Tag Archives: propaganda

Brokebutt Mounting

So I finally got around to watching Brokebutt Mounting, er, no… Pokebutt Mountain… wait, that’s still not right… was it Bareback Mountain? Um, no. Let me think… Brokeback Mountain, maybe? Yeah, that’s it, it was Brokeback Mountain. I watched Brokeback Mountain, the cinematic sensation of 2006, a touching, tragic drama about faggot cowboys in love and the horrors of heterosexual marriage.

Jack and Ennis

I was expecting a strong dose of homosexual propaganda, and in that respect, Pokebutt didn’t disappoint. What I wasn’t prepared for, however, was how monumentally boring this movie was. It was about two hours long but felt like four. At 45 minutes, I was already drumming my fingers, wondering when it was going to end so I could go do something more exciting, like trim my toenails or roll those pennies I’ve been accumulating in a jar for the last decade. Even the soporific The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford wasn’t as mindnumbingly dull as this.

Ignoring the propaganda aspect and judging the movie solely on artistic merit, Brokebutt Mounting did not deserve the hype that surrounded it. Sure, the photography was nice, but the acting was stagy and there wasn’t enough of a story to fill two hours. And as beautiful as the natural scenery was, it didn’t make up for the distasteful subject matter. If this movie hadn’t been serving a role in Hollywood’s long-running campaign to normalize and promote homosexuality, it would’ve toured the arthouse circuit, picked up a few awards from queer film festivals, developed a minor cult following within the lavender set, and then it would’ve vanished into obscurity, never attaining the status of household word that it did.

It was notable how little homoeroticism there was on the screen; we get to see the tits of two of the actresses, but all of that sizzling man-on-man action must have ended up on the cutting room floor. That’s because the whole thing would’ve fallen apart and turned into a ludicrous farce that no one could take seriously if they had shown what it was that those “gay” cowboys were actually doing up in those mountains. The audience would’ve been left scratching its head, wondering what was so great about having one’s rectum torn that a man would ruin his entire life for it. It would have come off as sleazy, pathetic, and pathological (which, of course, it is).

A salient feature of the “gay rights” movement is that it never discusses what it is that fags actually do in the bedroom; in other words, it never mentions the defining feature of homosexuality. This is conspicuously omitted from its PR materials because it knows that normal people would be disgusted by these activities and wouldn’t be able to take its political demands seriously. The “civil rights” movement might’ve had some semblance of legitimacy since blacks are, after all, born that way and can’t help the color of their skin; but no one in his right mind is going to assent to granting special rights and privileges to a bunch of hedonistic fudgepackers, grown men with shitty tongues who desire to spend their lives ejaculating down each other’s gullets. I mean, what next — zoophiles demanding the “right” to marry sheep?

One of the cornhole cowboys was named Ennis. Ennis rhymes with penis, and the way his Texan bumbuddy pronounced it, it sounded like he was calling him “anus.” Ennis, penis, anus — was this some sort of inside joke or subliminal message, or just a happy, but random, coincidence?

In the end, Pennis’s bitch Jack, who was a little less bashful about his perversion, gets his head bashed in with a tire iron by a posse of vicious, knuckle-dragging rednecks (are there any other kind?). Despite the fact that Jack was obviously murdered, there is no criminal investigation, the death being filed as accidental, because, you see, for decades The Patriarchy has been covertly perpetrating what amounts to a slow Holocaust against queers by turning a blind eye to fag-bashing. All breeders are in on this conspiracy, including the Sheriff’s office. You could fill a football field with the piled corpses of the victims of homophobia. Jack’s demise was tragic, truly tragic — I lost count of how many tissues I used to sop up my tears — though to let reality intrude for a moment, one might consider that statistically, the odds would’ve been far greater of Jack dying from AIDS than at the hands of heartless hillbillies.

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.

Conservatives are pathetic

“Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” –attributed to Aristotle

More evidence of how gelded conservatives are:
http://www.cassyfiano.com/2009/03/abc-shocked-to-find-that-americans-are-actually-tolerant

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…

Conservawhore Cassy Fiano in a swimsuit

A photo of Cassy Fiano in a bikini which is prominently displayed on her blog

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.

