Friday, August 19, 2011

Mike Palacek / Leuren Moret

JOHNNY MOON / The Fukushima Catastrophe


  1. This is kinda OT but it is so crazy, I must post it.
    112th congress bill 2819, read it and then decide wether to weep or laugh.
    They sure are desperate, or it is some kind of malicious compliance-game, either way they are losing.

  2. Accoring to Leuren Moret Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands is controlling a global eugenics program. I.e. planning to kill of billions of people. - My suggestion to Mr. Fetzer is that he stays focused on researching 9/11. There are better ways to care for the mentally ill than giving them airtime.

  3. Nilo ought to do some serious research re. BP, royalty, eugenics ideas, "black SS" (of which her father was a member), the Dutch-Anglo takeover of Britain and the banking system their pro-Venetian-banking oligarchy brought in, how Leibniz/Swift/Dafoe fought this and lost, and what this means for today. Moret is a bit of an open trough (unfiltered thinking) at times, but she also brings many good things in the process.

  4. Thank you, motorfot, for the info on that bill! I have informed the e-mail group I am part of with Jim.

  5. Well, I don't always agree with Leuren myself. She once suggested that Bertrand Russell was up to his neck in some kind of nasty business--it may have been depopulation--to which I took very strong exception. But she does so much extremely good work that I can excuse the 10% that I find I disagree with. I hope you can do the same.

  6. Well, I wouldnt mind having interviews with, say, trans.humanists who wish to reduce earths population to a fraction of todays numbers thriugh forced pregnancy-vaccinations etc. Or why not interview people who argue in favour of the NIST-version of 911, etc. I find views opposing to mine refreshing aswell as annoying. Just talking to people who think like yourselves stuns intellectual progress. It is important to put yout opinions in the line of fire fron contrary views and reasoning. Its like an evolution of ideas, natural selection of reasoning. Birds who live in an environment deprived of predators soon loses their ability to fly, and are helpless when their habitat is invaded by predators.

  7. Bertrand russel is lazily included among humanists who advocate gov-controlled eugenics. The debate was hot on the topic in the 1920ies when industrialization and neo-capitalism created much social misery. Sweden is infamous for our enforced sterilization policy where unfit mothers (Myrdal-social enginering, nobel prize winner) were forcibly sterilized until sometime between 1975-1990, I think we will never know the whole truth. But Russel argued both sides of the issue, this is him arguing against eugenics policy:
    "If we knew enough about heredity to determine, within limits, what sort of population we would have, the matter would of course be in the hands of State officials, presumably elderly medical men. Whether they would really be preferable to Nature I do not feel sure. I suspect that they would breed a subservient population, convenient to rulers but incapable of initiative."
    Huxley said something similar, and I dont really understand why he is bashed for his "brave new world". I think he warned against, in his view, "bad" eugenics and through UNESCO he wanted to coordinate "good" eugenics. There are degrees in hell, i suppose, shades of evil so to speek.
    But I dont think Russel is burning with Huxley.

  8. You guys missed my point. My point was what Lauren got RIGHT.

    As to Russell: she misunderstood his statement, it's true, but Russell was sympathetic to peace by arms buildup (not as deterrent, exactly, since neither Russia nor US would have survived either way). Many were, in his day. Eugenics, however, survives because of Malthusian ideas infecting the left and right. It's more dangerous on the left because they tend to be social-care minded, and so when they take on "humanitarian" wars or depopulation measures (besides reasonable limits until innovation can help expand limits) it makes the depopulation or wars look "helpful", less horrific, than the rhetoric often used by the right.

    Huxley's brother, too, in the UN, was an eugenicist. We have his white papers. But this stuff, horrific as it is, must be understood as part of a vision, part of a misunderstanding of what growth (innovation) is, as distinct from what Malthusian limitations see: unpassable limits, unhealthy expansion (which is true in some cases, but not to the degree that they emphasize -- if we innovate and self-limit at times when it's reasonable).

  9. Since Alex Jones entered his Endgame phase, positing 'eugenicists' as the ultimate architects of everything and 'eugenics' as their main goal, almost everyone in the alternative research and radio community has adopted the meme. His power is extraordinary.

    Ironically, no-one does more than Alex Jones to undermine the eugenics thesis; he constantly talks about the dumbing down of the population, the poison of vaccines and processed food and chemtrails and fluoride, the feminisation of men, the breeding out of the strong and independent, and so on...

    These are all DYSGENIC trends, fostered and imposed by the powers that be.

    A further irony, actual eugenicist thinkers -- Galton from the past say, Raymond B. Cattell and Richard Lynn from the present -- are attacked by the establishment like no other group of scientists, precisely because they do favour (voluntary) steps being taken to make humanity more intelligent, strong, virile etc.


    In the case of the 'eugenics' meme (when is meant dysgenics) and the constant references to fascism and nazism within the 'Truth' and alternative media communities(extreme nationalist movements being equated to extreme anti-nationalist, globalist movements!), I am concerned that the language is chosen deliberately to undermine the only plausible defence against globalist and one-world trends: a model of universal nationalism, where all peoples everywhere would enjoy national sovereignty and the space to develop as they choose.

    The constant harping on nazism and fascism means, whether it's intended or not, that the White people listening to Jones et al are paralysed in the face of assaults against their ethnic and genetic interests (mass immivasion, being culturally disprivileged and so on). It also means that a supposed debt to Jewry makes war against Israel's enemies a much easier sell. Already you've pretty well justified the ongoing wars on two major racial and civilisational blocs.

