. It was part of a Medieval campaign to

protect modesty that was still going under the reign

of Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) in which statues from

antiquity were desecrated to serve the sensitivities

of the modern age.

Which is exactly what the Woke are doing today.

They have appointed themselves ‘Pope’ and started

hacking off bits of Western culture that offend their

delicate sensitives (and these are a class of people

that specialise in finding ways to be offended).


It is so strange that progressive minds claiming to

be above religion seem determined to revive a

behaviour that the Church has long since dispensed

with. Around 1.3 million people flock to the

Galleria dell’Accademia to gaze at David’s bits, so

why can’t we keep the odd prince and princess love

story intact?

Wokism is the new religion and it flexes its power

by harming anything that threatens its worldview.

And to be fair, the Church has absolutely

nothing on today’s censors. Sensitivity readers

(along with other digital moderators and

entertainment revisionists) are far more extreme,

unhinged, and insidious. Their behaviour is closer

to that of Mao’s enforcers during the Cultural

Revolution in which anything that offended,

contested, or upset the new ideology had to go.

This is not surprising, considering both movements

find their beginnings in collective ideology.

Having moved on from bleaching James Bond and

Roald Dahl, the sensitivity readers in the

publishing industry have turned to fairy tales.

Many of us have fond memories of those red-andblack-spotted

books published between the mid 60s

and late 90s.


All of my Ladybird fairy tales are in storage kept –

jokingly at first – in case the next generation of our

family didn’t have access to old stories.

The purpose of the Ladybird series is to help young

children learn how to read while sharing pieces of

European culture as told through traditional fairy

tales such as Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Tom

Thumb, Pinocchio, Rapunzel, Little Red Riding

Hood, Jack and the Beanstalk etc.

Fairy tales have never pretended to present a

‘virtuous utopia’ to children. They are meant as

lessons and warnings, often teaching children about

terrible danger in a PG-13 way. Children have

always been robust enough to survive the Ladybird

series – until now.

And while you might think, ‘Yeah, I guess the

whole wolf trying to eat the little girl thing is a bit

scary…’ That’s not what the censors are coming


Their problem?

Love at first sight. In Sleeping Beauty (and other

similar tales) the idea that a prince might find a

straight, white, biological female attractive without

speaking to her is ‘problematic’ and conveys


beauty ideals that are ‘privileged’. Oh, and god

forbid the prince assumes the princess’ pronouns!

He’s not allowed to guess that she’s a she/her

without asking which he cannot do unless he wakes

her up with a kiss but without her permission, that

is basically rape. Being royalty is also a problem,

because her status as a princess is being used to

calculate her worthiness of love – that’s


Their commentary on this is utterly hilarious. They


The Penguin-owned publisher’s catalogue includes

classic tales such as Cinderella and Sleeping

Beauty – but the characters and plots have been

identified as ‘outdated or harmful’.

Industry insiders claim problematic tropes include

a lack of diversity among blonde-haired and blueeyed


There are also fears of class discrimination due to

the social rank of princes and princesses, ageism as

villains are usually old, and a lack of racial

diversity among main characters.


‘Love at first sight’ romances could also be erased

due to the protagonists falling for each other before

they have spoken.

It is feared that these tropes may suggest to

children that good looks alone make someone

worthy of attention and romance.

The characters’ presumption of gender pronouns at

first sight has also been raised as an issue.

For example, when a princess uses the term ‘man’

upon seeing a prince for the first time before they

have got to know each other, with gender-neutral

language said to be preferred.

It’s probably annoying to the Marxists lurking

inside the school system that their classrooms are

full of little girls dressed up as princesses,

dreaming of finding their future husband and

settling down into a happy, normal marriage when

they’re older. This doesn’t fit with the Woke view

of the world. Nor does the image of men who want

to be princes, defending women and defeating

monsters. That’s probably toxic masculinity.

The problem with sensitivity readers, as a

profession, is that they essentially get paid to find



Imagine if a sensitivity reader kept coming back

without finding anything wrong with the books

under review – what would be the point of their

existence? They’re like politicians who are paid to

implement policy regardless of whether it is needed

and so Western nations are drowning in mindless


Sensitivity readers didn’t exist when the greatest

works of fiction were being written because none

of them would have made it through the ‘I’m so

offended by everything’ mob.

Good stories cannot be looking over their shoulder,

calculating every fictional interaction from the

fragile mindset of the Tumblr generation. It’s no

wonder the quality of modern writing is terrible.

And no, I don’t care how much ‘expert knowledge’

a sensitivity reader has, that does not qualify them

to edit the voice of another human being. If they

want to contribute, they can write their own works

of fiction instead of assaulting other people’s

masterpieces. The problem is that these ultra-Woke

authors know that no matter how many pitchperfect

stories they write, people are still going to

pick up the ‘problematic’ Ian Fleming novel. Why?

Because people don’t like sanitised snooze-fests.


