Bloghalla

Brother, Can You Spare A Trillion?

2011-07-14T07:01:00.004-04:00

As I write this, the two wings of the One Zioparty are pretending to disagree on the financial elephant in the room: the debt load of the United States of America. As we hear endlessly on the mainstream media (MSM), it's approximately $14.5-trillion. A "trillion" is a "1" followed by 12 zeroes, a million millions.

To put this number in perspective, we can consider the "gross domestic product" of the U.S. In 2010, that number was ~$14.7-trillion. In other words, everything we built or otherwise produced ("goods and services") for the entire year, the output of all 153-million working people in America, produced revenues just slightly higher than what we owe in borrowed money. By itself, this is horrific.

However, there is also interest (usury) constantly accruing on this money. In 2010, we paid approximately $414-billion to cover this additional liability.

The dog-and-pony show we're now seeing in Washington is a reflection of this debt load. The U.S. Treasury has to periodically (biweekly, monthly, etc.) pay out certain obligations. These include the costs of social services, military operations, and...principal and interest on any debt.

There are essentially three ways for the Federal government to cover indebtedness: decrease spending, increase revenues or print more money. Of these, the Feds are always loathe to cut spending, because spending money garners votes (and, for some in government, results in kickbacks).

Increasing revenues involves increasing taxes, and while this can be a political nightmare, there are a LOT of taxes (and fees, which are de facto taxes) imposed by the Feds, and they are often raised quietly. In 2010, Washington collected about $2.16-trillion in taxes, but spent $1.2-trillion over that sum.

Lastly, the Federal government (or actually, its agent, the FED; the Federal Reserve Bank, which is neither a branch of the government, nor does it keep anything of value in reserve), has the unique ability to literally create money out of thin air.

Before 1913, when the Federal Reserve Act was illegally passed by Congress in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the money of the U.S. was backed by, or coined in, gold (and silver). These metals had secure purchasing power by weight, and the number of dollars in circulations was tied to the physical precious metals held in reserve by the Federal government. The paper money issued against those metals was labeled as either silver or gold "certificates", meaning they could be exchanged at any time for a specific weight of those metals.

Today, the "money" in circulation in America carries the label "Federal Reserve Note". A "note" is an instrument of debt. The FED charges the taxpayers $0.02 per paper bill produced, plus interest (the Treasury still coins money, but "street coins" are no longer produced in silver or gold). Because they are not backed by anything but "the full faith and credit of the U.S.", these notes are properly called "fiat money", worthless in themselves. They are the basis of all financial transactions in this country. Since 1900, mainly due to its transformation into fiat currency, the dollar has lost over 98% of its purchasing power.

Right now, Congress and the President are pretending to disagree about increasing the "debt ceiling". The Democrats want to add $2-trillion to the existing debt in order "to meet obligations". The Republicans, in the role of devil's advocate, want spending cuts which match the increase, at which point they will vote to raise the debt. This is where the disconnect comes into play.

Suppose you earn $50,000 per year. Your current debt load is, say, $5,000. You decide you want to buy a used car and increase your debt to $7,500. Your spouse says, fine, but we have to cut our spending by $2,500 to cover the increased debt. This is akin to saying that, yes, we can borrow an additional $2,500, but we will also drop $2,500 from our outlays. So the question that begs asking is, why not just redirect the $2,500 reduction in spending to pay for the car?

The answer, apart from the problem of already taking in less than they spend, is that Congress wants more money to spend now, and wants to pay it back later. That way, they say, we're only obligated to "small" payments over time, but we can cover our "obligations" now. The problem, of course, is not just that we are avoiding current liability, we're increasing future liability, PLUS, based on past performance, the government will continue to do this every fiscal year. They have willing allies in the MSM who are Chicken Little-ing about the devastating consequences of not giving Congress and the President more money.

In fact, the best possible action could be to fail to raise the debt ceiling. If this happens, two cascading results will follow. First, domestic budgetary obligations will still be met, for now, by increasing the money supply (this will further destroy the fiat dollar, but will mildly cushion the coming Crash). Dollars spent within the U.S. will still buy goods (which will continue to increase in price, the consequence of money supply inflation). Checks will still go out. But we will see a rapid decrease in available Federal government programs, either by abolition or offloading them onto the States. This will be politically based, with cuts against groups who are unlikely to vote in large numbers. Eventually, this will include cuts to the bone in "essential" programs, mostly New Deal leftovers like Social Security and unemployment compensation. Soon enough, the U.S. will be plagued by civil unrest leading to internal warfare as businesses shut down, the dollar goes into hyperinflation, and unemployment spikes.

Second, on the world stage, all of the creditor and other nations which continued to lend to the U.S., and/or float their currencies against the dollar (under the remnants of the Bretton-Woods Agreement) will experience meltdown. Economies around the world will collapse, and wars and other violence will break out as those in power scramble to maintain control.

Because we are past the financial tipping point, these things will happen no matter whether or not the debt ceiling is raised. Temporary injections of loan monies will only postpone the inevitable reality of collapse and crash-and-burn. We will be in "interesting times", as the Chinese say. Although I would have preferred to live out my later years in a quiet and secure America like that of 1900, I feel we've dealt with enough anticipation and trepidation, and the time for massive change is at hand, and welcome. Things will get much more difficult before they get better, so it's time to steel ourselves and take the plunge.

"No" to the debt ceiling increase.

Absolute Zero

2010-11-02T08:16:00.010-04:00

Recently, a schism has developed within the body politic of White Nationalism (WN). On one side are those who believe that success can only come incrementally or at least semi-covertly, by disguising one's dedication to, adherence to, or even leanings toward, WN. The reason, they say, is that we are now floating in a sea of expected politically correct behaviors, and being open would subject them and their families to undue scrutiny and subsequent negative effects: social ostracism, potential loss of income, problems with the law, and so on. There's no question that most ostensible Whites do in fact actively seek to remain within the constraints of what's "acceptable", as it's circumscribed for them by the almost entirely jewish-owned mainstream media (MSM).

I am at a stage in my life where I am at the cusp of leaving middle-age behind and being roundly considered "old". In years past, I might, if my mind remained sound, have expected to be elevated to a position of relied-upon sagacity in my family, as an "elder". I would have been expected to impart my lifetime of knowledge, gained through trial, to the younger members of my Folk. And so I do, when asked, which isn't often.

However, one freedom allowed to me now is that I can remove certain encumbrances without derision. I am past the point of "keeping up with the Joneses". I can drive a 10-year-old car with faded paint and it doesn't matter to anyone. As long as I am not a "burden" on anyone, I am free to live what years remain as I please. This has a wonderful side effect as well.

The schism I mentioned earlier has a second side, a side which requires immediate, potentially violent action to correct political mistakes which had already outgrown their usefulness when they were conceived. A side which requires that a majority must never become a pawn of minorities living within its Land. A side which demands that Whites have physical space, political systems and a social standard which promotes and defends the health and future of our local majority. A side which will fight to the death to restore the paradigm which places our Folk first, again.

White people make up less than a tenth of the world's six billion resident hominids. We are very much a minority in planetary terms. That has always been true; even in 1900, those of European descent were less than 1/3 of the world's peoples. In itself, being fewer than others has never been a major obstacle to our Race.

But the problem we face now, on several fronts, is one designed to kill our Folk and drive our memory from this world. Our Lands, White-majority Lands, are being overrun with non-Whites. Our people are being groomed for breeding with other Races, other non-European ethnics. Our history is being perverted and denigrated, pushed toward the scrap heap. And our children are being told, repeatedly, that they, as Whites, are subsidiary to everyone else. Again, this is happening in Lands in which WE are still the majority.

This is not confined to the the former "colonies", the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It is also in full swing in the homelands of our Folk. Open non-White immigration is rampant in Europe. Non-White policies are making Europeans outcasts in their own countries. Sharia laws in Britain, White no-go zones in Gothenburg, Sweden and Rotterdam, Netherlands, criminalization of even the questioning of the orthodoxy of the jewish experience of WW2...these are in place at this moment. A generation ago, Europe was safe, clean and beautiful. I visited much of the continent almost 40 years ago, and it was all of those things. Having come from a multi-racial America, I was amazed and uplifted to see nothing but White faces greeting me.

White Folk are in the midst of a war of conquest, directed by those of a certain Middle Eastern ethnicity which has co-opted our Racial identity. It's being fought under guises of "tolerance", "fairness", and multiculturalist theory. It is waged on the battlefields of religion, education and social norms. Its goal is the wholesale destruction of all things White and European and their replacement by jewish materialism, consumerism, duplicity, spiritual emptiness and absolute political correctness within the purview of neo-Communism. The physical ancestors of these oppressors honed their skills in the Soviet Union, in the 3AM raids on the homes and families of their enemies, in their death squads and political police tactics. Those basic premises have not changed, and we remain in their cross-hairs.

So for my part, I am reducing my material possessions to a minimal level, thus reducing my financial needs at the same time. I am learning to live on less food, in a smaller space, with fewer personal contacts and lowered expectations. The material possessions include my firearms, medical kits, E&E materials and other equipment which can help me make do with very little. I've spent many hours reading through and digesting military texts, survival blogs, and equipment manuals. I've watched hundreds of useful videos. Many hours have also been spent improving my physical capabilities.

One thing I've absorbed is the ultimatum mindset of the Spartans, a life directed toward the possibility of dying valiantly for one's tribe, one's Nation, for a worthy cause and against a worthy opponent. All of our ancestors believed in such a thing as a "beautiful death", a ticket to Valhalla, a chance to feast with other noble warriors forever.

So all of my actions have been toward one purpose: so that when the time is right, when the impending, perhaps final war against the Enemies of the European People begins in earnest, I will be all-in. Nothing left to lose makes me free to fully engage. And in that, perhaps I can, in my small way, offset the White man whose HDTV or ball game on Sunday is more important to him than the future of our Race, and who has already accepted his fate.

Shouldn't We?

2010-04-19T13:08:00.003-04:00

Since the horrific murder on April 3, 2010, of South African AWB Leader, Eugene Terre'Blanche, the Black communist government of South Africa has been "urging calm" (they do have a World Cup audience to fool), while both allowing Black racist Julius Malema to preach a message of killing White farmers (Boers), and doing nothing to stop Black criminals from actually killing Boers. It is clear from everything I am reading (and almost none of it is in the jewish-owned "mainstream" U.S. media, of course) that Whites in South Africa, and in Africa generally, are living with a sword hanging over their heads.

I came across this article yesterday. Fifteen Blacks entered a Boer home, restrained the husband while they subdued and gang-raped his wife (apparently in front of him), [sexually?] assaulted his four year old daughter, then beat the man to death. Nothing was taken from the home, so this was clearly a "hate crime" based on the victims' Race. In South Africa, it's just business as usual. Of course, even if this happened in America, Whites are not protected by "hate crime" laws; non-White U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said so publicly.

As a member of several White Nationalist forums (or, fora) and online groups, one often sees the phrase, "We should...":

"We should vote this guy out!", or "...close the borders!", or "...abolish the FED!", or "...join a Tea Party!", etc., etc.

Well, we are now seeing unrestricted killings of our White Folk in Africa. Zimbabwe, South Africa, parts of Congo, Tanzania and Kenya. The Black governments are in power and the international media is not covering nor condemning it. White people in these places, many of whom have family roots there going back several hundred years, are subject to slaughter on a whim. The perpetrators won't be punished. There is, in Africa, a license to hunt Whites.

So is this enough? Is it a strong enough message to change the word from "should" to "shall"? Is it enough to get White men and women around the world thinking, "My family is being wiped out in South Africa, so I shall help them in any way I can"? Is it enough to spark an armed rebellion against not only the African Blacks killing innocent Whites, but also against the swine who are abetting the genocide against our Boer Kindred, while at the same time, are holding the borders of Europe and the other majority-White lands open to Third World invasion? Are those two acts not simply two sides of the same anti-European mission?

It's no longer, "we should". It's now, "we must". White people talk about "the sh*t hitting the fan", "when we're in the last days", or "when a race war comes...". The fan is thoroughly hit. At just 9% of the world's population and falling, we are potentially in our last years. And as the news of the decimation of the Boers continues to pile up, we are unmistakably in an ominous and deadly war for our survival.

Helping our Race survive by any means necessary, taking any risks necessary, in what may be our final chance to ensure our Racial survival: shouldn't we?

The H-Bomb

2009-06-11T22:00:00.014-04:00

Since the Holocaust Museum attack, the media is referring to the shooter, James von Brunn, as a "hard core Holocaust denier." He surely is, by his own words. But...

There are two questions which need to be asked at this point. First, why is the "denial" of any event which belongs to the early 1940s a taboo? And second, what difference does it make if any single person does or does not believe that the Holocaust happened, or that it was as large an event as we are led to believe? In other words, why must every living person unquestioningly accept what's told, as told? In particular, why every White person?

The problem is, in many places around the world, it is a crime, punishable by imprisonment and heavy fines, to even question the details of the official Holocaust story. Often referred to as "defaming the memory of the dead", it places the jewish Holocaust in the unique position of being the only event in history that even professional historians can't fully examine, or at least can't publish upon, unless their conclusions support the orthodox story. That is intolerable.

So, we have reached an impasse, those of us who believe in completely free political speech when backed by fact, and those who believe in repressing speech and the free exchange of ideas and information. Yet the questions remain and continue to be asked, as the censors seek new ways to disconnect us from the real audience: the people around the world who are, voluntarily or not, giving money and other assistance to the Middle Eastern country whose very "right to exist" completely hinges on the Holocaust's largely oral history. In light of that, I will say that if I can be persuaded of the truth by logical means, I will be first in line to condemn the Germans who perpetrated the crime (but not their children) and first to show solidarity with those who suffered (but not their children, either).

To that end, I have a few requests.

Give us a list of the names, please. All six million. Not the 1919 six million, who didn't actually die anymore than the Kaiser's troops skewered Belgian newborns on bayonets, or made soap from their own war dead. No, the real ones, even the 2.5-million that vanished from the Auschwitz plaque in '89. We'll just assume a rounding error.

Choose the cause of death from among crushing hammers, electrified grids, diesel exhaust, vaporizing guns, steam blasting, or gas chambers. Wait...nevermind; just gas chambers. No, just gas chambers not in Germany. Forget the Nuremberg executions of those camp officers who didn't run the death camps that didn't exist in Germany. They were probably responsible for the Katyn Forest massacre of Polish officers anyhow! Oops, no, those were the Soviets. Good thing they finally owned up to it, even though it took a good while.

Deaths from battlefield crossfire, aerial bombardment, disease and starvation don't count in the totals. Nor do legitimate wartime executions of groups of spies, collaborators or saboteurs. Piles of hair don't indicate homicide, nor do shoes, but they do indicate shaving lice-infected scalps and issuance of uniforms. Even photographs of stacks of bodies, taken in winter when they couldn't be buried, only proves that people, perhaps they were jews, died; not how, when or where.

Show us real, original blueprints for a single killing chamber that was actually used in a prison camp to massively kill humans, not typhus-carrying body lice on inmate bedding. Just one. The Germans, who have a well-earned reputation for precision and efficiency, would surely have created many such examples. Those areas marked "showers" on German diagrams would certainly have had wooden doors, soap trays, shower heads and running water, but probably not gassing ports in the ceiling. Those compartments on the camp plans which are marked gaskammer, or "gas chamber", are usually big enough to fit several dozen blankets, but not dozens of people.

