I was listening to the Alex Jones Show yesterday (Friday, March 4) on shortwave and someone called in and started talking about “international jewish bankers” being behind the New World Order. Jones gave the caller a lot of time to speak without interrupting him or cutting him off.
At first, the caller sounded sensible. He mentioned that the American mass media is dominated by jews, which is true. He brought up Paul Warburg‘s name in connection with the Federal Reserve. And considering Jones had had some not-so-nice things to say about George Soros, another jew, only minutes before this call, it would have been disingenuous of him to claim jews aren’t overrepresented in the ranks of international financiers. So far, so good.
Then the caller urged listeners to read the long-discredited Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Jones asked the caller if he believed that all jews are involved in the conspiracy, to which the caller replied in the affirmative. Jones then asked if all jews should be exterminated, and the caller said yes. I slapped my hand to my forehead and started shaking my head. Predictably, Jones cut the caller off at that point and went on a tirade against nazis.
Why do so many anti-Semites* insist on shooting themselves in the foot like this guy did?
While Jones has a long and shameful history of covering for the jews, you can’t accuse him of any wrongdoing in this case; he gave the guy plenty of time to make his case without censoring him. You can’t ask for more than a fair hearing. If the caller came off looking foolish, he did it to himself.
I’m starting to believe that a large number of anti-Semites really are mentally ill. Either that, or they’re stupid. It’s like their brains are incapable of distinguishing between the jew who mops the floors at the local Burger King and the George Soroses and Sumner Redstones of the world, who truly are malignant pests.
There are several valid criticisms that can be leveled against jews as a group. For instance, an elite group of jews really does have a disproportionately large amount of control over the mass media in countries like the U.S. and Canada, and it uses this control towards ends that are usually not in the best interest of the majority population.
The Israel lobby is real and very powerful.
The holocaust is a Big Lie that was invented by jews, communists, and the leaders of the Allied nations to justify or help conceal their own atrocities, and the myth was rekindled in the latter half of the 1960s by zionist jews to drum up support for and deflect criticism of Israel. In the last 12 years, the myth of the holocaust has been invoked to justify everything from the NATO bombing of civilian passenger trains in Yugoslavia, to the hanging of Saddam Hussein as a “war criminal,” to the U.S.’s belligerent attitude toward Iran.
But reasoned criticisms such as these tend to be overlooked when you have paranoid nutcases shouting from rooftops that they think every jew on the planet is involved in a monolithic conspiracy that’s behind all the evils in the world and that every last one needs to be exterminated, pronto.
If I didn’t know such people personally, I would think they were plants from the Defamation League of B’nai B’rith and the $PLC to make anti-Semites look retarded or unhinged.
The debate on the Jewish Question is polarized between apologists for the jews like Alex Jones and Jar-Jar Taylor, who would sooner blame their own mothers for the ills they diagnose than utter the word “jew,” and conspiracy wackos who have gone off the deep end and become obsessed with jews to the exclusion of everything else.
* I’m not entirely comfortable with the term anti-Semite to describe someone who’s critical of or antipathetic towards jews, for two reasons:
- In a time in which blond, ashkenazi jews who don’t have a drop of Semitic blood in them are gunning down rock-throwing Palestinian children, some of whom are full-blooded Semites, referring to anti-jewish sentiment as “anti-Semitism” doesn’t make a lot of sense, and
- “Anti-Semitism” has a biological ring to it, which implies that the solution to the problem is extermination, and not everyone who opposes the agendas of organized jewry feels that way.
“Anti-jewish” would be an improvement, but is still not quite satisfactory. The best term, I think, would be anti-loxist, but since loxism has yet to catch on, no one would know what I was talking about were I to use it.
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.
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
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.
“Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” –attributed to Aristotle
More evidence of how gelded conservatives are:
Instead of bemoaning the fact that no one had the cojones to throw those obnoxious fudgepackers out on their disease-ridden keesters, she takes pride in how “tolerant” (tolerant meaning cowardly) the middle-American patrons of the bar were. Is it any wonder conservatives have been unable to stop the disintegration of white societies when they accept all the tacit ground rules laid down by their supposed adversaries, in this case the assumption that public displays of homosexuality should be tolerated?
The only thing she gets halfway right is that, yes, the mainstream media does have an agenda to normalize and promote homosexuality, though she avoids going into exactly why the media has been pursuing this agenda for the last few decades.
But hey, at least she’s cute and fills out a bikini real nice…
You have to wonder if conservatism isn’t so washed-up at this point that it’s resorting to sex appeal (bikinis, former beauty queens) to keep men on board.
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.
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).
Controversial author Michael Hoffman has had his latest book, Judaism Discovered, effectively banned by the “earth’s biggest bookstore,” Amazon.com. While the book may be ordered from third party vendors at inflated prices through the Amazon website, Amazon has refused to sell it to customers directly. This de facto ban was apparently put in place at the behest of a rabbi.
This seems to be part of an orchestrated campaign to silence Mr. Hoffman. Blogger.com (owned by Google) recently attempted to shut down his blog under false pretenses, while Google Video had previously pulled two of his videos. It would appear that Barnes & Noble has also recently stopped carrying the book.
This ban is all the more surprising since unlike Canada’s Chapters-Indigo chain, which has a history of banning books not liked by its owners, Amazon has earned a reputation for offering its customers a wide selection of controversial titles, refusing to succumb to pressure from special interest groups to blacklist publishers deemed politically incorrect. This is, to my knowledge, the only book banned by Amazon. Now that Amazon has stepped out onto this slippery slope, one wonders if it’ll be the last.
If you’re an Amazon customer, let them know that if they don’t lift this ban, you’ll be taking your business elsewhere.
UPDATE (09-08-07): It has come to my attention that Mr. Hoffman may not have been entirely honest about why Amazon refused to carry his book. I can no longer in good conscience recommend that people stop shopping at Amazon. For further details, read messages #21, 23, and 24 in the Michael Hoffman thread I started at VNN Forum.
I’ve just been getting up to speed with this Mark Steyn affair:
- Mark Steyn Case Wakes Up Canadian Press to Human Rights Tribunals’ Threat to Free Speech
- More on the Canadian speech police
What’s fascinating about this case is that Canadian Humans Rights Tribunals have for years been trying to deny people such as historical revisionists and white nationalists the right to express their views, and everyone has looked the other way. But now that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is trying to silence a Jew (*) who has been engaging in hate speech against Muslims, there’s a massive outcry about it! Funny how the media Jews didn’t seem to care about free speech until it suddenly occured to them that these hate speech laws could be turned around and used to silence them in their continued efforts to demonize Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians in order to drum up support for the Third World War they and their neo-conservative stooges are trying to start in the Middle East. If these media Jews are so concerned about our civil liberties, then where was all the handwringing about loss of free speech when Indian Chief David Ahenakew was being fined and humiliated by a Canadian court for making anti-Semitic remarks?
Jews were perfectly willing to support hate speech laws as long as those laws were serving Jewish interests. Now that those laws are becoming an impediment to Jewish interests (i.e., to getting the West embroiled in a protracted war against Islam), they want to get rid of them. It’s amazing how members of a group that makes up less than 2 or 3 per cent of the population always wind up setting the agenda for the rest of us.
Well, I shan’t complain. Getting rid of these tribunals and the associated hate speech laws, as well as dismantling the CHRC, would be a major step towards restoring free speech and due process in Canada, even if it’s being done for the wrong reasons.
“Mark is of Jewish descent, but was baptized a Catholic, confirmed an Anglican, and currently attends a small rural American Baptist Church.”
Don’t be fooled by Steyn’s BS that he’s a “Christian” of “Jewish descent.” Being Jewish is a matter of genes, not of religion. Those who claim otherwise are trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.