Problem, Reaction, Solution

I knew it was coming: Victims’ families demand tougher gun laws (CTV.ca, Fri. Sep. 15).

Predictably, anti-gun zealots are exploiting the September 13 shootings at Montreal’s Dawson College to try to usher in more gun control laws (as if Canada doesn’t have enough already).

They’re pressuring Ottawa to keep the phenomenally unsuccessful (and expensive, and unpopular) gun registry which was implemented as a result of a similar incident in 1989. Of course, the people calling for the registry not to be scrapped aren’t able to explain why keeping the registry would prevent more incidents like these, since the registry obviously wasn’t able to prevent this one from taking place. If gun control failed in the past, then the answer is to have more gun control? Doesn’t sound very logical to me, not that liberals, leftists, bureaucrats, and bereaved parents are known for their critical thinking skills.

Face it, folks — no amount of gun control can prevent incidents such as these from occurring. If you ban guns, all you’re going to do is drive the market underground, creating a worse situation. If this psychopath hadn’t obtained his guns legally, he would merely have bought unregistered (and perhaps far more lethal) guns off the street. The last thing Canada needs to do is to create new markets for the organized crime syndicates.

Here is a photo of the shooter holding up a hunting knife:

After we’re done banning guns, perhaps we should also ban hunting knives. You never know; if that guy hadn’t had access to firearms, he could’ve gone after people with that big knife of his. And after we’re done banning knives, perhaps we should start banning fertilizers and any other potential bomb-making materials. Once we’re done banning those, we should also consider banning box cutters, since those were allegedly the weapons used by the 9/11 hijackers. Et cetera. Once we’ve started down this road, where will it end?

Guns are not the problem; people are. If we’re going to ban anything, I say we ban videogames which glorify violence such as the one the shooter was reportedly fond of:

“Gill [the shooter] describes life ‘as a video game, you’ve got to die sometime.’ He says he is a fan of the controversial and violent video game series ‘Postal,’ in which the targets are everyday human beings completing everyday errands.“

The guns may have given him a means to carry out the attack, but it was clearly the videogame which gave him the inspiration and the conditioning necessary to carry it through.

And for all you conspiracy theorists out there — isn’t it strange that witnesses and early press reports said the shooter was carrying an (illegal) assault rifle, but now that certain groups have spotted an opportunity to pursue their gun control agenda, the story has been changed? I also find it odd that the media are portraying this guy, Kimveer Gill, as a lone nut, even though witness accounts clearly suggest that there were multiple shooters. What happened to the other shooters?

Just something to think about.

Revilo Oliver’s “The Jewish Strategy” — does it exist?

A year or two ago, the posthumous release of a book by Revilo P. Oliver was announced. The book was called “The Jewish Strategy.” The publisher was Palladian Books, which, going by its mailing address, is located in Earlysville, Virginia.

I saw the book advertised at revilo-oliver.com, a site which is run by Kevin Alfred Strom. On that site, there was a detailed description of the book, including a table of contents, some excerpts, and a picture of the front and back cover, as well as ordering information.

I sent a couple of emails inquiring about this book to the webmaster but never got a response.

The book is, as of this writing, listed in the Historical Review Press online catalog, but an email inquiry revealed that they don’t actually have the book in stock.

There is no listing for this book on Amazon.com. Mailorder distros that you’d expect to carry this book, like Noontide Press and National Vanguard Books, don’t have it in their online catalogs.

Searching through usenet archives and online discussion forums, I haven’t come across a single post in which someone mentions having read this book. The only person I am aware of who claims to have read it is Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review (he states this in an American Dissident Voices interview, though I can’t recall which one; there have been several ADV interviews with Mark Weber).

And now, it looks like all mentions of this book have been wiped from revilo-oliver.com.

All of this leads me to wonder: Does this book actually exist? Has anyone ever held a copy in their hand?

Mel Gibson — have we heard enough yet?

Here’s a thought: If instead of Mel Gibson being pulled over it had been Steven Spielberg spouting drunken epithets against “those f**king Arabs,” do you think we’d still be hearing about it more than a week later?

Hell no. Under those circumstances, the news wouldn’t even have made it to the front page, if it were reported at all. The only reason we’re still hearing about this is because it was a white gentile (who just happened to piss off the ADL a few years back) making remarks against the one group in Western society that you’re not allowed to criticize.

Rob Schneider attacks Mel Gibson — how opportunistic can you get?

From Deuce Bigalow vs. Mel Gibson:

“‘I, Rob Schneider, a 1/2 Jew, pledge from this day forward to never work with Mel Gibson, actor-director-producer and anti-Semite,’ vowed an open letter baring the comic actor’s signature.“

Is that so? LMAO.

