Saturday, December 29, 2007

Why Ron Paul?

Lately, the controlled media has begun to mount a serious campaign of both disinclusion and disinformation about Dr. Ron Paul in his campaign for the Republican party nomination for the Presidency. This comes as no surprise. As the moment, Fox News (or more properly, "Faux News"), is attempting to exercise its usual standards of fairness by excluding Dr. Paul from the Republican forum it's hosting.

While this is enough to set one's teeth on edge, it's just a part-and-parcel tactic of the entrenched power structure. If they fail to televise him, they reason, he will lose any chance of success. They believe that he will be left to give lectures at colleges or on local radio, and be unable to muster any real support. Unfortunately for Murdoch & Co., the new Party-crasher, the internet, is allowing Dr. Paul to propagate a truly grass-roots base of support. The Matrix has holes. And from coast to coast, those pledge-days, such as the recent "Tea Party 2008", raise colossal sums of money for the candidate.

The latest salvo from the MSM news-distortion machines is that Ron Paul should be excluded because he "accepted money from white supremacists" [sic]. The website and its owner, Don Black, gave a sum of money to Dr. Paul's campaign. Of course, the same media refuses to acknowledge that, for instance, Barack Obama's campaign accepted money from both the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam, both anti-White organizations. And that same media suppressed reporting on the Whitewater/Madison S&L money-laundering, kickback and skimming scams of Sen. Hillary Clinton, as well as the sensitive U.S. military satellite technology that her Lothario husband sold to China in exchange for cash under the table.

In fact, White Racialists (please drop the "supremacist" nonsense, that tarnished silver bullet has no effect) support Dr. Paul for the same reason that anyone else who cares about this country does: because, in this time of government repression and mendacity, he represents a return to the values of the extraordinary men and women who were the Founders of these United States. These values resonate not just with any one particular group. But many who stand to lose their "favorite child" status are digging in against him.

For example, Dr. Paul is a privately religious man and an obstetrician by training, who is personally not in support of abortion. Many feminists have alleged that he will "do away with Roe v. Wade". In fact, they're right, but for the wrong reasons and with the wrong outcome in mind. As Dr. Paul has pointed out, the Constitution doesn't empower the federal government to rule on abortion. Per Amendment IX and X, because it's not granted to the feds, decisions about abortion laws reside in the individual States and the people who live in them. That takes the Supreme Court out of the mix as well. So the voters in each state decide, and some states may decide against. Thus in this case, the democratic process, which the feminists and other Leftists publicly support, enrages them.

Another case involves minority preferences and set-asides, such as affirmative action, HeadStart, "No Child Left Behind", RIF and others. There have been 50+ years of such programs and policies involving minorities. These are truly the clearest indication of the inherent true racism of the Left; the neo-Communists firmly believe that, without help from the White majority, minorities can not compete in the modern world. Their programs employ a reduction of excellence in order to create the "level playing field" these folks crave.

Dr. Paul, as a libertarian, believes that we must see each individual through their own merits or faults. He wants to put Martin Luther King's words into practice, judging people purely on the "content of their character". This Constitutionally-sound position says, we do not assume that people of a certain group are unable to function on their own, nor can we shower them with perpetual hand-outs and booster-seats.

This translates into an elimination of many policies now enforced by the feds. Non-White college applicants, for instance, would no longer receive preferences for simply not being White. This would have exactly no effect on many students. But it would ensure that the surgeon about to operate on your heart isn't there because he looked good on the school's diversity report and garnered them more money from the federal trough. Those who had the ability and desire to finish a college program would do so, and their degrees would again matter. Others would pursue trades, crafts, or other respectable work.

In addition, there is no Constitutional provision for unrestricted federal welfare payments. Those who stay at home and sponge would be forced to get jobs. As even Lenin finally admitted in a rare lucid moment, "those who do not work, do not eat". Again, most welfare recipients who are legitimately in need would remain covered, but responsibility for such programs would pass to the State and county level where voters could more closely regulate it.

Lastly, as President, Dr. Paul would take seriously his oath, his pledge to support the Constitution in all its aspects. And he would make this same requirement of Congress. One of their stated duties includes the use of "...the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (Article I, Section 8, "Powers of Congress"). "Invasions" would most certainly include the unprecedented and illegal mass entry of perhaps 30-MILLION mostly Mexican criminal aliens. Whatever the reason for their presence, they constitute a de facto invasion force which directly threatens the sovereignty of this country and the "commonweal" of the American people.

Those and many other ramifications of a Constitutionally-based governance are the reasons that anyone who believes in the vision of our Founders, will be voting for Ron Paul in the primaries and in the general election next Fall. And this even includes the proud White people so despised by the media.

Ron Paul's Campaign Website

Ron Paul's Myspace Website

Thursday, December 13, 2007


All of us have watched TV commercials in which a truck is leaping across a ravine, or somebody is skateboarding on the interstate; in small type at the bottom of the screen we read, "Professional driver, closed course, do not attempt!". Disclaimers are, unfortunately, a mandatory element in today's world, worded in such a way as to stave off lawsuits and other liabilities.

But disclaimers are not limited to the world of commerce. People often use them in conversations, such as when we hear comments like, "Well, personally, I like Bill but...". They are often a preface to negative contexts, serving to provide a positive contextual backdrop to what follows. Another example of this is the phrase, "Some of my best friends are +[insert racial/ethnic group designator here]". Again, it sets a positive overtone to any subsequent negative statements.

The reason I'm bringing this up at all has to do with a group called "Heathens Against Hate". It seems that every one of their members must publicly post disclaimers about their faith and any related racial perspective. This takes the form of a comment such as: "I deplore anyone who tries to use [Odinism, Asatru, etc.] as a racist tool to harass or harm non-Northern European people!"

On its face, this is the equivalent of saying, "I hate people who beat up little kids". It's a statement designed to prevent argument. Obviously, no one could oppose using one's religion as a club to repress others, right?

There's a big problem with this.

One piece concerns social normative behaviors, the things we do because they are expected of us by "society". In this case, it's a pandering tool to reinforce White guilt. It is such a pervasive bludgeon that, even when not asked, many White people leap out of their chairs to proclaim their tolerance and love of everyone not like themselves. They have been pressured into this robotic behavior by decades of anti-White propaganda spewed by the media, schools and the entertainment business. To such people, and they form the majority of White culture at this point, any suggestion that anything might be set aside for ourselves, whether religious, cultural, athletic, academic or other area, is strictly verboten, as they say in the language of the German people. All things which White people seek to keep to themselves MUST be open to all, although the reverse is never true.

This societal dissolution of anything involving White cohesiveness has gained a lot of traction, and serves to reinforce the self-destructive behaviors many Whites stupidly accept as "progressive" when referred to by the Left, although called "lunatic" when noted by realists.

The real bottom-line is, only White people, that is, White heathens, must apologize for the tenets of their faith.

Christians never apologize for having tortured and massacred thousands of heathens and pagans while destroying those same native faiths, or burning women they declared "witches", or promoting unrestricted over-population in Africa, Asia and the "hispanic" world to fill their pews and collection plates, nor (in one branch) continuing to trust a community filled with unmarried pederasts to be role models. Nor do they see any dichotomy in believing in the words of peace spouted by Jesus of Nazereth, while bombing children in Baghdad.

Muslims don't apologize for their conquest of the Iberian peninsula, nor for their subjugation of women, nor for their repression of learning, nor for their militancy which has put them at odds with everyone else they've been in contact with for hundreds of years.

And lastly, what of the Jews? What of the zionists, who've displaced two million Palestinians so they could launch a permanent base of operations? What of jewish insistence that jewishness and Judaism are synonymous, even though atheist jews are still 100% jewish? What of their relentless attacks on public religious symbols of other faiths, from the cross to the crescent to pentagrams to runes? What do we make of their statement that they are "the Chosen People" of the Yahweh god?

Over its history, the native faith of Northern Europe has NEVER been used, per se, to beat up, subjugate or conquer ANYone. Our forefathers never tried to "convert" others at the point of a sword or gun, nor did they use our faith as an instrument of victimhood or sympathy, nor proclaim it the "one true religion". It was ALWAYS recognized as a regional, tribal religion tying US to OUR gods. It was always exclusive because it was always about our racial/ethnic FAMILY. And it still is.

If Asatru or Odinism were a faith of Africa, or South America, no practitioner would ever write a disclaimer. If it were out to make money from donations, or focused on conquering the internal operational systems of its host countries, or were on a steady march to force others to "submit", it would not publish such statements.

For myself, I refuse to kowtow to the politically correct, the timid or the passive-aggressive among our Folk who persist in disclaiming our history and our genetics. Their debasement of our principles, and their conflation of White unity, pride and heritage through our faith into some equivalent of "hatred" disgusts me.