  10. Obviously the msm talks about nazism and fascism endlessly - it's always Hitler week on the History Channel goes the joke - and presumably that's for a purpose, it's they who are principally responsible for the cultural war against White and Islamic peoples, not Jones and his alternative media imitators.

    I was only meaning to point out that when they adopt the msm's most effective memes of control the 'alternative' media pretty well undermines what good work it does by reinforcing the basic worldview and prejudices - and outcomes - the msm has installed on our systems.

  11. Of course, Nick, I respect your questioning of the "eugenics" and "fascism" terms. I am not so sure that they are inappropriate terms, but rather that there is counter-information coming out about them, to diminish and confuse people on how they would apply to the present time.

    For instance, "fascism" was a form of imperialism in utlra-nationalist guise, just as Bonaparte promoted. And it also was a financial and general outlook (philosophically) which justified statistical views of human nature (that there are no principles at work in our behaviour other than the most ugly-base Hobbesian), and thus science (no, I don't mean mere physical-world discoveries, but scientific reasoning) should be, in the minds of fascists, in the service of the immediate problem as it seems it needs to be solved.

    So, killing off sick people because of "lack of money" becomes a knee-jerk reaction (as Hitler's T4 program promoted, and now as Orszag, Daschle and Ezekiel Emanuel have written), instead of challenging what money is, how to give credit for real projects, and how to cut out fraudulent financial instruments (bets), even when they are not considered legal fraud.

    In conclusion, then, I would mention that in fact we have fascists and proto-fascists, some of them acknowledging their debt to Mussolini and the like, and we have imperialists who push one world as a government, not one world as a set of free and informed nation states.

    As I see it: unfortunately, just because eugenicists who are openly using the word and talking of "super"people get put down for such an idea, and TV shows about a "past-only" picture of fascists (the historical Nazis, etc.) do not make for us a clear connection to the same idea-forms running rampant now (under different names), do not mean that the ideals are not VERY alive and should be named. What ideals? Of population reduction, control, and banking control over governments who act tyrannously thinking that is want a national interest is.

  12. @ Clare,

    it’s Clare Kuehn, right? I’ve really enjoyed your shows with JF.

    I am not so sure that they are inappropriate terms, but rather that there is counter-information coming out about them, to diminish and confuse people on how they would apply to the present time … What [were fascist and national socialist] ideals? … population reduction, control, and banking control over governments who act tyrannously thinking that is want a national interest is … So, killing off sick people because of "lack of money" becomes a knee-jerk reaction

    Let’s say for now that all that’s true, do you see that it doesn’t respond to my points because one could at least reasonably make the same claims about the Roosevelt, Stalin, or Churchill governments, or for that matter the Reagan and Thatcher or Clinton and Blair regimes?

    But Alex Jones and his mimics do not rail constantly against contemporary New Dealers, Stalinists, Reaganites or Blairites, do they? Rather they reinforce the official line that the worst kind of system possible for us is a fascist or national socialist one. It’s my belief that the establishment runs that line through the MSM because in fact the worst kind of regime FOR THEM would be a fascist or national socialist one, so I question the wisdom and the motive of the alternative media in reiterating that position.

  13. The Wikipedia page for ‘Definitions of Fascism’ presents a review of scholarly opinion on what fascism is. The various definitions sometimes clash in certain respects but nevertheless certain elements appear often, and I think show that fascism is fundamentally different, even opposite, to the system that rules us today. Again and again, fascism is described as: anti-liberal, anti-communist, nationalistic, populist, anti-rationalist, pro-religion, pro-tradition, and preoccupied with biological and cultural integrity and health. Even allowing for a wholly unlikely level of error among these scholars, a system of government defined by just ONE of these criterion would stand in direct opposition to Obama’s America or Cameron’s Britain.

    Regarding your definition: Didn’t Hitler abolish the debt money system, putting the bankers in their place and launching an economic, industrial and employment miracle 1933-1939? What evidence is there that either Mussolini or Hitler were concerned with (over) population? Didn’t Hitler at least enact pro-natal policies? And if the Third Reich took a systematic, pro-active interest in killing the sick, how to explain the circumstances of Anne Frank’s death? Gravely ill with typhoid, she didn’t die in a ditch, or on a euthanasia ward, or even in a gas chamber, she died of her disease in an infirmary under the care of German doctors. The same doctors and their medical care saved Anne's father Otto and many other people. Frank’s manner of death and her father's survival is obviously troubling to the conventional narrative of the Jewish experience under Hitler, which I know to be largely false, is it not troubling also to the Hollywood and Harvard story of the sick under Hitler?

    As for eugenics, any dictionary will say pretty much what mine does: Of the production of fine offspring by improvement of inherited qualities. If you agree with me that Jones and co. are right when they talk about ‘the dumbing down of the population, the poison of vaccines and processed food and chemtrails and fluoride, the feminisation of men, the breeding out of the strong and independent’ etc., then what’s being done to us simply is not a eugenic plan, is it?

    We recognise the Orwellian nature of the establishment ideology: War is peace, freedom is slavery, but then ourselves try to say that dysgenics is eugenics and anti-fascism is fascism. It’s truly bizarre.