Is Ducks Unlimited Sowing the Seeds for the next Holocaust?

Posted by danielj on January 28, 2010, 10:39 PM | #

In human affairs we call this ethnic cleansing and genocide, and we have seen how ugly it is.

Or we call it more accurately: repelling an invasion, self-defense, community protection, antibiotics, etc.

Posted by Dasein on January 28, 2010, 10:51 PM | #

This is a paragraph from a section titled ‘Genetic Pollution’ in the Wikipedia entry for invasive species:

Natural, wild species can be threatened with extinction[35] through the process of genetic pollution. Genetic pollution is uncontrolled hybridization and introgression which leads to homogenization or replacement of local genotypes as a result of either a numerical or fitness advantage of the introduced species.[36] Genetic pollution can bring about a form of extinction either through purposeful introduction or through habitat modification, bringing previously isolated species into contact. These phenomena can be especially detrimental for rare species coming into contact with more abundant ones where the abundant ones can interbreed with them, creating hybrids and swamping the entire rarer gene pool, thus driving the native species to extinction. Attention has to be focused on the extent of this problem, it is not always apparent from morphological observations alone. Some degree of gene flow may be a normal, evolutionarily constructive process, and all constellations of genes and genotypes cannot be preserved. However, hybridization with or without introgression may, nevertheless, threaten a rare species’ existence.[37][38]

Now will any conservationist be brave enough to apply this concern to the human species (and include Europeans)?  It would be interesting to contact conservation groups and ask them for their position on the preservation of Europeans.  Maybe it’s been done already.  Does anyone know?  It would be good to get any genocidal beliefs on record.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 28, 2010, 11:12 PM | #

The reaction will depend upon how well it serves capital. The South American water primrose – Ludwigia grandiflora is ill serving of capital resources and thus targeted for control/elimination. However, Crown Vetch (Coronilla varia) serves capital well and though highly invasive and destructive of native species it receives little attention.

Posted by cladrastis on January 29, 2010, 12:25 AM | #

Maybe this Singer fella’s onto something (and it may not be a coincidence that he hails from HI).  My concern about invasive species certainly preceded my awareness of the effects of “people of the Jewish race” on their host populations.  And Jews characteristically disrupt indigenous human ecologies for their own benefit by redirecting the flow of nutrients and energy.  They choke out competitors, reproduce prolifically, and predispose the entire ecology to further invasions. 

I still prefer JB’s theory of Jewish virulence (as the solution is something other than uprooting and exterminating the invaders).

A bit ironically, in the UK the native plant “nuts” are paranoid not only about whether they are using native species, but also about whether the provenance of their vegetative material is “of local origin” (i.e. from that particular region or island).  Go figure.

Posted by vo on January 29, 2010, 06:16 PM | #

“Chutzpah is not compatible with the scientific method.”

http://www.brandonbeltz.com/scimeth/vocabulary.htm

Problem -
Observation -
Hypothesis -
Experiment -
Conclusion -
Variable -

POHEC - The mnemonic device used to help you remember the steps of the scientific method.

While this isn’t the mnemonic I learned at age 12, I believe there is plenty of room for chutzpah within scientific methodology. Easily could be wrong. The conclusional theory may not be compatible with anxiousness, determined action, balls, guts or whatever chutzpah means.

Posted by Dasein on January 29, 2010, 08:22 PM | #

vo, I think you are right, my understanding of chutzpah was perhaps too restricted to the pejorative to make such a bold statement.  If it were to mean shameless exaggeration or misrepresentation, then there would be a problem (e.g. with reproducibility).  If it’s just audacity or shamelessness, but not in a dishonest form, then it’s not necessarily incompatible.

Posted by Dan Dare on January 29, 2010, 09:12 PM | #

Perhaps the answer will be for future Europeans to be sheltered in the equivalent of present-day wildfile preserves or perhaps tribal reservations as are common in North America.

I recall once on a trip to Arizona staying on a Hopi reservation (in a motel) and attempting to visit a nearby village. The entrance to village had a sign “Keep Out White Visitors, You are Unwelcome”.