Monday, December 3, 2007

Big Mother Is Watching You

MySpace Admits Censorship Of Prison
Moderator says anything containing URL of website is filtered out

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, May 11, 2007

In a telling slip-up, a MySpace moderator has admitted that it is policy to censor and filter out posts containing links to the Prison website, adding that the MySpace server automatically blocks such information.

Earlier this week MySpace was accused of censoring information pertaining to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign but the social networking site denied the allegations and later featured Paul’s profile on their main page.

But a deliberate policy to block Prison has been exposed after a moderator unwittingly admitted the fact that Alex Jones’ Prison Planet website is filtered out from messageboards and bulletin posts.

In a discussion thread, a MySpace user complained that his Ron Paul post had been censored, to which a MySpace moderator responded, “Ron Paul wasn’t being censored, it was the part of the message that was being filtered out.”

The moderator later clarifies that it was beyond his control and that “” is on a list of URL’s that are automatically blocked by MySpace’s servers. The screenshot can be viewed below.

To be clear, moderators are not in the employ of MySpace but are invited to monitor message threads and delete off-topic material. The filtering of prison was not an act of any moderator but forms a deliberate policy on behalf of MySpace.

The excuse given is that prison is used so many times that MySpace’s servers automatically classify it as spam and ban it - but this is neither justified or believable. We have managed multiple MySpace accounts for well over a year and continually are forced to delete the same spam advertising and assorted trash that repeatedly finds its way to our inbox and on our profile comment board.

Why is this kind of material left alone and yet prison planet is banned?

Does it have anything to do with the fact that our involvement with MySpace was born simply as a means of exposing the fact that Rupert Murdoch’s social networking giant was an orgy of censorship and a trojan horse for the introduction of Internet 2?

This followed media reports in January 2006, shortly after Neo-Con ideologue Murdoch had bought the company for $580 million, concerning the fact that MySpace was deliberately blocking URL’s from rival websites and others they simply didn’t like. When thousands complained on a messageboard, MySpace simply shut down the messageboard and pretended it was a technical error.

If MySpace and Rupert Murdoch are that frightened of websites like Prison Planet threatening the corporate interests that sustain them, as with the bury brigade at Digg, fair enough - we have no divine right to appear on your website - but don’t lie to the people and pretend you are some kind of online democracy where free speech is encouraged and permitted - because it’s simply not true.

No doubt they will also claim that the censorship of Prison - one of the foremost Internet critics of the same gaggle of Neo-Cons that Rupert Murdoch fronts for, is just a mistake or a technicality. What do you think?

Link to PrisonPlanet article here

Thursday, November 15, 2007


The other day, I spotted an article about a structure which was uncovered during a dry spell at Lake Biel in Switzerland. What archaeologists found was a series of uniform piers, indicating that it was a dock or some sort of hut. According to the dating method used, the piers were about 6,000 years old.

While this is indeed an ancient structure, other relics have been found in Europe which indicate that humans were living there with relatively advanced technologies, as far back as 700,000 years. Stone artifacts found in Anglia, UK were conclusively dated as the earliest sample of human activity on the European continent so far. And of course, because Europe has been densely populated for a long time, older sites may exist but be impossible to locate.

This finding disrupts the mantra of the "out of Africa" (OOA) theorists.

According to that group, ape-like prehumans crossed the genetic line, became human, then later migrated north from the African continent to populate Europe and Asia. They claim that, during a massive ice age, the first group, which became the Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalis), migrated to Europe about 350,000 years ago. Neanderthal man apparently supplanted any pre-human, Homo erectus who may have sporadically left Africa in earlier times. The later migration of Homo sapiens then overtook and eliminated the Neanderthals, about 30,000 years ago, which would thus be the absolute age of the Europeans.

Using these timelines, then, there is no easy way to explain who the flint-makers of Anglia were, if we rely on the OOA theory. Those Anglian people, obviously human, were there twice again as far back as the Neanderthals.

There's another problem with the OOA concept. Using DNA analysis, scientists can now, with good precision, determine one's geoethnic ancestry. In other words, it's possible to pinpoint which general racioethnic group one's genes belong to by geographic region of origin. There is a great deal of overlap in some of these groups, as would be expected from interbreeding over the years. We may find that some Indian groups share DNA with southern Chinese groups and so on. Northern Chinese, Korean and Japanese people have been found to have some DNA which is shared with Europeans. None of this happened because of recent interactions; the so-called "marker genes" have ancient origins.

The big problem is, while some DNA is shared among Europeans and Asians, including several marker genes, none of the marker genes specific to African ancestry are present in Europeans, and are only present in some southern Asians, traceable to established later African emigration patterns.

The OOA idea also relies on mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down on the X-chromosome, and they attempt to relate groups using what they call "observed mutations" to those genes. They claim that such mutation patterns can be traced because of their regularity. However, examples of ethnic groupings known to be have arisen more recently contain mitochondrial DNA mutations of greater apparent antiquity than older groupings.

When Darwin was writing "Origin of the Species", he focused on differences among the finch populations in the Galapagos chain. They were categorized into different species, often based on relatively minor differences, such as beak length or plumage coloration. Darwin's major criteria were, effective uniqueness of the "adaptation" and heritability. A bird who was adept at digging grubs from tree bark was considered quite different from another which caught insects on the wing, but only if their offspring shared those behaviors and the same ecological niche.

Lions and tigers, while often able to produce fertile offspring (the lack of which ability is a trivial, yet popular, fallback argument among some scientists to prove species uniqueness), would never normally choose to do so. In similar manner, Grevy's zebras (Equus grevyii) don't mate with the more common Grant's (Equus quagga), although they produce fertile offspring. Mule deer almost never crossbreed with Whitetails. Mountain gorillas avoid mating with Lowland gorillas. These animals recognize their own "kind" and act instinctively to preserve their genetic heritage. In addition, these different species often live in close proximity to one another, yet maintain separate space.

No one considers the natural segregation of various zebra species, or big cats, or gorillas to be "racist", or more appropriately "species-ist".

There are unmistakable visual differences among the basic European, African and Asian group phenotypes. No one can honestly say they would confuse Wesley Snipes' ancestry with Pierce Brosnan's or Jackie Chan's. Of course, there are many people who would politically disallow such observations.

In addition, there are physiological, psychological, intelligence, social and other divergences. As many as 29 distinct physical differences exist between European, or Asian, and African people. Asians, again particularly from northern areas, share much more with Europeans. Visually, Europeans and northern Asians have many physiological aspects in common. One noticeable trait often possessed by older European groups, such as the Finns and Hungarians, is an "almond shaped" eye, reminiscent of the Asian epicanthic fold.This would indicate a common ancestry point between them.

Finally, if we assume that Africans are closer to the original human prototype offered by the OOA folks, and we further accept that evolution is an "upward progression", then the farther from the root stock, the more "developed" the animal. This perspective places Africans at the lower end of evolutionary progression. Is that what the OOA people intended?

One possible refutative theory is the "Many Points" concept. In this, pre-human, ape-like beings did originate in Africa, but migrated north over many millennia before evolving to the Homo sapiens species level. This argument is supported by the many fossilized remains of Homo erectus found around the world, all from approximately the same epoch.

Using this theory as a starting point, prehumans could have evolved independently (as among Europeans, Africans and say, Samoans), or semi-independently (as between Europeans and northern Asians), and simultaneously reached their final "human form" in several places. This would account for the most basic human similarities, and also for lack of shared genetics between those who separated much earlier in time.

It would also explain how humans in what's now England were making spear points seven-thousand centuries ago without interfering with later, different humanoids arising (Neanderthals among them) from the original remaining prehumans. If this is in fact what happened among humans, we are not all the same, we are at least dissimilar enough to be different subspecies of Homo sapiens, and perhaps are different enough to be entirely separate species altogether.

Environments shape the evolution of species, and it's ludicrous to presuppose that humans who evolved on the savannahs of Kenya would be the same as those who arose in the freezing winters of central Europe or north Asia. Yet, according to the talking heads running the Looking Glass world in which we live, we are expected to believe that those differences do not matter, or that they don't exist at all.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007


"For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for the want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for the want of a horse the rider was lost, being overtaken and slain by the enemy, all for the want of care about a horseshoe nail."
- Benjamin Franklin, U.S. Statesman, "Poor Richard's Almanack"

These lines signify the consequences resulting from one misplayed moment in time. Our once-great country is experiencing the results of several earlier, seemingly innocent decisions or actions, now converging upon us with great force. Let's dissect two of those decision-paths.

In most areas of today's America, it's nearly impossible to buy a home on one income, and even with two, the currently-declining market remains hostile to younger buyers. Yet, a mere 50 years ago, a single wage-earner could easily afford the keys to a new home. How did this happen?

There are several factors, of course, but preeminent among them are the rise of the feminist movement coupled with a shift into increasing consumerism fueled by the use of a home's equity as a secondary income source.

