Tag Archives: Jews

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.

Happy International Holocaust Remembrance Day!

Kids celebrating Holocaust Remembrance Day

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

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.

Abolish the jewish tribe?

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.

Judeo-communist terms for anti-White

by Alex Linder of the Vanguard News Network

Until we invented it, there was no term for the hatred jews have for non-jews, Aryans in particular. Now there is: loxism.

The most successful political coinage in the history of the world is racism, a term that is fair odds to produce the genocide of the fair race by means of intimidating it out of defending itself.

Racism appears to refer to certain views held by Whites, but upon closer inspection, it is simply a hate term for the entire White race. Since jews control the media, and since they are loxists, they can speak in ostensibly neutral language, or in codes, rather than admit what they are doing directly. The following are but some of the terms anti-White jews, loxists, use to describe themselves and their activities. Rather than frankly admit they hate whites and seek their destruction, jews refer to themselves/their activities as:


  • human rights

  • anti-fascist

  • democratic

All these have one meaning: reducing the scope, dignity and political power of the White man. Taking from him whatever can be taken, turning it over to jews and the mud majority – and spitting on the White man in thanks. Jews pervert or invent whichever terms they require to hide the fact that they and the coloreds they use to despoil white society are feeding on our race, while occasionally lifting their bloody jaws from our carcass long enough to stream out a few insults.

Source: http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=103861

(Also see Feminists say “tough titty” to white males suffering from cystic fibrosis)

Rube Goldberg’s political cartoons

Jewish cartoonist Rube Goldberg is mainly remembered for his depictions of absurdly complicated machines for accomplishing simple tasks. In fact, his name (in America, at least) has become synonymous with such machines (although as is so often the case, jews are given credit for things that were invented earlier by gentiles — in this case, British cartoonist and illustrator W. Heath Robinson had published similar drawings several years before Goldberg).

While reading an online biography of Goldberg, I came across the interesting claim that Goldberg had asked his sons to change their last names to something less jewish after he had received hate mail for the political cartoons he created during the Second World War. What I found intriguing is that in no article that I looked at online was any information given about the nature of these cartoons that elicited such strong reactions. Is that information being held back because it might be either damaging to the jewish community in general or personally embarrassing to Goldberg’s family or estate? Perhaps Goldberg was a vicious, loxist war propagandist? Perhaps he drew cartoons praising communist mass-murderer Stalin, while calling for the forced sterilization of Germans, like his fellow jew Theodore N. Kaufman did in the booklet Germany Must Perish?

A Clusty search for Rube Goldberg’s political cartoons didn’t yield much, but I did find the following:

rube-goldberg-anti-japanese

What’s interesting is that the German-American illustrator/cartoonist Theodor Seuss Geisel, better known as Dr. Seuss, has in recent years been roundly condemned as a racist for producing wartime anti-Japanese cartoons that were in no way worse than the one by Goldberg above. Perhaps if more were known about Goldberg as a political cartoonist and war propagandist, he might be regarded as a racist too?

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 have any leads on this?

Encyclopedia Britannica owned by Jewish billionaire

The other day I was telling a relative that my 1961 edition of the Encylcopedia Britannica contained only two short paragraphs on the holocaust out of its 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” was, to use the words of French politician Jean-Marie Le Pen, 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 1970s, 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 was 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)

Gringos Go Home

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).