J’AIME LE NUIF

If Linder really believes what he writes, why was he so soft on Stix?

NS: Is there anything else that’s on your mind that you’d like to say?

AL: I want to win you over to make you a Jewish Nazi….

Anyway, it’s good to talk to you.

NS: Same here.

AL: You, Satterfield, and me are probably three who’ve written about it more than anyone, I would think. And isn’t that kind of scary, in a way?

NS: Yes, yes, it is….

AL: The liberals can be – essentially, they’re cultists, because you can’t be a liberal and admit evidence into your head. You have to be with a bunch of other people who are all agreed on thinking a certain way, and [say to] reality, “Just stay out of there.” And they don’t like anything that intrudes on that. And the Jews have channeled this.

I consider it like, probably only a minority of whites would be liberal naturally, and they’d be controlled by the sane majority. But the Jews use this, and they channel liberalism for their own ends, and they are much better organized than any other class in society. I mean, that’s easily provable. And they use their organizing to prevent us from organizing. All they have to do when they control these top organs is demonize us, and just call us “haters,” and imply that we have some moral or medical problem, rather than we’re honest men making our case. That’s why we say “We’re the good guys.” We make our case honestly. We back it up with evidence, and that’s how you do it.

NS: I have to warn you, I’m going to have to cherry pick this interview, because I’ve already got something like 4,000 words from the first one….

AL: I have mixed feelings about you, I’m sure you have mixed feelings about me, but you’re writing about this, you’re talking about this, I’m learning from what I’m hearing from you, and hopefully, you’re getting some stuff from me that maybe you haven’t seen. You gotta really check the links on there [at VNN].

And on to the comments:

silver said…

Stix, what *is* your response to WN(ist) antisemitism?

I think you’re just a bit too informed to pretend it’s based on *nothing* except blind prejudice or “hate”. If you grant that some of it is based on fact and is rational, your only protection would be to say it’s “excessive”. Okay, so how much do you concede, then?

(My position: I’m “white” in a loose, “pan-European”, non-nordic sense, but it’s not really at the forefront of my identity; I recognize we’re in a jam and we need to find some way of extricating ourselves from it—ideally as peacefully and humanely as possible.)

Nicholas said…

Silver: “I think you’re just a bit too informed to pretend it’s based on *nothing* except blind prejudice or ‘hate’. If you grant that some of it is based on fact and is rational, your only protection would be to say it’s ‘excessive’. Okay, so how much do you concede, then?”

I concede nothing. While on rare occasion, someone might be screwed over by a Jew and thereby develop anti-Semitic sentiments, such an instance would be rare, given that Jews in America who are in a position to help people go out of their way for gentiles, often at the expense of their fellow Jews.

Gentiles should love Jews. If anyone has reason to be anti-Semitic, it’s the working-class and middle-class Jews who get regularly screwed over by the Jewish elites who are always helping other groups at their expense.

Go figure!

http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2007/10/white-supremacist-jew-and-knoxville_2125.html

Ezra Levant, Canadian publisher, was summoned before the Canadian Human Rights Commission for interrogation preparatory to possible prosecution over publishing, a while ago, the Danish Mohammed cartoons.  There’s a series of videos on YouTube showing his exchange with the investigator (click on link at “interrogation,” above, to view).  Here‘s another video in the series, titled “Opening Statement.”

Every word out of Levant’s mouth in these two videos is right but the irony of the Jews’ being hoist with their own petard just screams out at you as you watch:  Levant of course is Jewish and it was the Jews in Canada, as it’s been their co-tribalists in the U.S., who were the prime movers in setting up these Orwellian commissions which have now come back to bite them, the Jews, in the ass.  In the last video linked, “Opening Statement,” Levant says (almost half-way through),

“As Alan Borovoy, Canada’s leading civil libertarian, a man who helped form these commissions in the ‘60s and ‘70s, wrote — in specific reference to our magazine — being a censor “is hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions.  There should be no question of the right to publish the [word here unclear] cartoons.” So if the commission is so obviously out of control, he said, “It would be best therefore to change the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of interpretation.”