Prior to "women's liberation", as promoted by such jewish feminists as Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem and Germaine Greer, men were generally the sole income source per household. The housing market had to remain within the affordability boundaries of that single paycheck, thus pricing was constrained by the active market. Once career women were added into the equation, almost literally doubling the revenue per family, housing prices rose to accommodate the influx of new buying power. At the same time, women, who had been brainwashed by the same relentless radical feminists into believing that their primary work in raising young children was somehow demeaning, now faced the dilemma of trying to work outside the home while still raising those children. By and large, the offspring of working families began to be farmed out to daycare, or "early indoctrination", centers. The negative ramifications of outside, non-maternal daycare on society would require another blog entry to cover.

As housing prices began to rise, the equity (difference between amount owed and current valuation) of homes also began to rise. There began a general cashing out of equity in two ways. First, through outright sale of an existing home and a move to a lower-cost area (i.e., sales by retirees of homes in the Northeast, and a new retirement home in cheaper Florida). Second, the purchase and use of various home-equity loans by those "staying put". In these, homeowners put at stake their very residence for money for various, usually unproductive purchases, from SUVs and hot tubs, to near-useless nominal "educations" for their kids at the rapidly-declining universities nationwide.

In order for the second group of people to continue to make their payments each month without much resistance, housing prices had to continue to escalate so their "investment" was "paying off". Housing construction boomed, and the mortgage market began to admit more and more under- or un-qualified buyers in, with low interest rates to get them in the door. Many of these were adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) which could vary by several points per period. Others were zero down-payment mortgages or worse, in some cases 120% of the appraised value of the home. In extreme cases, the mortgages became negative-equity after the initial rise in rates.

The banksters, knowing that the bubble would not last, began to press their pets in Congress for some guarantees, and they wanted them to extend not only to mortgages, but to all consumer credit. Congress responded by putting in place a bail-out insurance package (similar to the previous Savings & Loan disaster), coupled with much tighter restrictions on bankruptcy and delayed payment plans. The liars in Congress also tossed in a revocation on usury limits ("usury" is usually used to mean "extreme interest rates", but in fact, all interest charges are usury). One missed or even late payment and suddenly, the credit card was at 2.5% interest per month, or the mortgage step kicked in and payments rose 20%.

Now, we see housing markets in which sellers literally can not get out from under their mortgages. They can't file bankruptcy right away, can't avoid making payments on their credit debt, and can find neither sympathy nor any available exits. In the cases where mortgage companies agree to "forgive" a portion of the debt, for which the Federal insurance already covers them, the borrowers face another problem. The sweet, lovable IRS folks will consider the value of that "forgiveness" as income, and it will be taxed at regular rates. We are reverting back to the days of "debtors' prisons" as described by Jonathan Swift and others. We are literally becoming slaves to our indebtedness.

The consumerism of the 1950's led to a desire to have more disposable income, which led to women working outside the home, which led to increased housing prices, which brought us to a national crisis as more and more people attempt to walk away from their financial liabilities. The hangover from this party will be with us for quite a while.

One other situation specifically germane to White people comes to mind.

In 1950, the United States was almost 90% White. The country had, except for Hawaii, been spared the ravages of warfare. Our industry was intact, our finances buoyant, and our future looked very bright. University enrollments boomed, families grew, the housing market expanded through massive "subdivisions" and the suburbs were born. One consequence of this was, White Americans began to have a lot more leisure time, which forked into two results.

First, while our government was busy involving itself with other countries which we should have stayed out of, our people began to see themselves as the great benefactors to the world's "unfortunate" and "underprivileged". It was the time of rise of the great charities, with aid money being sent to Latin America, Africa and Asia. Part of this largesse, or, superiority masked as piously benevolent pity, was that along with money went technology, medicine and education. All that Europeans had worked so hard to conceptualize, invent, develop and put into production was given to non-Europeans for free.

The Third World recipients began to use those gifts. Countries filled with people who'd been having 10 babies so 2 would survive continued to have those 10 babies. However, now 8 or 9 would make it to reproductive age. They became healthier, but placed no limits on their growth. In 1950, there were about 2.5-billion people on Earth. By 2000, that number was SIX billion. Estimates for 2020 are NINE billion, and in the next 20 years, as with the past 50, the growth is expected to be almost entirely among non-Europeans.

Second, we became lazy as a people. Tasks which had been carried out by White Americans were suddenly seen as "beneath us". Again, the media played a huge role in this paradigm shift, portraying the "good life" as material-based and consumer-driven. Our connection with the land, getting one's hands dirty, became utterly undesirable. And so, in America and in Europe, we began to admit more non-White people into our countries as laborers.

Initially, they were sent home when the work was done, but increasingly, they remained here. As their numbers grew, illicit businesses began to rely on them as cheap, off-the-books workers. This savings was entirely redirected toward the comfort of the scumbag owners of those businesses: their golden parachutes, perk packages and new luxury cars in the driveways of their McMansions.

But average 'sheeple' liked it too; they paid less for lettuce and other groceries. And they could afford to have someone trim their hedges, since, with both parents working and the kids increasingly in daycare or playing video games, no one was at home to do it anyway.

To assist the invasion of the United States, a jewish Senator named Emmanuel Celler proposed a bill in 1964, which was passed the following year as The Immigration and Naturalization Services Act of 1965 (INSA), crafted to reverse the ratio of European/non-European immigrants. It was shepherded through by the younger brother of the late President John F. Kennedy, Senator Edward M. "Teddy" Kennedy. A straight-faced Kennedy told the American public,
The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.
As the numbers of, especially, Mexicans began to rise, so too did their political clout. Beginning in the border states and spreading across the country, politicians began to pander to them. Activists began to encourage them to "reconquer" the Southwest, under claim of illegal "taking" by Whites. Today, La Raza ("The Race"), a vehemently Mexican-nationalist group, has offices on most college campuses, as does another Mexican org, MEChA ("Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán", or the "Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan"). Aztlan is their mythical name for the U.S. southwest, which, again, they intend to retake for their own.

While all this was going on, American consumers, being pushed by advertisers to spend, wanted even cheaper products. So the same illegitimate "American" businesses began to send their factories and production facilities offshore, notably to China, India, Pakistan and Indonesia. Other factories began to spring up in Central and South America. While we imported the Third World's jobless, we exported American jobs to their stay-at-home brethren. And as each outsource country, starting with Japan, began to rise to American standards of living from their newfound wealth, the formerly low pricing structure began to rise, and businesses were forced to find new Third World countries to plunder.

So the liberalist mentality of the 1950's led to the stoppage of White American manual labor and the open-door mentality of the 1960's, which led to the influx of immigrants, some legal and most not, which produced a reliance by consumers on low-cost goods, which pushed the export of the low-end job market as well as industrial facilities to the Third World, which led to the transformation of the American economy from production-based to service-based, which was followed by the debasement of the U.S. dollar, which ended in our current spate of invasions of Middle Eastern "rogue nations" who dared to try to leave the dollar behind for the Euro. It also changed the composition of this country from 90% to 62% White, and from 0% to 16% "hispanic".

Imagine if we'd simply said "No" at the times when it would have mattered. For want of a nail, our battle is all but lost.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Two-Way Mirror

While listening to what passes as "news" on the radio this morning, one nugget mentioned was that Hilary Clinton holds a substantial lead over Barack Obama in polls among Democrats. On the Republican front, Mitt Romney has a slight edge over Rudy Giuliani. No mention, of course, was made of Dr. Ron Paul.

In the last off-year elections, voters, especially Democrat voters, crowed about the changes the new Democrat-majority Congress would bring. In fact, nothing changed. Troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan remained the same. Support for Israel's aggressions was completely upheld. The economy continued its decline. The subprime mortgage market lurched toward disaster. And nothing was done to remove the fellow who would be King, nor his cohorts, who are currently infesting the White House. Nothing; no arguments, no actions to countermand his "signing orders", and no impeachment. Proof once again (as if needed) that, as Alabama Gov. George Wallace said back in 1968, "There's not a dime's worth of difference" between the two parties. I'd say the reason is, there aren't two parties.

The military-industrial-commercial-political matrix which is Washington, DC has taken many years to reach the point of interlocking operation. In his departure speech of 1961, President Eisenhower warned us to keep restraints on this network:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
So many people, so many organizations, so many private groups are on the take from government coffers that they are literally dependent upon unrelenting, massive corruption for their continued existence. "Our" President & Co. have borrowed even our great-grandchildren into debt slavery.

We are spending a BILLION dollars, which we don't have and are forced to borrow from China, Japan and other countries, every week to sustain their 'clever plan' in Iraq.

We attacked Iraq, so we are told, because, on the face of it, Hussein attacked Kuwait and so was a "threat to democracy in the Middle East". Kuwait is nothing close to a democratic nation. He moved troops because he was given the green light by April Glaspie, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. It was a perfect excuse to start the war for control, planned since 1996.

The Iraq invasion was actually undertaken for four primary reasons.

