Individualism versus Collectivism

I just read Edgar J. Steele’s latest “Nickel Rant,” titled Anarchy With Honor, in which he tries to reduce politics to being a conflict between “collectivists” and “individualists.” This is a concept that’s been heavily promoted over the years by the John Birch Society (a jewish false front, sometimes humorously referred to as the B’nai Birch), especially ex-JBS member G. Edward Griffin (of Creature from Jekyll Island fame).

I’m wary of people who try to divide the world between “collectivists” and “individualists” for the following reasons:

1. Because it is impossible to live in a society — any society — without giving up at least some of one’s individual freedom, and without society, one cannot survive. That’s why societies exist in the first place — to ensure our survival. If anyone wants to dispute that, then try this — get yourself airdropped naked in the middle of a wild terrain, and see how long you last. Not even Unabomber Ted Kaczynski was able to live in the wild by himself without occasionally going into town to pick up supplies.

Most people find giving up some of their individual liberties in exchange for roads, clean tap water, cheap electricity, national security, public decency, etc., to be an acceptable trade-off. So it’s not really a question of “collectivism” versus “individualism”; it’s more a matter of what degree of “collectivism” you’re willing to accept in exchange for the perceived benefits.

2. Because the collectivist/individualist paradigm is constantly used to attack white nationalism. The people who embrace this dichotomy view any sort of white racial consciousness as a form of “collectivism” (which it is). If you view people strictly as individuals, then it is not possible to view them as members of racial or ethnic groups. Case in point — I had a white lady, a lesbian, who fanatically believed in all this JBS “collectivist vs individualist” baloney, stubbornly refuse to accept that blacks commit more violent crimes than whites, or that society even has a right to look at whether or not they do. After all, we’re only supposed to judge people as individuals, not according to which race they belong to, right? I’m sorry, but any world-view that requires its adherents to deny reality cannot be good. The “collectivist vs individualist” paradigm almost seems like a secular version of Christianity’s universalism — that every human has a soul and that every individual should only be judged by whether or not he is a good Christian.

Going back to point #1, I maintain that racial collectivism is necessary for our survival, and that anyone who attacks it while promoting “individualism” is either consciously or unconsciously a tool of the New World Order, whose primary goal is the creation of a global plantation filled with rootless, uniformly brown people (ironically, the people who are pushing for this New World Order say they are in favor of “diversity,” when what they are actually trying to do is destroy it).

What those who are concerned about personal freedom (including many so-called “fascists” and “nazis”) ought to oppose is tyranny and despotism, not “collectivism” per se. Collectivism is unavoidable and necessary, and fighting against it is as futile as fighting against the air we breathe.

Was Huey Long’s assassin Jewish?

According to Victor Wolzek’s Terror Timeline, Humanitas International, Douglas Reed’s Controversy of Zion, and Metapedia, Huey Long’s assassin Carl Austin Weiss was either a Jew or of Jewish descent (some dispute that he was the assassin, claiming Long was accidentally killed by his bodyguards, but looking at the cold, hard facts of the matter, I find that hard to believe).

I haven’t, however, found any mainstream source which confirms that Weiss was of Jewish descent. According to Wikipedia, Weiss attended Catholic High School in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, which, if true, doesn’t resonate with the idea that he was Jewish. Anyone got a mainstream source that confirms Weiss was Jewish?

Furthermore, the timeline at Humanitas International suggests that Weiss may have been the agent of a secret society called the Black Hand. Anyone got any leads on this?

Ship of Fools

by Ted Kaczynski

Once upon a time, the captain and the mates of a ship grew so vain of their seamanship, so full of hubris and so impressed with themselves, that they went mad. They turned the ship north and sailed until they met with icebergs and dangerous floes, and they kept sailing north into more and more perilous waters, solely in order to give themselves opportunities to perform ever-more-brilliant feats of seamanship.

As the ship reached higher and higher latitudes, the passengers and crew became increasingly uncomfortable. They began quarreling among themselves and complaining of the conditions under which they lived.

“Shiver me timbers,” said an able seaman, “if this ain’t the worst voyage I’ve ever been on. The deck is slick with ice; when I’m on lookout the wind cuts through me jacket like a knife; every time I reef the foresail I blamed-near freeze me fingers; and all I get for it is a miserable five shillings a month!”

“You think you have it bad!” said a lady passenger. “I can’t sleep at night for the cold. Ladies on this ship don’t get as many blankets as the men. It isn’t fair!”

A Mexican sailor chimed in: “¡Chingado! I’m only getting half the wages of the Anglo seamen. We need plenty of food to keep us warm in this climate, and I’m not getting my share; the Anglos get more. And the worst of it is that the mates always give me orders in English instead of Spanish.”

“I have more reason to complain than anybody,” said an American Indian sailor. “If the palefaces hadn’t robbed me of my ancestral lands, I wouldn’t even be on this ship, here among the icebergs and arctic winds. I would just be paddling a canoe on a nice, placid lake. I deserve compensation. At the very least, the captain should let me run a crap game so that I can make some money.”

The bosun spoke up: “Yesterday the first mate called me a ‘fruit’ just because I suck cocks. I have a right to suck cocks without being called names for it!”