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.

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]

Deceptions of the homosexual movement: “Homosexuality about ‘love,’ not sex”

by Igor Alexander

I’ve been noticing a consistent pattern lately on the part of homosexuals, both male and female, to play down the “sex” part of homosexuality and try to present it instead as a “love” or a “romance” thing. I no longer believe that this is truthful or sincere on their part, but is rather a ruse, a calculated, coordinated “educational effort,” to try to make homosexuality more acceptable to and less easy to criticize by the heterosexual majority. This strategy makes sense, since many heterosexual people find the sex part of homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, revolting. It also dovetails with the campaign by homosexual zealots to extend the so-called “right” of marriage to homosexuals (unfortunately, far too many heterosexuals view marriage as being solely about romantic love and miss its real purpose — to be touched on later — which prevents them from understanding why homosexual marriage shouldn’t be allowed).

This tactic seems to be working with a lot of people; mention the word “love” to some people (particularly females) and their rational senses seem to shut down to be replaced by a warm, fuzzy feeling. “Aww, it can’t be bad if it’s love! The only evil in this world is hate, and only a hater would try to stand in the way of love.” Kinda scary that as many adults with full voting privileges have an intellectual capacity that doesn’t exceed a Hallmark card.

live eel in gay man's rectum

It's all about the romance: Here is an actual photo of a live eel -- that's right, the aquatic animal -- which managed to find its way into the rectum of a 'gay' man. It had to be surgically removed. Such cases are not uncommon in the emergency wards of hospitals. Click on the photo for more details.

I do not believe that a lesbian can experience “love” towards a woman in the same way that a heterosexual experiences love towards a partner of the opposite sex. Whenever I see lesbians attempting to describe what it feels like to be “in love,” they invariably confuse the symptoms of infatuation — butterflies in the stomach, thinking about the person all the time, a willingness to submit to the person and do anything possible to make that person happy — for love (by the same criteria, you could just as easily say that the average stalker is “in love”). Infatuation or what some call “romantic attraction” is a part of sexual attraction, not seperate from it. Some people don’t get this because they think “sexual” must mean that only the genitals can be involved, which isn’t true; sexual attraction can manifest itself in many ways besides, or in addition to, a tingling sensation in one’s genitals. The reality is that there is nothing “romantic” or glamorous about true love. It’s something that grows out of dirty diapers and attending the funerals of in-laws; it’s not some transcendental euphoric experience that arrives suddenly like a thunderbolt or one of cupid’s arrows, though it’s not surprising that a generation raised on MTV that views unhappiness as a Prozak deficiency would have that expectation. The true measure of love isn’t how a person “feels,” it’s the longevity of the relationship, the sacrifices each partner is willing to make for the sake of the relationship. Heterosexual love — true love — is based on a profound sense of trust and interdependence that takes years, even decades, to build. True love requires a polarization, the polarization between a man and a woman; it cannot be based on the narcissism of homosexuality. When lesbians pontificate on “love,” they don’t know what they’re talking about. They’re confusing a hormonal experience for a spiritual one. By turning their backs on heterosexuality, lesbians have removed the possibility of ever knowing true love.

As for male homosexuality being about “falling in love,” give me a break. If I was fresh off the farm or some suburban schmuck who had never met a homo in his life, I might buy that, but as it happens, I’ve known dozens of fags throughout my life and have had dozens of encounters in which “gay” or bisexual men have tried, often very aggressively, to get down my pants. Any fag who tells you that male homosexuality is about “love” rather than lust is pissing in your face and telling you that it’s raining.

Cynicism is in order when it comes to evaluating the claims of the homosexual lobby. These people have an agenda, and that agenda is going to have some deeply destructive effects upon society if it is allowed to go through. Don’t let sappy sentimentalism cloud your better judgement on these matters.

It is not in the best interests of your children to have “gay” Boy Scout leaders, or to allow homosexuals to confuse your kids about their sexuality through the public school system under the pretense of “fighting homophobia.” It is not in the interest of national security to have unabashed homosexuals in the military. It is not in the interests of society to degrade the institution of marriage, which plays such a crucial role in the proper rearing of children, by extending the so-called “right” of marriage to homosexuals. Marriage is a responsibility, not a “right,” and to entrust that responsibility to sexual deviants who cannot reproduce by natural means is to make a mockery of it, to cheapen it, to obscure its real purpose, which is to create stable, healthy families.