Posted by Jupiter on January 30, 2010, 06:40 PM | #

Removing a large hostile popualtion of nonwhites is justifiable. Call it self defense. Either they are removed or they will remove NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS. Why does the trust fund kid Auster have a problem with this? NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS have already been removed by nonwhite alien invaders in California. NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS are facing twilight in at least five other states.

Singer has taken a big beating by his fellow philosophers. In partucular, philospher and animal rights activist Tom Regan has torn his Utilitarianism to shreds in the philosophy journals over the years.

Conservation biologist-Michael Soule specifically despises the nutty animal rights acgivists and their nutty morality. He sees them as a major threat to biodiversity.

Petr Singer is a fucking rertard. I would say to his face.

Hispanics,asians,muslims and africans are a alien species invaders-colonizers in America. Thy pose a mortal threat to the continued long term existence of NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS.

Eventually, NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS will wake up and throw out the non-white invasive species.

Posted by Dasein on January 31, 2010, 08:17 PM | #

The entrance to village had a sign “Keep Out White Visitors, You are Unwelcome”.

Whites are perhaps the only people who would respect such a sign.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 31, 2010, 09:14 PM | #

From the “Jews Doing What Jews Do Best” department:

In Haaretz, a frank new article discusses an ethnic alliance between Jews and Hispanics in a renewed push for “comprehensive immigration reform.” The basis of this alliance is a quid pro quo:  Hispanics back Jews on Israel, Jews back Hispanics on immigration, and both unite to stick it to the White man!
[ http://antisemitica.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/the-jew-hispanic-alliance/ ]

Letting Jews into your country spells your people’s national death and genocide.  Jews and Euros must live apart in separate countries because when they live together in the same country sooner or later the Jews always try to genocide the Euros.

(For the non-Americans reading this, the expression “comprehensive immigration reform” was cooked up by the Judeocommunists here to fool the American people:  it refers to the drastic acceleration of race-replacement immigration which the Jews and communists are fighting for.  They knew of course the American people wanted immigration reform consisting of less or no race-replacement immigration, so in order to fool people they simply attached the label “comprehensive immigration reform” to their plan for even more race-replacement immigration, much more, hoping Joe six-pack wouldn’t notice.  Vdare.com responded to that trick by coining the expression “patriotic immigration reform,” meaning the adoption of serious measures for combatting illegal immigration, plus significantly decreased legal immigration.  “Patriotic immigration reform” is what the people want; so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” is what the Jews and communists want.  You have to remember that when reading news stories on immigration in the U.S. media.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 31, 2010, 09:26 PM | #

“Letting Jews into your country spells your people’s national death and genocide.” (—my comment)

The other thing that spells that is letting women vote without first putting a few simple, extremely important, iron-clad-and-unalterable-by-any-means constitutional protections in place, protections for your race and nation so women voters can’t fuck them both completely up.  The Jews can’t pull the crap they pull without allies “on the inside.” Euro women voters are their biggest allies.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 31, 2010, 10:24 PM | #

Patrick Cleburne blogs on this story today and, along with The Kvetcher, whom he cites, answers the question why the Jews are doing it:

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2010/01/31/immigration-policy-are-hispanics-using-jews-or-jews-using-hispanics/ .

He answers correctly.

Posted by Desmind Jones on January 31, 2010, 10:34 PM | #

Whites are perhaps the only people who would respect such a sign.

The coloreds use to respect such signs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ColoredDrinking.jpg

Posted by Kievsky on February 01, 2010, 02:02 PM | #

Jewish mass media has been a penicillin against the White organism, but we are developing into supergerms. Watch the video with the hot science babe here, we are MRSA, and the Jews mass media is penicillin:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/080401_mrsa

Posted by Dasein on February 01, 2010, 09:36 PM | #

The other thing that spells that is letting women vote without first putting a few simple, extremely important, iron-clad-and-unalterable-by-any-means constitutional protections in place, protections for your race and nation so women voters can’t fuck them both completely up.  The Jews can’t pull the crap they pull without allies “on the inside.” Euro women voters are their biggest allies. --Fred Scrooby

Princess Diana was typical of the ‘clueless women voters’ that Fred often writes about.