Rob Schneider is a mediocre talent at best, and he knows it. He probably wouldn’t have a career in Hollywood were it not for the fact that he’s “1/2 Jewish,” as he so proudly proclaims. It’s well known that Jews give preferential treatment to their own.

Mel Gibson is a bona fide star. Rob is a nobody. He’s just using his Jewishness to pull a publicity stunt. No one would pay attention to him otherwise.

I hate to break it to you, Rob, but Jewishness is a poor substitute for talent.

Rob Schneider is the sickly kid who wonders out into the schoolyard after everyone’s gone and starts kicking the unconscious body of the school’s star athlete, trying to make it seem as if he’s the one that put him down. No one is listening to you, Rob. You’re a loser.

Eugenics versus Racialism

Here’s a hypothetical question for all the racial nationalists out there: If you were given a choice between having offspring with a frail, stupid, and ugly person of your own race, or with a beautiful, vibrant, and intelligent person of another race, which would you prefer?

In other words, if your choice was between a dysgenic same-race coupling or eugenic race mixing, which one would you choose?

I’m asking this because many neo-Nazis and white supremacists profess a belief in eugenics, yet they vehemently oppose race mixing of any kind, even between racial groups that are closely matched as far as characteristics like IQ (e.g. whites and East Asians).

Of course, there are compelling reasons to be against race mixing, such as that it destroys the unique qualities of the races that partake in it, and by extension, the nations, cultures, and traditions that are uniquely associated with those races. This, however, is a nationalistic argument. It has nothing to do with eugenics.

There’s also no reason that eugenics can’t and shouldn’t be practiced within a nationalistic framework (i.e. that the races should remain seperate and that eugenics should be practiced within those groups), but it’s not entirely clear that that’s what neo-Nazis and white supremacists are advocating.

Is it possible that nationalism and eugenics when taken to extremes are incompatible? If so, which is more important — preserving national boundaries or improving human quality?

A minor clarification: While I am white and am also a nationalist, I do not consider myself a “white nationalist.” I feel that race does and should play a role in determining nationality, and an important one at that, but I do not regard it as the sole or the most important determiner of nationality. This puts me at odds with both the one worlders, who claim that race doesn’t exist, or that if it does, we mustn’t pay attention to it, and the racial nationalists (e.g. white nationalists), who seem to think that race is everything and who ascribe to it a significance that verges on the absurd.

The Mel Gibson affair — fans don’t give a rat’s ass about anti-Jewish remarks

From an article about a poll conducted August 2-3:

“Mel Gibson’s drunken-driving arrest and comments concerning Jews at the time it was made appears to have done little to diminish his popularity among Americans, poll results indicated. Fifty-two percent said they did not believe Gibson is anti-Semitic, and 58 percent said they are still among Gibson’s fans.“

Mmmm.. so 52% don’t believe he’s an “anti-Semite,” and 58% still count themselves as among his fans… So presumably, 6% believe he’s an anti-Semite, and they just don’t give a shit.

Personally, I’ve lost all respect for Mel Gibson over this incident. It’s not what he said about Jews that I have a problem with; what sickens me is watching him apologize and grovel at their feet for saying it. Doesn’t the man have any pride?

The Holocaust — it’s no laughing matter

I just read the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on the Holocaust.

Unlike some of the articles on that website, it’s not in the least bit funny. All they’re doing is regurgitating Jew-approved “facts” that have been debunked time and again by revisionists.

Here’s an excerpt:

“The Holocaust was made up by the Jews. People act like just because there were shower rooms with shower heads that weren’t connected to a water source and vents connected to big tanks of cyanide gas, and crematoria large enough to fit human bodies, and big pits full of Jewish corpses, that the Germans were trying to kill Jews. In fact, all those bodies were dummies put there by the Jews and the Allies after the war to make it look like they died. I took a tour of Auschwitz and walked through the gas chamber and totally didn’t die, so obviously the whole thing is a hoax.“

Let’s examine some of these statements, shall we?

In his book Hoax of the 20th Century, which was first published nearly thirty years ago, Arthur Butz established that whatever Auschwitz was, it was far more than a “death camp.” If, as the Jews and their collaborators contend, Auschwitz contained facilities used to exterminate them, it is clear that “extermination” was not the primary purpose of the camp and that those facilities could only have been added to the camp as an afterthought. Not even widely respected Holocaust “experts” like Raul Hilberg and Gerald Reitlinger would dispute this.

Auschwitz was a huge industrial complex with tens of thousands of people (of varying religions and ethnicities) living and working in it. People, even under the best of circumstances, have a habit of dying, and when they do, the bodies need to be disposed of for sanitary reasons. You’ll note that when the big tsunami hit Thailand in 2004, the authorities were burning the bodies just days after the event took place. The authorities feared that had they not done this, there would have been epidemics to contend with. So what is so abnormal about there being “crematoria large enough to fit human bodies” in Auschwitz? Cremation facilities would’ve been necessary in Auschwitz regardless of whether exterminations were taking place there or not. (As a side note, has anyone ever heard of crematoria NOT large enough to fit human bodies? What else would crematory ovens be used for, if not for the disposal of human bodies?)