The homosexual agenda is a political agenda which has nothing to do with “love” or “romance” and it should be treated as coldly and dispassionately as you would the agenda of any other special interest group. The public must start looking at the big picture — at the long-term consequences the changes being demanded by the homosexual lobby will have on the whole of society — and not just at whether the homosexual who lives down the street appears to be a “nice person” or not.

Environmentalists concerned that truth about global warming may be reaching students

Canadian schools sent brochures from climate change skeptics
by Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service
Published: Sunday, May 04, 2008

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=492240

OTTAWA — An American think tank has sent out more than 11,000 brochures and DVDs to Canadian schools urging them to teach their students that scientists are exaggerating how human activity is the driving force behind global warming.

The Chicago-based group, the Heartland Institute, said its goal is to ensure that students are provided with a “balanced” education about “an important and controversial issue,” but critics, including a leading climate scientist, described it as a campaign of misinformation.

The mail out, sent in February, included results from international surveys of climate scientists conducted in 1996 and 2003 along with a 10-minute DVD called Unstoppable Solar Cycles, The Real Story of Greenland.

“It took me a while to figure out what they were up to,” said Eric Betteridge, who teaches at Hillcrest High School in Ottawa.

The Heartland Institute says that it purchased a database list of addresses of 11,250 schools from across the country, including about 10,000 private or faith-based schools, for a massive mail campaign aimed at Canadian children in all provinces.

“All the kids in our schools are being taught that climate change is a serious crisis and that we’ve got to reduce our CO2 and they’re being taught (that) quite falsely,” said Jay Lehr, the science director at the Heartland Institute who sent the package. “We would like to educate people and basically give them the other side of the issue, so we send out materials only in hope of a little balance.”

The Sierra Club of Canada said that the Heartland Institute’s information was far from being balanced. [The Heartland Institute didn’t claim the information they were providing was balanced. They said they were providing the information in order to balance out the one-sided chicken-little environmentalist scare propaganda that’s being disseminated through the schools and the mainstream media. It’s not the same thing. The Heartland Institute has no more of an obligation to be “balanced” in its treatment of global warming than the Sierra Club does.-IA]

“It’s alarming that an American think tank is distributing misinformation on the most important issue of our time in Canadian schools, to actually create an illusion that there is a scientific debate,” said Emilie Moorhouse, a spokeswoman for the environmental group. [This has become the retort of choice for cowards and charlatans who are unwilling or unable to defend or substantiate their assertions. If you can’t beat your opponent in a debate, then just shut him out of it, or better yet, shut down debate altogether.-IA]

The Heartland Institute describes itself as a national nonprofit research and education organization whose mission is “to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets to a better job than government bureaucracies.”

The brochure and DVD said that scientists were “deeply divided” about “the notion that climate change is mostly the result of human activities.” It also suggested that the sun was the main factor behind recent warming recorded on the planet.

The package does not make reference to the conclusions reached by governments and scientists from around the world in their 2007 assessment of the latest peer-reviewed research on climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrote in its summary of a Nobel Peace Prize-winning report that global warming is unequivocal and that there is a 90-per-cent chance it is being caused by humans.

After reviewing the Heartland Institute package, Mr. Betteridge said he was left feeling both amused and distressed that someone would try to promote this material to children in the classroom.

“I think I would be concerned because it was well written, and if somebody hadn’t been aware of what the general consensus is among climatologists about global warming, you would begin to think, ‘Wow, somebody’s giving me the wrong story here.”

John Stone, the senior Canadian researcher on the IPCC bureau, said that the 2007 assessment was cautious in its projections about impacts such as melting ice sheets among others.

“If anything, the IPCC assessments are conservative and this one (in 2007) was particularly conservative in hindsight,” said Mr. Stone. “Scientists don’t like to go out on a limb — they don’t like to be alarmist because they feel that they might be proven wrong.” [You can’t get much more alarmist than predicting the end of the world, which several of the IPCC scientist-priests have been doing publicly and with a great flair for drama.-IA]

The IPCC concluded that the contribution of solar variability to recent global warming was about a tenth of the impact of increased greenhouse gases, Mr. Stone said.