“It’s not only humans who are mistreated on this ship,” interjected an animal-lover among the passengers, her voice quivering with indignation. “Why, last week I saw the second mate kick the ship’s dog twice!”

One of the passengers was a college professor. Wringing his hands he exclaimed, “All this is just awful! It’s immoral! It’s racism, sexism, speciesism, homophobia, and exploitation of the working class! It’s discrimination! We must have social justice: Equal wages for the Mexican sailor, higher wages for all sailors, compensation for the Indian, equal blankets for the ladies, a guaranteed right to suck cocks, and no more kicking the dog!”

“Yes, yes!” shouted the passengers. “Aye-aye!” shouted the crew. “It’s discrimination! We have to demand our rights!”

The cabin boy cleared his throat.

“Ahem. You all have good reasons to complain. But it seems to me that what we really have to do is get this ship turned around and headed back south, because if we keep going north we’re sure to be wrecked sooner or later, and then your wages, your blankets, and your right to suck cocks won’t do you any good, because we’ll all drown.”

But no one paid any attention to him, because he was only the cabin boy.

The captain and the mates, from their station on the poop deck, had been watching and listening.

Now they smiled and winked at one another, and at a gesture from the captain the third mate came down from the poop deck, sauntered over to where the passengers and crew were gathered, and shouldered his way in amongst them. He put a very serious expression on his face and spoke thusly:

“We officers have to admit that some really inexcusable things have been happening on this ship. We hadn’t realized how bad the situation was until we heard your complaints. We are men of good will and want to do right by you. But – well – the captain is rather conservative and set in his ways, and may have to be prodded a bit before he’ll make any substantial changes. My personal opinion is that if you protest vigorously – but always peacefully and without violating any of the ship’s rules – you would shake the captain out of his inertia and force him to address the problems of which you so justly complain.”

Having said this, the third mate headed back toward the poop deck. As he went, the passengers and crew called after him, “Moderate! Reformer! Goody-liberal! Captain’s stooge!” But they nevertheless did as he said. They gathered in a body before the poop deck, shouted insults at the officers, and demanded their rights: “I want higher wages and better working conditions,” cried the able seaman.

“Equal blankets for women,” cried the lady passenger. “I want to receive my orders in Spanish,” cried the Mexican sailor. “I want the right to run a crap game,” cried the Indian sailor. “I don’t want to be called a fruit,” cried the bosun. “No more kicking the dog,” cried the animal lover. “Revolution now,” cried the professor.

The captain and the mates huddled together and conferred for several minutes, winking, nodding and smiling at one another all the while. Then the captain stepped to the front of the poop deck and, with a great show of benevolence, announced that the able seaman’s wages would be raised to six shillings a month; the Mexican sailor’s wages would be raised to two-thirds the wages of an Anglo seaman, and the order to reef the foresail would be given in Spanish; lady passengers would receive one more blanket; the Indian sailor would be allowed to run a crap game on Saturday nights; the bosun wouldn’t be called a fruit as long as he kept his cocksucking strictly private; and the dog wouldn’t be kicked unless he did something really naughty, such as stealing food from the galley.

The passengers and crew celebrated these concessions as a great victory, but the next morning, they were again feeling dissatisfied.

“Six shillings a month is a pittance, and I still freeze me fingers when I reef the foresail,” grumbled the able seaman. “I’m still not getting the same wages as the Anglos, or enough food for this climate,” said the Mexican sailor. “We women still don’t have enough blankets to keep us warm,” said the lady passenger. The other crewmen and passengers voiced similar complaints, and the professor egged them on.

When they were done, the cabin boy spoke up – louder this time so that the others could not easily ignore him: “It’s really terrible that the dog gets kicked for stealing a bit of bread from the galley, and that women don’t have equal blankets, and that the able seaman gets his fingers frozen; and I don’t see why the bosun shouldn’t suck cocks if he wants to. But look how thick the icebergs are now, and how the wind blows harder and harder! We’ve got to turn this ship back toward the south, because if we keep going north we’ll be wrecked and drowned.”

“Oh yes,” said the bosun, “It’s just so awful that we keep heading north. But why should I have to keep cocksucking in the closet? Why should I be called a fruit? Ain’t I as good as everyone else?”

“Sailing north is terrible,” said the lady passenger. “But don’t you see? That’s exactly why women need more blankets to keep them warm. I demand equal blankets for women now!”

“It’s quite true,” said the professor, “that sailing to the north imposes great hardships on all of us. But changing course toward the south would be unrealistic. You can’t turn back the clock. We must find a mature way of dealing with the situation.”

“Look,” said the cabin boy, “If we let those four madmen up on the poop deck have their way, we’ll all be drowned. If we ever get the ship out of danger, then we can worry about working conditions, blankets for women, and the right to suck cocks. But first we’ve got to get this vessel turned around. If a few of us get together, make a plan, and show some courage, we can save ourselves. It wouldn’t take many of us – six or eight would do. We could charge the poop, chuck those lunatics overboard, and turn the ship to the south.”

The professor elevated his nose and said sternly, “I don’t believe in violence. It’s immoral.”

“It’s unethical ever to use violence,” said the bosun.

“I’m terrified of violence,” said the lady passenger.