Does that apply to Zundel, Fromm, and all the others, Messrs. Borovoy and Levant?  Or does it apply only to Jews who want to exercise free speech in order to say not-nice things about Moslems?  (Rhetorical question, of course:  no one is under any illustions as to how the Jews will answer.)

(Rhetorical question, of course:  no one is under any illustions as to how the Jews will answer.)

Or 99% of Canadians, at least English Canucks. French Canadians can even go so far as raising the issue of the kosher tax, but in English Canada it’s fucking sickening.

Svigor says: to go further and recognize and acknowledge the full truth would mean ceasing to be a Jew, in a practical sense.

Isn’t that required of all Jews by all anti-racists, and by all people unwilling to submit to Jewish rule?

How could you be a Jew, and so support Jewish cultural and ethnic continuity without keeping alive first the OT and Talmud, and then inevitably the virulent racial-hatred of non-Jews?

(Wintermute suggested here that Simone Weil was the one good Jew. I have my doubts because of her letter to French authorities insisting they define the Jew, but I agree the door ought to be left open - one day a good Jew may arise, you never know...)

bowery’s comment above,

“enslaved by the keepers of the keys to the grain stores”

reminds me of an interview to which i recently listened with ben fulford, which can be found here:

http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/special/rense_Benjamin_Fulford_070507.mp3

and here:

http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/special/rense_Benjamin_Fulford_072307.mp3

these interviews are inherently anti-ashkenazic, and although i think fulford is a sellout (if, indeed, he’s telling the truth), he synthesizes many of the informational puzzle pieces i’ve gathered in the last few months/years in a satisfactory manner.  his conclusions, are, of course, incorrect, but his information is spot on. 

yes, jews are deceptive and destructive, but i think this behavior reflects only a subsection (probably a very large one) of the ashkenazim - and as john denugent points out - this probably correlates with the psychopathic element within the ashkenazi population - just as we anglos are not inherently twisted, manipulative, or sadistic, but a significant portion of our psychopathic anglo elite are.  (note also that the jews who are not part of this psychopathic elite are still semites - with all the personality traits that entails).

the question i’ve been trying to unravel is why are the jewish elite (who seem to be intrinsically clannish w/ strong out-group antipathies) conspiring w/ the european and american “anglo” elites (who “seem” to have strong pro-aryan eugenic leanings - while simultaneously having no compunctions about eradicating their own aryan people).  for that matter, why would the jewish rothschilds, using the american robber barons as proxies, fund the war efforts in nazi germany - which were aimed at expelling and disposessing fellow jews of their material wealth and resources?

i think the answer is that the jewish and anglo elites see themselves as something entirely different from their jewish and anglo populations.  they see themselves as a god-like race, and their goal is to consolidate power on this planet by enslaving (by encouraging dysgenic trends) and eradicating potential competitors. 

unfortunately… east asians are just as clever as their anglo and ashkenazi competitors, with a history that goes back at least as far as the civilizations of the near east, with secret societies of their own, with strong identities and group solidarity, and vast resources (check out a map of world-wide gold stores), and are not about to bow down to a bunch of apotheosized white devils - who are in the process of the destroying the whole damn world.  undoubtedly a power struggle is emerging.

thus, jews, per se, are not the enemies (though judaism is destuctive and exploitative in a western context).  the enemies are those who hold the reins of power.  if we free ourselves from them, the playing field changes - and so do the rules.

Is it true?
Yes.

“I know the Blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, but are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan.” [St. John, Revelation 2:8,9]

“A Jew is permitted to rape, cheat and perjure himself; but he must take care that he is not found out, so that Israel may not suffer.” - TALMUD, Choshen Ha’mishpat, 348

Is it hurtful?

Christ on Calvary is the answer. The Jews will kill any and all that dare tell the truth. It is either them, or us. And Christ is not going back on that Cross, EVER AGAIN! Never forgive, never forget.
And if that does not sound like ‘Gentle Jesus, meek and mild,’ that is because that Protestant ABERRATION is NOT True Christianity, nor even biblical. “I hate THY Enemies with a PERFECT Hatred.” Ps. 139:22

Is it necessary?
Most definitely. More than life itself. ‘Orthodoxia ki thanatos.’

