I've always been one of those people who never remembers their dreams. I sleep like a rock and sometimes snore like a bear, but the little movies that run through my mind don't seep into my conscious thoughts upon waking. Last night was different.
The dream I had was chilling because it played out within completely normal life circumstances. It was also fearsome because it's actually happening right now, slowly, inexorably and, unless we completely change course, permanently.
It was a weekend or holiday, because it was mid-day and I wasn't working. I was out taking a relaxed walk on the street near my apartment, enjoying the sunshine. But something was very wrong. I couldn't put a finger on it. Then it hit me. There were almost no people on the street. The thought came over me that I needed to get off the street, to hide somewhere out of view.
I ran behind a small building near the local canal, squatting low among the adjacent shrubbery which was beginning to show new Spring growth. As I looked out, a truck rolled by, filled with National Guardsmen followed by another slightly smaller truck with cops in the bed. The second truck was towing a trailer. All the men were wearing riot gear and fully armed. There were also cops hanging on the sides of the cab, looking down the streets.
They approached the house across from me, stopped, and several ran up to the front door. A cop with gray hair knocked on the door, and an older woman answered. She was asked to step outside, and as she did, she was taken by the arm to a school bus and put aboard. Next, an old man came to the door, the cop said something to him, and he was also taken away. A small group of men went inside, and came back out with a shotgun, some papers and a cardboard box. I heard the senior military officer say to the old man, "You are charged with violation of the Weapons Act."
I took a back route back to my apartment, and when I got there, I knew I had to get my things and get away from there. There were two young people in the parking lot loading their car with bags. I turned on the TV and there were news reports of mass "anti-terrorism" arrests, including searches and arrests for possession of firearms in the New York metro area following "FBI infiltration of a White supremacist organization with ties to al-Qaeda". The news said the Feds had a huge list of people who were involved and were finding them, and taking them to six Federal detention centers. All of the people being arrested on the video were White.
Neither of the news anchors were White. None of the cops or Guardsmen I'd seen in the trucks were White. I put together a bag with my most valuable possessions. I loaded that into my car along with my toolbox and guns, and drove out of my complex. None of the people I passed on the street were White; almost all were Latino and Indian. On the radio, there was a report that a small nuclear bomb had been found in lower Manhattan, and a second in Union City, NJ. Scientists were attempting to disarm them. Rumors of neo-Nazi involvement was interspersed. Roads across northern New Jersey were jammed, said the radio. My knuckles were white from gripping the wheel.
I veered off onto a side road and knew I was going to need a different vehicle to get out of the area. I parked my car in a lot, quickly removed the license plates and pried off the VIN plate. There was an Indian couple nearby, sitting in their Hummer H3. I made an instant decision. I walked over, pulled out my pistol and commandeered the truck. My first thought was to get as far north as possible, and to take as many off-road routes as possible. I was shaking from the adrenaline rush, trying to avoid authorities, trying to figure out the right way to go, and saw distant flashing lights in my rearview mirror. I woke up bathed in sweat.
I took a long shower, then sat on my couch, thinking about the dream. Completely coincidentally, I saw an advertisement in an open "Wired" magazine talking about the expanding world population. We will have, said the ad, 70 million more people added to the world's population EVERY YEAR. And I thought about the projection that the total world population will be NINE BILLION in another 30 years. Of that increase, almost ALL of will be non-White.
The floodgates of White nations of the world have been opened to uncontrolled Third World immigration. White people aren't pouring into China, India, Africa, Indonesia or Mexico. But the reverse, as we all know, is certainly true. China could send out a contingent equal to the total population of the U.S. and STILL have over a BILLION people at home. Ditto India.
We are merely eight percent (8%) of the entire human population. Until recently, we were largely unaffected by the fact of our dwindling numbers, because we lived within land areas comprised almost entirely of our own kindred. While this was in effect, our numbers relative to the rest of the planet were inconsequential. We largely ignored the outside world.
The problem, the 800-lb. gorilla in the living room, the point that no reporter or politician or even White activist can or will express, is simple. The goal of the powers in charge, the zionists, the New World Order, the far Left, the internationalists, is to equalize the White population ratio in EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH. They want every country to contain no more than 8% White people. Once that's achieved, we will be further isolated, divided, reduced, worn away, and absorbed by the non-White masses until we are gone. Period.
