|
|
|
The Birdman and the Washington Question Evidently, there is a millenarian mood in the air at this point in time. So it is appropriate that John “Birdman” Bryant circularised his contact list earlier in the week to draw attention to a re-write of his, let it be said, never inflammatory or seditious article, Final Solution to the Washington Question. The original was circularised on 19th Aug , 2008. The re-write is reproduced here under the fold. John belongs in that fine tradition of flinty and indomitable, free-born and proud American citizens for whom that phrase from V for Vendetta was surely written: “The people should not fear their government, their government should fear the people.” And it is on the theory of governmental fear that John wrote - and rewrote - this essay. I must say, it brings to mind Geoff Beck’s time at MR, and his heady exhortations to the “Men of the West” to take up their arms and march up the steps of the Capitol Building. But Geoff’s romanticism was a cry in the dark, and I don’t think he gave it very much thought beyond the pleasures of its utterance. John, on the other hand, is theorising cooly and logically about change. His question is: If the point arrives - or has arrived - when lethal violence is the only path left by which white Americans can secure a future for themselves and their children, what is the minimum degree of violence that will lead to that happy end? Now, I have three criticisms to make of the scenario that John sketches very skilfully. The first is that, in his eagerness to arrive at a minimal cost in life, he has underestimated the enormity and profundity of the task. He has not allowed for the resilience of the Establishment, nor its strong preference for giving not an inch, and for a security solution. Establishments do not go weak at the knees in the face of terror attacks. They pursue a dual strategy of endeavouring to snuff out the physical threat while buying off popular support. They pose constant questions for the resistance movement at every possible level via visible security, surveillance and interdiction, arms stings and false flags, infiltration, fund tracking, hearts and minds propaganda, political initiatives, etc. Their objective is always and in everything to win. A war with a government is always a long war. The second criticism is in that old and very moral cliché, one man’s freedom-fighter is another’s terrorist. If the people whom a freedom-fighter seeks to release from bondage view him only as a terrorist there is an immediate problem of legitimacy. Without legitimacy, without a recognised shared cause, there will be no support from the people, and a resistance movement cannot prosper in a fight against a government without considerable tacit and active support. Compare the political impact of the Provisional IRA with that of Brigate Rosse, or the political impact of ETA with that of Baader Meinhof. This brings us straight back to the abiding issue of why American WN is so splintered and ghettoised. A movement that cannot be heard at all beyond the badlands of the internet obviously has quite a job to do if it expects terroristic attacks on government officials to be understood in the wider community as the people’s own struggle. Realistically, the movement should be in a position to lead popular opinion ... to tell a moral story to the hearts of the people while they absorb news over breakfast of the latest “act” done in their name. The third criticism is an ideological one. Like many race-loyal Americans, John is a believer in the theory - which is what it is - of isostatic recovery. If the causes of the malaise are removed, the theory goes, everything will slowly and inevitably return to a point of societal balance and health. Resolve Jewish power, kick the race-traitors out of their positions of influence, and the process of recovery will commence automatically and proceed unguided. This theory is predicated on faith in the foundational instruments of the Republic, and on the enduring, indeed, eternal goodness and conservatism of White America. It denies agency to the America of the past in the creation of the America of the present - since, of course, everything creatively bad rests with Jews and the race-traitors. It eschews complications like the hyper-moralism and consumerism of modern America, which have their antecedents in Puritanism and the myth of progress, and which tend to far from balanced and healthy outcomes. If one refuses to acknowledge the extrusions of the past into the present, one is almost certainly inviting what is euphemistically known as “unforeseen events”. One must know oneself, I think. Anyway ... here, for you to judge for yourself, is John’s provocative essay:- The Final Solution to the Problem of Washington Corruption? “Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.”—John F Kennedy “The tree of liberty is nourished by the blood of patriots and tyrants. That is its natural manure.”—Thomas Jefferson
To begin, let us look at where we stand now. * We have a war going in Iraq and Afghanistan that the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t want, and which resulted in a change from Republican to Democrat majorities in the Congress during the last election, and yet the war rages on, bankrupting our country, killing and poisoning our soldiers, polluting the planet with ‘depleted’ uranium, and—if that is not enuf—our so-called ‘leaders’ are sporting for another war in Iran. * We have Mexicans and who-knows-what-else pouring over our southern border, taking American jobs, raising the crime rates, sucking up health, welfare, educational and other government benefits, and coming just this close to qualifying for Social Security benefits even tho they are in this country illegally and have contributed little or nothing to its coffers, all while declaring that they are taking back ‘their’ land under the banner of ‘Aztlan’. * We