First, Hussein had threatened to switch the basis for Iraqi oil-pricing from dollars to euros. In the opinion of the Treasury Dept., this would have triggered a ripple effect across the Arabic nations which would have further debased the dollar worldwide and destroyed its position as the world basis currency, held since the Bretton-Woods Conference. The banksters, whose interest payments would evaporate, would not have that happen. Ironically, the United Arab Emirates, or U.A.E., just did exactly that, but we apparently can't afford to attack them.

Second, Iraq (along with Iran, Kuwait and U.A.E.) was a major provider of oil to China and, to a lesser extent, Japan. Neoconservatives believed that one key to preventing those nations from calling in our massive debt was to regulate their accessibility to MidEast oil.

Third, our destruction of the country would produce massively lucrative, long-term "reconstruction" contracts for such upstanding entities as Cheney's "former" outfit, Halliburton and the Carlyle Group, tied to Bush, Sr.

And fourth, perhaps most important to certain factions, destabilizing Iraq would prevent any possibility of further organized attacks against Israel by Baghdad. There has never been any real plan to rebuild Iraq, nor to re-stabilize it, which has led to the "war without end" scenario touted by the criminals on Pennsylvania Avenue. In fact, Halliburton subsidiaries are, right now, building four huge military command centers ("Contingency Operating Bases") in various locations there, to consolidate control of the country.

Back in the Democrat Party, none, not one, of their candidates has a serious plan for ending the hostilities in Iraq. Nor will any even mention withdrawal from Afghanistan; that country was attacked and placed under occupation to "find Osama bin Laden". In fact, the CIA targeted Afghanistan after the Taliban decided to end or seriously curtail opium production. Much of the CIA's covert budget relies on drug-sale money, and so does operation of much of the entire U.S. economic process. So shortly after we invaded, Bush 'decided' to allow the opium crop to be harvested. And a few years later, the crop had reached record levels. All coincidental, of course.

Of all the major-party puppet-heads now running for office, not a single one will seemingly do anything to benefit the American people, nor return us to a Constitutional government. Only Dr. Ron Paul has resoundingly spoken out in opposition to unConstitutional wars, overarching Federal involvement in state business, illegal infringement upon Congressional processes by the Presidency, and so forth. Because of this, along with the mainstream media's submission-position as a mouthpiece for the two-party system, Dr. Paul is constantly treated as a persona non grata, a curious wacko with suspect ideas who shouldn't even be considered. For that reason alone, people should examine his politics positively.

Dr. Paul will very likely not get the nomination of the Republican Party, of which he is a nominal member. Apart from his proposed assaults on the old-boy system, he is running by denouncing and destroying the position of the Republicans currently in power. Therefore, to run for the Presidency, he must become a third-party candidate; the last of those to win was Abraham Lincoln in 1860. The major parties will do whatever they can to prevent him showing up on national ballots.

So, as we ponder the course of the United States over the next year, I will predict just one thing: If either of the major-parties' final candidates win the Presidency, this country will face irreversible, permanent meltdown. The economy will spiral into hyperinflation, the borders will become completely open with NAU, the wars will spread to every non-jewish nation in the Middle East, and we will become open to true, and truly awful, terrorist attacks.

Dr. Ron Paul is certainly not perfect, and may not be "the answer", but at least he is not part of "the problem".

Thursday, October 11, 2007

The Rape of Europe, by Paul Belien

The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch Newspaper "DeVolkskrant" that young Europeans who love Freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will not exist twenty years from now.

While sitting on a terrace in Berlin , Broder pointed to the other customers and the passersby and said, "We are watching the world of yesterday."

Europe is turning Muslim.. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate. "I am too old," he said. However, he urged young people to get out and "move to Australia or New Zealand . That is The only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable."

Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder's advice. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have To be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic.

Just consider the demographics.

- The number of Muslims in Contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million.

- It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of All European children will be born to Muslim families.

- Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for newborn boys in Brussels , Amsterdam , Rotterdam , and other major European cities.

Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose Islamization. "The dominant ethos," he told De Volkskrant, "is perfectly Voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated.

She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death."

In a recent Op-Ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standard the Dutch(gay and self-declared "humanist") author Oscar Van Den Boogaard refers to Broder's interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like "a process of mourning." He is overwhelmed by a "feeling of sadness."

"I am not a Warrior," he says, "but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

Consider that in all of Europe no one under the age of 65 has picked up arms in defense of their country. That task has been borne by the United States since Hitler surrendered in 1945.

As Tom Bethell wrote in this month's American Spectator: "Just at The most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not Working." But there is more to it than the fact that nonreligious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to "enjoy" freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children.

Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.

"If faith collapses, civilization goes with it," says Bethell. That is the real cause of the closing of civilization in Europe .

Islamization is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means "submission" and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it.

Some of the people I meet in the U. S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe . They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among nonimmigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary Anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism.

People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.

This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European "Islamophobes" who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (Islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission - just like in former days when they preferred to be Red rather than dead.

Europeans apparently never read John Stuart Mill: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is worse."

"A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."


My response: Europeans don't hate Americans (or their Israeli mirrors) simply because they're "willing to fight"; MANY Europeans are fully engaged in fighting for their People, but THAT kind of activity is off-limits under the current communo-fascist rule there. Rather, they despise the Americans because of WHY their GOVERNMENT has chosen to fight, and where. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon, Iran and Syria, are NOT being fought for American interests, but for Israeli/Zionist hegemony. The Europeans see that zionist jews like Jack Straw, Nicolas Sarkozy and others are gaining power in their continent, and that such unchecked authority will inevitably lead to both fully open borders and further dilution of European ethnic solidarity (through such schemes as the Sarkozy-proposed Europe/African "trade" alliance), and a simultaneous full-scale support for Israel's murderous actions.

Americans, as a population, are not willing to fight for most anything except their "right" to consume material goods. The average White lemming here knows nothing about history, social sciences, politics or racial identity. He is content to believe whatever CNN, ABC or FauxNews presents as "fact" without question. He has subsumed his natural rights to increasing unConstitutional police-state militarization rather than head to Washington en masse to physically remove the criminals in charge. He wants to "go along to get along", and would rather slit his wrists than "offend" any non-White person. And the government, eager to accommodate him, passes law after law to prevent him from taking meaningful political action.

Unfortunately, I must also part company with Mr. Broder, above, in his advice. New Zealand and, even more, Australia, are subject to the same reductionist policies against their White populations. Last year, Australia had riots at popular Cronulla Beach, in Sydney, pitting White kids against Lebanese muslims; the media blacked it out, blaming the Whites, and the police arrested the White kids. The governments in AUS/NZ are in lockstep with those in Europe (and America), it's just taking a bit longer to make Whites a minority there.

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

New Zealand Dreams: Fading

For the past several months, I've been trying to find employment in New Zealand, specifically on the South Island. Seems that there are jobs to be had, but those jobs are restricted to the North Island, and more exactly, to Auckland.

Auckland, from all I've been able to gather, is not only a large city, which I abhor per se, but a highly non-European one as well. In fact, as this link shows, New Zealand is being subjected to the same diversification pressures as those applied in all other European-majority countries worldwide. This is on top of the already worked-out European/Maori tenancy. And it's part of the global epidemic we face.

Other, non-European lands are not subject to such border-opening ideology. No one is suggesting that India, Mexico, China, Congo or Indonesia open their cultures to rearrangement from the outside, and certainly not by Europeans. Back in the 1980s, in fact, there was a massive political attack through the world media upon the White inhabitants of South Africa. There was a constant demand that this "racist" majority not be allowed to continue the policies of apartheid, which had kept the races from each others' throats, nor rule over the obvious Black majority there. This ultimately resulted in power being handed over to Blacks by the de Klerk administration.

Since then, every effort, including mass murder, has been directed against Europeans living in Africa, either to have them leave or, barring that, to kill them off. You will not generally read about this in your local news rag. The affected countries have included not only South Africa, but Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia), Kenya, Zaire, etc. This kind of genocidal effort is seemingly fine for non-White nations, but woe betide the European people who simply voice opposition to the contemporary invasions of their homelands. Immediately, headlines appear berating their "racism", "hatred" and "intolerance". They are immediately sent to diversity training, and forced into contrition for their desire to maintain their ancestral environment for themselves.

I have read recently of Japan's increasingly non-Japanese immigrant list, and it seems that the Japanese people, rightly, are beginning to find issues with this foreign overlay upon their land and traditions. The internationalist world press has not weighed in on this yet, but rest assured, they will, and they will portray Japanese nationalism as an evil which must be overcome and stamped out. What then will the Japanese people do?

New Zealand's official immigration site stresses their ongoing critical need for infusions of experienced technical people (I have been a programmer since 1974). Yet the general European-ancestry population is expected to decline over time. And technical jobs on the [predominantly European-ancestry] South Island are extremely difficult to find. What should one make of this?

