Igor Alexander's Weblog

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Igor Alexander — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 10:28:24 +0000

I was listening to the Alex Jones Show yesterday (Friday, March 4) on shortwave and someone called in and started talking about “international jewish bankers” being behind the New World Order. Jones gave the caller a lot of time to speak without interrupting him or cutting him off.

At first, the caller sounded sensible. He mentioned that the American mass media is dominated by jews, which is true. He brought up Paul Warburg‘s name in connection with the Federal Reserve. And considering Jones had had some not-so-nice things to say about George Soros, another jew, only minutes before this call, it would have been disingenuous of him to claim jews aren’t overrepresented in the ranks of international financiers. So far, so good.

Then the caller urged listeners to read the long-discredited Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Jones asked the caller if he believed that all jews are involved in the conspiracy, to which the caller replied in the affirmative. Jones then asked if all jews should be exterminated, and the caller said yes. I slapped my hand to my forehead and started shaking my head. Predictably, Jones cut the caller off at that point and went on a tirade against nazis.

Why do so many anti-Semites* insist on shooting themselves in the foot like this guy did?

While Jones has a long and shameful history of covering for the jews, you can’t accuse him of any wrongdoing in this case; he gave the guy plenty of time to make his case without censoring him. You can’t ask for more than a fair hearing. If the caller came off looking foolish, he did it to himself.

I’m starting to believe that a large number of anti-Semites really are mentally ill. Either that, or they’re stupid. It’s like their brains are incapable of distinguishing between the jew who mops the floors at the local Burger King and the George Soroses and Sumner Redstones of the world, who truly are malignant pests.

There are several valid criticisms that can be leveled against jews as a group. For instance, an elite group of jews really does have a disproportionately large amount of control over the mass media in countries like the U.S. and Canada, and it uses this control towards ends that are usually not in the best interest of the majority population.

The Israel lobby is real and very powerful.

The holocaust is a Big Lie that was invented by jews, communists, and the leaders of the Allied nations to justify or help conceal their own atrocities, and the myth was rekindled in the latter half of the 1960s by zionist jews to drum up support for and deflect criticism of Israel. In the last 12 years, the myth of the holocaust has been invoked to justify everything from the NATO bombing of civilian passenger trains in Yugoslavia, to the hanging of Saddam Hussein as a “war criminal,” to the U.S.’s belligerent attitude toward Iran.

But reasoned criticisms such as these tend to be overlooked when you have paranoid nutcases shouting from rooftops that they think every jew on the planet is involved in a monolithic conspiracy that’s behind all the evils in the world and that every last one needs to be exterminated, pronto.

If I didn’t know such people personally, I would think they were plants from the Defamation League of B’nai B’rith and the $PLC to make anti-Semites look retarded or unhinged.

The debate on the Jewish Question is polarized between apologists for the jews like Alex Jones and Jar-Jar Taylor, who would sooner blame their own mothers for the ills they diagnose than utter the word “jew,” and conspiracy wackos who have gone off the deep end and become obsessed with jews to the exclusion of everything else.

Footnote:

* I’m not entirely comfortable with the term anti-Semite to describe someone who’s critical of or antipathetic towards jews, for two reasons:

In a time in which blond, ashkenazi jews who don’t have a drop of Semitic blood in them are gunning down rock-throwing Palestinian children, some of whom are full-blooded Semites, referring to anti-jewish sentiment as “anti-Semitism” doesn’t make a lot of sense, and
“Anti-Semitism” has a biological ring to it, which implies that the solution to the problem is extermination, and not everyone who opposes the agendas of organized jewry feels that way.

“Anti-jewish” would be an improvement, but is still not quite satisfactory. The best term, I think, would be anti-loxist, but since loxism has yet to catch on, no one would know what I was talking about were I to use it.

Why I no longer support white nationalism

Igor Alexander — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:04:31 +0000

Through a campaign which has been in full swing for about 50 years and which has noticeably accelerated over the last 20, the jewish mass media has successfully managed to persuade the bulk of the younger generations of white people that:

it’s OK to have sex with anyone they please, whether the person be white, black, brown, red, yellow, male, or female.

their ancestors were assholes who should be repudiated and whose values should be scoffed at.