This is the reason behind "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws which are ONLY directed at Whites. This is the reason behind the lumping of Latino and other non-Whites into the "White" perpetrator category in DOJ crime statistics, but not in the victim category. This is the reason for the celebration of Black majority takeover in South Africa, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Congo and Kenya, while at the same time decrying White majority opinion in Europe. It's the reason for the increasing torrent of portrayals of interracial relationships on TV and in films. It's why the strict immigration policies of the nations of Mexico, China, India and Israel are lauded, but any attempt to restrain immigration of non-Whites into Europe is condemned. It's why, according to the media, White history is filled with racists and genocidal maniacs, while Black history translates into an entire month of celebration. It's why Mexicans who have no legal right to be in the U.S. can hold mass demonstrations against the country they've invaded, while White Americans are considered criminals and smeared if they gather to promote their own cause.
We are having everything we've achieved stripped from us, every law we've created to protect our Rights torn away, and every land in which we live swarmed over. While this is going on, the White middle-class wordlessly worries and frets and does absolutely nothing to change it.
Soon enough, I think, my nightmare will begin to play out. Whites will become targets, simply because they are White. This has already happened in Africa and South America. It will also begin to happen in North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and wherever else we exist in numbers. It will accelerate. It will be fueled by the media. The power elites, the traitors to their own People, will isolate themselves, and the rest of us will pay the cost through our total destruction.
I am not going quietly into that long night, my Friends. The time to act is already upon us. The machinery for our destruction has been put into operation. What will you do? Will you stand and live, or lie down and die?
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Twenty Miles From Afar And Closing
In the past few days, I've read a lot about the front-running Presidential candidates. I number those at 3: Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama and John McCain.
Sen. Hillary Clinton: a checkered past involving S&L collapses, money laundering and possible assorted "hits" (Vince Foster, et al), the Senator "from" New York, is now lagging in polling. Maybe Americans have had enough of the Bush and Clinton families. Supports naturalization of CrimMigrants, including those, mostly Asian, who've violated H1-B visas. Accepts large donations from AIPAC (America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel PAC) and has spoken at their national meetings. She has lost much of her appeal at the polls, perhaps in part due to her crying incident, but who knows why? She will, I believe, be out of the running unless the media sells her harder.
Sen. Barack Obama: half-Black African, half-White. Currently supports most of the same things Clinton does. Wants to allow women to make their own decisions about partial-birth abortion. That would allow abortion at the point where we're dealing with viable human beings, and murder. He would "confront" China on our massive debt, on which they're holding most of the paper (if China calls in our debt, we go bankrupt, period). He wants something called "class-based" affirmative action, not just the race-based kind (although he insists he's for "equal rights" while supporting race-preferential programs). In other words, he wants everyone to have the same amount of income.
There are two ways to do that. You can "bring up" the lower income brackets (which are disproportionately non-White), and this idea has been trotted out in a dozen different suits, from Head Start to "No Child Left Behind". No possibility of success. Or, you can bring the upper echelons down. This can be done primarily through preferential or punitive taxation. Certain industries not in line with the President's policies get hammered, others, perhaps owned by certain individuals, get a boost. And of course, all the (disproportionately White) neo-Yuppies in their McMansions get crushed, in plummeting real estate prices, escalating property tax and personal credit costs, rising utility and toll costs, and so on.
Sen. John Sidney McCain: called "Insane McCain" by more than a few. McCain was by all accounts a pilot who stayed on course right into anti-aircraft fire. He was captured, with broken arms, and subjected to years of confinement and apparent torture. There are many veterans organizations which oppose McCain's candidacy, which seemed a strange thing until one reads the negative accounts of several of his co-captives. Be that as it may, it's witness testimony from potentially hostile witnesses and thus not a reason for me to be deterred.
What does deter me is McCain's history of serious waffling, his affiliations with Democrats on bad legislation, and his support of the continuation of the War Without End in Iraq. Soon, we should say under a McCain administration, to include Iran? Yes, it will. Then we can square off with the Russians over their primary source of foreign oil becoming an American domain.
John McCain changes his mind about important issues more often than a "vid-iot" changes cable channels. For a good look at his political bipolar disorder, check YouTube.