So the relocation I'd hoped to make to that beautiful place may be drifting out of reach. Fate may yet take me there, but in the meantime, I have to shoot for something I can attain with more certainty. Perhaps a move to New Hampshire or Maine, states with some remaining freedoms not yet encroached upon too heavily by local or federal Leftists or their twins, the red-diaper Neo-conservatives, is in order.

Time will tell, and I do have nearly a year to finalize my plans, but I am beginning to ask myself the question, Why move to a country which may become just as politically correct and unlivable as the place in which I already live? Why indeed? Perhaps I must remain to fight on, closer to my birthplace, within the borders of my home country.

Of course, with things coming to a head the way they are, who knows how long this will be the same country, with the same borders and the same people within? As Eric Thomson would say, "Stay tuned!"

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Stand And Deliver

In the 1900 census, people of European ancestry comprised a bit under 35% of the world's population. Apart from our almost entirely homogeneous homelands in Europe, we, as an aggregate People, were the primary majority in North America, Australia and New Zealand. The population explosions in India and China had not yet happened, and would not until Western science, medicines, health care and sanitation measures were adopted there.

In those days, Europeans were fractionated, divided ethnically and fighting over various imperial states, and over land disputes within the European continent. In the United States, Whites held an 89% majority, with Blacks making up almost all of the remainder.

As the populations of other nations in other continents began to swell, White populations began to stagnate. Then came the wars: World War One, a.k.a. "The Great War", or "The War To End All Wars". In that foolish conflict borne of interethnic jealousies and petty grievances, and financed on both sides by the Rothschilds and other alien banksters, almost 20 million people died, and almost all of those were Europeans and their kin. Twenty million White people who would never be parents perished, and with them their unborn posterity.

Just over twenty years later, after simmering without resolution, the resumption of war engulfed the same nations, this time armed with more lethal weaponry, yet financed by the same people. Not counting the death claims of the Asiatic jews living in Europe, the White death toll was about 62 million men, women and children.

In two generations, Europe lost eighty-two million of her children, and thus all of their children...who would never be.

After the war, we remained, as before, the absolute majority in our lands. But in the 1950s, our nations began to crack. The British government began to extend citizenship rights to Commonwealth members, to West Indians, East Indians and Arabs in the former colonial entities. And they began to arrive in the British Isles, first as a trickle, then in droves.

In America, the Eisenhower administration began the relentless drive to exterminate segregation in neighborhoods, schools and the workplace. Formerly White public schools were opened to Black children, at National Guard gunpoint. White universities were forced to admit Black undergraduates. White employers were no longer able to hire and fire employees at will from companies they owned, nor were White homeowners allowed to sell their homes to whomever they chose. So-called affirmative action programs began, along with other plans to elevate "the underprivileged" to "White status"; these programs, along with the expanding Social Security scam, were referred to, with no small irony, as "entitlements". Curiously, no such programs were imposed on Black institutions. Nor Black businesses. Nor Black neighborhoods. Yet, White people did not invade, nor even appear to any extent in, those places. Why, you might ask, is that?

While this was going on, migrant workers from Mexico began the first stirrings of labor organization. Although not citizens, and in the country by the grace of the government, they began to believe they were somehow entitled (there's that word again) to benefits which were never due them.

As the 1960's progressed, other countries back in Europe began to open their doors to non-European immigration. Germany started its infamous "Gastarbeiter" (guest worker) program, admitting manual laborers from Turkey and other Asian countries in response to the spurious claims of the Leftists in power that there were simply not enough Germans willing to do the work (sound familiar, America?). France opened its borders to Algerians, Moroccans and those from the Ivory Coast. And so it spread across the continent.

Fast forwarding to 2007, Britain is increasingly non-White. London now has a White plurality, no longer a majority. Germany is 11% non-White. France, where it's forbidden by law to publish racial statistics (and why is that, again?), is estimated to be 13% non-White, although some estimates reach 18%. In Goteborg, Sweden, there are muslim-majority areas which are "no-go" zones for Swedes. Holland, with its burgeoning Indonesian and other Asian populations, is expected to be majority non-White within another two generations. I read recently a prediction from a credible source that, barring a change in course, a similar fate awaits Russia: by 2070, they too will be a minority in their own land.

The "Scottish National" [sic] Party has top administrators who are Asians. These are second, and now third, generation residents who somehow consider themselves "Scots". Meaning, I suppose, that if I were to move to China, in two generations my descendants would transmogrify, genetically, into Chinese.

America, in 107 years, went from 89% White, 10% Black, 1% Other; to 62% White, 15% "hispanic" (Western hemisphere mestizo), 13% Black, 7% Asian, and 3% Other. And these numbers are probably inflated on the White side; it doesn't take into account the 15-30 million illegal Mexicans, nor many of the East Indian and Chinese H1b visa holders who never left when their visas expired 15-20 years ago, nor the others from various countries smuggled in through our non-existent borders.

The grimmest statistic isn't even included among these. It's our percentage of the world's population that is of gravest concern. We have plummeted from over a third of all the alleged Homo sapiens on the planet to just 8.5%. That's all.

If White people were an 8.5% minority in America, do you suppose the new majority would extend the same overarching rights to us, as a minority, as we did to them? Do you suppose we'd be protected, provided with special laws for our benefit, granted monies for school, home ownership and business start-ups? If not, why not?

When we were absolute majorities in our own lands, when we could insulate ourselves and live among our kin, we were, in a sense, protected. We had our "walls" around us, and we were with family. We always took it for granted, and we fought among ourselves, sometimes viciously, as families often do. Germans fought French, English fought Irish, Swedes fought Norwegians. We held asinine grudges against members of our own blood. And in many places where our heads are still firmly lodged in our hindquarters, such as Northern Ireland or Quebec, we still do.

As our homelands are being overtaken by non-European, non-White populations, with "our" governments complicit and aiding the incoming masses, we are faced with a problem. The ship we have been sailing upon, filled with our kinsmen, has no port to sail to. Europe, our ancestral home, is being taken from Europeans, and by extension, from White people worldwide. All of the White majorities are dropping in both relative and absolute numbers. And while the immigrants are being stuffed into place, our children are encouraged to outbreed with non-White partners.

Of the population of America, for instance, about 100-million people are young Whites of child-bearing age. If all of those kids accept the mantra of racial merging, we will have lost them and their lineage forever. In one swoop, nearly twenty percent of all the White people alive on the Earth will be, in effect, gone. Thus, once the remaining European-Americans die off, we will literally cease to exist within our former place on this continent.

If the 50-million White males in this example were all, as trendiness and countless shows on the HGTV and MSNBC networks dictate, to have children with Asian women, we will not only have lost those men, but the 50-million-plus White children who would have been theirs. Those men alone represent just under 10% of all White people on Earth. The 50-million Asians, though, are but a tiny fraction of their race. The loss of their offspring will not be missed or even noticed. In the Chinese homeland, most parents, restricted to one child, have not have chosen to bear females anyway. In their minds, better for the women to be blended away, far away.

We are no longer having enough babies to replace our existing populations. White women are putting off childbearing longer, often permanently. When they do have children, they are often having them with non-White men. Our population, therefore, continues to decline. However, this is not the case for all people, as this article shows

Between now and 2050 world population growth will be generated exclusively in developing Countries

Between now and the middle of the next century world population will most likely increase by some 3.68 billion people - all of these increase will be contributed by the developing countries (see Table C1_2). In fact, the population of the developed nations as a group will most likely decline by almost 10 million people between now and the year 2050 - according to the UN medium variant projections. Most of this population growth in the developing world will occur during the next 30 years: between 1995 and 2025 the population in developing countries will increase by 2.3 billion; between 2025 and 2050 it will "only" grow by 1.39 billion.

A man named David Lane, who died recently in Federal prison, wrote some verses several years ago as a tribute both to our women and our future generations. Those verses read:
We must secure the existence of our People, and a future for White children, that the beauty of the White, Aryan woman will not perish from the Earth.
[Note: 'Aryan' comes from the Farsi word for "noble", and was a term the Persians, our racial cousins, applied to themselves. It is not, despite the rhetoric of the unbridled, a 'racist' term].

When we were secure in our lands, when we held a majority status there, when we could determine our own lives and direction without interference from outsiders, from illegal criminal aliens, from the media and the internationalists, it was okay for us to squabble and fight.

Today, there can be no fighting over English travesties of two hundred years ago, or German intrusions of the 1940s, or French sovereignty in Canada. Today, we must put aside tribal labels and unify in action as one People, the children of Europa. We must take action to prevent and reverse the crushing pressure upon our nations which tries to grind them into dust. We must stand against the oppressors who smother us with dispossessive, destructive and genocidal policies. Otherwise, soon, we will be a dusty footnote in the history of human existence, staring back across the Rainbow Bridge in grieving at our mistakes.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Don't Look Down

"Times change, people don't" is a phrase I heard my father use a lot. The ancient Greeks complained about many of the same things we do now: the costs of living, political corruption, the pitfalls of relationships and so on. They enjoyed sports, family gatherings, and leisure activities. And, sadly, they also fought wars.