Mr Julius said the Princess made the comment to express her empathy with him as a Jew. The claim is made in the lawyer’s new book about anti-Semitism.

He writes: “She was interested in Jews but had no idea about them, save that Jewish men (she had heard) were more likely than the men of her own class and background to treat women decently. She was happy to take Jews to be hostile to everything to which she herself was hostile. She once said to me that she should never have married into a German family.”

...

“She was very receptive to new experiences, which meant that she was sometimes taken by odd fancies. She had a strong desire to please, to leave her interlocutor happy, but often without quite understanding what that person was ‘about’.

...

He adds: “She was interested in everything that was outside her own world; she had a tendency to esteem a thing just because it was not part of her world — even more if it was excluded by her world. She herself was not quite of that world, but did not belong to any other either.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/7115410/Princess-Diana-regretted-marrying-into-German-family.html

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 01, 2010, 11:05 PM | #

Euro women voters are their biggest allies. --Fred Scrooby

Historically, it has not been the case. Why deny the daughters of the founding Americans the right to vote when Negro men, Jews and Catholics long had the right to vote?

http://depts.washington.edu/labpics/repository/v/KKK/photos/Women+March-1.jpg.html

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 01, 2010, 11:50 PM | #

“Why deny the daughters of the founding Americans the right to vote when Negro men, Jews and Catholics long had the right to vote?” (—Desmond)

Because they vote for the Negroes, Jews, and Catholics.

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 01, 2010, 11:57 PM | #

Because they vote for the Negroes, Jews, and Catholics.

Where’s the evidence that WKKK voted for the above?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 02, 2010, 12:08 AM | #

Most of the ones I’m talking about aren’t in the KKK ladies’ auxilliary, Desmond.  But you’re right, if they present their KKK card at the door of the polling station they should be allowed to vote.

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 02, 2010, 12:27 AM | #

You’re blowing smoke Fred and I can see it. Did white women, as a majority, vote for Obama?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 02, 2010, 12:45 AM | #

Exit polling has no bearing on my point, Desmond, as the party platforms and the parties’ choices of candidate are already skewed by the fact of having to please that half of voters who are women.  Were men voters all they had to please, both platforms and candidates would be more congenial to the preservation of nation and race.  The women’s franchise affects the elections way before Election Day by making everything that wants to have a prayer of winning effeminate-friendly.  The nation-state and the race aren’t effeminate-friendly.

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 02, 2010, 12:54 AM | #

Fred, you’re shifting the goal posts.

“Why deny the daughters of the founding Americans the right to vote when Negro men, Jews and Catholics long had the right to vote?” (—Desmond)

Because they vote for the Negroes, Jews, and Catholics...Fred

White women, in the majority, contrary to your assertion, did not vote for a Negro in the 2008 US Presidential election.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 02, 2010, 01:18 AM | #

Interesting to learn from the Telegraph article that Anthony Julius’ new book Trials of the Diaspora has finally been published.  I shall look forward to reading it.

Julius has made something of a second career out of documenting English anti-semitism, earlier pieces already on file include this one on TS Eliot and this one also in the Guardian. A brief extract serves to give the flavour:

… Jews born in this country quickly learn how to identify its distinctive anti-semitism, notwithstanding that it tends to be an elusive, low-key affair. It is perhaps best understood as an anti-semitism of minor, uneven constraint on Jewish ambition and self-esteem.

It can be demoralising; it is often dismissive; it is usually covert. In English society, anti-semitism is something that Jews more often overhear than are confronted by. Its challenges tend to be oblique, subtle, somewhat insidious. Jews are encouraged to accept that they have certain skills, certain talents, that are not quite consistent with an ideal conception of what it is to be English. This anti-semitism is consistent, then, with a rhetoric of false praise: Jews are admired for their superior acumen and industry, for their communal cohesiveness, and for being influential beyond their numbers.

It’s quite remarkable that someone who has done so well, professionally and financially, out of his sojourn in a country should be so open in his churlishness.