“An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property… by the secret societies which form Provisional Governments, and men of the Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them.... the Jewish race… co-operate with atheists; and all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom.” - Benjamin Disraeli

The Church long ago showed a number of things, foremost among them that:

i. The Jews killed Christ - they are, and will remain for all time, the “Deicides,” or “Christ-killers;” Novus Ordo imposters calling themselves Pope’s pronouncements to the contrary, notwithstanding.

“If Auschwitz is true, then there is a human suffering with which that of Christ simply cannot be compared...In this case, Christ is false, and salvation will not come from him....  Auschwitz is the refutation of Christ.” - Claude Lanzmann, Christ-killing Jew

“Jews as individuals are great individuals—talented, ambitious, intelligent, smart. As a people, I would not give them as high a grade. Jews know how to hate.” - Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel

ii. The Church is ‘Israel’ now. [Gal. 6:16] There is no other ‘chosen people,’ there can be no resurrection of the ‘dead and shadow’ ordinances that were abolished by the tearing of the Curtain of the Temple from TOP to bottom, as God Himself fled the Davidic sanctuary in A.D.70. IF the Talmudics assume that they are re-building the Temple, or that they and they alone are the ‘People of God,’ then, truly, irrevocably, that ‘shitty little country’ has NO RIGHT TO EXIST.

“Not as though the Word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” -Saint Paul, Letter to the Romans 9:6

iii. Christendom (i.e., Europe) is the ONLY ‘Chosen People’ YHWH God, and Christ, His Son concerns Himself with...to the end of the World. The Church once knew this and preached it;[ have you never heard of Luther’s “The Jews and their Lies”?] the poets all spoke of it;["The Battle of Lepanto,” Blake’s “Jerusalem"] Nations were built and grew great from this knowledge;[What IS ‘Manifest Destiny, anyway if not the outworking of the Dominion Mandate applied to Christendom?] and the Hagarenes (sons of Hagar, the one who did NOT get the ‘promise’ of Election and Grace, i.e, Muslims) as well as the Edomites (sons of Edom/Esau, the one who ‘sold his birthright for a mess of pottage- the very race from whom the Deicides themselves claim patrimony!) are forever ‘beyond the pale’ for ‘there is a great gulf fixed’ that shall ‘never be removed,’ as the Church has held as long as she has REMAINED the Church!!!

“But if the Jews were to say, that the word, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” means this, that those born of Isaac should be reckoned to him for a seed, then the Edomites, too, and all those people, ought to be denominated his sons, since their forefather Esau was a son of his. But now so far are they from being called sons, that they are the greatest possible aliens...” St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on Romans, Homily XVI

“The first day of the Indictus the kingdom of Ishmael, whose name is Mohammed, will defeat the race of the Palaeologus; it will conquer the Seven-Hilled City: It will make it his capital; it will conquer many nations...and the multitudes and nations from the West will engage in war against the kingdom of Ishmael by land and sea, and they will defeat Ishmael. But the blond nation along with its allies will utterly defeat the entire Ishmael...”- Tombstone Prophecy, Oracle of Emperor Leo the Philosopher

As has been noted, “Yahweh [the Israelite God] is not just a tribal deity, but the God of the Universe. His Chosen People are not just another ethnos: they are the Sons of God, destined to rule the world.” [ALLEGRO, p. 162] From “Jewish Tribal Review,” op.cit.  Well and good, then, but Compare this with I John 3:1-2!! Who truly IS the “Israel of God”? [Gal. 6;16] Judaism cannot now claim this blessing, nor this ethnos, since they are not ‘jews,’ as we have seen. (cf. Koestler’s “The Thirteenth Tribe"] The pagan nations, or Islam cannot claim this, for they worship not the True God!  Who is left, if not Christendom?  For was it not Christ Himself, that said He would make of us, ‘sons of the living God?” [I John 3:2] Is that a sort of ‘divine racism?’ Well, if those who deny Christ’s Messiahship choose freely to be outside of the Covenant, then - no. If one looks at the Choosing God, (“Ye did not choose me, I chose you” [John 15:16]) then perhaps. But, “who art thou, o Man, to talk back to God?” [Rom. 9:20]