McCain has also sponsored legislation to limit free political speech (McCain-Feingold), and has worked with Ted Kennedy on three versions of an Amnesty bill to benefit the 20-30 Million CrimMigrants. If the government included them in their public publications, the population would officially be 330 Million, of which 45 Million would be "legal" hispanics*, and 30 Million more would be the illegal invaders. That places the physical hispanic percentage of the population at almost 23% right now. It also readjusts even the generous FedGov allocation of 65% White populace to 59% overall (we know that most Asians and almost all Blacks are legal citizens, so their numbers remain the same).
In 1964-65, a lying Ted Kennedy told America that reversing the immigration ratio from 90% European, 10% other nations, would not change the demographic makeup of the country. All three current mainstream candidates support naturalization of 20-30 million people, an unearned reward to those who broke the law coming here, with the support of "your" government and business community. All three of them support continued involvement in the undeclared War.
One candidate doesn't support any of this bullshit. However, the time for that candidacy is passing. So, a note on the Ron Paul candidacy.
Dr. Paul is the choice of many people of all political backgrounds. His pro-Constitution position, which should be the norm for anyone who considers his (or her) self competent to be the leader of the United States of America, endears him to freedom-loving voters.
However, Dr. Paul's personal priority is not in winning this particular election. He has stated, and continues to, that he will not, under any circumstances, run as an independent, or third-party, candidate. He will not leave the Republican party, so he can continue to run for Congress in his Texas home district. This means, to me, that Dr. Paul would prefer to retire from service to our country as a humble, and well-liked, Representative. Certainly, Dr. Paul has earned this, and at 72 years of age may have no desire to end his campaign as a thoroughly beaten candidate in the final contest in November. He lags behind the media-fueled mainstream contenders, and is a victim of the American fool's mentality of believing in backing a "winner".
Because Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination, because not enough voters will write him in on the Republican ticket, because he will not abandon the Republicans, and because he's a realist, Ron Paul is already finished.
But there IS something we can ask Dr. Paul to do. We can ask that he nominate his successor in the fight, a younger Constitutionalist who is not tied to the G.O.P., and can run on a third-party ticket. Maybe someone in their 40's, with a good deal of life experience but plenty of energy left. If this generation's greatest champion of the magnificent legacy of our Founders, and beloved elder statesman, put his imprimatur on someone, we'd know that person had the country's best interests in mind.
So, at this point, I would urge the good doctor to pass the torch. It would give the country time to get behind the new bearer of those true, Constitutionally-correct ideas and practices. That person could carry on the battle of Order over Chaos, and confront the pretenders to the Oval Office on both issues and conduct.
Maybe, just maybe, we could save the country for those who follow us, and make politics a more honest, forthright, benevolent and selfless endeavor. OK, one out of two is fine.
Note: "Hispanic" is a weasel-word of the Feds which avoids classifying Mexican tribesmen or mestizos (mixed Asiatic (AmerInd)-European blood) as a separate racial group, even though every American of any race understands that they are. Instead, they are "placed" in one or another group. Therefore, a pure Mexican national can call himself "White" although he has no European ancestry. This concept was preceded by a similar inclusion of Arabs, jews and gypsies in the Census Bureau's "White" classification criteria. It's also a good reason why Whites are not called "European-Americans" anywhere in official literature; to do so would admit that near-Eastern Asiatics are not "White" by definition.
Sen. Hillary Clinton: a checkered past involving S&L collapses, money laundering and possible assorted "hits" (Vince Foster, et al), the Senator "from" New York, is now lagging in polling. Maybe Americans have had enough of the Bush and Clinton families. Supports naturalization of CrimMigrants, including those, mostly Asian, who've violated H1-B visas. Accepts large donations from AIPAC (America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel PAC) and has spoken at their national meetings. She has lost much of her appeal at the polls, perhaps in part due to her crying incident, but who knows why? She will, I believe, be out of the running unless the media sells her harder.