Tens of millennia have not altered the basic underpinnings of human behavior. And over those years, many of the rhythms of life remained the same: tied to the seasons, cooperative, and family-centered. We grew crops, tended animals, and raised our kids. We unconsciously worked to become like our parents, to live a life similar to theirs. Traditions were handed down and over time, different families spread far enough apart to become separate entities. But on the whole, the similarities, both horizontal (across tribes and nations) and vertical (across time), far outweighed the differences. The river of our predecession ran back smooth and straight.

However, quite recently in our history, we began to see fluctuations in those two coordinates. It began with a disconnection from our past, a superimposition of the unending present upon the path leading down from our ancestors, through us, to our unseen descendants. When roots are cut, the tree shall ultimately die. And can it not be said that those who lose that thread are dying now?

We decided that the "old ways" were archaic. Male and female life roles were rejected. The family was diminished. The mental exercise-made-real which we call money became more important than our time. Any lifestyle was a go, provided it had not generally been accepted before. "Role reversal" became a media-promoted goal. We left behind traditions, norms and values.

The second tremor started with our separation from our extended families. Neighborhoods began to change, homogeneity disintegrated. Dislocation prevailed. We walked through Alice's mirror and we were changed, alright.

During the 1990's, after the hand-over of power from de Klerk to Mandela in South Africa, I heard a remarkable comment. A friend who was in no way racially-oriented said, "White people were said to be the oppressors in South Africa because they were a small intolerant minority not yielding to the deserving Blacks and 'Coloreds'. Yet, in America and the UK, Whites were seen in the same way, but this time because they were the intolerant majority!"

Was that the March Hare, chuckling?

Although these divergences began the destructive cancer which is now long upon us as a People, the most immediately dangerous changes occurred in the recent past. Prior to the 20th Century, humans had no practical way to self-exterminate. That changed in the mid-1940's. We now live in a world where today literally could be our last, as a People and as a species. We might even permanently sterilize the planet forever. True and absolute 'Götterdämmerung', the 'Twilight of the gods'. Why would even Thor's son wish to live in such a barren world?

We have stayed away from our posts for a long time, three generations now. Over that time, we moved from a life of continuity to one of perpetual paranoia. Why?

I was told recently that moving out of the path of full-bore lunacy was actually "running away". The person who said that lives in a very different world than I do. My daily life tells me, in hundreds of ways, subtle and not so, that things are not getting better. My reality check tells me that, unless about 200 million people say, "Enough!", nothing will change. And even if the tide turns, the results may be unavoidable.

We are at a point of confluence, a merger of dozens of forces. Not supernatural hocus-pocus, but real-life freight trains of misdirected fate: the teetering economy, destruction of privacy, expansion of police-state activities, dispossession of certain groups by others, alignments of foreign powers and so on. This is a time when things will break in one of two directions. Either a groundswell will break us out of our current situation and re-establish rational equilibrium, or the world becomes a huge self-destruct mechanism. It's our call.

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Envision Invasion

(Originally posted 4/19/2007)

(Click map to enlarge)

There are a few things in this graphic which are a little off or misleading.

First, legal Latinos, a.k.a. "hispanics", are about 15% of the population, not 12.5%. Secondly, there is no accounting here of the illegal "hispanic" population, which may be as high as 30-million, or another 8-10% of the total U.S. populace.

Second, using "job relocation" programs, the Feds are literally pushing "hispanics" into the rural American heartland. These people are being hired (off the books, in most cases) by unscrupulous business owners in the farming, meatpacking and other farm-related operations in places like Iowa and Missouri. This has also been true in the Pacific northwest, especially in Washington.

Third, true Spaniards are not "hispanic", they are White Europeans. "Hispanic" is an pseudo-racial designator dreamed up by the Census Bureau which attempts to avoid being a racioethnic descriptor in some of their data event though it's a mixed-racial super-grouping. It was in fact originally to be used to describe Central and South American "mestizo" (mixed White and Asiatic-origin native populations), or "Brown" people. In the U.S., these are overwhelmingly Mexicans.

In general Census data, the Bureau uses it to obfuscate data by combining "hispanic" and White populations, only segregating it out as "non-hispanic origin White". The problem, of course, is that White people are already de facto "non-hispanic". This is also true in Dept. of Justice violent crime statistics, where "hispanic" victims of crimes are segregated, but "hispanic" perpetrators are merged under the "White" category. This has the dual effect of masking true crime levels of "hispanics", while simultaneously and falsely inflating White violent crime statistics.

My Platform for 2008 (Part 1)

(Reposted from May 1, 2007)

I know it's early, but I thought I'd put myself in the ring to get all you voters ready. I meet the Constitutional requirements for the office of President: I am over 35 years of age, I am a natural-born citizen of the United States, and have resided here for over 14 years (all my life, in fact).

Were I a typical lying politician, I'd list a whole bunch of things I promise to do, but no method of doing them. Not me. You'll always know where I stand.

Since neither Congress nor the Supreme Court is doing anything to impede the Executive branch's relentless power grabbing, I'll just cut to the chase. I will ask for a two-year period of sole authority, an Enabling Act, so to speak. Yes, that would make me a dictator of sorts, except I'll be doing it solely for the good of our people. And at the end of two years of exclusive authority, I'll ask for a vote to see if I should get another two. At the end of four years, I'll resign, because I look at public service as exactly that: service, not a career in pork-barreling and pocket-lining. And I will put into place mechanisms to return this country to its original Constitutional bearings before I'm done. Ironically, I will suspend the Constitution for a brief period in order to save the Constitution for the future.

Part I: Immigration & Citizenship Matters

The first priority for any country is secure borders. I will recall all U.S. troops from the 100+ countries we've sent them to in our misguided role as the world's policeman, and place those now in Special Forces and Military Police units along our borders, especially the now-open southern one. The border will be secured by fences, minefields, the widening of the Rio Grande, or any other means decided. Troops will be stationed in armored encampments at regular intervals, and assisted in their operations by all the technological hardware the Bush administration is now using to assault innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not a single animal larger than a squirrel will be able to cross the border outside established checkpoints without being targeted and taken out. This will be a priority, and should be accomplished within the first year. The time of us taking "your tired and your poor" is over.

Coupled with this, I will rescind the illegal amnesty of 1986 and utilize the National Guard to remove all those people who were improperly allowed to stay after illegally entering this country then as well as those now here illegally. To accomplish this, a single, full-scale mandatory national identity verification will take place. If you can not prove your legal citizenship or resident alien status, you will be deported. If you resist, you will be met with appropriate force, then deported in chains.

In total, between the current illegal aliens and the previously illegal aliens, this should reduce the U.S. population by at least 45 million people (15%) and give the remaining population and our natural resources some breathing room.

Staying within the purview of immigration and naturalization, I will also rescind a few other things. Among these are the Immigration Act of 1965, which inverted the 90% European immigrant allocation in favor of the third world. We need more scientists, engineers, machinists, farmers and so on, not a glut of landscapers and drywallers.

Also to be deleted is chain immigration, where any person coming into the U.S. as an immigrant automatically brings along their entire extended family. In addition, no person will be a natural-born citizen unless both parents are citizens first. And no person who is not a citizen, except those few allowed to be here legally, will be eligible for any publicly-funded services or assistance, including education, medical care or housing. We're not the world's daycare center.

Last on the list, but also important, will be the ending of dual-nationalities. You can be a citizen of this country or another, not both, and you must choose by age 21. No exceptions.

Naturalized citizenship will require a residency period of 10 years and approval by the State of residence.

In keeping with American norms, English will be the official language and the only one allowed to be used for any government services. No more "Press 1 for English" at the DMV. All remaining non-English speaking immigrants will be placed into intensive English classes and will not be allowed to apply for citizenship without fluency. Failure to complete classes will earn a trip back home.

Persons wishing to reside in this country will be required to have work in place and interim financial means to support themselves.

Finally, no one will be allowed to enter the country without an extensive medical examination. We have been subjected to many previously unknown diseases, such as Chaga's, as well as treatment-resistant tuberculosis and others. No one with any permanent transmissible disease will be allowed in.

These actions should solve most of the problems we face with immigration today. There will be some fine-tuning, but on the whole, this will greatly improve the liveability of our land and take a great deal of tension out of day to day life here.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

MommySpace Knows Best, Children

Yesterday, in a Myspace bulletin, I attempted to post this link to a Yahoo article entitled YouTube criticized over Neo-Nazi clips, about the efforts by jewish groups in Germany to censor, via lawsuit, YouTube-Germany for posting some videos which the groups claim, as they usually do in the face of opposition, "incite hatred". I made the mistake of including that link as a clickable reference. I included some questions about the content of the article, the buzzwords used, and the utter lack of any substantive proof behind almost all of the claims listed. This is essentially what I wrote (with the Yahoo piece above added as a clickable link):

Video-sharing Web site YouTube has met with harsh criticism in Germany for hosting clips that incite racial hatred, according to a news report due to be broadcast on German public TV late on Monday.
Do these clips incite hatred, or are they expressions of anger by the people posting them? Who are the people "incited" to "hatred"? "Hatred" of whom?