What this basically means is that the jews have won. When the masses of our young people feel this way, that means it’s “game over” for us. Those who refuse to see that are no better than members of the “Werwolf” units who, after the Second World War, refused to accept the Reich’s defeat and continued to resist Allied occupation.

Anyone who at this late date thinks he’s going to take his country back through the ballot box or through some Nazi-like paramilitary movement has got his head in the clouds. The only thing that makes sense to talk about at this point is a semi-underground survival movement for the minority of whites who reject the multiracial New World Order and care to remain white.

Should we be concerned about overpopulation?

Igor Alexander — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 13:54:51 +0000

I’m somewhere in-between the hardcore Malthusian misanthropists, who’d like to see 90+ per cent of the world’s population be exterminated, and the humanists who dismiss concerns over overpopulation as alarmist. I feel very strongly that everyone should be living on a diet that is organically or biodynamically grown, raised, or produced on small family farms, or is hunted or fished in the wild. The problem is, the world’s population can’t be fed in this manner at the size it is right now.

We currently have a system that seeks to maximize yields at the expense of quality, and that system is going to continue to exist as long as there are so many hungry mouths to feed.

When Alex Jones and his ilk claim the New World Order elites have an agenda to exterminate the bulk of the world’s population, they are precisely inverting the truth; all one has to do is look at population statistics for a continent like Africa to see that the numbers there over the last hundred years have been steadily rising, not dropping. The New World Order wants more hungry mouths to feed, not less, since more mouths represent greater profits.

The only slice of the world’s population which is slated for extermination is the white race, as is made abundantly clear by our declining birth rates, the immigration policies our elites have imposed on us, the campaign to promote race-mixing, casual sex, homosexuality, and feminism, and the introduction of feminizing substances into our food supply, such as soy in baby formula.

I have a theory…

Igor Alexander — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:40:35 +0000

…about Alex Linder.

I think Alex realized a long time ago that this is a lost cause, but instead of shrugging his shoulders and moving on to something else like a grown-up would, he decided to keep that forum of his open as his own little playground, a place where he can troll and blow off steam and shout from the highest soap box.

New Linking Policy

Igor Alexander — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:12:13 +0000

It’s time to draw some lines. I can tolerate disagreement on many issues, but not on fundamentals. If we’re not in agreement on the fundamentals, then we’re not on the same side, no matter how many secondary issues we may agree on or how similar our views may superficially appear.

If we’re not on the same side, then I will not endorse your site by linking to it. Since my position on the fundamentals is the correct one, and since I wish to draw people to my side, it makes no sense to blur the line and confuse people about what I stand for by appearing to endorse sites which are fundamentally at odds with my position.

I’ve just pruned my blogroll of a few sites with whose positions I have irreconcilable differences. This was not an easy decision for me, since I happen to personally like the individuals running those sites. But as it often happens in times of war, two men who would be friends in peacetime have to stand opposite each other on the battlefield, ready to blow each other’s heads off. C’est la vie.

As a matter of principle, I will no longer link to sites which:

use codewords, such as “Zionists,” “elites,” or “liberals,” to refer to jews. Unless a site has a damned good excuse for using them, such as being hosted in a country in which direct criticism of jews is a prosecutable offense, I expect a spade to be called a spade.

claim to oppose jewish power while engaging in ADL/$PLC-style attacks against others who oppose jewish power more straightforwardly or aggressively than they do.

attack certain groups, such as blacks or Muslims, while turning a blind eye to jews.

discuss racial problems without mentioning the cardinal jewish role in creating or exacerbating those problems.

claim to fight jewish tyranny while condoning the very weapons jews have used to tear Western societies apart, such as humanism, hyper-individualism, feminism, communism, racial integration, the queer movement, and political correctness.

attempt to limit discussion of the Jewish Question to certain issues, such as Zionism or banking, making it appear as though those are the only problems and are only being caused by a small cadre of jews.

attempt to define jews in solely religious (Judaism) or ideological (e.g. Zionism) terms, ignoring or downplaying the tribal/racial aspect.

claim to be White Nationalist while promoting known homosexuals to prominent positions within the movement.

I hope others will consider following in my example. This “movement” tolerates far too much ambiguity, too many blurred boundaries, as a result of misguided notions of solidarity and the “marketplace of ideas.” Again, if someone doesn’t agree with us on the fundamentals, they’re not on our side and we shouldn’t be giving them the time of day. It’s better to stand with someone you despise but whose principles are correct than with someone you like who spreads harmful ideas.