Sen. Barack Obama: half-Black African, half-White. Currently supports most of the same things Clinton does. Wants to allow women to make their own decisions about partial-birth abortion. That would allow abortion at the point where we're dealing with viable human beings, and murder. He would "confront" China on our massive debt, on which they're holding most of the paper (if China calls in our debt, we go bankrupt, period). He wants something called "class-based" affirmative action, not just the race-based kind (although he insists he's for "equal rights" while supporting race-preferential programs). In other words, he wants everyone to have the same amount of income.
There are two ways to do that. You can "bring up" the lower income brackets (which are disproportionately non-White), and this idea has been trotted out in a dozen different suits, from Head Start to "No Child Left Behind". No possibility of success. Or, you can bring the upper echelons down. This can be done primarily through preferential or punitive taxation. Certain industries not in line with the President's policies get hammered, others, perhaps owned by certain individuals, get a boost. And of course, all the (disproportionately White) neo-Yuppies in their McMansions get crushed, in plummeting real estate prices, escalating property tax and personal credit costs, rising utility and toll costs, and so on.
Sen. John Sidney McCain: called "Insane McCain" by more than a few. McCain was by all accounts a pilot who stayed on course right into anti-aircraft fire. He was captured, with broken arms, and subjected to years of confinement and apparent torture. There are many veterans organizations which oppose McCain's candidacy, which seemed a strange thing until one reads the negative accounts of several of his co-captives. Be that as it may, it's witness testimony from potentially hostile witnesses and thus not a reason for me to be deterred.
What does deter me is McCain's history of serious waffling, his affiliations with Democrats on bad legislation, and his support of the continuation of the War Without End in Iraq. Soon, we should say under a McCain administration, to include Iran? Yes, it will. Then we can square off with the Russians over their primary source of foreign oil becoming an American domain.
John McCain changes his mind about important issues more often than a "vid-iot" changes cable channels. For a good look at his political bipolar disorder, check YouTube.
McCain has also sponsored legislation to limit free political speech (McCain-Feingold), and has worked with Ted Kennedy on three versions of an Amnesty bill to benefit the 20-30 Million CrimMigrants. If the government included them in their public publications, the population would officially be 330 Million, of which 45 Million would be "legal" hispanics*, and 30 Million more would be the illegal invaders. That places the physical hispanic percentage of the population at almost 23% right now. It also readjusts even the generous FedGov allocation of 65% White populace to 59% overall (we know that most Asians and almost all Blacks are legal citizens, so their numbers remain the same).
In 1964-65, a lying Ted Kennedy told America that reversing the immigration ratio from 90% European, 10% other nations, would not change the demographic makeup of the country. All three current mainstream candidates support naturalization of 20-30 million people, an unearned reward to those who broke the law coming here, with the support of "your" government and business community. All three of them support continued involvement in the undeclared War.
One candidate doesn't support any of this bullshit. However, the time for that candidacy is passing. So, a note on the Ron Paul candidacy.
Dr. Paul is the choice of many people of all political backgrounds. His pro-Constitution position, which should be the norm for anyone who considers his (or her) self competent to be the leader of the United States of America, endears him to freedom-loving voters.
However, Dr. Paul's personal priority is not in winning this particular election. He has stated, and continues to, that he will not, under any circumstances, run as an independent, or third-party, candidate. He will not leave the Republican party, so he can continue to run for Congress in his Texas home district. This means, to me, that Dr. Paul would prefer to retire from service to our country as a humble, and well-liked, Representative. Certainly, Dr. Paul has earned this, and at 72 years of age may have no desire to end his campaign as a thoroughly beaten candidate in the final contest in November. He lags behind the media-fueled mainstream contenders, and is a victim of the American fool's mentality of believing in backing a "winner".
Because Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination, because not enough voters will write him in on the Republican ticket, because he will not abandon the Republicans, and because he's a realist, Ron Paul is already finished.
But there IS something we can ask Dr. Paul to do. We can ask that he nominate his successor in the fight, a younger Constitutionalist who is not tied to the G.O.P., and can run on a third-party ticket. Maybe someone in their 40's, with a good deal of life experience but plenty of energy left. If this generation's greatest champion of the magnificent legacy of our Founders, and beloved elder statesman, put his imprimatur on someone, we'd know that person had the country's best interests in mind.
So, at this point, I would urge the good doctor to pass the torch. It would give the country time to get behind the new bearer of those true, Constitutionally-correct ideas and practices. That person could carry on the battle of Order over Chaos, and confront the pretenders to the Oval Office on both issues and conduct.