More than 60 years after the Holocaust, Germany is grappling with a rise in support for Nazi ideas. Neo-Nazi violence in Germany has reached its highest level since reunification in 1990.
What are "Nazi ideas"? Do "Nazis" include only sieg-heiling, goose-stepping Hitlerites, or also people who, for instance, protest the unchecked invasion of Europe by non-White, non-European people, or are perhaps tired of their nations being ruled by aliens? Are "Nazis" only National Socialists, or are they really just White people who retain racial self-identity and refuse to be cowed? Who is measuring such violence, and how is it determined that it's "Neo-Nazi"?

And who is more dangerous? "Neo-Nazis" who may get into a few fights or even cause a few fatalities on an individual basis, or a group of fascistic zionists who place Israel at the center of the American foreign policy, start unprovoked wars with their neighbors which have killed over 4000 young Americans, routinely kill Palestinian children, and then hide behind anti-Semitism and the holocaust stories when called out? Who is more a threat to freedom, those who speak out against destructive politics, or those who censor them?

That's all. Nothing new or earth-shattering, just some questions about the content and phrasing of the article.

Myspace, or as I prefer to call it, "MommySpace", has implemented a system of link replacement called "MSPLinks", ostensibly to deter spammers. Whenever a web link is emplaced in a page, bulletin or blog entry, their system automatically replaces the link with an internal reference link. This does nothing at all to inhibit spam, which is everywhere prevalent on MommySpace. What it does do is give the MommySpace censors the ability to automatically restrict the links and prevent their distribution.

In my case, said bulletin was never posted for public view, and was internally deleted, and I got a familiar "YOUR ACCOUNT HAS BEEN PHISHED!" notice, requiring a password change. This is never a coincidence, because in my case it's almost never a real possibility. The only way an account can be "phished", or taken control of, is if a user logs into a phony shell site with an interface that LOOKS like the Myspace login page. Once the duped user enters login and password info, the phisher has access to their page and can post bulletins, etc. with links to the phisher's website and so on. Phished pages do happen, but they're rare. And in most cases, Myspace never notifies the truly phished users of anything.

Several people have had bulletins, blogs and posted links removed because they were anathema to MommySpace's ultra-Leftist, New World Order mindset. For instance, I had previously received the "PHISHED!" notice after attempting to post an article about Myspace's refusal to work with authorities in catching child predators who use the service. One guy even posted a video on YouTube about their practice of censoring Ron Paul supporters by the use of the phony phishing scheme:

MommySpace prefers its subjects to be dumb, happy and fascinated by Lindsay Lohan and the latest emo bands. Its primary purpose is to garner revenue for News Corp., and its principal, Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch, a megamillionaire of jewish descent who's based in Australia, despises anything that puts a stick in the spokes of the One World government schemers. He and his minions will do anything required to prevent the dissemination of information harmful to his aims, his companies' revenue streams, and his political and ethnic kindred. The MommySpace censors will delete profiles which contain no TOS violations, and leave untouched many which do, all on the basis of political content.

All I can say, in the most free speech I know, is...FUCK 'EM!

Monday, August 20, 2007

The 'W' Word

Imagine that you are an archaeologist. You work alone in a remote dig, and have found a new piece of pottery within a pile of debris. You are impressed by its unusual color and size. But mostly, you are puzzled. It has a handle of some sort, but too small and close to the object to be of much use. There's a small, oval, lipped opening on one side which could be a spout, but might be something else. It's not flat-bottomed, so it can't stand on its own. In short, you have no word available to describe your find.

Words are the only means which humans have to convert thoughts into interpersonal communication. They are based on shared human experience. Anyone who has seen the pet animal we call a "dog" knows what that word represents. But a "dog" might also mean a man without scruples, a physically unattractive woman, or a hold-down clamp on a machine. We further employ context to sort all this out, and this happens automatically in our minds.

So if, in the case of our pottery, we have no means to communicate what our item is, it is at least a physical item which we can photograph, make sketches of, or otherwise prove the existence of by some visual means. This is done all the time with newly discovered tangible items.

But how can we communicate an idea which is completely ethereal, if the word to describe that idea doesn't exist?

In today's world, political correctness has been gaining ground since perhaps the 1960's. Recently, in a media-saturated and rather juvenile display by some public persons, including the mayor of Chicago, Kwame Kilpatrick, the "N-Word" was "buried". The people involved symbolically ended the use of the word, although presumably excluding Black rappers, who would largely be unemployed were they so restricted in their speech. As we know, it's ok when Blacks call Blacks "nigga", but woe betide any non-Black person who does so.

In 21st Century AmeriKwa, the First Amendment only protects those whom the political elite says it does.

For non-White people in this land and elsewhere, taking pride in one's heritage and one's people, their accomplishments and achievements, is strongly encouraged. A film which expands upon this concept is "Whale Rider", about a Maori tribal group in New Zealand. The movie centers around the group's customs, traditions and history. The interconnectedness of the group with its ancestors is emphasized. It's a beautiful story, well produced and engaging. It's a story line which should be available to all people of all nations. But it's not.

White people face a new problem in the modern world, one not encountered before. The means for a White man to express pride in his origins, his people, his race, are being curtailed. This takes various forms, but the most insidious involve restrictions on speech.

Putting the words "White" and "pride" (or may the heavens forbid, "White" and "power") together in a sentence generally results in a rabidly negative reaction from the authorities and their supplicants among the sheeple. One may, in certain contexts, be "proud" to be Irish (on St. Patrick's Day), Italian (on Columbus Day, although Columbus is being rapidly denigrated), German (during Oktoberfest, but nowhere else) and so on. But on a racial level, one is completely forbidden to express any kind of positive feelings.

Because of this, young White people are faced with a quandary. If they are unable to freely and properly express a love of, pride in, or respect for their race under any circumstances, what will they do? If the very phrase "White pride" becomes synonymous with "hate", "prejudice", "racism" or some other buzzword, how can they express that emotional concept? If the positive is automatically deemed the negative, what then?

Again, if the words don't exist, how can the thought behind them be transmitted?

What we see instead is, a redirection of "pride" on the part of young Whites. They avoid "White" cultural and social outlets, and become enamored of such venues as rap, or salsa, or hip-hop. They can not express pride in their own people, so they "project" their feelings into areas which are socially and politically acceptable. They take on Black or "hispanic" culture, language and musical taste. They become proponents for non-Whites in general, often assuming direct hostility toward their own People. These are the so-called "whiggers", White youths who no longer relate to being White, and their numbers are increasing. There are even groups, such as "Good Night White Pride", whose often-White membership diligently work to erase any sense of White identity.

The bonds which exist between these young people and those who came before them are broken. They are our future. If they are lost to us, if there is no one to carry on the traditions, the values, the work ethic handed down to us, we are doomed.

We must teach our sons and daughters to be proud of their heritage, exactly as others are taught, and we must never let a small group of troublemakers define what we can or cannot say about ourselves. Those words must never be lost to us.

Saturday, August 11, 2007

Assembling Our Armor

Over the past week, the stock market has begun to show signs of cracking. Over the past few years, banks, in "cooperation" with the Feds, have tried desperately to overcome a problem. The real estate market across the country had cooled down, with the result that prudent banks would have to make changes in their lending policies. Among those changes a savvy money fund manager would emplace would be: lower debt-to-equity ratios, higher interest rates for less-qualified buyers, and so on.

One of the last things careful bankers would do is, drop interest rates and open the market to marginal borrowers. The default and foreclosure rates would skyrocket, and lenders would be left with depreciating paper in a long-term declining market. In the face of this logic, many banks, mortgage companies and other funding sources did exactly that. They did exactly the wrong thing.

So, recently, several have had thousands of mortgage notes fall into their laps, against homes in fringe neighborhoods with no chance of recouping even their basic costs. Lender defaults begin, and the repayment monies are nowhere to be seen. Long-term outlook for these institutions: perhaps near zero.

The Europeans invested in these lunatic ventures. So did the Aussies, Asians and Argentines. Federal and regional banks are pumping money into the system to keep it afloat, which is, as Robert Frenz said, like drilling a hole in your boat bottom to let the bilge water drain out.

Proper economics require a corrective "balancing". It's a zero-sum game: the lenders should, over time, be "allowed" to fail, in stages to lessen the overall impact. Instead, the Puppeteer Class is lulling the populace to sleep by covering the error. When the books are balanced, which they must be, the error must be repaid. That error is now, potentially, in the trillions of dollars.