While Linder and other neo-pseudo ‘nazis’ (I say ‘pseudo,’ for the only TRUE ‘Nazi’ is an AshkeNAZI!) think they can revive a non-Christian pagan civilization.... as do all the rest of those who will not come to grips that to ‘fight the Jews,’ one MUST adopt the ONLY competing philosophy that EVER was victorious against the Talmudics- that is, Orthodox, Conciliar, Apostolic Christianity of a unified, racially-aware Christendom- in order to both answer this question, and to assure victory. Linder is correct… Victory is only THROUGH the Jews. But as the modern Talmudics are NOT Jews, nor ever HAVE been, but are merely the Edomitic bastards that Josephus calls them in his “Judean Wars” there is only ONE Other ‘Jew’ left, and that is Christ. He alone can give ‘rest to your souls.’ And as Luther noted, ‘And He will win the Battle.’

P.S. I believe he meant to say “Juif” rather than ‘Nuif.’ ‘Juif’ is the French word for “jew.” And no, je n’aime pas le Juif.

“This is very similar to Henry Makow’s theory.  Although, Makow ultimately says that the most powerful of the Jews is not entirely to blame because the satanic goys made them do it.”

Makow’s patter is recycled John Birch Society propaganda from the 1960s.  He just dusted it off and renamed Welch’s “Insiders” to “Luciferians”. 

SSDD.

“Robert Welch knew what he was doing from the beginning, or was he corrupted”..?

This page contains much of Revilo P. Oliver’s testimony on the Birch episode.  RP Oliver was one of the founding members of the JBS.

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/NetLoss/NetLoss-Oliver.html

A key extract…

“After the conference between Welch and myself in November 1965, I determined to verify conclusively the inferences that his conduct had so clearly suggested, and, with the assistance of certain friends of long standing who had facilities that I lacked, I embarked on a difficult, delicate, and prolonged investigation. I was not astonished, although I was pained, by the discovery that Welch was merely the nominal head of the Birch business, which he operated under the supervision of a committee of Jews, while Jews also controlled the flow, through various bank accounts, of the funds that were needed to supplement the money that was extracted from the Society’s members by artfully passionate exhortations to “fight the Communists.” As soon as the investigation was complete, including the record of a secret meeting in a hotel at which Welch reported to his supervisors, I resigned from the Birch hoax on 30 July 1966 with a letter in which I let the little man know that his secret had been discovered.”

In the light of that it’s understandable that many of the JBS’ “American Opinion” bookstore branches later evolved into “Bible Bookstores” of the Dispensational Zionist persuasion.

How does one people, so totally under the control of another, throw off its yoke?  From the ground up or top down?  Is bloody revolution the only way, as Germany tried to do, or is there a peaceful way?  What percentage of Whites need to know the real situation in order for liberation to be possible?

Soren: Is it true?  Is it hurtful?  Is it necessary?

No it’s not true.  The only “way out” is through oneself, in effect.  The goods we abstract from liberalism are the source of Jewish power over us.  They come with that traditional sour Jewish love of subversion, and thus subverted we find ourselves contemplating our own vice and dispossession - with, for the most part, no idea why or how it came about or how to rectify it.

This process would be rectified ... would come to a strangulated end if we had a philosophy that fed our nature.  Alex Linder’s half-idea of “going through the Jew”, presumably with attendant violence, would leave unaddressed all the familiar panegyrics of hyper-individualism, egalitarianism and materialism.  These thought-ways traffic Jewish cultural and political goods, and the destruction of one cannot be accomplished without the destruction of the other.

Is Alex’s terminology hurtful?  Yes, of course ... but to whom, that is the question.

The answer arrives with the next question: Is it necessary?

Well, Alex’s justification is that “Mental liberation is achieved only by calling things by their proper name.” Mental liberation, actually, is quite a big subject, and extends beyond even Jewish powers of enslavement.  But alright, Jews go to a great deal of trouble not to be named.  Mainstream politicians understand the costs of doing so.  Alex, however, says that the cost ("is it hurtful") is outweighed by the benefit (mental liberation).

What we get from this is a game where one side, in the belief that its refreshing honesty will unleash an epidemic of the same among the white American people, identifies its enemy and says “You are a Jew!” The other side, delighted, immediately responds with its most treasured word-tool, “You are a Nazi!”

“Jew!”