Maybe, just maybe, we could save the country for those who follow us, and make politics a more honest, forthright, benevolent and selfless endeavor. OK, one out of two is fine.
Note: "Hispanic" is a weasel-word of the Feds which avoids classifying Mexican tribesmen or mestizos (mixed Asiatic (AmerInd)-European blood) as a separate racial group, even though every American of any race understands that they are. Instead, they are "placed" in one or another group. Therefore, a pure Mexican national can call himself "White" although he has no European ancestry. This concept was preceded by a similar inclusion of Arabs, jews and gypsies in the Census Bureau's "White" classification criteria. It's also a good reason why Whites are not called "European-Americans" anywhere in official literature; to do so would admit that near-Eastern Asiatics are not "White" by definition.
Monday, February 4, 2008
StereoTripe
Last night, while listening to the radio on the drive home, I heard someone talking about the use of stereotypes and how abhorrent it was. However, during the same talk, the same guy disagreed with a caller regarding one group. He said that the stereotype in that case was "all in fun". The group was White people in the rural South, the so-called American "rednecks".
Why, I wondered, is it OK for the media to blatantly abuse that particular group?
Southern Whites are descended from mostly Scots-Irish immigrants who were not welcome on the English-noble-controlled Irish plantations except as indentured servants or laborers. They came to the colonies and found that things here were in many ways a reflection of their homeland, so they retreated to the wilds of the Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky. They managed to build homes, plant crops, raise families and live their lives with a Bible in one hand and a long gun in the other. They faced hostile native tribes and wild animals with equal resolve. And they did all this without any help from the outsiders in the more urban areas, simply asking to be "let alone". Over time, of course, their isolation was broken.
These people were, to outside standards, "uneducated". Yet, they had a deep understanding of, and appreciation for, the land they lived on. They made an art form out of "making do". They were not "book smart", but were intelligent enough to operate a very viable and vibrant society in a marginal part of the frontier. They generally lived under a strict moral system with very well-defined limits of acceptable behavior.
So, why the hostility which extends to this very day? In large part, it's two-fold. First, the Southern people (or "Southrons") are vehemently independent. They don't meld easily into the prevailing mentality emanating from the North or the West. They maintain their own counsel, and don't need outsiders. So this creates a negative reaction in those who would impose themselves. That negativity has already expressed itself in the form of an unConstitutional "civil" war started by the imperialist Lincoln and his Northern mercantilist cohorts.
But more importantly, they are not city-dwellers, steeped in liberal academia, but rather are rural ultra-realists about everyday life. And this infuriates the cosmopolitan, internationalist Leftists, especially those of jewish extraction, who thrive on opening borders, flooding the locals with foreign influences and destroying local sovereignty. The Southrons, with their history of resistance, represent a nail for those urbanites to hammer down.
But that's not all. This morning, on the Opie & Anthony program on XM, there was a debate about the stereotyping of Italians as mobsters in the New Jersey Lottery's new promotion, called "Bada-Bling!". In this commercial, Sopranos-types tout the new ticket with affected "goon" accents and mannerisms. The members of the show were quick to point out that while "of course" not ALL Italian-Americans are that kind of person, SOME were (or are), and therefore no offense should be taken.
Again, why is it OK for the State of New Jersey to single out one of its largest White ethnic groups for such portrayal?
The first error made by the show's hosts was, the Mafia was never an all-Italian enterprise. Jews made up a huge chunk of the management of the operations. Consider "Murder, Inc.", run by Meyer Lansky, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter and George "Bugsy" Siegel, all jewish. They handled much of the money (of course), and committed many of the bloodiest killings. And today's "Russian" Mafiya is not Russian at all, but comprised almost entirely of Russian jews.
But the Italian element is the one that the jewish-dominated media chooses to put out front, so they carry the load of the stereotypical mobster.
Even allowing for this, how would the media or public react to a lottery promotion involving swindling money-lenders, a la Shakespeare's "Shylock", complete with irritating yiddish accent? Or one portraying Blacks as violent, fast-talking, lazy drug abusers? Or how about one showing Mexicans as low-rider-driving, woman-slapping, hairnet-wearing gangsters?