I don’t regard myself as a “Holocaust denier.” There does appear to be some evidence for the Holocaust, and no one can deny that Jews were treated poorly in the Third Reich. OTOH, anyone willing to investigate the matter objectively will soon come to realize that much Holocaust lore is nothing more than Zionist propaganda, with facts either exaggerated or manufactured out of whole cloth, and that on closer inspection, much of the “evidence” for the Holocaust isn’t nearly as strong as its proponents make it out to be.

When you look beneath the surface of the evidence that supposedly “proves” that the Holocaust happened, you start to notice that a lot of it really does no such thing at all. The famous photos and film strips of “gassing victims” are actually images of inmates that died in typhus epidemics. Incredibly, some of the photos that have been passed off as “proof” of the Holocaust have been shown to be Soviet fakes! Many of the “gas chambers” that are shown to tourists are actually post-war “reproductions,” and no working Nazi-era homocidal gas chambers are around today to prove that they actually existed, or to shed any light on how they might have operated. Many of the “eyewitness accounts” tend to contradict each other, and sometimes they aren’t even internally consistent, making them unreliable. Ditto for the “confessions” of the Nazi “war criminals.”

At any rate, the point is that the article isn’t funny, and making people laugh, especially at things they’re not supposed to laugh at, is what the Encyclopedia Dramatica usually does best.

So how can this turkey of an article be made funny? Any suggestions?

I’m thinking some wry remarks about how Jews find it necessary to throw Holocaust skeptics like Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zuendel, and David Irving in jail, or about how Zionists use the Holocaust as an excuse to murder Palestinian children, or about how organizations like the World Jewish Congress have used the Holocaust to extort billions from the people of Switzerland, might brighten the piece up a little.

A letter from Stats Canada

I recently got a form letter from Statistics Canada informing me that if I did not fill out and return the 2006 Canada Census questionnaire, I could be eligible for “a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars” or “imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both.”

Since I am rather fond of my privacy and don’t trust the government one iota, I have no desire to fill out the questionnaire. This is even more true having found out that Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to do the 2006 Census.

I’m also turned off by the coercive tactics Stats Canada have been employing to get people to comply. As if threatening me with jail time and/or a fine wasn’t enough, the letter goes on to say “Census staff will continue to contact your household if you do not return a census questionnaire. In fact, Statistics Canada staff will follow-up with your household, either by telephone and/or by personal visits until you have complied with this mandatory requirement.” In other words, they’re going to harass me until I’ve completed the questionnnaire.

Canada is supposedly a free country. Why should I have to fill out a questionnnaire if I don’t want to?

It’s my civic duty, you say? Civic duty my ass. Voting is also a civic duty, and yet, I don’t see the government threatening to harass, imprison, or fine people who choose not to vote.

Since Stats Canada won’t get off my back, I’m going to play a little game with them. When their reps come knocking on my door, I’m not going to answer. When they phone me, I’m not going to pick up. If, after playing this game for a while, they manage to corner me on my doorstep, I’ll simply inform them that I never received a copy of the census form. If they try to force me to complete the questionnaire on the spot, I’ll insist that they provide me with a copy and that I will mail it to them instead. If they tell me to go fill it out online, I’ll inform them that I don’t have the Internet. And so on. I can play this game indefinitely, but I’m guessing that Stats Canada can’t. At some point they’re either going to have to issue a clear ultimatum, or bugger off and leave me alone.

Apparently, I’m not the only person who hasn’t been cooperating with the 2006 Census:

• Boycott the 2006 Canadian Census
• CountMeOut.ca

One sentence in the letter intrigues me. It reads “A person who refuses or neglects to complete the 2006 Census questionnaire without lawful excuse, is guilty of an offence…” What exactly is a “lawful excuse” for not filling out the questionnaire? This sounds like a potential loophole.

Plagiarism — the sincerest form of flattery?

What’s with famous sayings by white people being stolen by and/or attributed to non-whites?

Example #1

The Original:

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” — Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860)

Plagiarized Version:

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” — Mahatma Gandhi (1869 – 1948)

Example #2

The Original:

“I can’t give you a sure-fire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time.” — Herbert Bayard Swope (1882 – 1958)

Plagiarized Version:

“I don’t know the secret of success, but the secret of failure is to try to please everybody.” — Bill Cosby (1937 – present)

Why do people turn a blind eye to this sort of blatant intellectual robbery? Is this another liberal/white guilt thing, like how we’re supposed to pretend that blacks invented everything from air conditioning to the cell phone?

If you can think of more examples, post ‘em.