“Nazi!”

“Jew!”

“Auschwitz!” ...

Any mental liberation yet?  Or is this a perfectly convivial relationship for the perpetual victim of irrational white hatred?

Well, it should be obvious that nothing useful can come of this exchange while the moral superiority of the victim is so easily claimed by the Jewish ethno-aggressor.  To “Know them, hate them, fight them” is simply the wrong approach.

One must become in as public a way as possible the true victim.  One must do everything to deflate and delegitimise Jewish status.  One must apply the same weapons to Jews that they apply so successfully to whites, and do it without a trace of hatred.  Contrary to the WN way, one must speak softly and reasonably, and from an unsullied heart, of Jewish hate and Jewish aggression.

That’s what would impress our own people.  It would help to free them, too.  But only a revolution at the level of the prevailing political milieu will really accomplish that.

Tom Sunic for one.

Guessedworker

You really hit the mark when you said:

“One must do everything to deflate and delegitimise Jewish status.  One must apply the same weapons to Jews that they apply so successfully to whites, and do it without a trace of hatred.  Contrary to the WN way, one must speak softly and reasonably, and from an unsullied heart, of Jewish hate and Jewish aggression.”

This is great advice - short, sweet to the point.

The Anglo/Saxon/European rooted man must think and in many instances learn again to
think.

Too much seeking after personal gratification and not thinking about why we are where
we’re at.

Think before you thump.

Sorry May, it’s probably only a juvenile Third Worlder with a hate complex.  We suffer one of his pictorial pukings most nights at the moment, during what is the small hours for me.  By expressing his own hatred this way he might help to crystallise the thinking of as yet uncommitted whites who find the thread.  He can’t harm us.

Soren, what’s “nuif”?

Linder spoke of a Jewish Nazi.

Nazi + Juif = Nuif

“And I hope, Guessed, you were not speaking of me.
I have been called many things in my 50+ years of life, but never a ‘juvenile third worlder.’ “ (—Fr. John)

I can say with almost certainty that GW was NOT speaking of you, Fr. John. He was referring to the pest that keeps posting interracial porn.

BTW, Fr. John, what is your take on the Ashkenazi Jews being descendents of the Khazar tribe who converted to Judaism in the eighth century merely for political reasons? If the Ashkenazim are not descendants of the Jews from the Torah, how can they claim Israel to be their God given promised land...?

Go where?  Alex recommends something “vertical”, which isn’t incredibly helpful of him.

Israel’s creation was meant partly to “solve the Jewish problem"( * ).  It hasn’t:  the problem still needs solving.  I advocate Euros and Jews living apart from each other, since what makes one happy makes the other miserable and vice-versa.  Ideally, for me, they’d be given part of the U.S. — California, for example (they broke it, they’ve bought it), with the proviso they can’t move to the Euro nation to be reserved for Euros out of most of the rest of the U.S. (burned by the Jews once, shame on the Jews; burned by them twice, shame on the Euros).  We won’t go live among them in their Jewish nation of Mexifornia or they us in what will be ours:  the two shall remain separate, which they should’ve done long ago but better late than never.  Each will be happier than it’s ever been.  (Actually they won’t:  the Jews, not being free-standing, won’t be content by themselves in Mexifornia but will be clamoring to enter Euroland:  Jews have to “stand on” Euros in order to thrive.  But if Euros have learned anything from the past two hundred years they’ll be turned down and told to stay in their own country.)
______

* the problem which arises from Jews’ using influence they acquire, often considerable, for inflicting harm on Euro nations including the ones they live in, harm centered on working to beat down, in a multitude of ways, the legitimate, normal, healthy nationalism of those nations.

Fred,

I browsed your link. I’m reminded yet again of why I dislike conservatism.* This is the second time this weekend. Here’s an excerpt from a recent exchange I had with Lawrence Auster.

CP: Auster’s fellow Christians picked John McCain in the South Carolina primary. Just thought I would mention that. Good thing we have these conservatives around to save the white race. They’re doing a fantastic job!

Auster: As for Charlie Prince’s comment, touché. However, it’s not so much an embarrassment to the South Carolina Republicans as Christians, but to them as conservatives. Supposedly the conservative have been more riled up about illegal immigration than any other issue; yet now they go ahead and vote for the ultimate champion of open borders and smearer of open borders opponents.