It’s why feminist comedians are unfunny and

modern art is a pile of garbage.

This is not the first time culture has been taken by

the neck and squeezed. (Sorry, was that a

‘problematic’ bit of imagery?)

Science fiction essentially started because writers

were too afraid to describe the dystopian nature of

reality. They shifted their commentary to fictional

worlds where no one could be offended, but the

smart readers could draw parallels to the real world

and its dictatorships. Like fairy tales, science

fiction was largely written as a warning to future


Perhaps the next generation of writers will have to

re-imagine fiction and use clever stories to disguise

criticism of this Woke regime that is happy to

wield the hammer and chisel…

There is an interesting conversation

from Mumsnet.com from 2009 where a parent was

alarmed when reading Hansel and Gretel to their


‘I had forgotten how horrid the story is – what with

children being abandoned by their parents in the

forest, a witch imprisoning Hansel so she can fatten


him up and eat him, the witch herself getting

pushed in the oven at the end… I tried to gloss over

the scary bits as much as possible, but it got me

thinking. I guess I must have been told this story in

my early childhood. Is three too young for the

themes in this story? At what age would you

introduce stories like this? DD is very taken by the

house made out of sweets so I think I will request it

again, just now sure how much I need to “censor”


Which misses the point. The idea of Hansel and

Gretel is to warn children who might be enticed by

houses made out of sweets that nothing is free and

that it is almost certainly a trap. It’s basically a

retelling of ‘don’t take candy from strangers’ in a

way that children might actually remember to heed

the warning. In censoring the story, the parent may

teach their child that houses made of sweets have

no consequences.

As one respondent said, ‘They are cautionary tales,

so they are meant to be a bit scary. They lose their

point if you censor them.’

Thankfully this particular parent saw the merit in

telling the story and came to the conclusion that

they are against censorship.


If only today’s world had the common sense of

2009. If you don’t like a book – put it down. The

second you start up a bonfire, you’ve become the

mad old cannibalistic witch in the fairy tale.







Want a Socialist Society? First, Abandon Your

Hopes and Dreams

The debate on socialism has surfaced yet again

with the recent congressional primary election

victory of 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a

member of the Democratic Socialists of America,

to New York’s 14th Congressional District.


Socialism is often held in contempt over its many

failures, yet it still maintains support from young

and old minds for being “great in theory, but not in

practice.” This old quip is represented by the

generations of thinkers that have tried to improve

the economic system, but it ignores the undeniable

truth: that socialism, in all of its manifestations, is

untenable both in theory and in practice.

In recent history we have seen the rise and fall of

many socialist states. Although the existing selfdeclared

socialist states are kept alive by meager

market reforms or neighboring-nation support, they

maintain despotic control and low standards of

living. We must ask what caused these nations to

develop and then devolve so rapidly. Specifically,

what does each state have in common? Each nation

varies within their political and economic

organization, but they all share centralized decision

making, also known as central planning.

This fundamental attribute of the large industrial

and agricultural states is best represented by a

simple thought experiment, one that highlights the

conflict that exists between government and



No Individualism Allowed

To show this relationship, let us create our own

imaginary planned society. Imagine you are the

head of your own country. You are in charge of

making decisions that will lead to the greatest

benefit of your nation. This may be simple to do

with only a few people, but real nations do not

consist of just a few like-minded people. In reality

they contain several million individuals with

objectives and desires that may not reflect those of

your central authority. When decisions are

centralized, you will lack meaningful participation

and input from those who stand to be affected by

any policies created. This will lead to widespread

disagreement and dissatisfaction among the

citizenry. Due to the lack of information and ability

to satisfy all conditions, you will find it virtually

impossible to centrally plan successfully, as has

been the fate of every country that has tried.

This most inherent and observable failure in

socialist theory pertains to the abolition of private

property. The most attractive aspect of socialism to

many is the claim that under socialism, private

property will be abolished, or collectively owned in

order to attain an equitable distribution of


resources. This proposition is famously quoted

from Karl Marx that resources are to be distributed

by a central planner “to each according to his

needs.” This raises the question: how will the

central planner effectively achieve this equitable

distribution with the abolition of private property?

When private property ceases to exist, there

becomes nothing to buy and sell. When there is

nothing to buy and sell, the universal means to

make bids or offers of exchange necessarily goes

with it. Money will be rendered obsolete in this

vision of society and because of it, society will

have no agreed upon terms of trade. When there is

no agreed upon terms of trade, there will be no

prices to relay the relative value of goods and


This is where socialist theory breaks down in all

practical applications. Prices are the means of

reflecting all available information within the

market. Prices are the signal from each individual

producer and consumer to inform each other of the

relative preference or scarcity of any and all

available goods and services. When the abolition of

private property leads to the abolition of prices,

every actor within the market, including the

supposed omniscient central planner loses a vital


calculative device that dictates how to efficiently

apply the means of production to alternative uses in

order to achieve maximum efficiency and welfare

within the society. This in turn renders the central

planners objective to economically plan with

maximum efficiency and regard for well-being an


With this error in socialist theory, the process to

even begin making decisions for a nation with so

many conflicting opinions you must first set a goal

which you can direct society toward. With that goal

in mind you must then assign merit to each of the

citizens’ many needs and wants, granting merit

only to those who advance the “society's” interests.