Provide us with cyanide samples from the alleged killing rooms. Cyanide staining lasts for many decades, and is easily traced. You can borrow Fred Leuchter's independently verified wall samples if no one will let you collect your own from the camps.

Provide us with public forensic autopsies done on a random sample of "death camp" fatalities, so that we can see the original "Prussian blue" lung stains of condensed cyanide from gassing. Original, not staged or faked. Original, like Mr. B. Hussein Obama Soetoro's Aloha State COLB "birth certificate" is not.

Look, here's an exercise. Suppose you got news that you lost 10 relatives in a plane crash. But then, years later, you find out that 8 survived. Wouldn't you feel relief, maybe exhilaration, that you hadn't lost as many family members as you'd thought? Sure, two died, but plane crashes are awful things. Just like wars are.

Sometimes things didn't happen like you remember they did. Sometimes your mind fills in the blanks, and the story takes a turn. Sometimes you just hate the enemy so much you'll say anything about him, no matter how untrue or exaggerated. Sometimes you're just tired and hungry and you'll concoct anything to get a meal or a bed.

In the end, as thinking beings with a lust for knowledge, we can't blindly accept that the official Holocaust story can't be questioned in any aspect. We also need to know why those who guard it so zealously, work to come down so hard on those who ask those questions. What brings about that insecurity? We'd like to think stereotypes about those involved are wrong, and it's not really about money or crass political power, or some desire for mind control. That would be a tyranny of the minority. We all know in our bones that Political Correctness has been wrong in a Constitutional Republic from Day One, so that's not what you're pushing, right?

Until every White person who calls this planet home is no longer denied their Right to ask about this one forbidden thing without threats and reprisals by their various regimes and their media sycophants, while the 1st and 2nd Amendments still have teeth, we in America must do it for them.

Truth from Dr. William L. Pierce

2009-05-12T13:34:00.004-04:00

A White World, Part 1

A White World, Part 2

Other Options

2009-01-19T13:47:00.003-05:00

During a lull in my work activity, I spent some time listening to a YouTube video by a fellow representing a "survival" site, which shall remain nameless. The guy rambled on a bit about his site, and then launched into an impromptu disclaimer. The statement, which I have heard many times on many sites in many forms was, essentially, "this information is presented for entertainment purposes and under no circumstances are we advocating violence", etc. etc.

I stopped the video, because my mind generated a divide-by-zero error.

Any site which claims to be for "survivalists" can not, under any circumstances, be opposed to prudent self-defense. To defend oneself, one can be stealthy and avoid confrontation, it's true. But, in the end, self-defense will almost certainly include the use of violence against one or more opponents. Going one step back in time, this requires both equipment and training for one to successfully remain alive and functional.

A true national emergency can happen due to any one of several circumstances: economic collapse, epidemic, large-scale power outages, external attack, wide-ranging internal terrorist acts, and so on. In such instances, while police lockdown or martial law may be imposed, there is no possible way for government to stem the actions of millions of people at once. As with all attempts at enforcing law, the "authorities" are much better at collecting evidence or rounding up offenders after the fact. This won't save anyone in the interim.

Most self-defense situations during national emergencies will NOT be one-on-one. They will involve groups of varying sizes, from a handful to a small army, preying upon individuals or families and having their way with the hapless victims and their property. Many of those instances will involve gangs or other organized criminals. Most of the victims will not be similarly organized, mainly due to the fact that law enforcement goes after the easy targets (a group of 25 White males conducting drills in the woods with Airsoft guns, deemed a "militia", and oppressed by the cops) instead of the actual severe threats to public order (i.e., the 60,000-strong, Black Gangster Disciples or the 50,000-strong, "hispanic" MS-13 operate pretty freely). Keeping our borders wide open for the easy entry of threats has helped the criminals immensely.

Couple this with the fact that, in many Leftist-controlled jurisdictions, responding with firearms even in defense of one's own life or the life of one's family is a felony. Of course, the criminals, who routinely maim or kill people and are often given little punishment for doing so, don't seem to abide by such trivial laws as those restricting gun ownership.

So, I propose something a bit different, without disclaimers and fretting. You may call me an alarmist, a fool or "Chicken Little". No matter.

I encourage every American citizen, and in particular every White American, to arm himself in any way he possibly can. I also encourage practicing in the use of every kind of firearm, from handguns to rifles to shotguns to bazookas, if you have them. One of the government's big pushes will be to attempt to confiscate all firearms. Never forget the old proverb, "A man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject".

I believe the training you undertake should also include basic anti-personnel devices, long-range shooting, use of edged weapons, basic chemical weaponry, and explosives theory. It should stress teamwork, setting up fields of fire, ambush, lateral assault, and squad tactics. Advance warning indicators, such as perimeter tripwires, motion-detection devices, or even the family dog, should be used to best advantage.

It's also a great idea, in my opinion, to learn everything about your neighborhood from a logistical and tactical point of view, and, if possible, to train with your neighbors to develop an encompassing protection plan for all the families in that neighborhood. Include mapping of your area, vantage points, clear areas, shelters, alternate access routes, etc.

When the bottom falls out and things go haywire, they will deteriorate with blinding speed and your world will change in days. We are in a time of relative peace and quiet now, which cannot and will not last.

As I write this, the Federal Zionist Occupation Government is working overtime to keep the lid on the economy and prevent its collapse under the burden of $10-Trillion of debt it can't support. Money is being printed like so much newsprint, and its value is dropping. The Kenyan Pretender is about to take his chieftain's throne, and has made many promises which neither he nor his handlers can possibly keep while maintaining a viable economy. And from everything I've seen of him, Obama and his crew are nothing if not anti-White in their focus.

So, use the time we have to put together your plan of action. Get away from urban areas, from which most of the violence will emanate. If you are staying put, work to reinforce your position, get to know who among your neighbors you can trust in and rely upon, and get your gear in place. Set up fall-back locations and escape routes. If at all possible, avoid having to go to FEMA, police or military "refugee" (detention) centers. Dissolve into the background and avoid all contact with "authorities" whose primary purpose is to dispossess you of your liberties and place you under their absolute control.

If you are planning a bug-out to a new location, get that place set up now if you haven't already. Otherwise, do not expect that you will be treated any differently than the millions of others who will be reacting by flailing about helplessly after the fact.

Pulling Rabbits Out Of Hats

2008-10-01T19:32:00.010-04:00

In the realm of magic, as Penn Jillette has pointed out, the key elements in getting an audience to believe are willingness to be tricked, and misdirection. When a rabbit is pulled out of a hat, or a baton changed into a dove, no one really believes that such physical transformations happen. Yet, because of the magician's skill and deftness, even when we watch the illusion up-close and step by step, we often have no idea how he fools us.

Tonight, the whoring magicians in the U.S. Senate will very likely overrule the wishes of their nominal constituents, the American taxpayers, and pass a bill handing over the [initial] amount of $700,000,000,000.00 to the Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson. Paulson will, according to the plan, use that money to "free business credit" and "absorb toxic debts" of the major investment banks remaining, and of other institutions. We have been told ad nauseum by the government-scripted, controlled media that it must be passed "for Wall Street or terrible things will happen on Main Street". Seven-hundred-thousand-million dollars, mortgaged against the future earnings of working Americans to pay off bad investments.

Several years ago, I made a choice to put money into a property when I should have walked away. A series of disastrous happenings landed me in front of a municipal court, facing environmental violations which had been accruing for seven months at the rate of $310 per DAY, seven days a week. These fines emanated from an agreement to abate a problem which the contractor reneged on. Three days from the court date, I found a buyer who could handle the abatement and unloaded the property to him. The court agreed to drop the accrued fines which totaled almost $70,000. However, I still lost almost $20,000 over that time. Yet, no one offered to pay off my debt, and no Senator pleaded my case. My bad business decision was mine alone, as it should be.

In the 1980's, a group of banking-type institutions, the Savings & Loans, which had been a backbone of American community finance for almost 100 years, began to get into trouble. As deregulation proceeded, the S&L's, in order to compete with banks, began to extend mortgages to riskier buyers. In the mid-80's, the mortgage market softened, and a chain reaction of failure spread. The American taxpayers were socked with a bill for over $125-billion, and it did not stop the crash. The FSLIC, which was the FDIC for Savings & Loans, was destroyed. In the end, the industry was swallowed by the banks.

During Bill Clinton's presidency, an effort began to get "every person into an affordable house", a ridiculously naive idea by the ridiculously naive Left. The problem was, low-income and no-income people weren't in houses for a good reason: they couldn't handle debt, couldn't hold jobs that paid decent wages, and were almost entirely financially unreliable. There was, in the minds of the social engineers, a solution for this: the Subprime Mortgage, which began to be used in re-urbanization projects in 1994 and gained more traction over time.

Subprime mortgages are those with initial rates below the prime rate banks themselves pay for borrowed money, financed for subprime borrowers, those who would not normally qualify for a home mortgage. The hook is, the buyer can now afford a home, or a home which he couldn't afford under normal circumstances (either in terms of size or neighborhood), and was seen as a way to break minority families into predominantly-White neighborhoods. And for 1 to 3 years, normally, the rate of payment stays nice and low.

There were two assumptions built into these loans. The first was, the buyer would most likely be doing better financially after the pre-adjustment period, and so would be better able to afford a higher payment. The second, which was the backbone of the plan, was that the price of housing, and therefore the equity in one's house, would continue to climb over time. If that happened, a new fixed-rate mortgage could often take over the adjustable-rate note and everything would be normalized.

There was a push by the Clinton Administration to hand out these loans, but the banks were understandably reluctant to do so, having the S&L debacle fresh in their greedy minds. But the government gave them assurances and authorized private mortgage insurance carriers (such as AIG) to handle coverage for the banks, and other government-backed entities (FNMA/"Fannie Mae" and FHLMC/"Freddie Mac") to carry loans directly. The Federal Reserve also agreed to push out funds if banks needed short- to mid-term carrying capital. However, things didn't heat up until 1999, when Clinton made the housing issue a priority and began to pressure banks, taking a page from the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and its favoritism toward low-income minority borrowers.

The banks worked hard to lend as much money as possible under the subprime scheme, and began to open more capital for the program. As this happened, demand for homes began to rise. Housing, which had previously been seen as a fixed asset, began to be viewed as a commodity. Housing began to be played like stocks, and the price began to rise, geometrically in many markets. People also began to borrow against their newfound equity, using their homes as ATMs, which in turn devalued them overall. This added to the boom of the late 90's and into the 21st Century, but took down ownership interest which had built up over years.

By the time of 9/11, the market was so pricey in many locations that buyers were beginning to decrease. However, people continued to believe in the growth factor, so the market remained strong. By 2002-03, most observant economists saw the coming end of the bubble. The market was largely tapped out in terms of growth, and the traditional buyers were thinning. So again, the push was on to get "asses in the seats", to get existing homes sold, and to keep the new construction market pumped. The only way to do that was a massive push to get those otherwise-unqualified buyers in, in record numbers. The insinuation to get these loans made was that, because the vast majority of subprime borrowers were Black and "hispanic", anyone who opposed the idea was "racist".

Meanwhile, the same banks also knew that these loans, which were dependent on escalating housing prices, were doomed to fail. For instance, Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investment banks and former domain of Treasury Secretary Paulson, was playing both sides of the coin. They were modestly selling subprimes while at the same time buying puts (rights to sell stock) in their competitors operations, including Lehman Brothers. They knew enough to know that they needed to hedge their bets and save their tails when the bottom fell out. And they knew it would fall out.

The entire subprime framework was a Ponzi scheme from the beginning, dependent upon impossibly constant gains in housing prices to sustain itself. It was driven to failure with the addition of millions of home buyers who should (and would) never have been given a second look for the money without the Federal guarantees in place.

As the dominos began to fall, as the banks which had (as with the S&L's) extended themselves for the quick dollar began to head for the toilet, so too did the pressure begin to build on the companies which insured those assets, including AIG. The insurors turned to the Federal government and demanded, as per their agreement, that Washington bail them out. In AIG's case, the President, who is disallowed from doing such things by the Constitution which he so disdains, bought ownership rights in the name of the American taxpayers against future gains. The price tag: $85-billion. The Bush people also gave incentives to companies that bailed out some of the failing institutions, such as Wachovia.

The problem was, and is, that there are many other "bets" on the performance of the subprime lending scam, called "derivatives". This is an unregulated market, run by small firms which spread the paper out far and wide. A total of perhaps $55-TRILLION is out there, relying on the continuation of the game. The people who've played these bets are often the same ones who run retirement and pension funds and other "straight" investment operations. The people who run the government know this and are beholden to these money people. The entire U.S. budget for 2008 is about $2.9-Trillion for comparison, so the estimated mortgage-related derivatives equal about 19 times the annual expenditures of the entire country. And the sum of all derivatives markets may involve an inconceivable $1.4-QUADRILLION.

Unfortunately, despite the threats of Wall Street to throw a hissy-fit and crash the market, this bailout is only a temporary respite even if passed in its entirety. To prove this, you may note that the FED just released $630-Billion into the banking economy to keep things afloat (on top of $180-billion last week). That money further erodes the value of the American dollar. China is getting anxious, so is Japan, and both are beginning to attach strings to the billions we borrow from them, most of which is paying for the Iraq conflict our kids are dying in for Israel's benefit, at $15-billion per month.

The foundation of the bailout plan rests on rotten timbers. The housing market bubble, like tech stocks, has passed and won't be back anytime soon. Mortgages in amounts far greater than the market value of the houses they cover are piling up. Borrowers are walking off, new buyers aren't there. We are throwing $700-BILLION into a rat-hole. It will be followed by more demands for more payments we can't make. The stock market will have, perhaps, one last hurrah to allow the swindlers to retrieve what's left of their money. Washington will probably open up bulk gold sales to allow the same bastards to convert their funds and head out of the country.

We are standing on the precipice of the worst economic storm to ever hit the United States, one which will dwarf the Great Depression, one which may completely tear the country apart. The Army has decided to station an Army division within the U.S. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is busy constucting detention centers across the country. Mexico's leadership has stated that they will defend their borders if we try to repatriate illegals. Our European allies, what's left of them, have no sympathy for us. What's coming is almost unimaginably bad. And ALL of the candidates for the White House are in lockstep for the destruction of our country.

The time for preparation is almost over. As a good Christian friend of mine used to say, "The time's coming to get a patch, get a gun, and get right with God". I couldn't agree more. Get together with your friends and family, get as far away from the cities as you can, get supplied, and may the Holy Ones look kindly upon you.

We Feed, They Breed, Etc.

2008-08-14T22:08:00.005-04:00

One thing I've noticed in conversations over the past several weeks has been a growing general sense of unease in people. Some of it is an adverse reaction of White people to the idea of an Obama presidency, but many Whites look at McCain with equal disdain and mistrust. Bush's tyrannical, Executive Order-saturated tenure is, mercifully, coming to a close. The most power-drunk, smug, sanctimonious, condescending, sarcastic and anti-Constitutional adult child ever to hold the highest office in the U.S. is finally heading off into the sunset, and if we ever hear from him again, it'll be too soon.

The American people are facing a coming together of many currents, and each day a different one becomes the priority. The housing market collapse, the fluctuating price of fuel, dizzying gold and silver peaks and valleys, the continuing decline of the dollar, job losses, increasing imbalance of trade, the tensions over Iran, and Georgia's attack of South Ossetia followed by Russia's military response are the headline grabbers that keep people wondering.