The captain and the mates had been watching and listening all the while. At a signal from the captain, the third mate stepped down to the main deck. He went about among the passengers and crew, telling them that there were still many problems on the ship.

“We have made much progress,” he said, “But much remains to be done. Working conditions for the able seaman are still hard, the Mexican still isn’t getting the same wages as the Anglos, the women still don’t have quite as many blankets as the men, the Indian’s Saturday-night crap game is a paltry compensation for his lost lands, it’s unfair to the bosun that he has to keep his cocksucking in the closet, and the dog still gets kicked at times.

“I think the captain needs to be prodded again. It would help if you all would put on another protest – as long as it remains nonviolent.”

As the third mate walked back toward the stern, the passengers and the crew shouted insults after him, but they nevertheless did what he said and gathered in front of the poop deck for another protest. They ranted and raved and brandished their fists, and they even threw a rotten egg at the captain (which he skillfully dodged).

After hearing their complaints, the captain and the mates huddled for a conference, during which they winked and grinned broadly at one another. Then the captain stepped to the front of the poop deck and announced that the able seaman would be given gloves to keep his fingers warm, the Mexican sailor would receive wages equal to three-fourths the wages of an Anglo seaman, the women would receive yet another blanket, the Indian sailor could run a crap game on Saturday and Sunday nights, the bosun would be allowed to suck cocks publicly after dark, and no one could kick the dog without special permission from the captain.

The passengers and crew were ecstatic over this great revolutionary victory, but by the next morning they were again feeling dissatisfied and began grumbling about the same old hardships.

The cabin boy this time was getting angry.

“You damn fools!” he shouted. “Don’t you see what the captain and the mates are doing? They’re keeping you occupied with your trivial grievances about blankets and wages and the dog being kicked so that you won’t think about what is really wrong with this ship — that it’s getting farther and farther to the north and we’re all going to be drowned. If just a few of you would come to your senses, get together, and charge the poop deck, we could turn this ship around and save ourselves.

But all you do is whine about petty little issues like working conditions and crap games and the right to suck cocks.”

The passengers and the crew were incensed.

“Petty!” cried the Mexican. “Do you think it’s reasonable that I get only three-fourths the wages of an Anglo sailor? Is that petty?”

“How can you call my grievance trivial?” shouted the bosun. “Don’t you know how humiliating it is to be called a fruit?”

“Kicking the dog is not a ‘petty little issue!’” screamed the animal-lover. “It’s heartless, cruel, and brutal!”

“Alright then,” answered the cabin boy. “These issues are not petty and trivial. Kicking the dog is cruel and brutal and it is humiliating to be called a fruit. But in comparison to our real problem – in comparison to the fact that the ship is still heading north – your grievances are petty and trivial, because if we don’t get this ship turned around soon, we’re all going to drown.”

“Fascist!” said the professor.

“Counterrevolutionary!” said the lady passenger. And all of the passengers and crew chimed in one after another, calling the cabin boy a fascist and a counterrevolutionary.

They pushed him away and went back to grumbling about wages, and about blankets for women, and about the right to suck cocks, and about how the dog was treated. The ship kept sailing north, and after a while it was crushed between two icebergs and everyone drowned.

Racial Hatred Runs African American Family out of Dream Home

by Corina Knoll
Los Angeles Times
June 4, 2009

The house, a three-bedroom cream-colored residence on a peaceful street, even had yellow and red roses waving merrily from the front lawn. And while the backyard was cramped, there was a nectarine tree, a red swing set and a small gazebo.

This is it, Channise Davy thought. Home.

Happy to have found a place near her salon in Altadena and close to her fiance in Pasadena, the 31-year-old hairdresser moved her four children from North Hollywood into the one-story charmer on Broach Avenue in Duarte last fall.

Davy never thought about the fact that they would be the only black family on the mostly Latino block—until someone reminded her in a way that still makes her eyes tear and her stomach twist.

On May 8, Davy opened the door to her home and was greeted by a barrage of spray-painted racial epithets. The hardwood floors, the mirrors, the televisions, the dressers—the vandals had turned the entire place into a canvas for that six-letter word used for decades to scare and scar African Americans.

Shaken, she immediately left and called police. And aside from one trip back to pick up some clothes, Davy has refused to return to a scene authorities believe was created by members of a local Latino gang.

Read the rest at:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/06/racial_hatred_r.php

[Now, be honest: when you read that headline, you thought the story would be about blacks being persecuted by racist whites, didn't you? That's how conditioned we've become to think of whites and only whites as racist. The truth is, whites are probably the least "racist" race on the planet. In fact, if whites don't become a little more "racist" and start standing up for their group interests, they are going to be displaced by races that have no such compunctions, as is already taking place in California. --IA]

(Also see South Africa: Blacks far more racist and xenophobic than whites)

Encyclopedia Britannica owned by Jewish billionaire

The other day I was telling a relative of mine that my 1961 edition of the venerable Encylcopedia Britannica contained only two short paragraphs on the holocaust in its entire 24 volumes of fine print, and that the holocaust wasn’t even referred to as “the holocaust.” I pointed out that the series of events now known as “the holocaust” (or sometimes as the “shoah”) didn’t have its own entry, being only briefly mentioned in the articles on Adolf Hitler and the Jews. She found this incredible.