have inflation running at double-digit levels (altho the government is trying to hide this via non-publication of M3 and manipulation of COLA calculations), with interest rates held at virtually nothing, all of which will inevitably eat up Americans’ savings and destroy the middle class. * We have a Social Security ‘trust fund’ which is supposed to be money that is set aside for retirees, but which has simply been taken from current wage-earners and placed in the government’s general fund to be spent for current projects. The result of this is that the government now possesses a huge unfunded obligation to retirees which it will never be able to fulfill—a fact which does not keep it from continuing to demand social security payments from all wage-earners to fund this Ponzi scheme. Only the self-employed have had the luxury of opting out of the SS system; but this option is proving worthless as inflation (see above) eats up workers’ savings. * We have a ‘free trade’ policy which has led to the ‘offshoring’ of American jobs into the oblivion of the Giant Sucking Sound which Ross Perot predicted—especially manufacturing jobs which have been the core of the American economy—and this has resulted in the rapid degeneration of the economic landscape and the pushing of America toward Turd-World status, to say nothing of the loss of skills which those often-highly-technical jobs implied, and the loss of the equipment which those jobs required. * We have a recently-burst housing bubble, precipitated by the government’s ‘easy money’ policy (artificially low interest rates—see above) combined with lowered credit standards, whose intention—at least by liberal theory—was to make home ownership readily available for ‘the poor’ (ie, negroes and other minority trash), but whose effect was to create a rising inflationary spiral of housing prices combined with a tsunami of worthless mortgages (from the lowered credit standards, combined with the offshoring of the economy—see above) which were ‘repackaged’ and sold off to investors—mostly banks—as high-grade investment vehicles, thus bringing banks and other institutional investors to bankruptcy or near-bankruptcy, and threatening the stability of the entire financial system. * We have a monetary system which is called the Federal Reserve, but which was established by and is currently owned by Jews—the Rothschilds and their friends—and which has drained off huge amounts of the nation’s wealth into its private coffers since Paul Warburg (depicted as “Daddy Warbucks” in the cartoon strip “Little Orphan Annie”) and his European banker friends frightened the nation into believing a central bank was necessary by deliberately creating the Panic of 1907. The stealing of America’s wealth by the FED, as it is familiarly called, has occurred by two basic means. The first is by the government’s payment of huge amounts of interest to the FED for its ‘service’ of ‘issuing’ currency—currency which is actually printed by the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing—when in fact the government has not the least need of the FED, and could easily issue its own interest-free and debt-free currency. The second way in which the FED has drained off American wealth is by the deliberate creation of recessions and depressions, including the Great Depression, where, by means of restricting the volume of currency, the FED threw hundreds of thousands of farmers and others into bankruptcy and took possesson of their property at fire-sale prices. A national bank for America, which the FED effectively is, was warned against in no uncertain terms by Jefferson, was the cause of the War of 1812, was killed temporarily by Jackson in 1836 at the price of near-assassination, was temporarily bypassed by Lincoln to no avail, was denounced by such perceptive individuals as Louis McFadden, Charles Lindbergh Sr and Henry Ford in the 20th century, and yet survives today behind its mask of ‘government agency’, just as deadly as when Jackson referred to it as ‘a den of vipers’. * Just a few weeks after the present essay was posted to subscribers and on the Internet, the American nation suffered what is perhaps the most severe financial shock of its history: The failure of several ‘Too Big To Fail’ financial institutions, and the subsequent passage—against the clear wishes of the American elecorate—of the Great Bank Bailout and Train Robbery Bill that put the American people on the hook for 700 billion dollars—an absolutely unheard-of amount. While the promoters of this bill insisted that the American financial system—and perhaps that of the entire civilized world—would collapse without it, critics noted that the bill was filled to the brim with pork, was absent legal oversight, and was clearly intended to protect the Golden Parachutes of the New York bankers, most of whom shared responsibility for the financial debacle that the Bill ws trying to remedy. Here is the take on this situation by anti-Zionist Jew Gilad Atzmon: * Our ‘leaders’ have made a secret treaty—the Security and Prosperity Partnership—in which America is to be merged with Canada and Mexico. The existence of this treaty has been denied by Administration officials, but has been documented on official websites. Such a treaty would never be approved by the American people, and in any event could only be implemented with the ‘advice and consent’ of the Senate; and yet the plans for merging the three countries continues apace into a one-world (ie, one-world government) future where international communism and international capitalism become the tools by which the wealthy elites assume totalitarian power, and the freedom to which America has given birth, and which has provided a beacon of inspiration to the rest of the world, is finally and completely extinguished in the rise of the so-called New World Order (NWO). * We have a completely fake War on Terror which was supposedly begun as