These merits may take the form of increased pay

for desirable industries, special privileges, and even

punishment for those who act in opposition to this

goal. No goal has a chance of success unless the

entire society is mobilized to achieve it; for

example, outlawing murder can only yield

desirable outcomes if the law is enforced

everywhere. Such mobilization, like laws to

prevent murder, are only viable when wielded with

the threat of force behind them.


Do It for "Society"

The fundamental error within this method of

governance is that when society is organized by

force rather than free choice, leaders must

necessarily sacrifice the needs, wants, and

freedoms of those who deviate from its direction.

This fate of all socialist societies is the result of the

misallocation of resources that occurs in the

absence of decentralized decision making. This

inefficiency will promote leaders to attempt to

correct it by redirecting those objectives to ends

that would have otherwise been no part of the

individual's intention and desire. This means that

each citizen will be subject to sacrifice their own

objectives in order to promote those of the central

planners. If you want to create an industrial society,

you must sacrifice the product of the painters,

musicians, and sculptors. If you want society based

on the merits and benefits of agriculture, you must

be prepared to sacrifice the opulence derived from


No matter how virtuous a goal or objective might

be, you will never be able to fully rally a society

behind you for any length of time with the use of

force, as force will create an offset toward any


authority, and you will only end up with many

objectives and goals sacrificed. It is only by the

destruction of individuality that any predetermined

objective can hope to be achieved.

The most popular misconception today is that these

infringements on civil liberties cannot happen

under socialism because it is supposed to be

democratically based. This is absurd as socialism

must ultimately be fundamentally undemocratic.

The purpose of any advocated socialist society is to

reach some assumed optimum of which society can

function. This is the “goal” that is established.

Whether it be equality, industry, or leisure, it does

not change the system that will be installed to reach

that goal. Besides the obvious and documented

danger of majority rule, any democratic decision

would have to be enforced by some central

authority; without one there would be no chance to

achieve such a goal. When the central authority is

realized, the individuality of each citizen will be

usurped by the collective society and central

planning will ensue. Democracy can only serve as a

means to socialism, an otherwise undemocratic



The just society is not some game of chess where

we can move around each person like they exist to

carry out the will of "the people." We must not

forget that in real life, these “pawns” move with

their own objectives. If we depart from the notion

that each person is an individual with their own

unique attributes and objectives, we can guarantee

ourselves that only misery and despotism will

quickly follow.


Aaron Banks

Aaron Banks is a recent high school graduate from

Illinois and will be attending college in Chicago

this fall, majoring in economics. While at

Champaign Central high school, Aaron placed

second in economics at the Illinois Future Business

Leaders of America State competition and went

onto compete internationally with the United Sates'

top 200 students in the category of economics.

From: https://mises.org/wire/want-socialistsociety-first-abandon-your-hopes-and-dreams












By the gods of war he was made

Never challenged by his prey

A demon, a warrior, a god

The keeper of his cause

The strongest of the strong

No matter the right or wrong

As far as the eye can see

He will never concede

Born into war is all that he's known

The seeds of terror are what he has sown

A maiden has never seen into his heart

And for this passion his soul will depart


The blade of Achilles is blessed by the gods

A slave to no man he fights for a cause

The strength of Achilles will render you cold

The might of Achilles shall never be sold

For the shores of Troy they set sail

When all before him failed

To avenge his cousin's life

A victim of the knife

Ten thousand fall that day

Leaving as they feign to sail away

They take it, a gift behind the gates

Soon will seal their fate

Achilles the brave that no man can kill

The arrow of fate across his heel

Will be the fall of Achilles this day

The glory of Troy now fades away

- Achilles, Jag Panzer, Track 4 on ‘’Casting the

Stones’’ album, 2004

(Note: How the memory of Achilles still remains

through music from ancient to modern times

without historical changes for ‘’political

correctness’’ reasons: be black, African,

peacemaker, atheist, homosexual, e.t.c. by some

sensitivity readers!)


- Disney’s Nutcracker and the Four Realms, 2018

Another example of true Diversity in contrast with

the uniformity of (Left-Wing fascist) Globalization

with ‘’Diversity’’ mask, is the film above with

these charachteristics: English white and invetive

princess (for royalist audience), black nutcracker

servant and some dancers (for black audience),

some actors with homosexual behaviour (for

similar audience), Tchaikovsky's famous ballet,

Philharmonia Orchestra in London, Christmass

celebration, e.t.c, but not only one same choice for

all audience (e.g. only black actors, only african

music, only gay or lesbian, Democratic or Marxist

place, without religion celebration, e.t.c.)



Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!