But all of these things share a commonality: they are essentially externals. Between 1787 and 1965, the U.S. saw its share of good and bad times, scandals, booms, busts, expansions, wars, and change. But we got through those times, including the worst economic depression ever seen, and came out whole. The main reason had nothing to do with what we had or how we earned a living or the price of a cup of coffee. The "how", the "why" and the "where" were meaningless. It was entirely about the "who". During all those trials, we were a land where 9 out of 10 of us were White people.

Yesterday, I read a new projection, crowed about by the Leftists in the media who want the White race destroyed. It claimed that Whites will no longer be a numerical majority in the U.S. by the year 2042, eight years earlier than previously predicted. It also stated that school-aged White kids are already under the 50% mark, with "hispanics" being the fastest-growing non-White group. Of course, this doesn't mean that Whites will be a minority then, only that we will be a plurality, the largest group among many. However, minority status will not be far behind.

This got me thinking about another tidbit of information I'd seen a few months ago. A demographer did some calculations, taking into account the high birthrate among Mexicans and other "hispanics" living within the United States, and using a figure of 20-million illegal criminal aliens among them. His conclusion was that, even if we closed the border, tight as a drum, at this very moment, "hispanics" would still be a majority by 2050 or so. It would only avoid the 2042 transition for a few extra years. But in fact, the border remains open and pregnant Mexican women come into the U.S. to have their "anchor babies" here and drag their entire family's future into America's.

What effects will a non-White majority have on this land, on our People and our children? It will not be positive, of that I am absolutely certain. Although we are not "allowed", as a Race, to display pride in public, and condemned as "haters" for attempting to do so, other Races hold us responsible for what happened to their people 50, 100 or 300 years ago. We get the blame without any reward. It's a lose/lose situation for European-Americans.

The major "hispanic" movement, "The Council of La Raza" (The Race), is anti-White and anti-American. Its primary goal is the "return" of lands allegedly stolen from Mexicans, and the completion of "Reconquista" (re-conquest). Anyone who thinks that these folks will be level-headed and kind, if they succeed in their plan, is nuts. And several institutions, like Wachovia Bank, have made major contributions to this openly racist group. On the heels of this, we are also being rapidly besieged by such lovely people as the ultra-violent, racist MS-13 gang, which originated in El Salvador*.

So, "hispanics" will be the predominant contenders for power. In spite of their claims, most of the Southwest was held by local, native tribes, not Mexican Indians like the Chihuahuas. They have no "entitlement" to it. And without question, they have exactly ZERO right or claim in any of the Southern, Northwestern, Midwestern or Eastern states.Yet they continue to swarm into those places, lured in by mostly upper-class Whites, people whose avoidance of hard work and emphasis on easy living is now legendary. As with the introduction of slavery into the Colonies, fault for the influx of Mexican CrimMigrants lies in the greed of these White Americans.

Blacks also want us to lose our majority status. In the meantime, they, through their media whores and minstrels like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (you know, the "reverend" who called Obama a nigger and threatened to cut off his balls, to no outcry from the "Black community"?) want more and more from White Americans every year. In the early 1950s, a jewish-created organization called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) used its political connections to force school integration on White Americans. This was needed because "discrimination" prevented Black kids from succeeding. The missing factor was, and remains, that American Blacks test out, on average, in the 85 IQ range, to the White kids 100. This isn't racist propaganda, it's hard science. As I've admitted, White men can't jump, but Black men can't do linear algebra.

However, White America suspended its collective disbelief and integration spread from schools to neighborhoods to churches to politics. During that time, White people came up with what I call "guilt programs": welfare and later AFDC, food stamps, HeadStart, Affirmative Action, racial quotas in hiring and education, reduced fees and college tuition for minorities, free or reduced-cost healthcare...you name it, White people have offered these gifts to Blacks, because we "treated them so awfully in the past". Well of course, slavery is a horrible policy. But after it was over, the children of those slaves had the highest standard of living among non-Whites anywhere in the world.

After all that, White people are now expected to get in line for reparations payments for "our" part in slavery. The fact that not a single living person in the U.S. was ever directly affected by or participated in slavery on either side is no deterrent.

In the end, we are the butt of every negative attitude possible among non-Whites. We are despised by them, hated, targeted. The rhetoric of Obama's Black supporters echoes this. In spite of this, the direction of immigration is always a flow of non-Whites into White countries. If we're so awful, so "racist", why do they want to be among us?

But, what will happen when we're no longer "in charge", when our lands are no longer ours, when we are not leaders but subjects? How might things change?

Let's see...Whites have invented pretty much every object, device and system that makes modern life livable. This runs from conveniences like television, telephones, electric lighting, automobiles, aircraft, internal combustion engines, electronics, and computers, to life-sustaining systems that allow six-billion humans to inhabit this planet: mass agriculture (including chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and herbicides as well as plant hybridization and improved seed storage), modern medicine including epidemiology, recycling and reduction of waste products and pollutants, and energy-efficient construction and operational techniques. These contributions have allowed most of the 3rd World to survive childhood and have large families. In fact, it has allowed the world's population balance to shift from 34% White in 1900 to between just 8-10% today. We can't know for sure, because many countries don't want to alarm their White residents by posting correct census figures. But we can say with certainty, for instance, that there are more Indians or Chinese or Africans on Earth than all White people combined. We are only a majority in a few places, for now.

And when large non-White families arrive in this land, courtesy of Emmanuel Celler's and Ted Kennedy's 1965 inversion of the immigrant ratios, we generally pay for them in one way or another. That money will be gone.

White Folk need to make hard decisions, and soon. We need to turn a critical eye on our apparent willingness to contribute to our own extinction. Will we expend our talents, our creativity, our work and our time to help others or ourselves? Will we continue to give away our technologies to those who can't properly use them or keep them for our own enrichment and progress? Will we continue to live among people who hate us, or form our own lands and let them fend for themselves without us? These and other choices will be made, either by us or for us.

It's time we worked together to ensure our own future. It's time for us to put ourselves first and let the chips fall where they will. It's time for us to part company with the leeches who are draining our resources, filling our spaces and abusing our Folk. It's time for the restoration of White Nations.

(* Note: many thanks to Mad Casper for his editing!)

Pushing Back

2008-05-01T20:58:00.005-04:00

Last night, I heard yet another politician going on about the "immigration crisis". Whenever I see the word "crisis" in conjunction with either government or media nitwits, the situation becomes clear. It's just another series of events which either or both of those entities have watched and "analyzed", and done absolutely nothing constructive to prevent or correct. In many cases, the actions of the politicos have made everything much worse, or directly caused the "crisis". Examples of these include the ballooning of the mortgage market, the decline of the dollar, and the current disastrous speculation in the petroleum market.

There are some facts to consider when we think about illegal immigration. It's been going on for decades. It was largely enabled by the measured failure of government to do its Constitutional duty and enforce border laws. Once it was known that people wouldn't be stopped upon entry (and even if arrested, would not be jailed, but deported at the border), certain employers began to hire these workers for sub-legal wages and unregulated hours. This began in the agriculture industry, and spread to manual labor, then to unskilled and now, skilled labor. In a time when apprenticeships have become outmoded for citizens as cost-ineffective, illegals have learned new skills and gained experience because they make far less money. This allows sloppier work and looser schedules without dismissal, because even correcting bad work costs less than paying someone to do it right the first time. Simple economics. And as time has gone by, the Western world has learned to accept incompetence, delays, workers who don't speak the local language, and a growing population of those people inside their countries.

In the U.S., there are estimates ranging from 12- to 30-MILLION people within the borders who simply do not belong here. The current mob of invaders are demanding the "right" to transplant their national identities into America completely intact, while expecting Americans to fund their families (over a third of illegals are on welfare and/or food stamps), their kids' educations (many states have laws requiring all children to be educated in public schools, even in their "native languages"), and take care of their health (most American hospitals have to treat anyone who shows up in emergency rooms, even if not for emergencies; this is causing more and more hospitals to shut down every year). There are many sources of unbiased information which were used to dismantle the "What if [illegal] immigrants disappeared" argument that illegals are vitally needed by Americans. We don't need them, they need us. Otherwise, we'd be looking to Mexico, Nicaragua, etc. for life lessons.

The political windbag I was listening to was discussing the patent foolishness of any idea which would remove the illegal population from the U.S. In other words, in his opinion, there's no way we will ever restore America to a nation with actual boundaries which can't be crossed. Can't even be reasonably discussed, said he. I hadn't checked, but he may also be a supporter of the North American Union, which promotes erasing our borders entirely, and replace dollars with "ameros". These would be the same bastards who have been destroying the fabric of Europe, by the same methods.

My response to this is simple. I propose that we leave the professional military in Iraq, as they prepare to wage war against Iran and further float Israel's aggressive dominance in the Middle East on an ocean of young American blood. They are mercenaries at the moment, having been deluded into believing they are defending Americans at home. Yes, they should be here, shoring up the borders, but they are not coming back en masse for many years. I wish them well and hope they survive.

But on the home front, there's a simpler solution: a deputization by popular vote, under authority of the 2nd Amendment.

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Make all able-bodied adult citizens Immigration Enforcement Officers. Give them militia-like capacity to arrest, detain, deport and if necessary, to shoot illegals. This is the way our ancestors, from the Founders on, would have handled the problem.

Citizens currently outnumber the illegal invaders at 10 to 1 or better. In another generation, they will be citizens themselves along with another 20-million who drift across the border to gain amnesty. There is no more time left to us to waste. If we wait, we hasten the creation of the new Mexination of "Aztlan" in our Southwest.

The corollary to this lies at the other end: ridding ourselves of the internal problem children who've gotten us to this point: the arrogant politicians who opened our country to this, the avaricious business owners who paid them to come here, and the controlled media which cheered it all on.

Fourth and Goal

2008-04-18T20:19:00.005-04:00

Every week during football season, people get together and talk about the weekend game. There is debate about offense and defense, officiating and penalties. Coaching strategies are dissected, and after it's all been rehashed, the next game talked about. We all know this as "Monday morning quarterbacking". It's a semi-humorous method of taking the coach's place. Of course, it has no effect on the previous game or the next one, but millions engage in it anyway. It lets off steam and allows people to identify with a particular sport or team as a fan, because they can't actually play the game on a professional level. Occasionally, we hear of fans being called "hobbyists", because their patronage is simply a diversion from the daily grind of life.

I've recently begun to have this feeling about White Nationalist (WN) forums. If you go to any of these and read the posts, you'll find that someone has THE answer for any problem currently afflicting the White race. In fact, several do. Every incident, under whatever topic, is carefully peeled down, analyzed, regarded with respect to its impact on White people, and then...not much else.

At first glance, it seems a bit strange that, while the New World Order folks have been busy tearing down every civil right possessed by Americans, racialist internet forums have largely been left alone. Yes, there have been attacks by individuals and even small groups of interlopers, but there has been no serious government clamp-down on WN forums. Many have found that hard to believe, but there's method to the apparent oversight. The people in power understand that, even among WNs, the Sheep Factor is still going strong.

In a forum for, say, Corvette enthusiasts, one commonality is, most of the posters actually do things which they then write or ask questions about. For instance, they may install some performance equipment, then a post appears, and others make pro and con comments, offer advice, share their own experience, and so on.

The problem with WN forums is, there is a practical limit on what people there can (and will) do outside the forum. It's called "criminal behavior". And most, therefore, have resigned themselves to writing and ranting.

The reason for this is simple. Right now, White people around the world are facing the most hostile period in the history of our Race. Having won the Second War to Kill White People (WW2), the zio-communists (variously called "leftists", "liberals", "Democrats", and more recently "Republicans") have since spent their time infiltrating Western governments and completely overhauling various policies to ensure that Whites are now on the defensive on all fronts. This has taken the form of various imposed ideologies and other alterations, such as forced racial integration, affirmative action and quotas, feminism, promotion of homosexuality, open borders and defense of CrimMigration, currency debasement, and the erasure of national identities.

What this has done is placed White people in a quandary. Whites are prevented, in many cases under color of law, from rebutting legal and moral assaults against themselves. If a White person harms a non-White, it's almost always classified as a "hate crime", while the reverse is almost never true, even when self-evident. If a White person condemns the policies of Israel or the behavior of individual jews (Asiatic ethnics), the "anti-semitism" flag is raised (although, tellingly, there is no opposite equivalent for jews dumping on White people). Politicians pander to every group except Whites, whom they apparently see as irrelevant. As a group, the system tells White people, in essence, to sit down and shut up.

President John F. Kennedy recognized the danger in suppressing healthy resistance to oppression when he said, "He who makes peaceful revolution impossible, makes violent revolution inevitable." If steam is passed through a series of valves and pipes, a house is warmed. If the steam is contained, the boiler builds pressure and eventually explodes. If White people can't even express their frustrations without being called "racists", "haters" or worse; if White men can't defend their women and families without being hauled into court; if White groups can't gather on their own time and in their own places without intrusion by a dozen other groups, then serious, irreversible problems begin to fester.

The forum postings provide a regulated vent for many people, allowing them to become Keyboard Kommandos and fight against the Man, against ZOG, against the NWO, the jews, the Blacks, the "hispanics" and whomever else the White race is facing. And when they shut off their PCs, they can turn on CSI and life goes on. No harm and no foul, but no change either.

In cold honesty, the only path that's left for Whites as a group is mass violence. It is, as JFK said, inevitable. In every White-majority country, non-White immigration has become a flood. The lifeboats are sinking. Even the most ardently indifferent White person can see it. It gets worse every year. The White populations of those countries are declining, fed by the NWO lie of the "need" for outsiders and the bottom-line greed of deracinated White business owners and their customers.

In the not-too-distant future, some White person will have had enough. That person will react to the world with extreme, deadly force. Another will see it happen and be moved to act, and another, and another. People will throw up their hands and no longer care if they live or die, and in this mind, they will act. And so it will begin.

The pieces of this puzzle are now being laid in place; along with the other aspects, the economies of the Western countries are heading into the toilet. Businesses will cut staff, people will stop buying, families will lose their homes, and formerly apathetic Whites will be forced into direct, daily and dangerous contact with people who hate them with a passion, simply because they are White. At that time, they will understand that their skin is their uniform. Whether there will be enough of them left to right the ship before it sinks beneath the waves forever is another question.

Meximum Exposure

2008-04-08T21:17:00.010-04:00

The "Absolut Disaster" ad (above) has been commented about and circulated all day. As might be expected when caught with their corporate hand in the New World Order cookie jar, the company's been blathering about their real intent, lack of intent, or confused intent. Confused by...us? Confused by the White People of North America and their, what, surprising (?) reaction to this image?

As of this moment, Mexicans have illegally entered this country for over 30 years. Illegally from our perspective, that is. There are 30-million here that should not be, by law. Another 3-million were given a pass by "our" Congress in 1986, and they're all now looking for the Round 2 amnesty to pass sometime soon, which they have precisely no entitlement to. After all, our government beat them in a war, signed treaties with them (which bear a higher authority than Congressional law), paid them $28-million for what we took, and so our laws apply. Thus, they and their kids have zero right to be on this side of the line.

Apart from the many, many criminal, paramilitary street gangs and criminal organizations which have arrived north of the Rio Grande, there are two groups which we should know about and understand. They are Mexican nationalist orgs, which I would actually support if Mexico didn't already exist as the Mexican homeland. The problem I have with them is, they are attempting to precipitate the division of the United States at the expense of the White majority, and unless something radically and rapidly changes, they will win their lost land back.