The point I was trying to make is that back then “the holocaust,” in the words of French politician Jean-Marie Le Pen, was merely a “footnote of history,”* whereas today it has become the central event of WWII, and indeed, of the entire 20th Century. Few people know that Stalin and his Jewish commissar Lazar Kaganovich deliberately starved 10 million Ukrainian peasants to death while Western Europe and the United States turned a blind eye, but every schoolchild today “knows” that Adolf Hitler and the Germans killed 6 million perfectly innocent Jews in gas chambers. How did this popularization of the holocaust come about? Simple. Starting in the 1970’s, Jews, using their disproportionate power and influence in the mass media and academia, began a relentless propaganda campaign. That’s how.

My relative wanted to know who the publishers of the Encyclopedia Britannica were in 1961. I guess what she was driving at is that maybe the encyclopedia was owned by Nazi-sympathizers. Well, after doing some research on the net, we didn’t find any evidence that its owners were secret Nazis, but we did discover that since 1996, the Encyclopedia Britannica has been owned by Jewish billionaire Jacqui (Jacob) Eli Safra! Safra is a movie producer and the heir of a Jewish banking family. Additionally, starting in May 2001, Britannica’s CEO was an Israeli Jew named Ilan Yeshua, who had previously worked for the Tel Aviv-based educational technology firm Centre for Educational Technology, which was aquired by Safra’s Britannica.com. Yet more evidence of how pervasive is the Jewish domination of our mass media.

If anyone out there has access to both a 1995 and a 1998 (or later) version of the Encyclopedia Britannica, I would be very curious to hear what you discover when comparing the articles on, say, Israel, particularly in regards to the neutrality of its portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

* UPDATE: According to this article, it would seem that Le Pen didn’t actually say that the holocaust was a “footnote of history,” but rather, that the alleged homicidal gas chambers were a minor “detail of history.” Well, if Le Pen didn’t say it, I will: the holocaust is a mere footnote of history.

‘Female misogynist’ suppresses discussion of Jewish power on her blog

My April 8, 2008 post It’s Official: Stormfront now run by feminists was recently linked to by a strange blog called Female Misogynist. Strange, not only because it’s not every day you run into a “female misogynist,” but also because the women whose views this blog represents are fiercely anti-Muslim, to a degree I’ve only ever encountered in neo-kahns and feminists. These women pretty much want men to be “men again” so that they can go out and die in the battlefields to fight Islam, an attitude reminiscent of the suffragettes who wanted British men to die in the battlefields of WWI.

Such views are not typical of men’s rights advocates. I’m not particularly inclined to give up my life or those of my sons to fight wars for a bunch of Jews and spoiled cunts. Let women and Jews fight their own goddamn wars. I personally would love to see women get drafted and come home in body bags for a change. How’s that for “equality.”

You can read their post here.

I submitted a response on their blog, but that was a few days ago and my comment has yet to appear, so I must assume that it isn’t going to appear (i.e., it’s been censored). That’s not exactly surprising, since few women appreciate the value of free speech.

Since they won’t allow my comment to appear on their blog, I am posting it here:

“In response to The Edirix’s comment above, that’s an overgeneralization. Some white nationalists are of a conservative bent, some aren’t. Some are Christian, some hate Christianity. Some believe in global warming, others don’t. Some may identify as right-wing, while others are so left-wing that their rhetoric is hard to distinguish from that of communists. Some are anti-Semitic, while others think nothing of forming alliances with Jews (this is particularly true of some of the European far-right parties, which Jews have started supporting due to the threat to their safety and power posed by Muslim immigration; of course, Jews had a lot to do with opening the West’s borders in the first place, so it’s hard for me to sympathize with them).

“While I won’t contest that Ashkenazi Jews are biologically white (though others, including many Jews themselves, would contest that), the problem is that Jews don’t collectively think of themselves as or act as though they’re white. In Western nations, they have generally behaved in a hostile way towards the white majority, and continue to do so. Study the history of communism and you will see that a vastly disproportionate amount of its leadership was made up of Jews (Jews in the genetic, not the religious, sense). It’s no coincidence that about 2/3 of the Soviet spies arrested in the U.S. were Jews. Study the history of the NAACP and you will see that until recently, it was entirely run by Jews; Jews basically spearheaded the entire “civil rights” movement. Study the history of American immigration laws and you will see that Jewish politicians and Jewish organizations were largely responsible for overturning the laws that until 1965 had kept the United States a primarily white nation. The ideology of political correctness that is ubiquitous today was also a largely Jewish creation; I recommend Prof. Kevin MacDonald’s book The Culture of Critique for more on that subject.

