Declaration of War on the Racist, Sexist, Speciest, Homophobic, Xenophobic Patriarchal White World Order
You, heterosexual white gentile males,
Hateful racist right-wing fuckers —
You are what’s preventing world peace.
You are impeding the New Age of Enlightenment.
If it weren’t for you, we’d all be living in an earthly paradise right now, holding hands, singing Kumbaya, with universal health care and beautiful mixed-race children turned into budding Einsteins through the magic of public schooling. There’d even be free tofu burgers for everyone.
You are the problem. You must be done away with.
In order for Humanity to thrive, you, White Man, must die.
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.
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:
[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]
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.
“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.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Find out who pays Alex Jones’s bills.
Support real alternative media, like
October Sun Films [link now dead] (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).
On the world financial crisis,
“Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva … charged last week that ‘this is a crisis that was caused by white people with blue eyes.'”
Three things cross my mind when I read this:
1. Da Silva, whose popularity ratings are plummeting, is pandering to Brazil’s non-white majority of voters.
2. How would Brazil fare if it kicked out all its white people? Only marginally better than Zimbabwe, I would imagine.
3. Why is a world leader like da Silva able to blame “white people with blue eyes” for the financial crisis without being denounced as a racist, but if a world leader like Vladimir Putin (accurately) points out that Africa has a history of cannibalism, or if former Malaysian leader Mahathir Mohammed (correctly) asserts that the U.S. is fighting a proxy war against Islam on behalf of Israel, the Western media immediately starts shrieking about “racism” and “anti-Semitism”?
Would a white Western leader be allowed to blame skyrocketing crime rates on non-white immigration with impunity, even if that assertion is, in fact, correct? It’s rather amazing that whites take statements like da Silva’s lying down.
Two finer points:
a. Isn’t da Silva himself white? He sure looks it to me.
b. Aren’t a disproportionate number of the “white people” who have brought about the world financial crisis in fact Jews? If so, why doesn’t da Silva mention that fact? Is it OK to demonize “white people with blue eyes” but not Jews? Is da Silva scapegoating “white people” in an attempt to take heat off the Jews?
Insemination fight ends in wife’s arrest
By Conor Berry, Berkshire Eagle Staff
Updated: 03/13/2009 08:51:53 PM EDT
Thursday, March 12
PITTSFIELD — A woman who allegedly intended to artificially inseminate her wife with her brother’s semen has been charged with domestic assault and battery.
Pittsfield police responded to a call shortly before 4:30 p.m. Tuesday in the city’s Morningside neighborhood, where the assault allegedly occurred.
Stephanie K. Lighten, 26, was released on personal recognizance after denying the allegations in Central Berkshire District Court Wednesday morning.
Jennifer A. Lighten, 33, told police that Stephanie Lighten, her wife, was “all liquored up” when she returned to their Lincoln Street apartment, where the defendant then allegedly tried to use a syringe to inseminate her, according to a police report.
Jennifer told investigating officers that Stephanie “has been talking about trying to impregnate (her) for some time,” police said.
According to a report by Pittsfield Police Officer Kipp D. Steinman: “Jennifer said that Stephanie had a ‘turkey baster and her brother’s semen in a sealed container.’ Jennifer said she told Stephanie that she didn’t want to get pregnant.” The device was actually a large syringe with a catheter tip, police said, and it was still in its original package when officers confiscated the item.
That’s allegedly when Stephanie threw Jennifer on the couch, grabbed at her clothes and threatened to impregnate her, police said.
Jennifer broke free, ran into the bathroom and locked the door. Stephanie “then broke the bathroom door down,” police said, hurting her wrist in the process.
When Stephanie went to retrieve an ice pack from the freezer, Jennifer bolted from the apartment and attempted to get away in the couple’s sport utility vehicle, police said.
As Jennifer pulled away from the scene, Stephanie “jumped on the side of their vehicle, swung the door open and made (Jennifer) stop,” Steinman said.
According to Officer John Bassi, a witness at the scene claimed Stephanie “was hanging on the SUV door handle, trying to get into the car.” Amber Hunt told Bassi that Stephanie nearly caused an accident when the vehicle narrowly missed hitting a tree in the front yard of Hunt’s Spring Street home.
Police arrested Stephanie Lighten near the intersection of Spring and Curtis streets in Morningside.
Police also confiscated the container of semen and some aluminum foil, which was originally used to hold the semen. Nicholas Lighten, Stephanie Lighten’s brother, was the donor, according to police.
Story continued at:
(Also see What’s With All The Lesbians?)
by John Martin
“I have a dream,” King shouted loudly,
The black man soon will stand up proudly.
Equality! — we’re “free at last!”
He thundered with a mighty blast.
Equality through integration
And concomitant miscegenation.
To equalize, one thing is needing:
We must have racial interbreeding!
Raise up the lower, reduce the better,
We need a common denominator!
We’ll integrate to make us free,
The White Man has no right to be!
Culture, science, and civilization,
Uniquely are White Man’s creation.
However, this will count for naught,
As full equality is sought.
We’ll tear down all that he has built,
Equality will hide our guilt.
We’ll use ‘Non-Violence’, King claimed,
Small comfort to the killed and maimed.
For violence followed in his wake,
While looters grabbed what they could take.
Their grievances, more imagined than real,
They set out to avenge with savage zeal.
“Burn baby, burn!” the looters chanted,
“Kill Whitey!” the cannibals all ranted.
White politicians gave assent
To this denigrating descent.
“Their cause is right, their demands are just!”
Asserted this vermin, to our disgust.
Thirty pieces of silver was sufficient
To satisfy the liberal, mental deficient,
Which financiers were glad to pay
To those who joined this treasonous fray.
Yet, retribution will surely come
To this abominable scum.
They abetted this explosion
To buy the votes and please the ‘Chosen’.
While these looked on with much elation,
The pols betrayed both race and nation.
They said, “Give all that they demand,
Or violence will mar our land.”
Open housing, affirmative action –
Our enemies smile with satisfaction.
School busing and integration –
Or is it just disintegration?
As they ring down the final curtain,
The White Man’s doom is all but certain.
Now – who shall carry the White Man’s burden?
For if he goes, you will go, too,
With no one left to carry you.
You cannot build, invent, create,
So, back off now, ere it’s too late!
We’ll win this struggle, never doubt it,
We’ll fight until the schemer’s routed!
Thereupon we will be free
To fulfill the White Man’s Destiny.
We’ll build, invent, explore, discover,
The secrets of the universe uncover.
All may gain by our ability,
But – never from King’s ‘Equality!’
(Originally published in Liberty Bell, 1978.)