Tag Archives: new world order

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Israel lobby is real and very powerful.

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

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

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

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

Footnote:


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


  1. 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

  2. “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.

Should we be concerned about overpopulation?

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

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

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

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

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.

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).

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

Keep this. It will bring you luck.

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]