*I’m referring to the “conservative movement” in the USA. This is not to be confused with what GW’s version.

Fred Scrooby writes: Ideally, for me, they’d (jews would) be given part of the U.S. — California, for example (they broke it, they’ve bought it), with the proviso they can’t move to the Euro nation to be reserved for Euros out of most of the rest of the U.S.

I certainly would not object to giving the beautiful, natural desert and beaches of southern California to the jews and judeoconned gentiles.  But, northern California?  Perish the thought!  Mountains, trees, snowpacks, water, waterways, and hydroelectric plants are an obsession of mine.

“apparently Warman and an official of the Canadian agency that brings all these hate-speech charges have been acting as agents provocateurs and setting up entrapments, ‘sting operations,’ by logging onto sites they want to nail and posting comments employing over-the-top language under false pen names, then using that later as evidence against the targeted web-sites.” (—my comment just above)

More on this here.

“Contrary to the WN way, one must speak softly and reasonably, and from an unsullied heart, of Jewish hate and Jewish aggression.”

So we have to become Jesus before criticizing Jews? I suppose certain breath exercises might aid in the proper exposition of Jewish malfeisance to laymen.

Jews fight tooth-and-nail to keep Canadian Euros under totalitarian thought-control:  here are the commissions the Jews created and use for this purpose:

Canadian media on the Canadian “Human Rights” Censorship

“Over the last few years, in a series of cases, human rights commissions have stretched the meaning of their codes to invariably rule against the right to free expression and in favour of those who claim their feelings have been hurt.  Slowly, precedents have built up that are intimidating people into keeping silent.  Now, media organizations routinely censor themselves for fear of being dragged in front of a tribunal, even going so far as to get people to sign forms where they promise not to offend anyone.”

Western Standard, Censure the censors, Sept 17, 2007

“Canada’s power-grabbing human rights commissioners evidently have scant regard for the freedoms they suppress or for the original understanding of the codes they are supposed to uphold.”

London Free Press, Freedom of the press attacked, December 8, 2007

“For more than twenty years, in this column and elsewhere, I have been writing against the human rights commissions, which have quasi-legal powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country.  They are kangaroo courts in which the defendant’s right to due process is withdrawn.  They reach judgments on the basis of no fixed law.  Moreover, ‘the process is the punishment’ in these star chambers — for simply by agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose nothing.”

Ottawa Citizen, Suing for silence, December 9, 2007

“Nonetheless, even in this craven environment, Canada ‘s ‘human rights commissions’ are uniquely inimical to the marketplace of ideas.  In its 30 years of existence, no complaint brought to the federal HRC under Section XIII has been settled in favor of the defendant.  A court where the rulings only go one way is the very definition of a show trial.  These institutions should be a source of shame to Canadians.”

Macleans Magazine, Here’s what offends this writer, January 3, 2008

“These days in Canada, if you’re feeling down and blue, and you think somebody hates you, you bring your case to a Human Rights Tribunal. … you will have the satisfaction of making your enemy squirm, in a kangaroo court where he is stripped of the right to due process, in which there are no fixed rules of evidence, in which the ridiculously biased ‘judges’ make up the law as they go along, and impose penalties restricted only by their grimly limited imaginations — such as ruinous fines, and lifetime ‘cease and desist’ orders, such that, if you ever open your mouth again on a given topic, you stand to go to prison.”

Ottawa Citizen, The new totalitarians, Dec 16, 2007

“Human rights commissions are obsolete bodies whose moment has passed.  That they can be exploited by a narrow lobby seeking to impose its doctrine upon other Canadians is a serious problem.”

Calgary Herald, Shut down the human rights commissions, December 20, 2007

“The liberticidal monster should have been strangled at birth — but better late than never.  By now, Human Rights Commissions are populated with officials who speak disparagingly of ‘fundamentalist liberals’ and describe free speech as an ‘American idea’ with no weight in this country.  They’re dragging magazine and writer into their rank dragon’s den for allegedly suggesting that Islamic culture is incompatible with Canada ‘s liberalized, Western civilization.”