They call their expanded version of Mexico "Aztlán", an adapted Nahuatl tribal word, although some refer to much of it as "Alta [Upper] California". They see the green image on that map as "theirs", and will not debate that point. They are called "MEChA" (Acronym for "Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán") and an offshoot, "La Raza" ("The Race"). MEChA wants you to hand over the green states, no compromise. And please do not think that the folks in that group will hand out any "benefits" to us or our families. They don't think we deserve it, and have said so. It's the attitude you notice most when people are waving Mexican flags, burning effigies of Uncle Sam, and holding signs calling the Founding Fathers "illegal immigrants". However, no Mexican has yet provided proof of claim on Virginia, nor could they physically displace the dot.Indians and Blacks.

Whites are no longer the majority population in New Mexico and California, and will soon be below 50% in Texas and Arizona. Other states across the country are feeling the resettlements, including Iowa, Tennessee and Pennsylvania. Most East Coast states are already beyond repair: NJ, NY, Rhode Island, Massachusetts are largely "not us".

With the tattered condition that the U.S. is in, with most of its troops fighthing Bush's and McCain's 100-year war, and many of those troops being "hispanic", many thinking White people have come to a conclusion. To toss our chips into the pile with a government which despises us, distorts our history and heritage, puts those less qualified ahead of us, and yokes us to supporting illegals, invaders and layabouts who prefer other pastimes to working, is perhaps not the best idea. This government can't save things, can't protect anyone and can't stop what a certain element started perhaps 50 years ago. We must sit out this larger pending war with the mestizos, and concentrate our efforts to gain a North American White Homeland. If the Mexicans, at 15% of the population, can pull this off, so can Whites at four times their numbers. Or can we?

One way in which this can be accomplished is the way that White Americans traditionally avoided racial conflicts and accompanying street crime: "voting with our feet". By making one last move to a new location, by migration. A land where we can live by ourselves, and not impose ourselves on others who hate us. Those people can have us out of their lives forever. And of course, the reverse is also true. Perhaps it could be the Pacific Northwest (Northwest Republic), perhaps the northern tier States (Republic of Dakota), or maybe upper New England (2nd Vermont Republic, Vinland Nation, or Acadia). Other areas would be, sadly, less than optimal.

There is a limited, narrowing window on such a plan. If it doesn't start soon, very soon, it will likely not be possible ever again.

The alternative aspect to this is now flooding across our former countries like a tsunami. "Our" bought and owned politicians have thrown the floodgates open, and in a final push are working to ensure that, no matter who's elected in November, things will not change. Whites will become the minority population in this country, and our percentage will decline every year. When White partners are no longer available for our descendant to mate with, the plan of the Nation Wreckers will be complete. For a glimpse of a hispanic-majority scenario, refer to the history of Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, or Mexico. For a Black/White study, either Jamaica, South Africa or Zimbabwe will do. None of those is very appealing.

As the numbers increase, the tax liabilities expand, and the economy finally sputters to a halt in a sea of foreign debt and political extravagances, things will get much worse. If we are still here, distributed across post-crash AmeriKwa, we will be forced to fight while disorganized and often disarmed, and the odds are not in our favor.

We will need to make any choice for a Homeland, today, this week, this year. As the old saying goes, better to have and not need, than need and not have.

Interlock

2008-04-03T10:19:00.005-04:00

The biggest obstacles to the achievement of any group goal are lack of leadership, and missing unity of purpose. It's been said that only 1 in 20 people is a true leader, and of those, few are willing to accept the mantle of leadership and all the headaches and heartaches it entails. Without a leader or leaders, working in a common, positive direction, others in the group are in disarray. Gen. Omar Bradley, commander of U.S. Army forces at the end of the Second War to Kill White People (WW2), once said absence of leadership is like pushing the end of a string. The string bunches up, gets tangled, and goes nowhere. However, when you take hold and pull it, lead it, it follows wherever it needs to go.

Leaders need to possess certain characteristics: Focus, belief in their abilities, drive, knowledge of how to use the system to their advantage, understanding of the "big picture" as well as tactics, charisma, intelligence, and an unwillingness to compromise their position. True leaders must also be willing to stand at the head of their operation, to be the first to take a bullet, to do jail time, or to receive mass criticism. They must also accept responsibility for personal losses and defeats.

Unity is simply the focused, singular coherence of any group of people. It can occur at many levels, from team sports to company sales drives to international warfare. By definition, it requires a removal of divisions. If part of an army is off picking daisies while the rest are firing weapons at the enemy, that army will lose. If one part of a group denigrates another part, that group becomes dysfunctional and any direction it had is lost to in-fighting. Any unity achieved is also lost.

For many years, White Nationalism has been plagued by problems in both these areas.

Since the mid-1950's, we have had many intelligent proponents of White Unity, writers such as Oswald Spengler, William Simpson, Revilo Oliver and others. But in that same period, we've had very few true leaders. And among those leaders, there has been precious little consensus on direction, political involvement, strategic and tactical plans, recruitment and mainstream "presentation". Instead, these men have created many self-declared fiefdoms and petty organizations, and spent much valuable time criticizing their perceived opponents. These ad hominem attacks are, frankly, not only horrifically counter-productive, but beneath us as a People. And unlike previous White leaders, whether for better or worse, no recent "leader" has had the fortitude to actually put his words into practice. The possible exception to this was Cdr. George Lincoln Rockwell, and he is almost 40 years in the past now.

The Minutemen and other Colonial rebels were certainly aware that their actions were considered treason and carried a penalty of death by hanging. The men who led them were even more deeply in danger; charges against them included sedition and directing military insurrection against the Crown. Yet, they also knew that nothing would be accomplished without irreversibly crossing certain lines. So, with determination they picked up their rifles, and went to war to give birth to their new nation. Many died, many were jailed and dispossessed, but they did what they felt they had to do.

How many "leaders" in the White Nationalist movement would do such things now? How many would leave their keyboards and go into the streets? How many possess organizational skills? How many can drum up a large following who would die with them for their cause? How many are willing, as were the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, to pledge their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor? How many will we tell our grandchildren about?

Within the White race, unity is a scarce commodity. We have been lulled by television, the SUV in the driveway, Super Sunday, the latest episode of CSI, and other diversions. We have lost our attachment to our lands, our histories, our heritage, and most importantly, our racial family. We listen little to our kin and less to our Elders. As a group, we spent hundreds of years fighting among ourselves in petty wars ordered by overindulged royalty: Irish against English, German against Pole, Russian against Czech, Swede against Finn, Spaniard against Catalan. We focused almost entirely on our differences. Unfortunately, we still do.

Just yesterday, I read a post on a WN forum asking whether Russians should be considered "White". There are entire threads on many of these fora asking the question, "Who is White?". There are others comparing the relative "Whiteness" of Italians vs. Germans, or Portuguese vs. Norwegians. Even among White people, as with Blacks and the "high yellow" stereotype, there is some sort of White hierarchy.

Are we kidding? This is what's important to the continuation of "us"?

As I've said until I'm hoarse, we can't afford such tomfoolery. The Europeans of the world are just 8.5% of all the people alive. That's it. Ethnic squabbles are flies on the elephant's back. We have bigger fish to fry. In the oft-quoted, but rarely-lived words of David Lane, "We must secure the existence of our People, and a future for White children." That's it, folks. That's the bottom line. How can we secure ANYTHING if we can't even agree to do ANYTHING together? If we're badgering, belittling or degrading our own? If we're too zoned-out on TelAvivision to see? If we allow the alien Wreckers of our People to teach our kids, make our laws, create our societies and plan our futures for us?

We need Leaders. True, honest, honorable, purposeful, selfless, courageous Leaders with a capital "L". Leaders who understand that personal aggrandizement and financial gain are not the hallmarks of leadership, but of prostitution. Leaders who've learned from the past but don't dwell there. Leaders who would truly take a bullet for those behind them. Leaders who will stand up to the power structure, organize a following, and make the changes that must be made, or die trying.

And we need patriots who will back them. Men and Women of our Folk who are loyal to the needs of our People, fixated on the endgame, understand that it's now or never, and agree that, in the words of John Hancock, "Yes, we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Standing In The Corner

2008-03-28T20:39:00.008-04:00

Over the past few weeks, I've been reading a series of novels by Harold A. Covington. Mr. Covington has been a soldier, most notably participating with the S.A.S. in the Rhodesia wars of 30 years ago, before Ian Smith's horrendous betrayal of Rhodesians.

The books are about the establishment of a Northwestern American Republic, comprising the current states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho. It's an idea which I wholeheartedly favor. The titles of these works are:
"A Mighty Fortress"
"A Distant Thunder"
"The Hill of the Ravens"
"The Brigade" (newly released in PDF)

Mr. Covington is not the only person to preach the idea of a White homeland in the Pacific Northwest (PNW). Several years ago, a man named Robert Mathews formed a group called "The Order" and was joined by several other men. Mathews believed that the PNW was the ideal place for White nationhood to happen. He also knew that the movement would need money, and so the group committed criminal acts to get that money. This led to their downfall, with Mathews being burned to death in his home, at the hand of Federal agents.

Since then, less provocative measures have been taken in order to spread the word of White migration to the PNW. There have been a succession of organizations and websites dedicated to that end.

In the books, without giving too much of the plot away, one day agents of the U.S. government go over the line once too many, and the formerly somnolent sheeple awaken with a start and find their feet. What proceeds from that moment is the core of the story. It's not simple, it's not pretty, there are many setbacks, losses and hardships. But the people in the tale achieve their ultimate goal.

We are in a place in time where events are gathering which can produce extraordinary devastation of part or all of our population. Coupled with this is the increasing downward pressure on European Folk across the globe. Even Europe's future is no longer certain. Former comedian, and now grumpy old bastard, George Carlin thinks the time of White people in Europe is over, and the next phase of that continent is muslim. Assuming that's true, and with Canada and Australia being flooded with Asians, and the U.S. with "hispanics" (and Asians as well), where would Mr. Carlin suppose White people will live? HOW does he suppose we'll continue? How will life be in lands where we're a 1/10th minority, or less? Will our new governors be as disposed to putting their hand out for us as the foolish among us have done for them?

The PNW core states of Oregon, Washington and Idaho contain 245,336 square miles of land area. There are just over 10,000,000 people living in the three states, but the bulk of the population, about 35%, lives in the major cities. Even so, this averages just 41 people per square mile. Compare that with the rat-trap of New Jersey at 1150/sq. mi.

I lived in western Oregon for almost two years, almost two decades ago. I will always remember it as a magnificent area, full of every blessing which could be bestowed on a land. There were places I'd see on the backroads, where I'd simply have to stop and drink in the scenery and smell the clean air of the forested mountains. I spent free time travelling, from northern California up through Puget Sound, and into B.C. I often took a lunch, travelled out for miles on some unused fire road in the hills, and sat reading and eating while watching the natural world around me. Even my house had a view of a small mountainside, and an old train would sometimes wind its way along the edge of that mountain early in the day. Had my personal circumstances been different at that time, I'd never have left.

There are miles of mountains, forests, grasslands and farms in the PNW. It has ports and accessibility to the Pacific markets. Environmental controls are strict but small businesses are encouraged. Its economy is slow at the moment, but with a strong population of like mind and industriousness, concentrating on bringing out the best aspects of the area, it could be a powerhouse. It could also be a beacon to White people everywhere who are tired of current events and how they'll inevitably play out. At that point, perhaps other states might desire inclusion.

We have allowed the lands our ancestors created and built to take in residents, many illegally here, who now push us from among themselves. Whites who have "voted with their feet" on the concept of integrated living now find themselves with few places left to which to flee. Yet, staying and fighting for our space in most of the U.S. is no longer viable, since those who take a stand will be deemed "terrorists" by the New World Order faction.

If we do build a White nation, we will have no one to rely on but ourselves. We would be in conflict with many already in the PNW: those of the Left, those from wealthier backgrounds whose lives revolve around the bottom line, and those who live off the teat of government. And we would be, as the Confederacy found itself, illegally denied our Right to secede and to live on our own terms, by force. Any such migration favoring to that conclusion must include preparation for conflicts on its menu.

There is precious little time left for White people to decide on a course of action, here or anywhere else. This is not alarmism nor is it an extremist, tin-foil hat declaration. We are at the edge. Many will not become involved in politics, will not resist, will not stand, will not adhere to our own and unify. They will die off. If we follow their lead, so shall we all pass and be gone forever.

Every day, we see people taking a stand for different reasons and within various causes: Darfur, Tibet, the end of the war in Iraq, and so on. In some cases, people gather to prevent certain species from disappearing: whales, spotted owls, tigers, wolves or snail darter fish. These animals, they feel, merit special help because they are being pressured out of existence.

Are White people any less deserving of survival? Are the people who gave "the World" to the world less important? Are the originators of Western Civilization so trivially discarded?

We must stand as one, we must now put aside our ethnic and historical differences, and we must have a singular purpose: to secure the existence of our People, and a future for White children. Without achieving that, there can be nothing else for us.

All Downhill, And No Brakes

2008-03-19T22:33:00.007-04:00

As things move along in the criminal diamond we call Washington, DC (in utter contempt of one of our finest leaders), the thought has come to me, more than once, that the whole progression of events can not avoid ending in incredibly violent bloodshed.

Today's latest outrage originated in a suspect Supreme Court [sic] decision involving the handgun ban in their hometown. All cities in the United States have, in the past, respected one's Right to own, and openly carry, both hand and long guns. Most people did not feel the need to so carry early in our history, particularly after the War of Independence. After all, they'd just spent eleven years proving that they were on good terms with one another. All those who'd not been had either emigrated to Canada or Great Britain, or been left swinging at the end of a rope in the public square. Nonetheless, they could own any weapon of their choosing.

Particularly since the 1950s, certain groups of people in this land have been pushing through a plan, an agenda, to systematically and incrementally reduce, and then remove, our natural Rights. Their presentation initially avoided confrontation with the majority. But over time, they began a full-frontal assault on the liberties of that majority. In all areas of daily life, their policies began to infect and destroy us.

Initially, our Founders tried to coalesce a guidebook for political freedom. And from the beginning, the greed and lust for power of some men tore pieces from our Constitution. The Founders saw the truest seats of power in the States themselves. Their localized governments depended on upward support from the cities, towns and farmlands. Tyrannical behavior is difficult to undertake when you're watched by a vigilant citizenry. And for that reason, to take advantage of distance, those in the District of Columbia began to usurp the powers of the States and the People in them.

If you even briefly read the Constitution, you will notice one overriding characteristic: All of the powers of the President, the Congress and the Courts are grants by the States. In fact, the language of Amendment X makes that completely clear:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There's the word, "delegated". Servants do not delegate to masters. As nowhere else, these words enunciate our absolute dominance over the District of Clowns.

Since 1787, we have had expansions in every area of assigned and unassigned Federal government power. We have also seen prohibitions, restrictions and controls placed on every Right we have.

"Rights" are considered arbitrary by relativists. There are "civil rights", "gay rights", and "animal rights". In fact, these are of recent vintage. The original Right we have thought ourselves proper to possess is, the Right to be Left Alone. Or, "let alone", in the beautiful dialects of the South. And yet, throughout the past 60 years, more and more people, under the anonymous mask of "government", have contrived to NEVER leave us alone.

