Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
America’s public and academic libraries have always served as the clearing houses of the prevailing political orthodoxies and government-driven agendas of the day, and the influential Library of Congress is no exception. For instance, in January of 2010 – the year that would see the implementation of Obama’s bloody Afghanistan troop surge, and well after it had become apparent that the new administration had no intention of rolling back Bush’s neocon foreign policy – the Library of Congress changed the subject heading “War on Terrorism, 2001-” to “War on Terrorism, 2001-2009”, thereby absolving Obama for his continuation of the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures and giving the wholly specious impression that a neatly defined cycle of international conflict had come to a close.
The federal and local governments of the United States are increasingly aggressive in their promotion of the demographic dispossession of white Americans through both legal and illegal means, and public libraries, less frequently patronized as book depositories and free video rental outlets now that people are getting more and more of their information and entertainment online, have been happy collaborators in the globalist sanctuary city agenda, hoping to increase usage statistics by catering to the non-white invader populations with Spanish language movies, books, and children’s programs made available at local taxpayers’ expense. Public libraries also serve as unofficial homeless shelters, in some cases even handing out free food. A Mexican hobo regularly loiters in this writer’s local public library, and this is the scene at libraries across the United States.
Now the American Library Association, a shameless lobby representing the country’s noisiest practitioners of something they dub “library and information science”, has passed a motion to petition the Library of Congress to change its official subject heading “Illegal Aliens” to “Undocumented Immigrants”. The ALA alleges in its resolution that the former wording has “undergone pejoration and acquired derogatory connotations, becoming increasingly associated with nativist and racist sentiments” and that “referring to undocumented immigrants as ‘illegal’ is increasingly viewed as dehumanizing, offensive, inflammatory, and even a racial slur”. Furthermore, notes the resolution, ALA policy B.3 (“Diversity”) states that the organization “recognizes the critical need for access to library and information resources, services, and technologies by all people, especially those who may experience […] discrimination”.
Listed as the “Mover” of the resolution is a Canadian, Laura Koltutsky, a librarian at the University of Calgary. The document gives no explanation of how this foreign national presumes to enjoy moral jurisdiction over cataloging procedures in public institutions in the United States; but, given the ALA’s undisguised contempt for national borders, one assumes that Koltutsky considers herself a citizen of the world and at liberty, therefore, to insinuate herself into the policymaking of any country she pleases. She is an officer of the ALA’s “Social Responsibilities Round Table”, which, according to its webpage, works to establish “progressive priorities” for librarianship and to “help solve social problems and inequities in order to […] bolster democracy.” It would seem that in order to be properly bolstered, democracy in America must be made to divest itself of its notions of citizenship, territorial integrity, and national sovereignty. To do otherwise would be “racist”, “dehumanizing”, “inflammatory”, and “offensive” to ethnic-alien Canadian sensibilities.
Koltutsky’s native Canada hardly has a sterling reputation when it comes to intellectual freedom. Free speech advocate Arthur Topham was recently prosecuted on grounds of alleged incitement of hatred in that northerly Xanadu of “progressive” enlightenment simply for publishing The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and other controversial works on his website. Did open society advocate Koltutsky or any of her peers in the “Social Responsibilities Round Table”, the broad membership of the ALA, or the library and “information science” professions generally come to Topham’s aid in making the case for tolerance of intellectual diversity in accordance with ALA policy B.3 (“Diversity”), which, as quoted earlier, “recognizes the critical need for access to […] information resources […] by all people, especially those who may experience […] discrimination”? Could any group be more susceptible to discrimination in the Zionist-occupied West of the twenty-first century than those who dare to criticize the Jews?
Survey the online catalogs of the public libraries in this country and one thing will immediately be apparent. These institutions, despite their disingenuous lip service to the ideals of “diversity” and of free access to information, promote a rigid conformity when it comes to the selection of titles for public collections. The lion’s share of public libraries’ collection development budgets goes toward the purchase of huge New York publishing giants’ products and thus promotes a corporate state agenda. A quick search of WorldCat indicates that no public libraries in America own The ISIS Conspiracy by Brandon Martinez, Face to Face with Race by Jared Taylor, False Flags by Michael Collins Piper, or The Holocaust Hoax Exposed by Victor Thorn. Libraries all over the world hold copies of Mark Owen’s Hollywood-sanctified No Easy Day: The Autobiography of a Navy SEAL or Meyer Levin’s government-endorsed novel The Diary of Anne Frank, and even a variety of readers’ guides for better understanding the “diary”; but in very few collections in the United States, with all of its lavishly funded big city libraries, will a reader find access to former U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney’s The Illegal War on Libya or independent researcher Ditlieb Felderer’s study, Anne Frank’s Diary – A Hoax.
The ALA, with great fanfare, sponsors an annual Banned Books Week; but the titles spotlighted by this promotion are inevitably readily available books that simply happen to have been challenged at some time, and none of these books are actually “banned”. Participants play at make-believe civil disobedience by reading some big seller like Toni Morrison’s novel Beloved, thereby showing – or so they think – their dedication to the freedom of thought and expression. If, however, a book has never been banned because it was never given the chance to be challenged, how is that not a de facto ban? How, again, does this regime of shadow-censorship exhibit the ALA’s expressed concerns about access to information and capital-D “Diversity”? “Holocaust denial” remains a risky proposition in Koltutsky’s native Canada. Where is her idealistic outrage, and that of her fellow library and “information science” professionals, when confronted with such a continuing scandal? Thankfully, the still-free internet – at least here in the United States – is making authoritarian information gatekeepers of the Koltutsky type into an increasingly irrelevant annoyance.