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.
The Evolution Hoax Exposed
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.
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.
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)
‘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 [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).
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]
Brazilian President blames financial crisis on “white people with blue eyes”
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.'”
Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090329/pl_mcclatchy/3200499
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.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. (Photo: Roberto Jayme)
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?
Lesbian attempts to rape ‘wife’ with sperm-filled syringe
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.
Stephanie K. Lighten, charged with spousal abuse
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:
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_11893799
(Also see What’s With All The Lesbians?)
Remembering Martin Luther King
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.)
Igor Alexander's Weblog 
Recent Comments