We can't say what's truthfully on our minds, thanks to "political correctness", a Trotskyite phrase from our friends in the old Soviet Union. We can't appear to oppose Obama's minister's statements, or we're "narrow-minded" and "racist". Christians among us are not allowed to post Christmas symbols on public property, but a Hannukah menorah can burn on the White House lawn. Pagans among us are not "recognized" by the U.S. Army, of all things, as being in a "true religion". We can't buy property on a handshake nor live off the land no matter how rural; if the U.S. had had property taxes early on, no one would have settled the frontier. And of the taxes extorted from us, backed up with paramilitary force, we have no say in their ultimate expenditure. You assets can be taken and kept by Uncle Scam during pre-trial proceedings, and not returned even after proof of your innocence. The list of personal infractions is never-ending.

And more importantly, we have been denied our right to Assemble...if we're White. We have been somehow disallowed our Right to plan for our own survival. We are prohibited from excluding others, whether in our organizations, our businesses, or our neighborhoods. Our group Rights are becoming more fragile everyday.

So in the Supreme Court's mind, and as eagerly and breathlessly editorialized upon by the news rags, TV talking heads and online post-whores disguised as "journalists", there MAY be a "Constitutionally based" restriction on handgun ownership placed upon ALL AmeriKwans, not just those inside the Beltway. No doubt the constant, clear and present physical danger posed by the non-working, mouth-upon-teat local detritus to the Guys in Suits may have something to do with their desire to further increment divestiture of firearms. But for the rest of the country, the Supremes may have just stepped over their benchmarks and cracked open the can that finally shakes the electorate awake.

We are seeing a dying power clamping down viciously in its throes. They are beginning to see that their policies are tearing down the country and exposing them to real dangers. The FED desperately enacts plans to bail out the rich, mostly jewish, and secondarily WASPy-brahmin financial community, with all involved making profits on the ups and downs they know in advance, as always. In the financial stratosphere we've allowed them to create, they never get the raw end. We do.

They are building detention centers, removing citizen weaponry, taking control of oil resources, water resources and farmland. They are, through their inflationary policies, robbing us every year of everything we've worked for, then converting it into gold before everyone else jumps on. They tie us to contracts and protect predatory lenders. They keep our borders open and allow the invasion of our land. They give our jobs to the less-qualified, our college seats to the less-intelligent, our jobs to the less-skilled, and finally our country to the less-deserving.

And now we are facing a Crash that may make the Great Depression seem like a walk in the park. There are predictions of 45% unemployment. Fewer workers equals less tax money, equals fewer government benefits. Then the wheels really come off.

We are near the precipice. When the f*ck will our People WAKE UP?

Nightmare

2008-02-29T09:09:00.009-05:00

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?

Twenty Miles From Afar And Closing

2008-02-14T19:07:00.009-05:00

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.

StereoTripe

2008-02-04T15:36:00.000-05:00

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.

Cutting The Paul Hype

2008-01-14T09:54:00.000-05:00

As everyone on the internet knows, but almost no one who watches cable news, Dr. Ron Paul is running for President.

I have two things to say about him. He is not a real Republican. He is saying and doing nothing extraordinary.

Dr. Paul is not a Republican. He may have been when Republicans stood for individual and property rights, no foreign entanglements, and support for personal achievement. But today's Republicans are indistinguishable in most ways from their counterparts across the aisle. This is by design.

The money behind the politics needs the race fixed. Like the old sideshow promise, it wants, and gets, a winner every time. We've had two primary elections, and New Hampshire's is already under official recount. Hand counted ballots, matching 4 statewide opinion polls, showed an entirely different outcome (in favor of Obama) in the Democrat primary results. There are allegations about Diebold's programmable voting machines creating potential vote count fraud. Why not only paper ballots?, a sober person asks.

Nobody gets to be a mainstream candidate unless he or she is approved. That approval used to come from the people. Now it comes from media bosses, spin-doctored polls, international banksters, and at least one foreign government. All of those elements have to agree on a candidate, and must be certain that their puppet truly works for them.

Today, popular approval's making a comeback.

Enter Ron Paul, a U.S. Representative from Texas, a member of the people's house of the legislature. He's a man outside the lines of the party he's long been affiliated with. Over the years, Dr. Paul has remained true to Republican ideals, while his peers have not. He has a consistently Constitutional voting record, because he swore to uphold it and takes that oath seriously. At this point in time, as Dr. Paul himself pointed out, being in favor of the Constitution is highly politically incorrect. And, it's apparently offensive to the Parties and the media. So, no, Dr. Paul is a RINO, a "Republican In Name Only", a patriot in goat's clothing. Good thing, because the country deserves no less.

Now, about that second point. Because he is doing exactly what our Founders laid out in the body of the Constitution, Dr. Paul's message is in no way strange or even noteworthy. At least it wouldn't be, if our country were living those principles. It wouldn't be if our children were taught about their inherent rights which that document protects. It wouldn't be if government were limited. It wouldn't be if the Congress were doing their duty and performing checks and balances on the President. It wouldn't be if private bankers didn't print our money, and charge us both a printing fee and interest on it. It wouldn't be if we viewed gun ownership as a means of family, neighborhood and national protection rather than as a right only of criminals and the State. And it probably wouldn't be if we kept our earnings free from the Federal pickpockets in the IRS.

Everything Dr. Paul espouses is written down for everyone to see. We don't need all this government, and we sure as sunrise don't need a criminal government at all. We have rights, inherent and untouchable rights, not grants by government. Those rights were laid down for us, specifically so as to prevent the government from taking them. The first time a law was passed which limited absolute free speech, or restrained gun ownership, or allowed violative searches, or assigned States' rights to the Feds, we lost a part of ourselves, our values and our country. Enough's enough.

As a man, Dr. Paul is simply a candidate. He is by all accounts a quiet, intelligent, friendly, loyal and thoroughly decent man. He is running for President, of course, but while many people genuinely like him, he himself is not important. Like the title character in "V for Vendetta", he is just the carrier of an idea. Personally, I like the man: his manner, his genuine character and his honesty. But in this year, my vote will not really be for Ron Paul, but for the resurrection of the United States Constitution. For once, I hope every American voter casts their ballot with that thought in mind.

Why Ron Paul?

2007-12-29T13:44:00.000-05:00

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 Stormfront.org 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

Disclaimers

2007-12-13T08:26:00.000-05:00

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.

Big Mother Is Watching You

2007-12-03T21:02:00.001-05:00

MySpace Admits Censorship Of Prison Planet.com
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 MySpace.com policy to censor and filter out posts containing links to the Prison Planet.com 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 Planet.com 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 prisonplanet.com part of the message that was being filtered out.”

The moderator later clarifies that it was beyond his control and that “prisonplanet.com” 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 planet.com was not an act of any moderator but forms a deliberate policy on behalf of MySpace.

The excuse given is that prison planet.com 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 Planet.com - 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

Demographica

2007-11-15T12:10:00.000-05:00

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.

Consequences

2007-10-23T18:57:00.002-04:00

"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.

Two-Way Mirror

2007-10-16T09:35:00.000-04:00

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".

The Rape of Europe, by Paul Belien

2007-10-11T22:56:00.000-04:00

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.

New Zealand Dreams: Fading

2007-10-03T11:57:00.000-04:00

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!"

Stand And Deliver

2007-09-23T20:22:00.001-04:00

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.

Don't Look Down

2007-09-13T20:52:00.000-04:00

"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.

Envision Invasion

2007-09-04T14:10:00.000-04:00

(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)

2007-09-04T14:03:00.000-04:00

(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.

MommySpace Knows Best, Children

2007-08-28T08:31:00.000-04:00

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!

The 'W' Word

2007-08-20T11:49:00.000-04:00

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.

Assembling Our Armor

2007-08-11T21:02:00.000-04:00

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?

It's Simple. Right?

2007-08-08T18:20:00.000-04:00

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, well...it'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?

2007-08-08T14:59:00.000-04:00

(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.

EnZed (NZ) Update

2007-07-30T18:50:00.001-04:00

I wanted to add a blog entry to bring everyone up to date on my progress in emigrating to New Zealand, and to say a few things I think need saying.

Having a job is absolutely the bottom line to my quest at this point. When you begin the process, NZ Immigration has a short questionnaire which gives you an indication of your potential acceptance status. Each answer is worth so many points. A minimum of 100 is required for any consideration; a total of 130 puts you into the assured consideration segment. This doesn't mean you'll be granted admission, merely that your application will be seriously studied, and your chances are fairly good. My total, if I simply get an offer of employment, is 160 points.

I have spent some time putting my resume' out on various online news and employment sites. I am trying to get into a job which may entail transitioning older software into updated, web-commerce applications. The language I primarily write in, Visual FoxPro, will no longer be supported by Microsoft after this version expires, in 2010. It seems Microsoft has placed all its RAD (rapid application development) eggs in one basket: .NET, which includes Visual Basic (vb.net) and asp.net, along with C#.

Anyway, the next step in the process is the completion of an "Expression of Interest" (EOI), which is a long, involved questionnaire, for the completion of which NZ Immigration advises you to set aside "at least 2 hours" of time. Hmm.

Once the EOI is completed, officials will make a preliminary determination, based on it as well as the points-questions answers, on whether to continue toward an offer. At that time, the applicant must submit medical, police and other records to substantiate what is claimed on the applications. This is decidedly not equivalent to jumping a fence, wading across a river, and getting into the "promised land". This is a strictly regulated, documented legal process. I for one am quite happy to do some hoop-jumping, because I know EVERYONE ELSE who is applying must do the same.

There is a pair of lists involved in the hiring arena, including critical skills and long-term (chronic) shortage areas. It turns out that programming is on both; extra points for that. Also, NZ Immigration is trying to give priority to people who wish to live on the more sparsely populated south island vs. the big cities of the north, which I am aiming to do. Again, there are extra points for that.

Assuming I do get a job offer, and absent any exclusionary issues, Immigration should grant me a job visa for entry, which would then be converted to a job permit upon completion of the hiring process and the submission of paperwork by the employer. They have the option of restricting the duration of that permit, and requiring me to have employer verification of continued employment.

Via Myspace, I have contacted some folks who live on the South Island, and in my "goal city" of Dunedin and have received very friendly and encouraging responses. I was made to feel quite welcome to come live in their homeland by everyone I wrote to.

And now, a bit more of the personal. New Zealand is on the other side of the Earth from my current home. Although I have seen many videos, photographs and other images of the place, I have never physically been there. I have several friends who've spent time there, and they universally loved the place. But there's another level, as noted by my good friend Rick: I will be leaving the land in which I was born, in which I grew to adulthood, in which I had my children, bought homes, got my education, and worked. I gave four years of my life in service to the United States of America, in the U.S. Navy. Everyone I've ever been close to and every place I have true familiarity with exist within America's borders.

The epic film, "Lord of the Rings", was filmed in New Zealand, and it's appropriate that one of the characters, Bilbo Baggins, uttered a comment which frames my current situation:

I'm old, Gandalf. I know I don't look it but I'm beginning to feel it in my heart. I feel thin... sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread. I need a holiday. A very long holiday. And I don't expect I shall return.
In fact I mean not to.

It is exactly the same feeling that a man might have felt in an earlier time, looking out at the sea from Ireland, Italy, or Germany, anticipating his departure. He'd be carrying only what was absolutely necessary, in his pocket whatever cash he could scrape together. He would be in a new place, in some ways like his home, but in myriad others, a new and different experience. He would have been determined, properly, to learn his new culture, adapt to the differences and become a good and productive citizen in his adopted land.

And so shall I.

Free-dumb

2007-07-26T21:48:00.002-04:00

Independence Day of 2007 has passed. Normally, tying into that day, I'd focus on the facets of Constitutional government as the Founders intended them. Instead, I want to ramble on about some "then and now" thoughts about summertime.

When I was young, in the 60's, every single kid in the neighborhood got fireworks on July 4th. They were only sporadically sold in New Jersey, and expensive, so many parents made trips to other states to get the latest ordnance. There were Roman candles, ubiquitous firecrackers, sparklers for the little kids, bottle rockets (which were often used as dueling weapons), and whistlers, or whizzers, which sounded cool.

The favorite of us junior Demolition Men, since it was alleged to be "the equivalent of a quarter-stick of dynamite", was the M-80 (also known as an "ashcan" in another version). You could flat out blow stuff up with one of those. We put them in all kinds of dangerous vessels: beer cans, Coke bottles, under piles of dirt, in flower pots, whatever. Light 'em and exit the area pronto, unless the thought of picking debris out of your butt cheeks was appealing. Spectacular, loud as all get-out, and destructive; everything a boy could want in a micro-bomb.

On July 2nd of this year, there were signs on I-78 inbound from Pennsylvania, trumpeting the violations you'd be charged with for bringing fireworks into New Jersey. I guess adults just can't be trusted with such things anymore, let alone kids.

At this time of year, I was often with my cousins Jack and Skip, and my Aunt Lorraine would take us to the local swimming hole. She would do this by piling us into the back of her trusty Chevy Nomad wagon, maybe 6 or 7 rambunctious boys, and we'd head out, all windows wide open. Seatbelts were not worn, because her car didn't come with them. We survived dozens of trips nonetheless. Today, that'd be multiple summonses, fines and likely loss of license.

The pond itself was huge, clean and about 15 feet deep, with a great rope swing. You could sail out about 25 feet, let go, and catch another 10 feet of air on your way in. Icy cold water, even in July, and about as good a feeling to fight the heat as you could find. We were all good swimmers, and one of us would hang out on shore and make sure everybody was ok. No professional lifeguards needed. In today's world, there'd be no swimming, to avoid lawsuits. In fact, the pond we swam in was filled in; there now stands a subdivision on that location.

Another great summer activity was hunting for snapping turtles. Nearby was the (polluted, but we didn't really care) Shrewsbury River. It was surrounded by those weeds we called "cattails", but weren't. We headed for Flanigan's Field. There were all kinds of creatures there, from frogs to snakes to all kinds of insect-types. But we were interested in the snappers. We liked the idea of getting hold of an animal that could bite through a broom handle. Made us feel brave, I suppose. I still remember the first time we trapped one, the size of the thing, and its sheer primordial appearance, with barnacles and algae covering his shell. We wouldn't think of hurting them (as if we could). And we always let them go after we looked them over, hauling them into the water with great effort. On one occasion, we got a thumbs-up from a local cop who was watching us work him out of the river and onto the shore. Nowadays, if you could avoid the "no fishing, no hunting, no anything" signs, climb the inevitable barricade fence, and get to the water, you'd be arrested on your way out. The charge would probably be, depriving the turtle of his civil rights.

We rode our bikes everywhere. One of my friends, Danny, would get one big birthday present every year. One year, when I was 14 or so, he got a new Schwinn "Orange Krate" bicycle. It had a "banana" seat and ape-hanger bars, stick shift, and was about the coolest thing you could own. We all wanted "spider bikes" like his, and since we all worked (I was working full-time as a busboy then, usually 60 hours a week), all of us ended up buying replicas of some type. When we would jump our bikes off the 2-foot curb on Allen Place, or ride them at full tilt between the hedges in the old lady's yard, we didn't wear helmets. We got bumps, bruises and chipped teeth, but nobody died. Today, you might have to wait an extra year for your driver's license if you got caught not wearing your state-mandated, DOT-approved headgear, and your parents would owe a hefty fine.