a result of an Arab attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon (“911”), but which numerous researchers have now concluded was a ‘false flag operation’ orchestrated at the highest levels of our own governmnt in collusion with the Israeli secret service, the Mossad, whose motto is “By deception we shall make war”. While this allegation may seem bizarre, the fact remains that (1) Bush has surrounded himself with fanaticical Israeli-firster Jews (“neocons”), and, as evidence uncovered by researcher Texe Marrs has demonstrated, is probably a Jew himself; and (2) the so-called Jewish Lobby, of which the Harvard academics Mersheimer and Walt have so recently and infamously written an entire best-selling book about, is so powerful that columnist Pat Buchanan dubbed Congress ‘Israeli-occupied territory’. More particularly, it seems clear on reflection that the goal of 911 was two-fold—first, to draw America into war against the Arabs with the purpose of supporting Israeli hegemonic ambitions, and especially Israeli lust for oil and ‘lebensraum’; and second, to enable the government to impose a police state under cover of wartime ‘necessity’, thereby helping to usher in the NWO. It is thus no surprise that the government ‘investigation’ of 911 was a whitewash, that the ‘unanswered questions’ about this event stretch from here to Timbuktu, and that the War On Terror is headed by an Israeli-passport-holding dual-loyalist Jew whose last name, ‘Chertoff’ means ‘Devil’ in Russian, a fact which goes far in explaining why this Lenin-lookalike, as attorney-general of New Jersey at the time of 911, sent a planeload of Israeli suspects back to Israel without any investigation, and who, as head of Homeland Security today, decided to hire as two of his major assistants the former heads of the two most dreaded communist secret police agencies, the Soviet KGB (General Yevgeni Primakov) and the East German Stasi (Marcus Wolfe), both of them Jews. * We have a War on Drugs whose purpose seems mainly to reduce competition for the world’s most prominent Drug Kingpin, the CIA, all while helping to usher in the NWO’s totalitarian police state. The CIA’s drug-running, first thoroughly documented in Alfred W McCoy’s massive volume “The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade” (1972) and many times thereafter, funds the CIA’s ‘secret wars’, its ‘renditions’ and worldwide network of secret prisons, and its University of Torture and Government Overthrow (School of the Americas). * We have racial preferences for negroes and other higgledy minorities which are intended to produce racial conflict with whites and thereby justify more Police Statism. When the negroes couldn’t make any economic advancement even when given ‘ekwul rites’, the liberals had to do something to cover their asses and ‘prove’ they were right. Accordingly, they chose to impose racial preferences, with the excuse that ‘white racism’ was holding negroes back—a clearly false proposition in view of the fact that all other minorities—Chinese, Irish, Jews, etc—in spite of far worse discrimination than blacks now experience, all became successful within a generation or two—and this policy of anti-white discrimination was naturally supported by the New World Orderlies who saw the essential unfairness, and hence the tremendous potential for social unrest, which racial preferences presented. * We have ‘hate speech’ laws which are intended as the fine edge of the wedge to make politically incorrect thoughts into crimes, thereby achieving yet more control over the American population, all while stamping out the information that patriots need to identify and throw off their oppressors. * Within the last few years we have had a series of enormously abusive legislative and executive acts foisted upon us, including the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the rescinding of Posse Comitatus, and the countenancing of torture, not to mention the practice of ‘signing statements’ by means of which the President effectually places his own interpretation on legislation which may have little or no relation to the original intent of Congress. * We have a very clear Second Amendment which permits the possession and carrying of weapons, * We have in the order of 600 gulags around the country with a capacity of hundreds of thousands if not millions of internees. Is it really sensible to think that these prisons are intended for anyone except dissenters, who will be incarcerated just as soon as martial law is imposed? * We have a President who took an oath which every President takes, to uphold and defend the Constitution, but who, in an extraordinarily candid moment of truth, angrily referred to the Constitution as ‘a God-damned piece of paper’. * And above all, we have a Congress and a President who are dominated by a small but wealthy ethnic group—Jews—who are or have been the driving engine behind most of the above actions or policies, and who—by means of their money and other influence—will continue to dominate America and make this country a mere appendage of ‘that shitty little country’ Israel. As many have noted, the pattern of abuses which we have listed above is that of chipping away at our freedoms so gradually that few will notice, and fewer still protest, until those freedoms are gone and we are caught in a totalitarian web that constrains our every move. This, indeed, is what the 19th century French writer Alexis de Tocqueville predicted as constituting the end of American freedom, tho he did not see it as totalitarian so much as simply bureaucratic—a word which so well describes the freedom-crimping so-called-democracies of Europe. As a general rule we are not taught about freedom, and especially we are not taught that freedom is like a muscle—it must be exercised or else it weakens and eventually withers away; and for this reason most people are not psychologically prepared to defend