Posted by Lurker on February 02, 2010, 01:35 AM | #

White women, in the majority, contrary to your assertion, did not vote for a Negro in the 2008 US Presidential election.

Would it be fair to say that white women were more likely to vote for Obama than white men?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 02, 2010, 01:37 AM | #

“White women, in the majority, contrary to your assertion, did not vote for a Negro in the 2008 US Presidential election.” (—Desmond)

In any election, white women’s eligibilty to vote predetermines what type of men will be chosen as candidates (do you think a Tony Blair, a Pierre Trudeau, or a Bill Clinton would have been selected as candidates if the franchise were limited to men?) and predetermines what type of party platform will be permissible, even thinkable.  Women’s eligibilty to vote predetermines — and severely curtails — the range of choice that the political process will offer to the public on Election Day.  In other words, an entire range of political opinion and an entire species of candidate are excluded from consideration before the election is held.  Of that which remains after this “vetting by women” in effect, the public, including men, is asked to vote yea or nay. 

In Communist countries you had your choice of candidate as long as he was a communist.  It’s the same thing here:  in “women’s-franchise reality” you have your choice of candidate as long as he is clueless-women-friendly, in other words as long as he steers clear of anything that might smack of race or nation-state preservation.

The anti-racist, anti-nation-state fix is in before the election is even held.

Posted by ZSIDOZAS on February 02, 2010, 04:26 AM | #

Many ‘anti-Semitic’ writers have noted time and time again how Jews are indeed an invasive species in a bio-sociological sense.

I wrote about this topic last July:

Ashkenazi Jews are only able to outcompete non-Jews (especially Whites) in the competition for resources because they are an ‘invasive species’ that are able to super-thrive in cultures (especially White cultures) which have not evolved the necessary defenses to contain them. Jews do not compete fairly…they utilize Jewish ethnic networking as well as other collective ethnically Jewish strategies while discouraging other groups (especially Whites) from using those same strategies. if Whites ever tried to start using White-forms of ethnic networking, Jews would be leading the charge to ban such “racist” behavior, screaming “discrimination!” to the high-heavens.  Jews could never thrive or succeed in other similarly collective cultures like those found in the Near East or Asia…this is because those collective Asian cultures can effectively contain Jews with similar counter-strategies. Jews only succeed in White cultures because Whites are so naturally individualistic, atomized, and non-collectivistic – thus very unorganized on a macro-racial level. White collectivism/White cooperationism (AKA White nationalism) as well as anti-Semitism are healthy, natural, and even instinctive reactions by Whites who seek to check the rampant and uncontrolled growth of the Jewish ‘invasive species.’
...
In evolutionary (Darwinian) terms, Jews can be seen as a kind of ‘invasive species’ in Europe (which they are not native to). As you know, ‘invasive species’ are those which enter or are unnaturally introduced in to an environment they are not native to and thus are able to ‘run rampant’ over virtually everything because there are no naturally evolved checks in the new environment to stop or prevent them from doing so. A good example of this is the kudzu plant in the Southern USA – it is a plant which is native to Asia and was (unfortunately) introduced in the Southern USA a while back and has now colonized large portions of the Southern landscape; it grows uncontrollably there and as such chokes out/kills many of the native plant species which have not yet had time to evolve any adequate natural defenses against it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu#Ecological_invasion

White Europeans evolved without Jews around, and thus when Jews eventually went to (invaded/colonized) Europe the native White Europeans did not have any natural evolutionary defenses against this ‘invasive species’ – as a result Jews were able to run roughshod over White Europeans (i.e., a native subspecies being ‘choked’ by an invasive one) and became disproportionately intelligent (and thus wealthy/influential). Ashkenazi Jews actually evolved above-average intelligence/cunning while in Europe to try and outwit the native White Europeans in the competition for resources – Jews evolved intelligence to try and succeed in the alien European environment, while Europeans evolved so-called “anti-Semitism” as a reaction against the Jewish ‘invasive species.’

As is now evident, when Jews are born and raised in their own native country (Israel) their intelligence levels begin to returns to more normalized levels over a couple generations. Just notice that Jews are not at all as successful in the Near East as they have been in Europe or the USA; this is of course because they are native to the Near East (i.e., they are not an ‘invasive species’ there) and thus are evolutionarily ‘kept in check’ by their fellow Near Eastern Semites who are evolutionarily prepared to deal with them.