The Evolution Hoax Exposed

Igor Alexander — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:59:45 +0000

by Igor Alexander

Lately, I’ve been researching the origins of atheism, secular humanism, and organized skepticism, which has naturally led me to take a closer look at the origins of evolution theory, which lies at the bottom of these movements and ideologies. I’ve started to read an interesting book called The Evolution Hoax Exposed (originally published under the title Why Colleges Breed Communists), by A. N. Field, first published in 1941 (with additional printings in 1971 and 1984).

It’s a common assumption among both White Nationalists and Christians [1] that so-called “racist” ideologies stem from a belief in natural evolution. Here we have a book arguing that to the contrary, the idea of there only being “one race — the human race” [2] is a direct consequence of the widespread acceptance of Darwin’s theory of evolution. From pages 77-78:

Evolution teaches the mutability of species. Modern scientific observation is becoming increasingly impressed with the great stability of species as the outstanding fact about living organisms. Darwin in concluding the Origin of Species proclaimed that there was no essential difference between varieties and species, species being all the time in process of evolution into new forms, and varieties being merely incipient new species. “We shall at least be freed from the vain search for the undiscovered and undiscoverable essence of the term species,” he declared. Living organisms being nothing but a series of dissolving views with everything in transformation, Darwin laid it down that in future naturalists in labelling species would only have to decide whether any form happened to be “sufficiently important to deserve a specific name.”

This idea is in line with a notion freely advanced in intellectual quarters today: that there are no pure races of mankind, and that it therefore follows there is no difference between a white man and a negro. On these lines we had Mr. Bernard Shaw holding forth in South Africa a few years back that the uplift of that country would be brought about most quickly by the two million whites intermarrying with the seven million black inhabitants of the country.

On the Darwinian view individuals alone exist in nature, species being purely an arbitrary concept. Nevertheless, species seemed to be sufficiently real to Darwin for him to devote a book of 700 pages to trying to account for their origin. Louis Agassiz, in reviewing Darwin’s book in the American Journal of Science for July, 1860, commented on this anomaly, and asked: “If species do not exist at all, as the supporters of the transmutation theory maintain, how can they vary? and if individuals alone exist, how can the differences which may be observed among them prove the variability of species?” It does not appear that Agassiz ever got an answer to this conundrum.

According to evolutionist teaching, living things are a chance product of inorganic matter, and are being continuously pruned and moulded into new shapes by their environment. The living forms are, so to speak, mere jelly or plastic putty, struggling together for existence, in a given environment, and by natural selection attaining an endless succession of forms increasingly adapted to the environment. The environment is the determining factor, and heredity amounts to little or nothing. [3]

From page 86:

Current belief today is that the savage races of the world are in the same state civilised man is supposed to have been in a few thousand years ago, and if left alone would ultimately rise to civilised status by process of gradual “evolution.” Lord Raglan in summing up the diffusionist case in his most interesting little book, says all the evidence is in exactly the opposite direction, and that “no savage society, when left to itself, has ever made the slightest progress.” The only change that has ever been observed to take place in these isolated societies is a change for the worse.

If you want to read an anti-evolution book written from a Christian perspective that won’t insult your intelligence, The Evolution Hoax Exposed is one of the best I’ve come across. It’s well written, researched, and argued and doesn’t smack the reader over the head with quotes from the Old Testament on every other page. It’s thoughtful and nuanced but cuts straight to the point. As an agnostic, there was nothing in it that I found offensive or that made my eyes roll. The author is more concerned with debunking atheistic materialism in general than in promoting a particular religion, denomination, or cosmological dogma.

Some of the science is outdated, but that’s to be expected from a book written 70 years ago. It detracts little from the author’s central arguments. The book has shed light on issues that have been nagging at me for a while and has filled several gaps in my world-view.

Though out-of-print, copies are still available from a few online booksellers (e.g. Omni Books) and a .pdf file is available here.

Footnotes:

[1] See, for example, Chapter 18 of the Catholic book Creation Rediscovered, by Gerard J. Keane, which argues that Darwinism was at the root of the “racism” of German National Socialism.

[2] While the idea may have come from Darwin, the actual slogan “there is no race but the human race” comes to us from jewish anthropologist Otto Klineberg. For an explanation of how American anthropology came to be dominated by loxist jews, read Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique (.pdf available here).

