29 November, 2006

Semites ‘n’ Shills Piss at First Amendment

Posted by alex in Alex Linder, appeasers of the jew, Canada, free-speech martyrs at 5:18 pm | Permanent Link

Gingrich and the Clinton bitch want to do away with free speech as a way to combat terrorism — or give in to the jew lobby they and both aisles of Congress do nothing but appease and shill for. Meanwhile, up in Canada, Warman and the kikes are suing another brave Canadian, Melissa Guille of the Canadian Heritage Alliance.

Gingrich is a goyish version of Dennis Prager. A pseudo-earnest, eternally precocious fourth-grader who masturbates to pictures of Ariel Sharon in between Fox sessions in which he attempts to keep an adult cover on his emotions and provide adult reasons to cover up what is nothing more than his sports-fan enthusiasm for a giant global war. Great wars produce great men, according to this midget’s mental stylings. Hopped up on Churchill, he is more than happy to sacrifice your last son and dollar to serve the jews who can restore his faded glory.

AWAY WITH FREE SPEECH, SHRIEKS JEW-SHILL GINGRICH

Lew [Rockwell]: Newt Gingrich’s proposal for reexamining free speech is but the latest attack by defenders of the political establishment upon the liberty of men and women to express opinions that run counter to the interests of a collapsing political structure. His suggestion that a “different set of rules” might be needed to prevent “terrorists” from employing the Internet is reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s 1998 comments that “we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with” the Internet. Of course, the “terrorist” threat with which she was dealing at the time was the open expression of opinions about her husband’s sexual activities. She went on to urge some “kind of editing function or gatekeeping function” on the Internet that would prevent individuals from saying things that would “throw a system . . . out of balance.”

Newt and Hillary – as well as the establishment interests for which they front – know full well the dangers the political system faces from men and women who are free to think and speak to untold numbers of other people views that are incompatible with state interests. The ruling classes have never fully recovered from Gutenberg’s invention that greatly enhanced the flow of information to those who might question their institutionally assigned roles in society. The Internet has expanded such capacities exponentially, and political hacks can be counted upon to provide “bipartisan support” to restrain its influences and help keep the herd intact.

As the free expression of information and ideas continues unabated, increasing numbers of Americans will likely see the “war on terror” as nothing more than another fearmongering effort to reinforce the crumbling foundations of state power. If people are allowed to communicate to one another their doubts about the genuiness of “threats” posed by state-defined hobgoblins, the entire scarecrow may collapse!

That Newt was invited to present his preferences for censorship to a group honoring defenders of the First Amendment is all the more remarkable, although not surprising in a world in which farce and truth have become virtually interchangeable.

Pride leader faces charges
Mon, November 20, 2006
Melissa Guille, one of few female white supremacy organizers, is facing human rights charges.
By RANDY RICHMOND, FREE PRESS REPORTER

One of the few female organizers in Canada’s white pride movement, and a potential national leader, is to appear today on charges she violated Canada’s Human Rights Act.

Melissa Guille and her Southwestern Ontario-based Canadian Heritage Alliance have been brought before a Canadian human rights tribunal in Toronto on charges their Internet site promoted hatred.

Getting a decision against her would be a coup for anti-racism activists.

Guille is considered a bright light in the white supremacy movement, whose focus on “European heritage” has successfully sidestepped anti-hate laws.

Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman brought the complaint against Guille after studying the Canadian Heritage Alliance’s website.

“You just had to scratch a millimetre beneath the surface,” he said yesterday.

Guille’s website includes material that encourages vicious attacks on the Arab, Jewish and black communities, Warman said.

Warman’s complaint alleges other website postings argue the Holocaust didn’t occur, that most whites who have relationships with black men get AIDS and deserve to die, that Jews kidnap Russian children to sexually torture them for pornographic films and that Muslims in England engage in cannibalism.

The Canadian Human Rights Act bans online messages that are likely to expose people to hatred or contempt based on their colour, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation.

Violations of the rights law are punishable by fines.

Born in 1972, Guille graduated in history from Wilfrid Laurier University in Kitchener.

After she was exposed by Kitchener media as head of the Canadian Heritage Alliance, she moved to London in 2002.

She has apparently moved back to the Cambridge area.

“She is one of the few women who have taken a leadership role in Canada,” Warman said.