George Jonas, Turning out the lights on liberalism, December 20, 2007

“Created in the late 1970s [Scroob note:  created almost singlehandedly by — you’ll never guess this in a million years — a Jew, Alan Borovoy], Canada’s human rights commissions were to be the Holy Office of the Inquisition of the ultra-liberal state.  This quickly gave rise to a dilemma.  Human rights commissions always had a problem with a fundamental tenet of liberalism, namely liberty.”

Truro Daily News, Myths, legends and some home truths about human rights, December 28, 2007

And here are the Jews who lobby these Star Chambers for their own ends:

Canadian Jewish Groups that have reported to the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada that they have lobbied the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT)

Organization
Dates when Lobbied CHRT

B’nai Brith Canada

2008-01-07 to present
2007-06-25 to 2008-01-07
2006-07-27 to 2007-03-30
2003-12-10 to 2004-06-30
2003-01-13 to 2003-12-02
2002-06-25 to 2003-01-13
2001-12-13 to 2002-06-25
2001-03-06 to 2001-10-06
2000-08-01 to 2001-03-01
2000-01-25 to 2000-08-01
1999-06-22 to 2000-01-25
1998-11-16 to 1999-06-22
1998-04-16 to 1998-11-16
1997-08-21 to 1998-04-16
1996-10-24 to 1997-05-26

Canadian Jewish Congress

2008-04-22 to present
2007-11-01 to 2008-04-22
2007-05-14 to 2007-11-01
2006-11-24 to 2007-05-14
2006-06-05 to 2006-11-24
2005-12-13 to 2006-07-18
2005-06-21 to 2005-12-13
2005-02-25 to 2005-06-21
2004-02-04 to 2005-02-10
2004-01-22 to 2004-02-04
2003-09-10 to 2004-01-22
2003-03-11 to 2003-09-10
2002-09-09 to 2003-03-11

Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee

2007-05-04 to 2007-12-22
2006-09-28 to 2007-05-04
2006-02-28 to 2006-09-28
2005-06-29 to 2005-12-29

Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy

2008-01-07 to present
2007-07-06 to 2008-01-07
2007-01-19 to 2007-07-06
2006-07-28 to 2007-01-19
2006-02-09 to 2006-07-28
2005-08-10 to 2006-02-09
2005-02-11 to 2005-08-10
2004-07-29 to 2005-02-11

Canadian Council of Israel and Jewishy Advocacy--Public Affairs Committee

Canada-Israel Committee

2008-04-25 to present
2007-09-24 to 2008-04-25
2007-03-19 to 2007-09-24
2006-09-26 to 2007-03-19
2006-04-03 to 2006-09-26
2005-12-01 to 2006-04-03
2005-02-17 to 2005-12-01

And here’s a Jew who didn’t like being thrown under the bus by the Jews:

Jewish/Zionist journalist and blogger Ezra Levant recently denounced these “official Jewish” organizations for their claim that Section 13 is needed for Jewish “psychological security.” In his popular blog, Mr. Levant has called out the “official jews” for their support of censorship laws.  He wrote that:

“I’m not the only Jew who didn’t get the groupthink memo from our so-called ‘representatives.’ It seems that Jonathan Kay, George Jonas, David Frum, Kevin Libin, Michael Ross and Karen Selick of the National Post (not to mention the Asper family), Edward Greenspon of the Globe and Mail, Charles Adler of Corus Radio, Ellen Seligman of PEN Canada and Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association aren’t fulfilling the official stereotype either.  Neither are Noam Chomsky or cartoonist Art Spiegelman or blogger Pamela Geller, but they’re not Canadian.  I’m not sure if Paul Schneidereit of the Halifax Chronicle Herald is Jewish, and Mark Steyn, Michael Coren and Christopher Hitchens may have some Jewish ancestry but they say they’re not members of the tribe, so maybe their anti-section 13 heresy is permitted.  Each of the aforementioned individuals has come out against section 13.  But that’s the problem:  they’re individuals.  The Official Jews, the Professional Jews, the Jews Who Are Jews for a Living, say that we’re all just one big blob of ‘Jews’ who think as we’re told to think by them.

SOURCE: Ezra Levant – “Jews for Free Speech”