One last memory: my best friend, Artie, had a great basement with an extra layer of concrete on one wall. In front of that, we set up some padded plywood. At various times, 4 or 5 of us would go down there to shoot. It was our rifle range, where we'd fire anything from BBs, to pellets, to .22s. We had all been trained by our (mostly WW2 or Korean War vet) dads in gun safety and marksmanship, and we were very careful when shooting. All of us owned guns, as did just about every one of our fathers. I had a nice little Italian .22, which I also took out to the old quarry to shoot about every other week.

In 2007, to purchase a gun, especially a revolver or pistol, in New Jersey is just slightly less difficult than getting licensed to do open-heart surgery. Applications, fees, background checks, criminal checks, examination of any violations of even traffic laws, cooling-off periods, all kinds of roadblocks. If you have it in your home, it's supposed to be unloaded and trigger-locked, with the ammo in a separate location. If you transport it, say to a (licensed) shooting range, it has to be unloaded, in a secure container outside easy reach, normally in the trunk. The 2nd Amendment doesn't authorize any such restrictions, but New Jersey's politicians long ago burned their copies of the Constitution, since it was cutting into their graft and corrupt practices.

In today's America, you are restricted in every activity undertaken. You almost need a permit to fart. Americans think of this country as "the land of the free", which would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. We allowed a small group of alien manipulators to undermine our entire lifestyle, to the point that the country I am living in today bears almost no resemblance to the one I recall from just 40 years ago. We've been so conditioned, for so long, to accept our chains that we don't even realize we're shackled. And the U.S. is not alone, although it's the most prominently controlled. The media tells us to buy a new car, we accept the order, and put ourselves into debt slavery for four or five years. We get a new HDTV, we get a new reduction in our take-home pay. Politicians tell us a small, under-militarized, weathered country in the Middle East is an imminent threat to our security, and we barely look up from watching "CSI" or the football game as the war begins. So far 4,000+ of our kids have paid with their lives for this sleight-of-hand.

We are in the grasp of great evil, men who have no concerns whatsoever except for two things: money and absolute power. They control you at every level, from deciding where you'll "educate" your children, to whether you can re-occupy your own home after a storm, to how many will be allowed into a shelter in the event of air attack. For themselves, though, those limits mean nothing. They live in gated and walled communities, have access to secret Air Force hide-outs, own huge yachts in the Caribbean, and keep secondary homes in other, safer lands. Their kids go to exclusive private schools, isolated from the havoc their policies cause in the outside world. Their Swiss bank accounts are fattened by interest groups like AIPAC, keeping them pork-laden until their retirement and appointment to directorial boards.

Because of them, we only get to wave sparklers and brag about how free we are. They get to play with M-80s and laugh at us. At some point, if the lemmings awaken from their headlong march to oblivion, it will be time for us to be the grownups again, and put real, proper and permanent restrictions on the useless people in power instead.

Redirection

2007-07-17T21:26:00.000-04:00

Several months ago, I put the idea of moving to another state on the table. I absolutely despise almost everything about the People's Republic of New Jersey, although I was born and raised here. Our population density is 1200 people per square mile, and we are like caged rats. Road rage is common. Violent crime is quite high. The state is literally running out of room to build homes in many counties. I can't imagine staying here any longer than absolutely necessary.

So, after several visits to the north country, I'd thought of moving up to New Hampshire, Vermont or Maine. The area that appealed to me was along the Canadian border. It's quiet, very open, few people, with lots of land. There are lots of forests, lakes and mountains.

The problem came down to the very idea of remaining in the United States. The people in power are creating a country steeped in fear and terror. Their terror. This country simply is no longer the place where I grew up, and sadly, it's becoming a place I no longer want to live in. My kids live with their mother and we are growing apart as time goes by and they get older. Thus, I'm left with decisions which will focus on and affect my own life.

The political landscape, which used to charge me with ideas and challenge me to find solutions for problems facing myself, my family and our People, has gone to seed. I can't maintain my bearings any longer. I feel, more each passing day, that the fight, the struggle to alleviate the burdens being placed not only on White Americans, but all Americans, and in fact, all people in the Western world, is completely and utterly futile. Perhaps if there were some indication of a ground-swell, if there were any stirrings of true patriotism, I would keep my shoulder to the wheel and fight on. But the masses of asses prefer to keep their noses in the feedbag while their very lives are being taken by the state, along with their money, their dreams and their dignity. Few care, and that's become more obvious.

About a month ago, I began to think of a place where I might be able to capture some of the serenity I'd hoped to attain by this age. As I've said, being over 50, I would so much prefer to take long walks, garden, talk with friends and relax on the porch, instead of posting blogs, writing letters, editing websites and urging resistance among the unconcerned. And so I shall, in greater measure. I have granted myself that luxury and will leave more of the heavy lifting to younger White warriors who may have some fighting desire for change left in them.

My target is New Zealand. Specifically, the place I'd like to permanently hang my hat is the south island, and even more to the point, somewhere outside the city of Dunedin. There were many factors that figured into my decision to pursue this relocation.

The undeniable, rugged physical beauty of the place. The Lord of the Rings was filmed in New Zealand, and every outdoor scene radiates majesty.
The "kiwis" are very diligent in protecting the environment they have.
The population on the south island is quite low, with lots of open space.
The Southern Alps are the dominant natural feature.
There's great surfing, diving and boating there.
Staying within New Zealand, one can run the gamut from sub-antarctic to sub-tropical climates within a couple days' drive.
The official language is English, so no linguistic issues, and everyone has to learn it.
Dunedin is large enough to provide employment, but small enough to easily get far away from.
It's in the southern hemisphere, so any fallout from the nuke war Israel's working on causing will not land there on the prevailing winds (no kidding).

The New Zealand immigration agency has a questionnaire that must be completed, and each question answered adds points that count toward a letter of admission, which in turn leads to a residence card, which in turn leads to permanent residence and possible citizenship. At this point, all I need is a job offer and I will have more than enough points to get admitted and start my new life.

It's not paradise, certainly, but it's the only alternative to the downward spiral caused by the criminals in D.C. And, no matter who's elected next year, the system will continue to deteriorate and life, especially for the White middle class, will be debased further. I can't stomach that thought.

So, the next year will be spent paying off my remaining debt, cleaning out all the non-essential items from my inventory, saying goodbyes to those I'll leave behind, and preparing myself for an entirely new paradigm. If everything works out, by the will of the gods and the weaving of the Norns, I will be leaving the U.S.A. at the end of July 2008. The next 12 months will be the real test.

Now, I just need to find a job in Dunedin...

Whoring Around

2007-07-12T09:26:00.000-04:00

In an old joke, a man and his wife are trying to discern what path their young son will take. They place a bible, a $20 bill and a bottle of whiskey on the table. The father says, "If he picks up the money, he'll be a businessman. If he picks up the bible, he'll be a preacher. And if he takes the whiskey, he'll be an entertainer." The boy walks to the table. He grabs the bible, stuffs the money in his pocket, takes a swig of the whiskey and heads out the door. "Goodness!", exclaims his father, "the boy's gonna be a politician!"

In reality, while politicians are often entertainers, and even more often invoke higher powers for the benefit of their constituents, politics isn't about campaigns or speeches or sexual indiscretions with interns. It's about power.

The inherent aim of government is to increase its authority over the population it is trying to control. The Founders understood this implicitly. In crafting the Constitution, they understood the balance between the novel concept of individual (as opposed to inherited, or titled) rights, and the attempts by central government to accumulate power. With that, they laid out a structure in which the powers delegated to the Federal government by the States were plainly spelled out. As previously noted, "delegation" is not something subordinates can do, so the Founders clearly saw the States as the more powerful entity. They correctly understood that the more local the authority is, the more closely it will be watched, and opposed if needed, by the citizenry.

Further, in Amendments 9 and 10, the Founders unequivocally stated that any and every power and responsibility not granted to the Federal government was left to the States and their residents. The Constitution was intentionally written in very plain language which could be, and was, easily understood by the People; it would be read aloud at assemblies, town meetings, and in churches across the country.

Of course, as predicted by Jefferson, almost as soon as the ink dried on the Constitution, the various branches of government began to expand their limited roles. This continued from Marbury v. Madison, to the illegally-waged Civil War (or more properly, War of Southern Revolution), to the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank and unConstitutional transfer of control of America's money supply to them, to the questionable passage of Amendment 16 (the Income Tax), to the New Deal and institutionalized socialism, to today's illegal and illicit undeclared wars around the world.

In the world of prostitution, the rules are simple: the customer, or "john", pays a sum of money, and the prostitute performs a service. Everyone knows the game and everyone goes away satisfied.

In the world of political prostitution, certain individuals get together and "lobby" the Congress or the President (or in several cases, the Supreme Court justices, who are supposed to be immune from such things). The term "lobby" is a polite euphemism for another polite euphemism, "campaign contributions". Those, of course, are cash payments. The process is the same as out in the back alleys of hookers. Only the results are different. The lobbyists want certain laws passed, or blocked. The politicians will vote for whichever laws make them the most money. In many cases, there is no recorded vote, merely "acclamation", which means that if the "Ayes" are loudest on the floor, the vote carries. This relieves the politicians of embarrassing paper trails, gets them their loot, and they can claim voting either way as suits them.

Recently, there was an attempt by the Senior Traitor from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, along with co-traitor Jon Kyl from the Mexican Territory of Arizona, to push through a piece of legislation which would make official the resident status of 12-million (their number; actually closer to 30-million) illegal, criminal Mexican invaders. There were some unenforceable sops to the sheep, some minor catches to legal residence. But on the whole, it was an amnesty for breaking federal law and a "get-in-line" pass for the illegals. Unfortunately for Messrs. Kennedy & Kyl and their Mexican-employing businessmen friends, the American people somehow awoke from their haze of American Idol, Paris Hilton and Obama's autobiography, and demanded the sinking of the bill. The House of Representatives, closer to the people and with 2-year terms, immediately passed a motion to reject the bill before it even made it out of Senate committee. Several Senators who had cheerfully smiled while supporting the bill did an abrupt about-face. The bill died, was resurrected in slightly different form, and died again. One of the two jewish Senatorial Traitorettes from Mexifornia, Dianne Feinstein, called the bill's opponents racist and hateful. Her Senate sister, Barbara Boxer, also condemned the media for calling it an "amnesty bill". It would, to be sure, legalize illegals, but hey, they'd have to pass driving tests and register for Social Security, so how is that amnesty?

The problem we face, along with these naked attempts to flout the Constitution and its laws that these swine were sworn to protect when elected, is the explosive growth of political action committees, or "PACs". The largest of them in terms of dollars spent to buy political whores are:
* The AARP, which lobbies for more handouts and giveaways to seniors;
* The NRA, which is trying to walk the line between the 2nd Amendment and the socialist confiscation of all private weapons, while making its executive board wealthy;

and, the one which is most worrisome...

* AIPAC, which is the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Every politician who hopes to remain in high office supports and defends AIPAC, attends its fund-raisers, gives speeches in support, and so on. This includes members of both parties: Bush, Cheney, Rice, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Pelosi, you name them, they're in the ring, stumping for AIPAC. Why?

The United States allows Israeli scientists and military technologists nearly unrestricted access to advanced weaponry and codes. We supply them, at cost, with the latest weapons, tanks, aircraft and so on. Israel receives classified IFF identification numbers from the U.S. military every year, which identify their aircraft to our side as "friendlies". Every year, the U.S. "forgives" nearly all previously agreed-to "loans", at least in part, owed by Israel. They are a party to all intelligence we've gathered from all operations worldwide. "Our" Director of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, is the son of a rabbi and holds dual Israeli-American citizenship.

Most importantly, the U.S. gives Israel around $5-billion every year in direct foreign aid. And the Israelis, through AIPAC, use that U.S. taxpayer money buy the whores in "our" government who will do their bidding. That bidding includes, for instance, the 4000 dead American sons and daughters involved in the undeclared war of American aggression against Iraq, where we are now building four large, permanent bases. It also includes the ramping-up of aggression against Iran, with a third aircraft carrier group sent there recently. Other future targets include Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. We are also, at the behest of Tel Aviv (which despises the nationalistic Vladimir Putin), attempting to emplace offensive missiles in Poland, facing Russia.

The Iranian targeting is based on Iran's refusal to stop producing nuclear reactors, which the Iranians insist are being manufactured as internal power plants. The UN's original inspection of the plans tended to agree with that assessment. However, because they could, 8-10 years downstream, be used to produce nuclear bomb materials, Israel (and so the United States) demands they cease.

Israel, meanwhile, has at least 200 nuclear bombs of its own, refuses UN weapons inspection, operates a biological warfare research facility at Dimona which is specifically prohibited by Geneva Convention rules, and has stated that, if Israel "feels threatened", it will launch nuclear weapons at "undisclosed targets" (the "Samson Option"); most of the missiles have European targets.

The "johns" in America, the taxpayers, think they are paying taxes to operate legitimate government. But the "whores" in D.C. are getting bigger checks from others whom they also see as "johns", but are really their "pimps", and the pimps are paying for America to do things which are in direct opposition to America's traditions and best interests, which have already indelibly stained us, may bankrupt us, and could kill us off. At that point, the pimps will close up shop and look for new whores, as they seem to be doing in China.

Will we allow them to continue, or will we rise up as with the amnesty bill and demand that America be run, again, by Americans?

Bullies

2007-07-08T16:53:00.000-04:00

Many of us, especially males, remember the school bullies. There were, of course, the routine types, who might knock your books out of your hands for fun, or trip you, and so on. Those clowns were simply insecure, and took it out on others whom they knew could not stop them. When they weren't around, they didn't spend time thinking about you, and simple avoidance usually solved the problem.

There was another kind of bully, though, a more psychopathic variety. These guys were deadly serious, and targeted certain kids as if preprogrammed to do so. They would place a kid in a bad situation, challenge him, merely to have an excuse to pummel their chosen victim. They would taunt the kid, shove him, put him in a place where he had to at least try to push or punch his way out. And then, this bully would administer the coup de grace, and plaster a wall with his victim's face.

We are now faced with a similar group of bullies who operate from positions within government.

They create laws which oppress people, take their money (in the form of limitless taxes), open the doors of their homelands to others from anywhere else, and emplace law upon law to restrict or remove freedoms under various disguises. They pronounce edicts without any restraint, proclaim themselves the final arbiters of power, and tighten their nooses upon the necks of the people.

Just like the determined bully, they shove us, slap us, demean us and provoke us. And they dare us to respond.

To keep us from doing just that, they employ their paid agents in the innumerable agencies, all armed and dangerous, from the local police to the courts to the various federal agents. They declare legitimate, reasoned dissent to be "terrorism". They consider any efforts by any group to break free to be treason, punishable, as in 1861, by unrestricted warfare. They pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of alternate opinions, and fine, jail or simply kill any person or group which challenges them. In short, they use the constant threat of financial, social or physical force to curtail any negative responses from the populace.

The weapons of the bullies are many: open borders and the continual attempts at amnesty for border-jumpers, growing intrusion into personal business (including emails, internet access and telephone conversations), "No-knock" entries by law enforcement, asset forfeiture laws, increasing pressures for "hate speech" laws, secret trials, the USA-PATRIOT Act, the Military Commisions Act, the North American Union scheme, the ramping up of taxes and penalties for avoidance, the growing attacks upon peaceful nations who have done nothing to us, the alienation of potential allies around the world, and all of this under the aegis that anyone who dares to confront the President, Congress or Supreme Court will be considered an enemy and dealt with accordingly.