[3] It’s interesting to note that Gregor Johann Mendel, whose research into heredity forms the basis of modern genetic science and which according to some invalidated Darwin’s theory of evolution, forcing evolutionists to abandon it and come up with a revised version, was an Augustinian priest.

Happy International Holocaust Remembrance Day!

Igor Alexander — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:37:52 +0000

Revelers at a Holocaust Remembrance celebration.

(Cue music. And-1-2-3… Go! –)

Boo hoo hoo. I’m a poor Zew.
To Greater Israel, I am true.
I’ll bulldoze your home for free.
All Zews, always, stand with me,
except for a self-hating few.

Boo hoo hoo. I’m a poor Zew.
Criticize me and I’ll calumnize you!
From G-d I have a deed divine
That tells me what is mine
Is mine, and yours is mine too.

Boo hoo hoo. I’m a poor Zew.
Please pay me a billion or two.
Support the Holy Master Race.
Keep the non-Zews in their place.
Twist the knife and turn the screw.

Boo hoo hoo. I’m a poor Zew.
Everything I say is true.
Those Pallie kids are really bent.
We’ll kill them ALL, by accident.
It’s called “defense” — What else is new?

Boo hoo hoo. I’m a poor Zew.
About me, you haven’t a clue.
If you get in my way, you don’t exist,
so don’t even dare to try to resist!
Whatever we do, the blame’s on YOU!

Boo hoo hoo. I’m a poor Zew.
G-d loves me and G-d hates you.
My genes give me a sacred right
to make you suffer day and night.
You are not really human, in God’s view.

Boo hoo hoo. I’m a poor Zew.
My secret police are watching you.
We love the commie Zewish State,
and need to kill all those who Hate.
To speak the truth should be taboo!

Boo hoo hoo. I’m a poor Zew.
I’m also a gangster, through and through.
Two world wars we’ve helped to start.
But that’s because we are so smart.
As we nailed Christ, so we’ll nail you.

Boo hoo hoo, I’m a poor Zew,
According to our holy book, it’s true:
You deserve to be destroyed and die.
You’re not included in God’s Plan, that’s why.
We’re God’s Chosen Race: Your time is through.

Boo hoo hoo, I’m a poor Zew.
Pat Robertson will tell you what to do.
I have ten million Zionutzi slaves:
Their Jesus is a war-god: Herzl saves.
These stupid Xians recite on cue!

(Poem found on usenet in 2003. Author unknown.)

The origin of the word “gay” as a euphemism for homosexuality

Igor Alexander — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:27:14 +0000

Loxist bulldyke Gertrude Stein

In the first half of the 20th century, the word “gay” was synonymous with “happy” or “joyous.” Now it refers to homosexuality. How did such a formerly innocent, innocuous term come to be associated with something as unsavory and unsanitary as queer buttsex?

From the Wikipedia article on the word “Gay”:

“A passage from Gertrude Stein’s Miss Furr & Miss Skeene (1922) is possibly the first traceable published use of the word to refer to a homosexual relationship. According to Linda Wagner-Martin (Favored Strangers: Gertrude Stein and her Family (1995)) the portrait, ‘featured the sly repetition of the word gay, used with sexual intent for one of the first times in linguistic history…’”

From the Wikipedia article on Gertrude Stein:

“Gertrude Stein, the youngest of a family of five children, was born in 1874 in Allegheny, Pennsylvania (merged with Pittsburgh in 1907), to well-educated German-Jewish immigrant parents.” [Emphasis added. -IA]

As can be readily seen, use of the word “gay” as a euphemism for homosexuality is yet another instance of the jewing of the English language.

On government funding for the arts

Igor Alexander — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:13:30 +0000

A common objection is that cutting government funding for the arts will leave artists without funding. This is nonsense. Whether given through public or private means, the money doesn’t cease to exist.

The issue is whether your money should be redistributed by largely unelected, unaccountable government bureaucrats. I say shitcan the bureaucrats, cut taxes, and let the people decide where they want to spend their money.

Abolish the jewish tribe?

Igor Alexander — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:53:13 +0000

The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.* The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the jewish tribe.

The goal of abolishing the jewish tribe is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed jewish supremacists.

* I apologize if this statement offends any cancer patients.