The Heartland Institute, which has received $791,000 in funding from Exxon-Mobil since 1998 according to a recent analysis by Greenpeace USA [And where do Greenpeace and the Sierra Club get their funding from, I wonder?-IA], also mailed out its package to 200 influential Canadian decision-makers, including Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

Moorhouse from the Sierra Club suggested that this might explain why the government has adopted climate change policies that were criticized for being soft on the oil and gas industry.

“It looks like they’re listening to the Heartland Institute and other oil-industry-sponsored think tanks and they’re following their curriculum rather than listening to the vast majority of what the scientific community is saying around the world,” she said. [It’s funny how some seem to believe that arriving at the truth is a democratic process. Don’t judge a theory on its merits, just judge it on how many adherents it has. If enough experts agree that the earth is flat, then the earth must indeed be flat.-IA]

A spokesperson for the Heartland Institute said that no company has ever contributed more than five per cent of the think tank’s total revenues and no industry sector contributed more than 10 per cent of its revenues.

“Nobody buys research,” said Dan Miller, the institute’s executive vice-president and publisher. “That isn’t the way it works. The funding follows the intellectual capacity, the intellectual integrity. It’s not the other way around.”

Although Flaherty’s office sent a letter of acknowledgment to the Heartland Institute confirming that the comments would be brought to the minister’s attention, spokesperson Chisholm Pothier said that the government is not taking advice from people who question climate change.

[Note: I will be putting together a list of articles, books, and videos which debunk the hypothesis of man-made global warming. Stay tuned.]

Jewish leader wants ‘annotated’ version of Hitler’s book

Mein Kampf

German Jewish leader backs publication of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’
by Reuters

BERLIN – A ban in Germany on Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf should be lifted so the book can be published with editorial comments, a Jewish leader said on Friday.

“I’m basically in favor of the book being made publicly accessible with annotation,” Stephan Kramer, general secretary of Germany’s Central Council of Jews, told German radio.

Speaking on broadcaster Deutschlandfunk, Kramer said he believed such an edition should be made available online, where the book can already be read in most countries. (*)

Hitler dictated the work to his aide Rudolf Hess while in prison in Bavaria following the failed Munich “Beer Hall” putsch of 1923. It outlines a doctrine of German racial supremacy and ambitions to annex huge areas of the Soviet Union.

Kramer said the Central Council of Jews was ready to help with the annotating, and might even ask the Bavarian state government, which holds the rights to the book, to lift the ban.

In Germany, it is illegal to distribute the tome except in special circumstances. Nazi symbols like the swastika and performing the stiff-armed Hitler salute are also outlawed.

Published in 1925, Mein Kampf (My Struggle) became a school textbook after Hitler seized power in 1933. All German newlyweds also received a copy.

A number of historians have called on Germany to lift the ban in recent years, some of them Jewish.

Now, purchasers who can prove an academic purpose may secure an existing copy. Otherwise though, sales are banned and Bavaria, which was granted the German rights to the book by the postwar occupying powers, refused to authorize new copies.

Deutschlandfunk said Bavarian authorities had rejected the idea of loosening the restrictions on publication.

“[To do so] would get enormous political attention worldwide, and probably be met with incomprehension,” it quoted the Bavarian finance ministry as saying in a statement.

(*) An English-language, non-annotated version of Mein Kampf is available online at http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/

More Misandry in the Media

From the April 3, 2008 edition of The Gazette:

Feminism marches on: The newest role model for young teen girls is Jenny Green, who takes a knife to boys who are mean to her. She’s the heroine — I guess — of Jenny Green’s Killer Junior Year, a teen novel due out this fall from Simon & Schuster. The N.Y Post found some publicity material that explains that Jenny is a ‘spoiled teen princess’ who ‘discovers just how despicable the male gender can be – with the lying, the cheating and the utter disrespect – (and) decides to make them pay… with their lives.'”

UPDATE (10-07-14): There’s now an expanded version of this post at:
http://www.culturalmarxism.com/jennygreen.htm