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 02, 2010, 04:41 AM | #

Would it be fair to say that white women were more likely to vote for Obama than white men?

In some cases the answer is as likely if not more so.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#FLP00p1

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 02, 2010, 04:42 AM | #

Excellent analysis above by Zsidozas.

Posted by Al Ross on February 02, 2010, 11:49 AM | #

Splendid to hear the usual good sense from Zsidozas.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 02, 2010, 01:42 PM | #

Further to the topic of the log entry and Zsidozas’ comment, and as a perfect complement to it see this extremely important log entry from a couple of years ago by Old Atlantic Lighthouse:

http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/population-genetics-island-model-one-way-migration/ .

Read it carefully and understand that there is a core of Jewish immigration promoters who understand this mechanism very well and push immigration for exactly this reason:  to get rid of their tribal enemy once and for all, their tribal enemy being us, Euros.  Anyone doubting this — anyone doubting that there is a core of Jews pushing immigration for precisely this reason — needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 02, 2010, 01:53 PM | #

“Anyone doubting this — anyone doubting that there is a core of Jews pushing immigration for precisely this reason — needs to wake up and smell the coffee.” (—my comment)

Or needs to grow up and understand there’s a deadly serious hate-filled take-no-prisoners tribal war being waged against Euros right now.  Every attack that takes place in this war is very deliberate and well thought out.  You think tribes and tribal warfare are a thing of the past, something out of the Stone Age?  You have a lot to learn.  Tribes are with us now more than they ever were 40,000 years ago.  They are supremely modern.  They will never be a thing of the past.  Tribes are not going to disappear.  All that will happen is those tribes that recognize themselves as such will survive, and those that don’t won’t.  Period.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 02, 2010, 02:07 PM | #

There’s also never going to be one coffee-colored world any more than there will be a weatherless atmosphere or a currentless ocean:  the Jews can’t undo the laws of thermodynamics that ultimately govern these things.  Even if you could get very close to “one coffee-colored world,” the almost-but-not-quite-uniformly-coffee-colored populations would separate themselves into mutually-hostile, mutually-genociding genetic classes and races based on the slightest remaining color differences.  Exactly that already happens in the world all around us everywhere, as manifested in the news every day.  The Jews use “one-coffee-colored world” to dupe clueless women voters (used to be called “dizzy dames” in the old movies) into voting against their own race’s interests.  Newsflash to the clueless women voters and dizzy dames:  the Jews, trust me, have no intention, zero intention, of ever in a zillion years becoming coffee-colored or having anything whatsoever to do with people who are coffee-colored.  So you can start putting two and two together, connecting the dots, waking up from your dream, and smelling the coffee — and while you’re at it, start asking your husband how you should vote, and if you don’t have one, go out and get one.  (A white one, I hope it’s not necessary to add.)

Now go put the coffee on.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 02, 2010, 08:45 PM | #

Posted today by Hunter Wallace, this sums up a lot about the nature of the problem:

Guy White has a new post about White Nationalism and anti-Semitism that mentions me and brings up several topics of relevance to this website.  As usual, what Guy says contains a grain of truth, but he likes to paint in broad strokes.  He also tends to come at White Nationalism from a Jewish perspective.
Here’s my own two cents:

1.) There are White Nationalists who can be clinically diagnosed as psychopaths.  They openly proclaim their intention to exterminate the Jews.  Unlike Guy White, I am not convinced a majority of White Nationalists (or even a significant minority) share this point of view.  In 9 out of 10 cases, it is mere saber rattling and more-radical-than-thou rhetorical posturing.  If these people were truly genocidal, they would have the courage to carry out their convictions.

2.) It is equally true that a significant number of Jews are batshit crazy.  They are unreachable.  These people are driven by an animus against Whites and intend to do us harm.  Unlike the WNs, these people often have the wealth, power, or influence to act on their resentments.  The death of Howard Zinn a few days ago was a small reminder that such malicious Jews (individual fire starters) are out there.