Her Canadian Heritage Alliance’s website went online in November 2000 and by the end of the first month had 35 subscribers and 10 paying members, according to Matt Lauder, an anti-hate activist who posed as a white supremacist and infiltrated the alliance.

Guille has, at various times, dated other white supremacist leaders.

She has declined to speak to The Free Press, but she defended herself on her website.

“The complaint against the CHA and Ms. Guille did not originate as a result of a criminal investigation, nor did it originate from a protected group that feels they have been discriminated against or exposed to contempt by viewpoints expressed on the website,” the notice reads.

“The complaint came from a man, Mr. Warman, who had spent years scouring the website and waiting until he had enough to file a complaint against CHA and Ms. Guille in an attempt to oppress opinions that are in conflict to his own.”

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/CityandRegion/2006/11/20/2429914-sun.html


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 12/20/06 Tyranny in Canada: Bahr Fined $5000 for Thought Crime 41% similar
  3. 07/31/06 Canada, Continued 34% similar
  4. 02/21/07 Aryans Battle Jews for Free Speech in Canada 29% similar
  5. 02/03/07 Dickler Under Siege! 28% similar
  6. 07/15/06 Jew-Tyranny Canada Gives Winnicki Nine Months for Free Speech on VNN Forum 25% similar
  7. 7 Responses to “Semites ‘n’ Shills Piss at First Amendment”

    1. Jim Says:

      What happens to the likes of Warman and Lauder when a patriotic Canuck finds out that he is dying of cancer and only has a few months to live?

    2. tbolt58 Says:

      You’d think the ban on free speech would cause any sane white man to say, “Enough is enough!”. It shames me to know that all our white ancestors that built the culture we had here in the New World would be ashamed at what’s transpired a short 150 years and at the apparent ruin that’s left, courtesy of the JEW! Wake up! ITZ coming! Just not nearly fast enough for this guy. Hang in there and keep planting those seeds. That’s one guy’s plan. 88

    3. Mark Says:

      A white female taking a leadership role and bringing more white women to the pro-white cause. An anti-white’s greatest fear! They have tried to manipulate white women into hating white men, and tried to align them with non-whites in this manner. What a devastating blow to have white women stand up and take a leadership role against their anti-white agenda.

    4. Thoughtcrime Says:

      “The Canadian Human Rights Act bans online messages that are likely to expose people to hatred or contempt based on their colour, ethinic origin, religion or sexual orientation.”

      Last I heard surfing the internet is an exercise in free choice. If you don’t like what’s being presented to you on some website, then you can simply leave and find another website more to your liking. It’s as simple as that.

      Another agenda is at work here, and it’s definitely not extreme worry over offending someone’s delicate feelings….

    5. Manxman Says:

      A nationalist white woman – sounds too good to be true. Nice one, but I fear it will take a lot more to persuade me put of my misogyny.

    6. Shabbos Shabazz Says:

      Newton Gingrich is a long time buddy with “former” Marxist Alvin Toffler:

      Steve Farrell (from Newsmax)
      December 7, 1999

      If ever there was a person suffering under the delusion that there really was a nickel’s difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, Newt Gingrich’s surfing in Alvin Toffler’s Third Wave, and his application of the same as the launching pad of 21st Century Republicanism, should have been the wake-up call to stack the sandbags, vacate the beachheads, and run for the hills.
      Mr. Gingrich told his fellow congressmen, in his Republican Revolution Victory Speech in November of 1994, that “The Third Way [The Third Wave is the correct title of the book] represented the key to figuring out where he and the new Republicrats were coming from, and that this futurism-based book was “the seminal work of our time.” (1, 2)

      It isn’t!

      At best, the work represents a compilation of glaring contradictions, hasty generalizations, and shamefully shallow analysis of US Constitutional foundations, topped off with foolish, risky, naive solutions that discard the political past and leap blindly into a radically different political future, for no better reason than — we must!

      That’s the kind appraisal. At worst, the work is intentionally deceptive, possibly treasonous, and downright Marxist in its political, historical, and sociological philosophy.

      Either way, it is not seminal, in a salutary sense. What it is, is one of the most embarrassing and revelatory documents on just how far the Republican Party has strayed, since 1994, from the old hypothetical platform and from the promise of The Contract With America to “return to the wisdom and brilliance of the Founding Fathers.”

      The party simply did not then, and does not now, seek the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, but in its new progressive beliefs and concessions, pits itself against the same.