The point is, the only acceptable prejudicial treatment allowed to the general public involves the denigration of White people, whether in specific socioeconomic or regional groups (like the Southerners), or by ethnicity (Italian-Americans), or by gender (the eternally-stupid White male father portrayed in commercials who is always outsmarted by his wife and kids), or by position (currently, all authority figures in TV shows or commercials are non-White and/or female). The media never airs anything without an underlying agenda. In these cases, that agenda is plain and simple: the denigration and destruction of the White majority as a power base in the Western world.
I'm sick of it, and I want it stopped. Maybe you do, too.
Why, I wondered, is it OK for the media to blatantly abuse that particular group?
Southern Whites are descended from mostly Scots-Irish immigrants who were not welcome on the English-noble-controlled Irish plantations except as indentured servants or laborers. They came to the colonies and found that things here were in many ways a reflection of their homeland, so they retreated to the wilds of the Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky. They managed to build homes, plant crops, raise families and live their lives with a Bible in one hand and a long gun in the other. They faced hostile native tribes and wild animals with equal resolve. And they did all this without any help from the outsiders in the more urban areas, simply asking to be "let alone". Over time, of course, their isolation was broken.
These people were, to outside standards, "uneducated". Yet, they had a deep understanding of, and appreciation for, the land they lived on. They made an art form out of "making do". They were not "book smart", but were intelligent enough to operate a very viable and vibrant society in a marginal part of the frontier. They generally lived under a strict moral system with very well-defined limits of acceptable behavior.
So, why the hostility which extends to this very day? In large part, it's two-fold. First, the Southern people (or "Southrons") are vehemently independent. They don't meld easily into the prevailing mentality emanating from the North or the West. They maintain their own counsel, and don't need outsiders. So this creates a negative reaction in those who would impose themselves. That negativity has already expressed itself in the form of an unConstitutional "civil" war started by the imperialist Lincoln and his Northern mercantilist cohorts.
But more importantly, they are not city-dwellers, steeped in liberal academia, but rather are rural ultra-realists about everyday life. And this infuriates the cosmopolitan, internationalist Leftists, especially those of jewish extraction, who thrive on opening borders, flooding the locals with foreign influences and destroying local sovereignty. The Southrons, with their history of resistance, represent a nail for those urbanites to hammer down.
But that's not all. This morning, on the Opie & Anthony program on XM, there was a debate about the stereotyping of Italians as mobsters in the New Jersey Lottery's new promotion, called "Bada-Bling!". In this commercial, Sopranos-types tout the new ticket with affected "goon" accents and mannerisms. The members of the show were quick to point out that while "of course" not ALL Italian-Americans are that kind of person, SOME were (or are), and therefore no offense should be taken.
Again, why is it OK for the State of New Jersey to single out one of its largest White ethnic groups for such portrayal?
The first error made by the show's hosts was, the Mafia was never an all-Italian enterprise. Jews made up a huge chunk of the management of the operations. Consider "Murder, Inc.", run by Meyer Lansky, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter and George "Bugsy" Siegel, all jewish. They handled much of the money (of course), and committed many of the bloodiest killings. And today's "Russian" Mafiya is not Russian at all, but comprised almost entirely of Russian jews.
But the Italian element is the one that the jewish-dominated media chooses to put out front, so they carry the load of the stereotypical mobster.
Even allowing for this, how would the media or public react to a lottery promotion involving swindling money-lenders, a la Shakespeare's "Shylock", complete with irritating yiddish accent? Or one portraying Blacks as violent, fast-talking, lazy drug abusers? Or how about one showing Mexicans as low-rider-driving, woman-slapping, hairnet-wearing gangsters?
The point is, the only acceptable prejudicial treatment allowed to the general public involves the denigration of White people, whether in specific socioeconomic or regional groups (like the Southerners), or by ethnicity (Italian-Americans), or by gender (the eternally-stupid White male father portrayed in commercials who is always outsmarted by his wife and kids), or by position (currently, all authority figures in TV shows or commercials are non-White and/or female). The media never airs anything without an underlying agenda. In these cases, that agenda is plain and simple: the denigration and destruction of the White majority as a power base in the Western world.
I'm sick of it, and I want it stopped. Maybe you do, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