“Jews only became ‘conservatives’ when they decided that it would be in the interests of Israel to do so. It’s interesting to note that many of the Jewish founders of neo-conservatism are ex-Trotskyites (Trotsky, nee Lev Bronstein, was himself a Jew; I believe that the antipathy of neo-con Jews towards the Soviet Union had more to do with the fact that Stalin and his successors weren’t Jewish than with a rejection of communist ideology per se). Many of the Jewish ‘hawks’ of today were the leaders of the student protest movement of the 60’s; read the biographies of Jews like David Horowitz or Michael Savage, for example. You can believe what you want, but I personally don’t believe that their conversion to ‘conservatism’ is sincere. At the back of whatever ideological flag Jews happen to be waving at the moment, whether it be communism, conservatism, or whatever, is always a distinctly Jewish agenda. ‘Is it good for Jews?’ is their overriding concern. That is why so many white nationalists are hostile to Jews and support the enemies of Israel, not because they love Islam. It may seem strange to some that white nationalists would be willing to “rub shoulders” with Muslims, but politics makes strange bedfellows, as they say. When you think about it, it’s not really any stranger than Jews aligning themselves with Italian Fascism during the 20’s and 30’s, or than feminists aligning themselves with the religious right in the 80’s and 90’s to carry out anti-pornography crusades.

“I fully expect more and more women of a ‘feminist’ persuasion to be drawn to white nationalism, since non-white and Muslim immigration is bad news for feminism, and since real rape statistics (not the ones doctored by feminists) show that male-on-female rapes of the ‘dark alley’ variety are almost exclusively perpetrated by non-whites.

“It won’t surprise you to hear that I don’t want to have anything to do with such women, who in my view, have played a decisive role in the destruction of Western societies.”

---

UPDATE: “Male Chauvinist Woman,” the administrator of the blog, wrote an entry on the 29th (yesterday) explaining how she had posted my comment and then deleted it. It’s a rather lengthy post, and I don’t have time (and may not have the time) to respond to it.

Frankly, I’ve had run-ins with these types of know-it-all, self-indulgent twats before, who try to lure you into protracted, pointless arguments with the only aim being to buttress their frail egos, and I’ve learned to “just say no.” Besides, why would I bother responding to a blog that only sees fit to delete my comments?

I will just make the following three points, however, based on a cursory reading of her post:

1. It is the epitomy of spinelessness to delete someone’s comment and then post a lengthy rebuttal to it. People who pull shit like this literally make me sick. If you’re going to engage someone in a debate, then don’t try to suppress the other side; that is not debate, that’s attacking a strawman. I repeat: few women, including “female misogynists,” grasp the concept or value of free speech.

2. Professor Kevin MacDonald is not a crackpot. His assertions are far better documented than anything appearing on this nutty woman’s blog. As usual, all philo-Semites have to fall back on is censorship and character assassination. The facts are simply not on their side.

3. It is idiotic to claim that feminists will never be drawn to white nationalism considering there already are women of a feminist persuasion involved in white nationalism. I really don’t see what the controversy is; my statement was not speculation, it’s already happening. There is nothing to debate here.

Check out the description for Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?, a collection of essays being sold on Amazon:

“Polygamy, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, punishing women for being raped, differential access for men and women to health care and education, unequal rights of ownership, assembly, and political participation, unequal vulnerability to violence. These practices and conditions are standard in some parts of the world. Do demands for multiculturalism–and certain minority group rights in particular–make them more likely to continue and to spread to liberal democracies? Are there fundamental conflicts between our commitment to gender equity and our increasing desire to respect the customs of minority cultures or religions? In this book, the eminent feminist Susan Moller Okin and fifteen of the world’s leading thinkers about feminism and multiculturalism explore these unsettling questions in a provocative, passionate, and illuminating debate.

“Okin opens by arguing that some group rights can, in fact, endanger women. She points, for example, to the French government’s giving thousands of male immigrants special permission to bring multiple wives into the country, despite French laws against polygamy and the wives’ own bitter opposition to the practice. Okin argues that if we agree that women should not be disadvantaged because of their sex, we should not accept group rights that permit oppressive practices on the grounds that they are fundamental to minority cultures whose existence may otherwise be threatened.

“In reply, some respondents reject Okin’s position outright, contending that her views are rooted in a moral universalism that is blind to cultural difference. Others quarrel with Okin’s focus on gender, or argue that we should be careful about which group rights we permit, but not reject the category of group rights altogether. Okin concludes with a rebuttal, clarifying, adjusting, and extending her original position. These incisive and accessible essays–expanded from their original publication in Boston Review and including four new contributions–are indispensable reading for anyone interested in one of the most contentious social and political issues today.

“The diverse contributors, in addition to Okin, are Azizah al-Hibri, Abdullahi An-Na’im, Homi Bhabha, Sander Gilman, Janet Halley, Bonnie Honig, Will Kymlicka, Martha Nussbaum, Bhikhu Parekh, Katha Pollitt, Robert Post, Joseph Raz, Saskia Sassen, Cass Sunstein, and Yael Tamir.”

Whether “Male Chauvinist Woman” is willing to acknowledge it or not, many feminists are beginning to see the writing on the wall in regards to non-white immigration and the continuation of their movement. There’s even a schism within feminism itself, with non-white feminists accusing white feminists of having too much power; in other words, the non-white feminists are complaining that feminism is just “too white.” And I agree with them; feminism has been nothing but a bunch of spoiled white bitches whinging on their periods, too self-absorbed to realize how much better they’ve had it than almost all the women in the world, due entirely to the civilization white men built and that feminists have spent the last several decades demolishing.