      So let’s get right to alleviating our disbelief that this might be so, by beginning where the Republican-Party-leadership-endorsed book ends, in its call for the abolition of the US Constitution as the first step for our collective salvation in the Information Age.

      Goodbye to the US Constitution
      Toffler explains in a letter he writes to the Founding Parents: “For what I now must write can all too easily be misunderstood by my contemporaries. Some will no doubt regard it as seditious. Yet is a painful truth I believe you [America’s Founders] would have quickly grasped.

      “For the system of government you fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented — a democracy for the 21st Century.” (3)

      And why is that?

      Power shifts, cultural and technological leaps, non-representation for minorities, a deficient Bill of Rights (he would, like every socialist before him, expand the Bill of Rights to include the right of gay couples to adopt children and the right of poor people and poor nations to share equally with the rich via the forced redistribution of the wealth). But perhaps his gut rationale comes in his communist-like castigation of the American system of government as a “disease” that “must, in its turn, die and be replaced.” (4)

      That’s a seminal conclusion for Republicans to turn to, now, isn’t it?

      But that’s o.k., Toffler assures us, because everything must change, and nothing is eternal. That is Marx too. (5) Constitutions weren’t meant to stand forever, or to be worshipped as Heaven sent. (6)

      It is, in substance, aside from sprinkles of shallow praise for the founders, nothing more than the old socialist lament that the Constitution was drafted by horse and buggy politicians whose only real contribution is that they made America rich, and their only wisdom, that they were smart enough to secure prosperity for themselves in an emerging second-wave world. It was a brilliant document all right, but little more.

      Not at all a foundation of political truth for all time; there is no such thing. Taking a page out of Communist Mao Tse-tung’s Little Red Book, he then declares moderns should not be bound by the moral codes and political laws of a distant mythological past. (7)

      Which leads to the next problem with Toffler. Not only does he reduce the US Constitution to the status of great for its time, rather than a document which the founders knew, in its basics, was timeless, but he also attacks all issues from the Communist perspective from start to finish. There is, in fact, so much Marxism in The Third Wave that an accompanying volume could be written as an addendum, exposing this fact point by point.

      But let’s focus on a few central elements.

      The Communist Doctrine of Three Waves
      First of all, Toffler’s idea of the Three Waves of History, which Gingrich bought into hook, line, and sinker, came out of the textbook of Communist founder Karl Marx. We’ve mentioned Marx’s version of this previously, but a brief refresher is in order.

      Marx outlined three private property phases of man — waves, if you will: 1. Slavery, 2. Feudalism, and 3. Capitalism. Capitalism he further subdivided into the Industrial Revolution; The Imperialist Period, that time when credit, corporations, and government would centralize on an international basis; and finally, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat — or the brutal and final transitional phase to full communism, when the last remnants of capitalism, to include its religion, its property, and its conception of the family, are obliterated.

      Now mix in futurism and make a few adjustments for where Marx’s paradigm falls apart, and presto! Alvin Toffler’s Third Wave! An instant best-seller! An original score! A seminal work for our time! The model for the Republican Revolution!

      Here’s how he did it.

      Toffler lumped Marx’s Slavery and Feudalism together and called it the Agricultural Age (Wave 1); then he took the first stage of Marx’s Capitalist period and called it, just as Marx did, the Industrial Revolution (Wave 2); and finally, he used Marx’s Imperialist Phase of Capitalism and renamed it the Information Age (Wave 3). (8)

      Some who have fallen for Toffler’s word games will argue that Toffler departs from Marx here. Marx described the Imperialist Phase, as already stated, as an era of worldwide centralization. Toffler, on the other hand, describes his Information Age as an era of decentralization.

      But a careful look at what Toffler calls decentralization or decision division reveals that he calls for exactly what it pretends to oppose — centralization. Toffler’s decentralization shifts power not just downward to the states, but upward to the United Nations; subsidiary international organizations like NAFTA, WTO, and NATO; and even to totally unaccountable NGOs. (9)

      Meanwhile, he and his followers regard national sovereignty as “a myth.” (10) A bit of a clue as to the real meaning of decentralization: Everything in the end, you can rest assured, will be focused on the UN and company, insuring that Marx and Lenin’s Third Wave International Centralization does come to pass after all.

      Plain and simple: Marx’s and Toffler’s three transformational periods in private property history are one and the same.