3.) Yes, it is true that anti-Semites often say stupid things on the internet.  I cited that in my first post as one of the reasons why I started this website.  There is a world of difference though between powerless commentators on obscure blogs and the harm done to Whites by Jewish organizations like the ADL, AJC, or HIAS who have the ear of Congress and the President of the United States.

4.) There is no valid comparison between radical anti-Semites on fringe rightwing websites and the Jewish political pundits and commentators that dominate mainstream American public discourse.  You can’t compare a David Brooks, Paul Krugman, or Jeffrey Goldberg to a WhitePrideWorldWide or HeilHitler 14/88 on VNN Forum.

5.) I’m a reasonable man.  If Jews changed their behavior, I wouldn’t have a problem with them.  I don’t write about Eskimos because they mind their own business and have never attempted to “transform” the culture and racial attitudes of White Americans.  We don’t write about the Amish, Navajo, Shakers, Sioux or countless other American minority groups for the same reason.

6.) Jews are resented because of their actions.  Over the past two months, I have monitored them on this website.  We’ve seen Jews try to manhandle the Pope, censor racialists at C-SPAN, push Obamacare through Congress, poison German youth with hip hop music, align with Hispanics to push “comprehensive immigration reform,” peddle anti-racist intrepretations of American history, demonize Whites on MLK day, demonize Sarah Palin, censor comments at The Huff Post, open our borders to a tidal wave of Haitian immigrants, etc.

7.) I totally reject the victimization theory.  Jews have never been victimized in the United States.  I can’t think of a single anti-Jewish federal, state, or local law ever passed in America since the ratification of the Constitution. In theory, we shouldn’t have a Jewish problem.  Jews were welcomed to America with open arms and have been wildly successful here.  They have absolutely no valid reason to hate this country or wish to displace its people.  Yet we still have Jews like Howard Zinn.

8.) White Nationalism emerged in the mid-1970s in reaction to the demise of the Jim Crow South.  Historically speaking, American racialism hasn’t been anti-Semitic.  That changed in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement when the extent of Jewish involvement in pushing anti-racism and integration became unmistakably clear.

9.) White Americans are the victims, not Jews.  Thousands of Americans lost their lives in the Second World War fighting Hitler’s armies.  White Americans liberated the Jews from the Third Reich.

How did they repay us?  By marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma with MLK, redefining America as a “nation of immigrants,” fomenting Communism, destroying racial theory, opening our borders to a tidal wave of Third World immigration, demonizing White racial consciousness, and so on.  We’ve given Israel literally billions of dollars in tribute.

In return for what? Nothing but hatred and contempt for “White racism.” Ever more obscene and radical demands to purge our heritage of anything that smacks of whiteness.  American Jews are the most ungrateful people who have ever lived.  They have made themselves at home in our house, a nation created by Whites for Whites, and libel us as moral lepers!

10.) Why on Earth should White Nationalists like the Jews?  No people in the world have done us more harm or loathe us with more malice.  This was the case even before White Nationalism existed. Irrational WNs blame the Jews for everything that is wrong with America because of the Jewish omnipresence in almost every degenerate cultural trend.

The worst Jews can say about White Nationalists is that they have been the victims of some unkind comments by anonymous posters on the internet.  That is nothing compared to the real harm that Jews inflict upon Whites on a daily basis which we are chronicling here.

[ http://antisemitica.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/jews-and-white-nationalists/ ]

DK ("The Kvetcher"), a Jewish blogger, replies:  see at link.  The Kvetcher’s reply is inadequate.

Posted by Heavy Heath on February 05, 2010, 01:20 PM | #

Invasive species?

This would be a good meme to put into circulation amongst liberal enviromentalist Whites with regard to the threat from Mestizos!

(they have already taken over and destroyed California and are now moving up the Pacific Northwest!  Time to join Jared Taylor and the White Nationalists and put a stop to it.  Might join forces with other Pacific Northwest types as well… armed Tea Partiers and Militia-men.  We are not girly-men like the Mestizos are used to down in California and San Francisco   )