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.
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.
“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).