I’m wondering at this point if “Male Chauvinist Woman” doesn’t have an agenda other than anti-feminism.

Patriotard talk radio host Jason Bermas defends La Raza

“Determined conspiracy-hunters will accept practically any crackpot theory on which to base their futile speculations but the real conspiracy, which is staring them in the face, is taboo.” –Simon Sheppard

“For the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing.” –Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA)

Patriotard radio talk show host Jason Bermas, filling in for Alex Jones today, responded to a caller’s suggestion that La Raza might be a racist organization* by stating that in his opinion, it wouldn’t be fair to classify most of La Raza’s membership as racist. These were his exact words:

“What La Raza stands for at the upper echelons … is absurd. But at the lower levels, people don’t understand what it is. [...] They don’t understand that it’s all corrupt at the top. They don’t understand what the real message is. I don’t want to say every member of La Raza is automatically a racist. I would say every member of La Raza that doesn’t realize that there’s race implications and race bias is ignorant. And there are some at the top that are openly racist.”

Race “implications”? Only “some” are openly racist? The Spanish phrase La Raza literally means “the race” and refers to Chicanos (mestizos of Mexican origin living in the United States). La Raza is an explicitly racialist organization and movement. Every member at every level fully understands this; I mean, their movement is called “the race,” fer crying out loud! How much more obvious can it get? Stop lying to your listeners, you gutless patriotard snake oil salesman.

Watch a video of La Raza in action.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Find out who pays Alex Jones’s bills.

Support real alternative media, like October Sun Films (who produced the documentary from which the video clip above was taken), New Century Productions, or the websites in my blogroll. Don’t give your money to hucksters like Alex Jones and Jason Bermas. Contrary to one of their slogans, patriotard broadcasters don’t think you’re intelligent enough to “handle the truth,” as evidenced by Jason Bermas’s whitewash of La Raza.

* La Raza can refer to the National Council de La Raza, but it also refers more generally to the La Raza movement to take over the Southwestern United States (or Reconquista, as its adherents call it).

Canadian social workers misuse power to punish parents’ political views

“Freedom is the right to live in one’s own homeland in accordance with the laws and traditions of one’s ancestors.” –Ernst Arndt, Catechism for the Teutonic Armyman

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” –Thomas Jefferson

“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” –George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

“What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!” –Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

This is getting serious, folks. The Canadian government is giving itself the right to take away the children of whites who hold “racist” views. Either you go along with the multiracial agenda of Canada’s overseers and teach your children to be obedient, self-hating, race-denying, politically-correct lemmings, or risk having them taken from you. There is no other word to describe this but tyranny.

For years I’ve been telling people that while I personally wouldn’t beat my children, the government has no right to interfere in how people raise their kids, and that by allowing the government to interfere in cases of corporal punishment, parents will ultimately lose all their rights to raise their children as they see fit. Well, that’s exactly what’s happening. This is what you get when you let women, with their misplaced maternal instincts, get hold of political power*, and is yet another example of why freedom and democracy don’t mix, popular belief notwithstanding.

I can see it now — daddy uses the word “faggot” around his kids, social services gets wind of it and takes the children away, since under Canada’s democratic nanny state, exposing kids to “homophobia” is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. If they’re lucky, the kids may even be placed with a homosexual foster couple, in whose home they’ll have the privilege of hearing mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy getting it on at night in the master bedroom. You think I’m exaggerating? There’s only one degree of seperation between having your kids taken away because you used the word “nigger” around them and having them taken away because you said the word “fag.” If the government is allowed to get away with this, the precedent will be set for the government to act the same way in any case involving politically incorrect speech.

Canadians, like Americans, like to make a show of how politically correct they are in public, but how PC are they in the privacy of their homes? For their sake, I hope the statements they make in private, in front of members of their family, match those of their public personas, because if they don’t, social services may hear about it and take their kids away.

This brings us one step closer to the world of “thought crime” depicted in the novel 1984. Canadians have no idea how close they are to the society that sent men like Solzhenitsyn to the Gulags. (Don’t even get me started on how much the United States is beginning to remind me of Canada since Obama the Marxist mulatto got put in power.)

If the child in this case had been black rather than white and had come to school wearing a T-shirt that said “black power” or “Nation of Islam” or bearing the name of a rapper that advocates violence against whites, what are the chances that social services would’ve reacted the same way? Slim, I bet. We’re all equal under the law, but some animals, you see, are more equal than others.

In the religion of political correctness, only whites, by definition, can be “racist.” Expressions of hatred or acts of violence towards whites by non-whites are excused and even applauded by the politically correct (who are almost all white) as “payback” for white racism. Poor whites are looked down on as “trailer trash” and are regularly mocked in the movies and on television, while astronomically high crime rates in non-white communities are explained away as the result of “systemic discrimination” against minorities and the unwillingness of rich white men to share their “ill-gotten” wealth with the “have-nots” (of course, the upper middle-class sociology professors who get paid big bucks to make these types of analyses never offer to pay for the social programs they demand out of their own salaries). Expressions of racial pride by non-whites are tolerated and even encouraged, no matter how viciously anti-white they are, while expressions of white pride, no matter how mild, are always labelled “hate” and are greeted with calls for the harshest of sanctions. Such is the hypocrisy of political correctness and the sick minds that peddle it.–Igor Alexander

* Note that besides women’s proclivity to vote for left-wing/liberal politicians, they are also vastly overrepresented in the social services.