Congress has abandoned its duty to remove this Constitution-defiling President by impeachment, the Supreme Court will not rule against his imperial edicts, and elections are 1.5 years away. How much more damage will the megalomaniac, psychotic, power-mad, alcoholic frat boy do to the integrity, character and future of the former Republic of the U.S.A. by 2009 when he finally steps down?

Or will he step down? Or create a new "terror" plot to usurp continuing control of government and abolish the election process altogether?

The massive clampdown upon liberty, such as we have seen in recent years, may delude the authorities, already drunk with power, into believing that they have a handle on things. But it is the calm before a very dangerous, expensive and explosive storm of response. John Wilkes Booth, the actor who'd had enough and took matters into his own hands against the dictatorial Abraham Lincoln, declared when he shot the President, "Sic semper tyrannis!", or "Thus is it ever with tyrants!". Once government fails to act in the interests of the People, Jefferson said, it is incumbent upon them to replace it.

My prediction is, the people under such bullying, the people of the United States and the rest of the Western world, will soon find the resolve to face the bullies who are forcing them against the wall. They will see an uprising which may be triggered by another "shot heard 'round the world". In the world of bullies, there can be no other outcome.

Born On The Fourth Of July

2007-07-04T20:59:00.000-04:00

On this day in 1776, while in the midst of a war with Great Britain with uncertain outcome, a group of wealthy, educated, well-propertied White men gathered with a solemn purpose. They aimed to create a new country, a new European nation-state. They were placing their signatures on a document which they would present to the British leadership, to King George III himself. In doing so, were they captured, they would almost certainly be hanged for treason and sedition. Their cause was in no way universal, but enough of the colonists had been persuaded to support them, that they faced no great impedence among the people. Instead they would face perhaps the most powerful war machine, and certainly the most competent navy, on Earth.

Standing against this formidable force, which was augmented by German mercenaries from the State of Hesse, were a total of 90,000 colonials. Many formed armies, but most were militiamen: regular farmers, smiths, drovers and other common men who took up arms against what they saw as a repressive regime.

Eleven years later, the war was over, and to the amazement of many around the world, the colonies were now the Confederation of American States. Their leadership met again, and after long hours, interminable debate, heated arguments and strenuous compromise, they produced a document which they hoped would be the germ of a lasting government. That document would weld together thirteen disparate small nations into one largely unified entity. It was not a set of allowances or an authorization of unlimited power to the ruling class. It was instead another declaration of the Rights of the citizenry over the central government. The first statements of guarantee of those naturally-held Rights were contained in the compromise addition, a set of ten amendments known now as "The Bill of Rights". Among the absolute guarantees made in that pact between governors and governed, between the elected in the national capital and their rulers, the voters, in the States were these: Freedoms of speech, of religion, of the press, of popular oversight of government, and of peaceable assembly. The absolute Right to possess and use firearms in defense of family, neighbors, property and homeland. Freedom from military occupation. Prevention of unreasonable searches and seizure of private property. Security of trial procedures. Rights to know charges and evidence, and subpoena witnesses in criminal cases. Juries present at trials of value. Protections against excessive bail, police and court-ordered cruelty, and punishments outside the norm.

And the two final Amendments, possibly the most important to invoke when the national government oversteps its boundaries:

Amendment 9 states that just because some Rights are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it does not mean that others (under Common Law) are not available to the citizenry.

Amendment 10 also speaks of States and the People. The Constitution mandates that the national government is granted certain powers, such as coinage of money (now illegally usurped by the privately-run "Federal" Reserve), raising a navy, and so on. These responsibilities are thus denied to the individual States by agreement. This Amendment ensures that anything falling outside that perimeter belongs to the States and their resident citizens. The language is plain: the States are the superiors versus the national government, which is subordinate. One can not be an "inferior" entity and delegate power to another.

On this day, I am thankful for the work of the Founders. I thank those who determined to break away from European rule and strike their own course. I thank the men, and women, who gave their lives as well as those who put all they had on the line for the benefit of people they would never know. I also tip my hat to the authors of the United States Constitution for their ultimate selflessness in providing a blueprint for an open society which could last for centuries.

Yet, at this time, the men and women who are running our government have turned their backs on the Constitution. They have sought to reduce the long-ago work of those men to a target. The least capable among them, the man who fancies himself the new King George, has verbally spit upon the document of Rights, calling it "a goddamned piece of paper". Such behavior from the lout then in power prompted the People to call for the end of his rule, the end of that tyranny. And they got it.

Two-hundred thirty-one years ago, in declaring the quorum's collective grievances against the Crown, Jefferson penned a sentence, the quality and impact of which is undimmed by the passage of time. It read:

...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It's time to return to our political roots. It's time to stand against the new tyrant. It's time to reinstate the Republic the traitors have stolen from us.

The Crunch

2007-06-28T21:56:00.000-04:00

Today, the second attempt by Kennedy & Co. to ram an immigration bill down the collective throat of America failed. Enough Senators got the word that their jobs would be in jeopardy to tip the balance in favor of ending passage. Senator Kennedy, oblivious to his lost importance, vowed to bring it up again. Where's Sirhan Sirhan, I wonder, when we truly need him.

This is of course Kennedy's attempt to follow up his triumph in the 1965 Immigration Act, when he, acting as the gentile water-bearer for the professional rabble-rouser, jewish Senator Emmanuel Celler, lied the bill to passage. We were promised it wouldn't affect the demographics of American society then; thirty years and millions upon millions of third-world invaders later, we know the truth.

There are, at the moment, about 6.2 BILLION featherless bipeds distributed around the globe. Of those, estimates are that about 9%, or around 600-million, are White and of purely European descent. It's becoming increasingly difficult to get a clear number, because the swine running the various formerly-White nation-states (now simply countries) are covering up the numbers. They are doing this, at least in part, to prevent a wholesale revolt by the White members of those countries. But the 600-million number seems about right.

Now, if we were alone in our own homelands, our own nations, this would be fine. Say, 200-million in the U.S., 250-million in Europe, and the rest in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We'd have enough land to live comfortably, and enough resources to support ourselves. There'd be work for everyone, too. And we'd select our leaders in accordance with our needs as a People.

Illegal immigrants wouldn't be a problem in the Vinland or any other White land; anyone not White would be recognized as an outsider, much as a White person in Tibet is now. We could have visitors and tourists, of course, but they would promptly return home after their stay. Mexicans would live in Mexico, Indians in India, and Chinese in China. Quite simple.

The focus recently has been on illegal immigrants, or "CrimMigrants" as I call them. These border-jumpers, along with the swine in the business and political communities who pave their way for them, should be sent packing right now. But we, not only in North America but other White lands, seem to be paralyzed and unresponsive. We do nothing. But the illegals, ranging from 12-million (the "official" government lie) to 30-million (closer to reality) are only part of the problem.

There are also the H1-b visa holders. These folks came over for temporary employment or educational reasons. Many if not most of the Asians in North America who've arrived in the past 20 years are in this category. When their visas expired, nothing happened. They stayed, many had children who are considered "citizens" because they dropped from the birth canal into American territory ("anchor babies", also a common phenomenon, and cats-paw for gaining residence, among illegal "hispanics"), and now they are somehow considered "Americans".

Finally, there are the legals who came to fill professional positions: physicians, scientists, programmers, pharmacists and so on. Whether or not their credentials are ever questioned, I don't know, but they have taken over many blocs within those communities.

So the problem isn't restricted to illegal entrants, but ALL non-European entrants. Our governments are allowing, and even encouraging, the invasion and take-over of our lands through increasing numeric superiority.

As I've discussed previously, there are finite resources available in all countries. The United States was at its best with the population somewhere between 100 to 200-million people, 90% of whom were White. Having brought Black people here, usually against their will, we owed them a share in the bounty, and they got it (and continue to, in greater, displacing amounts every year). But now, we're being forced to share those resources, the water, the trees, the food output, and all life in general, with people who will never "assimilate", never start speaking English, and never be a part of the predominant culture. This is true in all formerly White countries everywhere. It is not true in non-White countries. China, India and Mexico, for instance, face no onslaught of immigrants who seek to isolate themselves culturally. In fact, they face little immigration of any sort. They have anti-immigration laws, certainly anti-illegal laws, and they rigorously enforce them. We do not. We display guilt-ridden, neurotic "tolerance" toward people who are not only like us, but often avoid and despise us; they do not.

Every day in America, the nation grows less American, Europe becomes less European, Australia less Australian. These regions were built over generations by sweat and work, by long hours, inventive minds and societal cohesion among their White populations. They are now seen as lifeboats; the overflow populations of a hundred lands pour into them, seeking to stay afloat while we paddle furiously, coming from places which never achieved greatness or wealth. We are expected to support ourselves and them. We are expected to give over our jobs, our homes, our countries, and our European nations to others. And what will we receive in the end?

Every year, White people sustain two-job households while non-White welfare recipients have more children. Those who arrived with pilfered wealth from their homelands, those who came with fantastic tech jobs awaiting them, those who walked in with second-rate medical degrees and lots of family cash, all of them also have more children. Does the world need even more Asians, Africans and "hispanics" and absolutely no more Whites? Is it right that our numbers are decreasing every year, as we postpone or otherwise swear off having children of our own? Should the cultures of others be held up as ideals, while displaying pride in the accomplishments of our own ancestors and our own contemporaries is ridiculed as "racist" or "hateful"?

You must answer these questions for yourselves. But you must answer them soon. Once the time has passed, the book will be closed on our People and our time here will have gone.

The Other Desert Storm

2007-06-18T14:49:00.000-04:00

Right now, we are in the first stages of a revolution. In case anyone from the DHS is wondering, I'm not advocating anything, I'm strictly an observer until my own self-defense comes into play. Judging by what I've seen developing around me, that may not be too far into the future. Hopefully, I'm wrong. Unfortunately, I haven't been, so far.

The United States Senate is about to vote on a bill which will, if passed, allow "twelve" million Mexican criminal immigrants, who are stationed within this country, to gain citizenship. Yes, I said "stationed". Invasions of millions of people are acts of warfare, are they not? If so, we should be using military jargon.

Should the Senators completely go off the rails, they will be in direct and reflective violation of their duties laid out for them in the United States Constitution, Section 8:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

The militia, in case your high school history teacher didn't get it right, is "us", the adult citizenry. We're the ones the Second Amendment was written for and about:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Mexicans are completely convinced of the correctness of this invasion because they believe, without question, that the United States illegally obtained land rights to Texas, California and other southwestern areas. The U.S. offered to purchase Texas and was denied. When Texas broke free from Mexico and declared its independence, the U.S. offered to add it to the Union, and did so. Defense of the Rio Grande led to the Mexican-American War. This ended with American control of most of the west (after the conclusion of the peacetime Gadsden Purchase). Mexico lost about half its land area.

Today, we are seeing the fulfillment of a predicted "reconquista", or "reconquest" of the same American southwest. The initial ruse was workers coming in to fill low-paying jobs. Then, families who had been ignored by the Mexican government came to get education and medical benefits. This process has been quite beneficial to Mexico; the dirt poor get sent off to America, send much of their money home, take their illnesses north, and further tax the systems already under stress.

The "hispanics" are the largest minority group, and also the fastest growing as a percentage of the overall population. Their legal numbers make up 15% of the people here, or 45-million. Their publicized illegal numbers stand at 12-million, but the true figure is closer to 30-million. Conveying this honestly to an unprepared majority population could result in massive insurrections, so the heat of truth is raised a degree at a time. What those folks will have to contend with is, we have added a fairly organized ethnic bloc of seventy-five million to our land and no one hinted at that until now.

There are protests by illegal aliens demanding "rights" in a country which they have no legal right to stand in. There are American churches defending illegals against expulsion, right now, giving them "sanctuary" as if the American legal system were the perpetrator. Their continued entry is tied to U.S. access to Mexican oil. There are websites promising various forms of retribution against "anglos" when the end comes.

We, as citizens of the U.S.A., have these choices:

1. We can deny the passage of the immigration bill now on the Senate floor and determine the illegals to be criminals.

2. We can pass the legislation, almost all of the current illegals will gain citizenship within the next few years, and they will be entitled to everything you are, including voting for those turncoats who let them stay.

If we take the second road, we are doomed as a citizenry, and we in particular as a People, within these borders. Things will get much, much worse before any brightening if it comes.

If we choose the first, we will have to bring home our troops in order to effect removal of the illegals and defense of the borders. Many of those troops are "hispanic". Will they obey their orders and work for the U.S. Government or decide that's a losing proposition? Assuming they remain loyal, will the 30-million illegals go peacefully? Will the other 45-million "hispanic" citizens join them?

These are questions we are facing right now, tonight. They aren't fantasaical or absurd. They are playing out as we sit here. What will our choice be?

Uncharted Land

2007-06-18T14:43:00.000-04:00

(Original posting date 05.25.2007)

With the current, though hidden, push by the Bush dictator-wannabes to form a North American Union and effectively erase our borders with Canuckistan (Canada) and Tierra de los Mestizos (Mexico), I had more thoughts about the Vinland Nation concept.

In our history, two current states, Vermont and Texas, were once independent entities. Nine states in the South attempted to secede from the Union in 1861, but were put down by the mercantilist dictator, Abraham Lincoln (who was later assassinated for his unConstitutional policies).

There have been other recent secession movements, such as the Free State Project (which decided on New Hampshire as the destination), the Green Mountain Republic (Vermont) group, and various others. None have really had any traction.

As the "Reconquista" project of the Mexican government (aided and abetted by the bandits in Washington at least since the early 1980's) has moved forward, we have gone from a country with a population structure of 89% White, 10% Black and 1% all others in 1950 to 64% non-jewish White, 13% Black, 15% "hispanic", 4% Asian, 3% jewish and remainder all others. This progress is expected to continue, with even Bill Clinton having noted, in a commencement speech, that the U.S. will become majority non-White by 2050.

Coupled with the overall decline of Constitutional civil rights, and the selective enforcement of those remaining (i.e., the Imus case: Whites being prohibited from certain speech open to Blacks, who are protected as a group by the neo-communists currently in power), we face several choices for the future.

The first is to do nothing. Things will progress as they have been. White people will become more marginalized, lose more of their social and political standing, and, in my own opinion and that of many others, eventually be subsumed into the larger, non-White population. This was essentially what happened to the Tokharians of ancient China, the Ainu of Japan, the Aryan Brahmins of India, the Ptolemys of Egypt, and it is happening now among many of the remaining urban Whites of South Africa and Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). The European homelands are also under assault, but that is a topic for another blog.

The second possibility is voter resistance. However, as has been proven time and again, both major parties in the U.S. are in lockstep on matters of immigration (including protection of illegals), race "relations", integration, affirmative action, etc. This was also the case in the last Congressional election, in which the new Democrat majority lied to the voters, promising an end to Iraq, more transparent government, possible impeachment actions, etc. So voting for change results in nothing. It's all wind designed to keep the masses in check.

A third possible direction is actual citizen paramilitary revolution. This was the Founders' choice, but required large-scale citizen involvement, as well as the remaining neutral citizenry stepping aside and not actively opposing the others. In 1776, this was possible and led the way to successful detachment from King George III's Britain. Now, it is nearly an impossibility. There is no consensus among White Americans as to direction, and none among the other favored groups. No one wants to upset the status quo and potentially lose their Sunday ball games, SUV, and the kids' weekend soccer games. The work of the media in creating a sleepy, consumerist society has been incredibly successful.

As a side note, there are large numbers of non-Whites serving in the military, and chances are they will smiply not be amenable on principle to any White uprising.