While all this has been going on, China, which was "directed" into such investments, is more than upset. The Chinese are considering the "nuclear option". Not in terms of missiles, but in terms of currency valuation. If China begins to spend the $US it has accumulated, hundreds of billions will flood the markets. The buying power of each will begin to free-fall. It will be an induced version of the absolute collapse of 1923 Germany. Currency traders will move to Euros. The United Arab Emirates already have, and at least three other countries are thinking of joining them. The Bush administration destroyed Iraq, in part because Hussein rambled about pegging oil to the Euro. Boom.

So what's the outcome? No one can say with certainty. But if the rulers of this land do not change direction, we are going to land face-first on the pavement, and the truck that hit us isn't going to look back.

Because the national regime knows there shall be blood in the water, and don't want it to be theirs, King George has been spending a lot of time making new laws, declaring himself dictator in case of [anything he defines as] a "national emergency". Congress just voted itself a pay raise, and is continuing progress toward a North American Union with Canada and Mexico; more immigrants takes the country's mind off finances. The Supreme Court is mostly standing clear of voting about silly things like Constitutionality of the actions of the other branches.

And while this has been going on, dual Israeli-American citizen Comrade Director Chertoff's merry DHS band have been building detention centers within the U.S. We are told, with a straight face, that the potential residents thereof are illegal aliens. Yes, the ones the government is supporting through education, medical care and in many cases, incarceration for true criminal offenses. The same ones who have rallies with impunity, and seeming immunity from arrest from their violation of existing Federal laws. And oh yes, the ones the Feds haven't even bothered to count.

No, the prospective inmates will be the dissenters, the outspoken ones, the people who might influence others to think. This was the Commissars' policy in their last haunt: the 1930's Soviet Union. It is again arising as the policy of their blood heirs. The purges, pogroms and internments in the gulags gave warning to the general population: dissent equals death. And their immobilization lasted more than half a century.

Our Founders didn't put everything they owned in this world on the line for such a result. We have previously been a People which has resisted tyranny, overthrown oppression and sought personal freedoms. Will we hold fast to those principles before the gates close behind us?

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

It's Simple. Right?

I've been watching a certain video (which shall remain nameless), purporting to have The Answer to every desire of every upright ape on this chunk of rock we call "Earth". I had my doubts from the start, and they were confirmed within a few minutes of pressing "play".

All these self-realization videos, books and lectures have one thing in common. They all simply tell you what's possible. They leave out the percentage of achievement. Otherwise, someone would be missing a financial opportunity. It's an area I, at one time, thought about getting into: whip a crowd into a frenzy, get them to think they're discovering something previously untapped, and sign the book at the exit (with warm regards and a handshake for that new life). $100 a head for the crowd, figure another $40 milked in book and paraphernalia sales, averaging 500 per session, and paying out, say, $3000 for a hall for 2 hours...equals $67,000 in receipts, minus other expenses. Even if I had to get endorsements, my take-home would have been well over $50K for 120 minutes work.

That, my readers, is the real scoop on how to achieve your dreams, IF you have no conscience about the reality that the information, the uplift, the show that you're selling is all available for free. I chose not to take such a route for myself. But some of you might. Hey, the money's good.

Being successful is a combination of many things. Edison said, "Genius is 1% Inspiration, and 99% Perspiration". Persistence is the most common element of success. We have all seen people rise in their chosen field because they become the only one left standing. They don't change jobs much, they show up every day, and they work longer hours spent, not idly, but in practice of and further learning about one's skills.

As we see, another facet of success branches from Persistence, and that is Education. The more you know, the more you can know. True education isn't entirely of the classroom or the text. You have to use what you know as often as possible, to gain proficiency and become expert. To become a better programmer, I didn't just read about code, I wrote it. I learned what commands or compositions worked, and could change and test things. Likewise, you don't get to be a good mechanic by looking at diagrams, nor a good partner in bed by being asexual.

Two aspects of success that could be tied to some metaphysical system remain. The first is Luck. We can define luck as avoidance of obstacles. The higher the percentage, the more "luck" we can assess. Some think we make our own luck; I prefer the thought that synchronicity is tangible and event-driven. If the "event" is you stepping out of your car at the same moment that, directly above, a piano is hurtling from its prior residence on the eighth floor,'s not only tangible, it's fatal. Some have defined luck as the meeting of planning with opportunity. Sometimes, yes, but you can't plan for everything. Elsewise, there'd be no odds at Churchill Downs, nor statements about Iraqis tossing flowers at invasion forces.

The other other-worldly handle on success is Opportunity. Some philosophers divine that we create Opportunity through presence. Unfortunately, financial, spiritual or other Opportunities reside outside my cube for about 9 hours a day. Some we can make up for, so to speak. Others are permanently lost to us. If given the Opportunity to cash in the winning Mega-lotto ticket, I will; yet, I don't expect I'll be in the lottery office to pick up my check presently.

In the end, the only path that leads to success on any level is one that has a Beginning and and End. It's never a straight line, and the outcomes are never guaranteed. One must believe in the successful endgame, but must also be willing to sacrifice time, put forth honest effort, and never assume that it will pan out. The failures will begin to amass in the basement of your life. But if you have your house in order, those failures will never see the light of day again except as reminders of what not to do again.

In conclusion, for no particular reason, I leave you with an anecdotal short story about walking the path.

Many years back, a young man fresh out of school joined a large company with the aim of rising within as high as possible. He was given a minor position which he used as a springboard to achieve greater income and responsibility. Eventually, he had a hand in cost estimation. On one project, he made a mistake in calculation, which cost the company almost a million dollars.

Dejected, he typed up his letter of resignation, and walked to his boss' office to give notice in lieu of dismissal. His boss, seeing him step in, asked him to sit down.

He told him, "I've looked at the week's activities and saw the recent problem. We'll need to play some catch-up next year to even things out. What's next on your schedule?"

The young man was astonished. He thought he'd be forever banished from his dream job, but instead was being prepped to do another project. He said to his boss, "I don't understand...I'm not being fired?"

His boss replied, "Why in the world would I fire you? I just spent a million bucks training you."

The young man immediately regained his confidence. He was grateful for being excused for his error and humbled by the experience. His boss' transformation of the problem into a learning experience enriched him. He vowed to press on and improve everyday. In time, after years of careful work, he became the President of the company.

Persistence, education, opportunity and some luck got him there. And he never sat through anyone's theory on success; he was too busy actually succeeding.

Frith or Famine?

(Originally posted on 21 March 2007)

Yesterday I was asked a legitimate question as a part of an eMail response to another issue. It was, essentially, whether or not I understood the difference between "Folkish", as in the practice of the old Norse faiths, and "racist".

I discussed the Folkish perspective in previous writings, but to reiterate, it is the bond which exists between a people and their deities. It is tied to a land, and the people of that land, through the blood of that people.

In the case of Folkish Asatru, it is the bond between Thorr, Odhinn, Frey, Freyja, Tyr and the other holy ones and the indigenous peoples of northern (and central) Europe and their heirs. It is like the ties between us and our ancestors in the familial sense, stretching down from Ask and Embla to us. Our gods have been there along with us, with our People.

But for me, that wasn't the real issue. I think we're in agreement about folkishness in faith.

The question I need to ask is, do people completely understand the difference between "racism" and "racialism"? If not, please let me give you my point of view.

To be a "racist" means that you hold the blanket opinion that your own people are, in every way, superior to others. It implies domination and control of others, subjugation and inherent violence. I reject that. Each race and ethnicity has strengths and weaknesses. Some are unique, others overlap.

"Racialism" means placing one's own people at the center of one's life in the most positive sense. It is directly akin to feelings about our immediate family. We don't go to school sporting events to cheer for other peoples' kids. We don't love other families as much as we love our own. There is no implication of "hatred" in that. In loving our own families most, we do not disparage the families of others.

In like fashion, as I clearly state on my profile, loving my own Kindred doesn't mean "hating" anyone else's. Our racial group, like ALL racial groups, is a direct extension of our family. All native Europeans and their kin are one people, as are all native Africans, native Chinese and native Arabs.

It all works quite well when we have our own contained spaces in which to live. It works poorly when, as groups, we are forced to live among people whose group goals and survival methodologies are quite different, and often antagonistic (in the sociological sense) to our own. They too, rightfully, are looking out for their children, their families and their kindred.

Where our goals and theirs diverge and become diametric, there is conflict. In my opinion, there is only one peaceable remedy for that frictional interaction, and that is physical separation. Neutral corners, if you will. Good fences, as the poet Robert Frost said, make good neighbors.

I hold no malice toward most people, as individuals. However, in group dynamics, I must and will support the survival, advancement and security of my own People first. If we do not look after our own, surely we can not expect others to do it for us.

So, while I respect the spectrum of perspectives on racialist thought which those of our People may hold, a "folkish" faith, to me, requires a racialist foundation.