---

Parents put blame on daughter for racist remarks, custody hearing told
Last Updated: Tuesday, May 26, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/05/26/mb-swastika-custody-hearing-winnipeg.html

A young girl’s head was shaved, and her parents described themselves as a skinhead family, court was told on Day 2 of a child custody hearing in Winnipeg.

The case involves a girl, now eight years old, who went to school with white supremacist symbols drawn on her skin. Her mother and stepfather, who are accused of racist teachings and failing to provide adequate care for their children, began a court battle for their children this week.

The girl and her brother have been in the care of the government’s Child and Family Services agency since March 2008, when the girl showed up in school with a swastika on her arm.

Her teacher scrubbed it off in the afternoon but the girl showed up again the next day with another one, along with other white supremacist symbols drawn on her body.

Neo-Nazi symbols and flags in family residence

Caseworkers were alerted and went to the family’s apartment, where they found neo-Nazi symbols and flags, and took custody of the couple’s two-year-old son. CFS officials picked up the daughter at her school.

The case has garnered international attention and sparked debate over how far parents can go to instill beliefs in their children — and how far the government should go to protect children from those beliefs.

On Monday, the social worker who initially interviewed the girl after she was taken into care testified the child was well versed in racist and hateful propaganda. None of the CFS workers can be identified in order to protect the identities of the children. [Nice. The cowardly busybodies who are doing this get to hide their identities under the guise of "protecting the children," and hence remain unaccountable to the public for their actions.-IA]

The girl spoke of this being a white man’s world and provided graphic suggestions of how to kill people of colour, the worker testified.

Girl famous for lying: parents

On Tuesday, another social worker testified about her first meeting with the parents — about three weeks after the two children were apprehended.

They told the social worker their daughter often makes things up, and was famous for lying, the worker testified. The parents also said the girl had likely drawn some of the symbols on her body herself.

When the social worker asked why the girl was able to talk about certain things, like hurting people or killing people of colour, the stepfather said it was probably something she’d heard in a private conversation and was probably a joke, the hearing was told.

According to the social worker, the mother said she had no idea why her daughter would refer to them as skinheads.

But the social worker said extended family members later told her that the parents had shaved their heads, and the little girl’s, and described themselves as a skinhead family. [So what? Is there a law against being a skinhead?-IA]

Girl said stepdad brought in neo-Nazi views

Then she met the girl, who the social worker described as bright and articulate, even chatty. They met in the girl’s new foster home, where the girl was eager to show off her room, and her brother’s toys. [I guess this part was put into the article to show us, the stupid readers, how much better off the girl is with a foster family than with her biological mother.-IA]

The girl told the social worker that her mother used to read her stories but had stopped when she met and married a new man, the social worker testified. [Break out the violins.-IA]

“She was not a nice mommy anymore,” the social worker quoted the girl as saying.

The girl said she started missing school because her mom and stepdad didn’t wake her up on time. She told the social worker that her stepfather made the rules in the house, that he was angry and would get drunk, and that he didn’t make meals, or change her brother’s diaper often enough. [So now the social workers are getting into character assassination to deflect attention away from the fact that they abducted these children for political reasons. How many black kids have parents who get drunk, don't make meals or change diapers often enough, don't read their kids bedtime stories, and talk shit against white people? Lots, I'm sure. Now, how many of those black kids are put into foster homes? None, I bet. Kids are going to have a tough time in any family where there's been a seperation or divorce, but that's generally not seen as a reason to break that family up even further. Bottom line: social services is abusing its power to punish politically-incorrect speech and ideas.-IA]

The girl said she used to have non-white friends before her stepdad came along, but after he was in her life, the girl’s mother told her, “If you have a friend who’s not white, I won’t be your mom anymore,” the social worker testified. [And since when don't parents have the right to tell their kids who they can and can't hang out with? It's not only the parents' right, but arguably, their responsibility, to make sure their kid doesn't fall in with the wrong crowd, and in this case, I'd say telling the daughter to not hang out with non-whites was a good call. Let's be honest: how many white parents would be pleased if their daughter started hanging out with, say, blacks or American Indians? Not too many, I'd wager. Not only because few people relish the idea of having mixed-race grandchildren, but also because anyone with any life's experience knows what the problems associated with those racial groups are: crime, violence, drugs, gangs, precocious sex leading to bastardy/illegitimacy and single motherhood, etc. What parent in his right mind would want that for his daughter?-IA]

Parents separated, each seeking sole custody

Testimony from child welfare officials and lawyers will continue through the week.

The hearing will adjourn but resume in June, when lawyers for the parents will make their arguments.

The parents no longer live together, and each has asked for custody of the children. The girl’s mother is not living in Manitoba anymore and has not been in court. Her lawyer’s request for an adjournment Monday morning was rejected.

She has said she can’t afford to travel but will attempt to when the parents have an opportunity to make their case next month.