China and Japan are holding hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. bonds and other liabilities. The FED continues to pump money into the economy, which debases the currency and causes inflation. The Chinese, not being stupid, are divesting themselves of dollars, and buying real estate, gold, Swiss francs and Euros, as well as having purchased much of our industrial infrastructure for producing durable goods. The latter is also true of India, Korea and Indonesia.

As things begin to tighten economically, and they will as sure as the sun rises, the odds of revolution may increase, although the sheep will probably remain alternately frightened and pacified until it's too late to respond effectively.

Thomas Chittum, in his book "Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America", coldly assesses our current national predicament and predicts that the U.S. will eventually separate into three predominant states, along racial lines. The southwest, already far along on this road, will become a "hispanic" extension of Mexico. The deep South will become an African-based nation, and the remainder will be White. He also predicts enormous violence and bloodshed during this process. Hopefully, that will not happen, but I am not completely optimistic.

If this comes to pass, the last possibility would be the establishment of a White refuge of sorts, a homeland within the crumbling North American state structures of the U.S. and Canada. Some, including Robert J. Mathews, saw that homeland arising in the Pacific Northwest. However, the numbers of Asians and "hispanics" who are there now preclude that possibility.

Instead, I would create a White national confederated republic with borders encompassing Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, western Massachusetts, northern and western New York, western Pennsylvania and West Virginia. In addition, I would urge the addition of Quebec and the Canadian Maritime provinces of Labrador, Newfoundland, PEI, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick if they've had enough of their increasingly dictatorial overlords. The resulting map would initally look like this:

This would be the core; as time progressed and more areas were decided, more contiguous states and provinces would be added. It's just one scenario among many possibilities.

In order to make this happen, a migration to these areas must begin soon. Land ownership, apart from its intrinsic value, also serves to create voter blocs and eventual local political control. As the Mexicans are doing in the southwest, sheer numbers begin to tip the balance toward de facto political power. This leads to localized decision-making and increasing leverage against the dictates of the Federal power elites.

Is it all just wishful thinking? Perhaps. But I shudder when considering the alternatives.

Turning Out The Lights

2007-06-18T14:39:00.000-04:00

(Original posting date 05.29.2007)

This past holiday weekend, my lady friend Carol and I visited the local IKEA store, which is located in the city of Elizabeth, New Jersey. Elizabeth is directly across the Hudson River from the Staten Island section of New York City and is part of the metropolitan area, and this store is always crammed full of shoppers.

In the time I was in the store, there were literally many hundreds of people there. As I often do lately, I head-counted the number of White people in attendance. Apart from the two of us, I counted seven others. Most of the shoppers were Indian, east Asians, "hispanics", and arabics.

This, I have found, is becoming typical of central and northern New Jersey. The media population numbers showing a 2/3 White majority can not possibly be correct. To be sure, there are pocket communities where that's the case, but by and large, I would estimate the White percentage to be closer to 45-50% overall in this state, maybe less. I'd also guess that's probably the case in the neighboring states in the middle Atlantic and southern New England areas.

Although it's been downplayed in, or ignored by, the mainstream media (MSM), so-called "White flight" has been in practice for about 40 years now. White families moved from cities to suburbs to rural areas over time. The reasons given were cloaked: "better schools", "fresh air", "more space", etc. The underlying, unadmitted-to reason was simple: fewer non-Whites around.

This is no longer the case. Apart from the fact that non-Whites historically follow White dispersal patterns in the U.S. and Canada (apparently because Whites create jobs and prosperity conspicuously absent in their own communities), the Federal government has also been at work actively implanting minority populations into the rural heartlands, allegedly to create "diversity" there. This has been followed up by the social engineering of Christian churches, such as the Lutherans of Lewiston, Maine, who thought it a wonderful idea to bring substantial numbers of Somali "refugees" up from majority-Black Atlanta, Georgia into their 98% White area.

In 1965, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, acting as a front man for jewish Senator and tikkun olam activist Emmanuel Celler, succeeded in passing the Immigration and Nationality Act, which removed national origin and entry limits from immigration. Prior to this, immigration was controlled by the Immigration Act of 1924, which was heavily biased in favor of northern Europeans, had precluded Asian immigration and restricted European immigrants to 2% per year of their existing numbers in the U.S.

In the 1960 Census, 88.5% of all Americans were White, 10.5% Black, 0.9% all others. In a public speech in favor of the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, Kennedy told Congress, apparently with a straight face,

First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia...

In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.

Was Senator Kennedy right, and the concerns simply overblown? Let's see...

The 2000 Census is already out of date and contains the nonsensical and misleading category of "hispanic", covering over 35-million people. If we assume that this group is comprised of 98% non-European Brown, or mestizo people and take them out of the White category, the adjusted numbers were as follows: 62.7% White, 12.3% Black, 3.7% Asian/Pac. Islander, 12.4% "hispanic", and 5.5% "some other race" (whom even the Census Bureau couldn't figure out). Recently, CNN stated that "hispanics" are now 15% of the U.S. population, eclipsing Blacks and others. This too has happened at the expense of Whites.

It's well-known that all great rivers have a tiny point of origin. It's usually a small stream or outlet from a lake high in the mountains. In many cases, one can step or wade across it. In theory, damming that small source would preclude the existence of the entire mighty river downstream.
The people of the United States had an opportunity, 42 years ago, to maintain the status quo by opposing and defeating this Act before it could have been implemented. Since then, we've had ample opportunity to review its effects and either eliminate or correct the faults found. Nothing has been done. Instead, "our" government has lavished praise on the increasing "diversity" provided by the arriving masses of immigrants, whether legal, amnestied or illegal. The media has marched in lockstep with the authorities, also promoting these destructive policies.

The small stream which could have been dammed at the source has become a raging river which threatens to wipe out the entire majority culture. And it's not confined to North America, but has infected, and is destroying, every White nation around the globe.

Whites, as a race, are under enormous pressure to simply accept this flood. There is of course no movement in the opposite direction, no flood of Whites into Africa, China or Mexico. We, however, are encouraged to give up our language, our traditions, our institutions, even our very genes to benefit, give preference to or perpetuate those who are not "us". We are praised as "loving" or "tolerant" when we submerge ourselves and meld into the mass. We are condemned as "hateful" when we express the desire to maintain our racio-ethnic integrity, or when we attempt to live in our own space, or even wish to have our own space.

We have nowhere else to go on this planet. There is nothing we possess, including the land beneath our feet, that isn't coveted by others. When does flight become fight?

David Lane died yesterday, nearly anonymously if relying on the MSM, at age 69. Whatever your opinions of him, or of The Order and its activities, Mr. Lane made a statement which became the articulated creed of White Nationalism: We must secure the existence of our People, and a future for White children.

Is it still possible to do so today? Do we, as a unique and valuable People, have a future?

By The Numbers

2007-06-18T14:36:00.000-04:00

(Original posting date 06.04.2007)

IMMIGRATION BY THE NUMBERS

Stop the ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASION

Clear Meaning

2007-06-18T14:31:00.000-04:00

(Original posting date 06.04.2007)

Last week, I was skimming through a section of one of my favorite political books, Orwell's 1984. One part of it deals with the Party's alteration, and finally, elimination, of certain words. Words are symbols of thought; disconnect the original thought from the word, replace it with a new thought, reattach the old thought to a new word or drop it altogether, and voila! One can no longer express the same thought as before.

To be sure, words change meaning by usage over time in all languages. "To kill" used to mean "to murder", with premeditation (and what we mean by "kill" nowadays was conveyed by "slay"). Likewise, "gay" used to mean "happy", not homosexual; and "rap" meant striking one's knuckles on wood, or a jail sentence. But what we have today is a calculated redefining of the very meanings words can have.

The premise is a chilling one. If the powers in a society want to eliminate dissent on a particular subject, one reliable means to do so is to make it impossible for you to name what bothers you. The really worrisome part is, it's happening right now, in the real world.

What triggered the thought was the CNN coverage of the torture-murders of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom in Knoxville, Tennessee. The national media has steered clear of this case since it happened many months ago, and only after constant commentary on the internet about that silence have they reluctantly "covered" it. The head stooge for CNN on this topic was Paula Zahn on her euphemistically-named show, "Out in the Open".

The premise of the show was, we are told, to decide whether or not it was a "hate crime". Apparently, if a crime is committed by 4 Black people (with a 5th as an accessory), in which the [White] victims are carjacked, abducted, robbed, raped, sodomized, sexually mutilated, shot, doused with gasoline, set afire, and dismembered, unless it includes explicit anti-White"hate", it must not be important enough for CNN to air nationally. We must suppose that the act itself is something other than the embodiment of "hate" per se and that the perpetrators' frame of mind was kind, benevolent and loving.

The video's talking head, a Nepalese-born woman named Kiran Chetry, makes two points at the outset: 1) Nobody (including the authorities, she says) believes it to be a hate crime, and 2) it wouldn't be such a big deal except for "White supremacists" playing it up on the internet. There's lots more, so here's the video so you can listen for yourselves.

The point here, however, is that we are told that only "White supremacists" are concerned about this case, angered by the lack of coverage and frustrated by the fact that, had the perps' and victims' races been reversed, the media coverage would have been endless.

What the "non-immunized" in the masses hear and conclude is this: Only "White supremacists" think this is a problem. Being evil racists, they simply hate these innocent Blacks because of their race. It's just a murder to me, because that's what the authorities and CNN tell us. And besides, I am NO "White supremacist"!

This is a perfect example of redefining the thought which a word can symbolize. If only "White supremacists" can be self-protective, or believe that the media glosses over certain news items or intentionally fails to cover them, or in any way oppose a particular group because of the anti-White activities of that group, well, that precludes most of the White folks out there having such thoughts. And soon, just saying you are a White person will be deemed "offensive"; after all, the media wants us to believe that race is a social construct. What then? If there are no restrictions on Black, "hispanic", Asian, Eskimo or any other "pride" except among Whites, and we alone are socially forced to accept ourselves as part of "one race, the human race"?

In that case, we will mentally cease to exist shortly before we are physically merged out of existence.

Welcome to 1984. It's just a few years late.

Our House

2007-06-18T14:30:00.001-04:00

(Original posting date 06.14.2007)

This evening, I was talking to a friend about various things and the topic of politics came up, as it often does with me. One topic in particular was discussed.

When people grow up in large families, one of the marks of approaching maturity is to get one's own bedroom. There is a sweetness in independence from siblings who may, and often do, act or think differently. Having brothers and sisters is cool, but nobody argues that it's even cooler to be able to sometimes shut that bedroom door.

As we grow older, that spirit of independent living extends to our own residences. We revel in the idea of having our own place, our own space. Maybe it's an apartment, or as we are able to afford it, a condo or house. We put our touches on the place, arrange the furniture to our liking, make our own rules for living. Our friends are welcome, but at day's end, that space is our own. Having friends and neighbors is wonderful, but again, no one would disagree that having that quiet time without anyone else around but self, or perhaps partner or family, is why we got the place.

Nationalism is just like that. It's exactly like having that house and making it our own. A true nation is an extended family. And like a family, we all need a place to come home to, kick off our shoes and get comfortable. A place to be ourselves, let our hair down and not worry about what we say or do. We work best among ourselves and do poorly when forced into multicultural arrangements. As Jefferson Davis said, "All that we ask is to be let alone".

A true nation-state is formed by mutual agreement, not war or coercion. I've found that, as I've talked to people, even non-racialist folks, most think that having such a country for ourselves is an excellent idea.

The European nations were all like that at one time. We were isolated there, by ice ages and time, and we grew with only ourselves as company. Ethnic groups had their own lands and while this was true, and there was respect for borders, people got along well. The European colonies of North America, Australia and New Zealand were founded in lands with existing populations, but once underway, were also heavily segregated. All of these lands prospered and became the envy of the globe.

We are now in a downward spiral of uncontrolled non-European immigration into European-based former nations, of a breaking down of spatial barriers and erasure of borders. Mexicans, Chinese and Indians flood into North America. Algerians pour into France, Moroccans into Spain, Turks into Germany and Lebanese into Sweden.

The world is 91% non-White. China could send the equivalent of the entire U.S. population to the U.S. and still have enough left in China to do it three more times. The same is nearly true of India. The Muslim world contains over a billion adherents, nearly all Arabics or other non-Whites. Africa is actively sending its population out as a safety valve against internal starvation.

This world of emigration is heading for the West, clawing its way in, not realizing or caring that as the ship of plenty fills, it will surely sink while taking all with it. The rest of the planet wants what we have, what we've invented and refined and upgraded. They want our money, our lifestyles, and most importantly, our lands and resources. Instead of staying in their homelands and building their own perfect house, they want to move into ours, a house which they did not build.

As their numbers among us increase, we are faced with two choices: Become a minority in a land which has absolutely no concern for our well-being or that of our children, eventually to disappear. Or we can found our own nation on a piece of land and build our new home on it.

It's time we had that house, that home, that place to kick off out shoes and hang out with our amazing, and truly diverse, extended White family.

And we need to be able to close the door and have our privacy.

New Mischief

2007-06-18T14:27:00.001-04:00

Everyone's seen this new post about Myspace's wondrous new capability to stop spammers. As with all changes they've made, expect the lag from announcement to actual operability to be about 2 weeks. In the meantime, expect the "Unexpected error" screen to be a regular fixture on your monitor. This is typical of the Microsoft mentality of this site: roll out changes, THEN test them.

One thing I'm not clear on is why searching over 1000 profiles within a Friends list for a user name, etc. is any more difficult than for 500. I used to work for a company that processed healthcare claims, and our routine searches scanned through millions of records without any problems. I think their basic framework is getting tired. But that's a mere tech issue.

The real issue is the MSPLINKS conversion. They are rolling this out under cover of spam intervention, but there may more.

First, it will be a source of annoyance to anyone updating their perma-links. Previously, if a website altered its URL, you could simply update the link within your HTML/CSS code. Now you'll have to click to it, find the reference within your profile by location alone, then re-copy the new code. A minor inconvenience, but another on top of all the other minor and not-so-minor annoyances we experience using this site.

More importantly, look again at what Metro Tom is saying: "This allows us to easily and instantly disable links sitewide".

Certain "spam filters" used in network firewalls prevent users accessing certain websites, and the list of these sites can be internally configured. For instance, the network where I work doesn't allow users on the floor to access certain websites during working hours. This is normal and typical of many workplaces.

However, the filtering programs come prepackaged with a list of sites deemed to be, esssentially, universally unacceptable. Included in those sites are porn sites, certain gaming sites and...sites which are considered by the compilers to be politically incorrect. Is Tom's potential for mischief becoming clearer now?

While it could certainly be used to search for porn spammers sitewide, and would be well-used for that purpose, it could also be used to instantly disable site links which, in the opinion of MomMySpace, are not nice. Sites such as Stormfront, Rense, AmRen, VNN, ConspiracyPenPal, the 9/11 investigation sites, or even links to conservative columnists like Pat Buchanan or George F. Will could be rendered unusable.

We've seen this sneaky, underhanded behavior played out in keyword-driven, false "You've been phished!" messages. Those cases disallowed posting bulletins with certain links to information that was either detrimental to Myspace (the pedophile issue being one), or was deemed "offensive" by the censors.

So, will this happen? Maybe, maybe not. It's not that difficult to do, and as we can all see from the trying-desperately-to-be-hip wording used in Tom's post, they are playing to a very young and not-so-intelligent set whose politics extend only to how unfair it was to jail Paris.