      The Communist Dialectic
      Next, the whole wave thesis is built around another communist principle, the dialectical view of history. On this point, one would have to be hell bent on looking the other way not to notice the all-too-frequent use of the Marxian words clash, convergence, inevitable, compelled, quantum leap, and transformation, from cover to cover in Toffler’s volume. They are the key words of the dialectic, and Toffler applies them precisely as Marx did.

      The dialectic, taught Lenin, is the key to unraveling everything communistic, so let’s explore the dialectic, in simple fashion, to see how it applies to the Third Way.

      According to the Communist perspective, there is only one constant in the universe, change, and change occurs because of the constant clash of opposing forces, which exist everywhere, both within and without.

      Inevitably these opposites will collide, either as a matter of a natural course or by chance. Communists often describe these random collisions as “an unforeseen convergence of circumstance”; they do not, in this view, occur by the design of omnipotence or by the free-will choice of men, since communists reject the existence of God, and the agency of man.

      Once the clash occurs, a crisis ensues. There is no escaping this. The random or natural event will take course in time; so will the crisis, and so will the product of that crisis. In the end, a transformation occurs, which includes a total negation of the former state of being, and the emergence of a new state of being. This change is not a gradual Darwinian evolutionary one, but occurs in a quantum leap.

      If applied to macro-evolution, it means that the monkey did not gradually become a man over millions of years, but that some clash with an unforeseen change in circumstance caused him to leap from ape to man.

      I know, you’re laughing. But using the language of the dialectic, the monkey is the thesis, the change in circumstance that caused the leap (maybe the injection of a wonder drug by a visiting alien) is called the anti-thesis, a crisis then occurs, and the result is a quantum leap (or transformation) to a totally new thesis, Man.

      Now apply this to economic history, using Toffler’s Gingrich-endorsed version of history.

      Primitive (First Wave) man is a farmer, he uses basic tools, he is pretty much self sufficient, and although he is exploitive of the environment (another Marxian view), he does relatively little damage, compared to later capitalists (Second Wave people), like you and me!

      Along comes an unforeseen change in circumstance, a clash — the invention of the machine and mass production. Man is now compelled to change (no agency). This transformation is inevitable, Toffler says, a hundred times over.

      The clash goes on for awhile, with those in power (the slave holders and feudal lords) resisting the crumbling of their exclusive monopoly on the wealth, but then society leaps, from agriculturalism to industrialism, and there is no looking back. The new order inevitably must win (in this case the Second Wave).

      Eventually, wherever the wave hits (some remote villages are spared), everything is transformed, the government, the economy, the morals, and the family.

      With this new order in place, Toffler takes the Marxian stand, that all of the changes, including a new morality, a new legal code, a new government, and a new culture, are the inventions of the ruling class of men, relative to their situation, in order to sustain the existing order.

      None of it is inspiration, none of it is fixed truth, none of it will endure beyond the next crisis, the coming of the next wave. For us, the next wave is already upon us; we began to feel its effects in 1954, and it will inevitably and completely transform all of society, just as its predecessors did. This is not something we can resist, so he would like us to believe.

      The Dialectic’s Convenient Conclusions
      Oversimplifying history and the conduct of man makes for some strange and, shall we say, convenient conclusions.

      All the wars of the Industrial era were fought for no other reason than a clash between the backward-thinking forces of the Agricultural era (First Wave) protecting their interests, and the forward-thinking forces of the Industrial era (Second Wave) doing the same. These Second Wave forces were compelled to fight these wars, it seems, in the interest of the progress of man.

      A very convenient perspective, which leads to Toffler’s seminal conclusion about the Communist October Revolution and the murdering bloodbath of tens of millions that followed:

      “In Russia, too, the same collision between First and Second Wave forces erupted. The 1917 revolution was Russia’s version of the American Civil War. It was fought not primarily, as it seemed, over communism, but once again over the issue of industrialization.

      “When the Bolsheviks wiped out the last lingering vestiges of serfdom and feudal monarchy, they pushed agriculture in the background and consciously accelerated industrialization. They became the Party of the Second Wave.” (11)

      Mass-murdering communist Ho Chi Minh became then, in this Wave game, an “anti-colonialist,” resisting the heartless, exploitive Imperialism of the Capitalist version of the Second Wave. (12)

      Soviet Imperialism became not a conspiracy to spread tyranny, but a reasonable desire to feed the urban populations of their Second Wave industrial complex. (13) While on the other hand, American Imperialism lived up to the old Marxist paradigm that the factory owners needed new markets to exploit in order to maintain their lofty status in the Second Wave.