The stepfather is in court and has filed a constitutional challenge, saying his right to freedom of expression, religion and association were violated when the children were apprehended. [I hope he wins, and that if he does, he sues the pants off of Child and Family Services.-IA]

The girl’s biological father has also been attending the hearing, sitting in the gallery and watching the proceedings. He told CBC News he hopes the children’s best interests won’t be overlooked in the rhetoric of political ideology.

[Incidentally, as regular readers of the taxpayer-funded CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) website will know, the CBC consistently slants its news coverage to fit a leftist/liberal agenda. In other words, the CBC isn't in the business of responsible journalism, but rather, of disseminating propaganda. This story was a good illustration of that; notice how it subtly took the side of the social workers, quoting statements allegedly made by the little girl to tug on readers' heartstrings, while villainizing the mother and stepfather. Is that balanced reporting? It's not that non-state-funded media companies are any better, especially in light of who runs most of them, but it seems more overtly tyrannical when people are forced to pay taxes to be propagandized in this manner. But since the CBC's biased news coverage is a rather large topic, perhaps I'll leave it for another time.-IA]

Facebook rejects ad promoting lesbianism

“[W]hile homosexuals vehemently reject being considered mentally ill, they have no problems regarding those who dislike homosexuality as mentally ill.” –homosexinfo.org

“A healthy society is life-affirming. Homosexuality is the metaphysical negation of life. Incapable of reproduction (giving life), it can replenish its numbers only by seduction.” –Don Feder*

Rejected by Facebook

Read the homosexual spin on the story here:
http://gay-girls-guide.blogspot.com/2009/04/facebook-rejects-ad-for-lesbian-film.html

Now, heed well my words: until such time as they are free to push homoerotic material in every ad, every magazine, on every bus, street sign, and TV channel, queers are going to continue complaining about “homophobia.” They have only gotten started in their campaign to destroy the sexual mores of our society. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

Accusations of “homophobia” are not about promoting the so-called “rights” of an “oppressed minority,” they are about depriving normal straight people of the right to raise a family in an environment in which their children aren’t being continually exposed to the homosexual death culture (as per the Don Feder quote above, the homosexual counterculture is, quite literally, a death culture, since it in essence encourages people to not have children; and that’s to say nothing of AIDS and other diseases to which homosexual men are disproportionately subject due to their unhealthy lifestyles and sexual practices).

Note the progression thus far: in only a few decades, the homosexual movement has gone from such seemingly (to some people) reasonable demands as not having queer bars shut down by police, to now insisting, at threat of boycott, to having “the right” to publicly display homoerotic material anywhere they wish (and sometimes, to even engage in homosexual intercourse in public). It’s only going to get worse, folks. Much, much worse.**

There is no way that our heterosexual culture can peaceably coexist with a militant homosexual counterculture. Make no mistake: Incidents like these are a declaration of war against the heterosexual majority.

My advice is that straight people stop allowing themselves to be bullied by accusations of “homophobia” and start standing up for themselves by telling these militant queers to f*ck off. Queers want to boycott Amazon (see story here) and Facebook? Fine. Straights should do the same. Send emails to Facebook and Amazon informing them you’ll refuse to use their sites and services if they cave in to pressure from the homosexual lobby and allow homoerotic material to be displayed. It’s time to stop pussyfooting with these deviants and start hitting back. There’s a lot more of us out there than there are queers; if only we could get more organized…

And to the Christian wimps who say things like “hate the sin, not the sinner,” you’re not going to have your cake and eat it too. The only way to defeat the homosexual lobby is through hatred and intolerance. There is no other way. When it becomes unsafe for queers to walk down the street holding hands, or to otherwise publicly announce their sexual preference, that’s when we’ll have them off our backs. Until such time, you can expect the demands of the homosexual lobby to become increasingly strident and outlandish.

Let me repeat that this is a war, not a misunderstanding of some kind that can be politely worked out over tea and crumpets. The queers know perfectly well what they are doing and the ramifications of what they’re doing. This is a war, and as such, your options are either to stand up and fight, or drop your weapons, roll over, and let the homos sodomize your corpse.

Hopefully future generations will look back on this putrid, degenerate sewer of an era of ours and fully appreciate what the consequences are of allowing queers out of the closet, and thus avoid repeating our mistake.

* Yes, I know Mr. Feder is Jewish, and that I don’t always have the kindest things to say about Jews, but truth is truth no matter who expresses it. At least Mr. Feder isn’t like the Jew Ezra Levant, who is trying to sell conservatives on the idea of homosexual marriage.

** To get an idea of what homosexuals see all of this leading to, see the 2004 movie A Dirty Shame by homosexual filmmaker John Waters.

Richard Warman

Just finished watching a documentary called David Icke: The Lizards and the Jews. You can view it online, or download it as a torrent. At about 39 minutes into the video, Richard Warman and his cronies say, “The only targets are the people who are so pompous and so full of themselves that they desperately need some public humiliation. How can you take anyone seriously when they have pie on their face?”

So now I’m wondering — when is Warman going to get a pie in the face? (Not that I would ever encourage someone to throw one, as hilarious as it would be )

Dick Warman

Incidentally, the Jews know perfectly well that they’re descended from 12 foot reptiles, which is why they get so defensive when someone mentions it.