      Further, future bloodbaths are already justified under this theory, and predicted again and again as necessary and predictable outcome of progressive Third Wayers clashing with backward Second Wavers.

      But the blame for it all he places on Second Wave forces, people like constitutionalists and Christians, who rigidly refuse to let go of old outmoded governments and morals. If only they would just wake up and submit to the program, he laments, we would be far better off. (14)

      Toffler’s hatred for our system and our culture reaches an embarrassing low when he describes the marvelous Christian missionary work of the last two centuries as having no higher purpose than to impose Second Wave civilization on what Christians viewed as “backward . . . underdeveloped . . . childlike . . . tricky and dishonest . . . shiftless [people who] did not value life.” (15)

      More seminal conclusions!

      But don’t get Mr. Toffler and the Third Wave wrong. Like all Third Wayers, he does criticize the communists, with this proviso — almost all criticism presents the assumption that the communist holds the moral, sociological, and political high ground. And so, he repeatedly starts off such criticisms with “Even in Russia” or “Even the Communist Nations,” as if we should be surprised that “even” communists commit Second Wave errors and have a few flaws in the fabric of their plan!

      There is more.

      Changing Human Nature
      Like so many elitists of the Marxist/Fascist school, Toffler rejects the fact that human nature is unchanging. This belief makes it easier for him to discount the continued importance of our Constitution, which Madison said established such things as a separation of powers, checks and balances, limitation of powers, and inalienable rights, as guards against the eternal foibles of human nature.

      The main problem was the tendency of men in power to lust for more power — or in the case of governmental bodies of the one, the few, or the many, the tendency to strive to concentrate all power unto themselves.

      Madison wrote: It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

      “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” (16)

      The auxiliary precautions were the policy of “opposite and rival interests,” which came via a house elected by the people, a Senate by the state legislatures, a President by the electoral college, a Supreme Court loyal to the Constitution, and state governments loyal to their local interests and jealous of their sovereign powers.

      Other precautions express limitations and divisions of powers, checks and balances, a bill of rights, the rule of law (that is, written law that applies to all equally), and a difficult amendment process as part of that rule of law.

      Toffler hates all this, because it slows government down. And his solution to Madison’s argument is his utopian notion of the coming forth of a “new man,” one who is shaped by the new order and particularly by “the politics of the future.” (17)

      This man, who he also describes as part of the “expanding elites,” is the result of his Orwellian Third Way belief in a society-wide “altered consciousness.” (18) Such a man, unlike his inferior Second Wave predecessor, can be trusted with power without the precautions of Republican government.

      Humorously, Toffler’s “new” superman is not at all new and not at all super; rather, he very much resembles the same old diabolical sinful man that consumed himself and his fellows in Sodom and Gomorrah. Toffler’s “enlightened” Third Wave man is free of any sexual restraints, and is preoccupied with experimenting with a variety of sexual and non-traditional family lifestyles. (19)

      In presenting this, Toffler, is totally oblivious to the possibility, or likelihood, that uncontrolled lust for sex will cross over into uncontrolled lust for power, or that sexual deviancy presents the danger of vulnerability to betrayal, bribery, and blackmail. Where, then, is the wisdom that such a man or group of men can be left unfettered?

      NewsMax columnist Steve Farrell is the former managing editor of Right magazine, a widely published research writer, and a former Air Force Communications Security Manager. His projects include his upcoming book, Democrats In Drag: Another Look at the Republican Party.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Toffler#Books

      Alvin Toffler co-wrote his books with his wife Heidi. A few of their well-known works are:

      Future Shock (1970) Bantam Books ISBN 0-553-27737-5
      The Eco-Spasm Report (1975) Bantam Books ISBN 0-553-14474-X
      The Third Wave (1980) Bantam Books ISBN 0-553-24698-4
      Previews & Premises (1983)
      Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century (1990) Bantam Books ISBN 0-553-29215-3
      War and Anti-War (1995) Warner Books ISBN 0-446-60259-0
      Revolutionary Wealth (2006) Knopf ISBN 0-375-40174-1
      The Shockwave Rider (1975) ISBN 0-345-46717-5 by John Brunner is a science-fiction novel inspired by Toffler’s Future Shock.

    7. alex Says:

      Gingrich is dangerous and sophomoric.