it. There is an irony here, however, because the liberals and leftists who are proponents of Big Government and its Big Brother facilitator gun control believe that the government will ‘wither away’—hence producing freedom—providing only that the government is in communist or socialist hands—when in fact it is the nature of Big Government, of which communism and socialism are prime examples, to pile law upon law, rule upon rule and regulation upon regulation until freedom is completely gone—hardly an act of withering away. The real problem, of course, is that nature abhors a vacuum, including a power vacuum, and this means that the ‘power vacuum’ of which freedom is composed has a tendency to be overtaken and replaced by government unless there is an active effort to retain that freedom. This, I believe, is what J Edgar Hoover meant when he said that freedom must be rewon by each generation; but in any event it is clear that government itself is the main threat to freedom. And since, as Lord Acton observed, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, it follows that, as the power of government grows, not only does freedom decline, but it declines into a condition in which corruption becomes rampant. For those who love freedom, then, the best analogy of our situation is perhaps the proverbial frog in the pot: When a frog is put into hot water, it will jump out; but, so they say, when placed into cold water, it stays put, and will continue to stay put as the temperature is gradually raised, right up until the time that the frog’s goose is cooked. Now looking at the list of abuses which we have cited above, what is perfectly clear is that our leaders are pursuing policies which are grossly unpopular and/or grossly destructive of America, and ones which are leading to a New World Order/Jew World Order government. But one does not even have to agree that it is Jews who are largely responsible—all one has to do is recognize that our political representatives in Washington are acting in a manner completely contrary to the best interests of America’s core population and the will of the electorate, and that this behavior will lead to the destruction of America within only a few years. So what, then, is the solution to ‘the Washington question’?? Vote the rascals out? Well, frankly, we have tried that, and it didn’t work. We tried it in the last election to stop the war, but the Democrats, who replaced the ousted Republicans, won’t even ‘put it on the table’. And we tried it in the days of Newt Gingrich’s ‘Contract with America’, where again nothing happened but a lot of rhetoric, and the complaint that Gingrich had ‘put a contract ON America’. Indeed, as the NWO has tightened its grip, we have been striving ever harder for change, and yet nothing has worked. In fact, the chances for change have become less and less at the ballot box, where votes are counted electronically, and where in most places there is no ‘paper trail’ that can prove what has clearly been demonstrated in numerous instances, namely, electronic manipulation of the voting results. Even worse, enormously popular candidates who deviate from the NWO line—Ron Paul being the prime example—are denigrated and shunted aside, even tho their popularity and fundraising abilities seem to make them a shoo-in for bringing their party victory. So again I ask, What then is to be done? The answer, I think, is contained in the two quotations which head this essay, and which might be referred to as the Shooting Solution: It is time—or very nearly time—to start employing the Second Amendment for what its prime author, Thomas Jefferson, intended, namely, for patriots to use their arms to remind the politicians in Washington that they are in danger of death or serious bodily harm from those they supposedly represent as long as they continue to act contrary to the best interests of the core American population. Or to put it another way, while I myself am a generally nonviolent person, I simply do not see any alternative to using violence to change the dreadful and rapidly-deteriorating situation in which we find ourselves. The only thing that is going to have a stronger effect in Washington than Jewish money is violence against the political establishment by We The People; and unless we choose this alternative, and choose it soon, then the American nation—and most probably the white race, and Western civilization—is going to come to a rapid and inglorious end. Let me clarify a bit. As I observed in The Militia Solution, I have long maintained that the difference between a civilized and an uncivilized society is that the civilized society customarily settles differences nonviolently, while the uncivilized society customarily relies on violence. But if this is true, it is also true that even the civilized society has its roots in violence, because violence or the threat of violence is necessary to keep people from engaging in violence. This may seem like a sort of contradiction, but philosophers would recognize the containing of violence with violence as what might be called ‘meta-violence’, ie, violence about violence, with the intention of containing or eliminating it. In the present essay we are going to make use of this idea in proposing, first, that if there is to be a solution to the tyranny that is engulfing us—a tyranny created by the machinations of the money and power elites, mostly Jewish—then it is very likely going to be violent; but second, that there is a way to use violence so that the freedom won at such terrible personal cost for us by our Founders may be rewon by us with only a very small amount of violence, and in particular, meta-violence. But don’t get me wrong: the object of my proposal is NOT the violent overthrow of our government—to the contrary, my effort is precisely to PREVENT a violent overthrow—something which might well be attempted by misguided patriots under present circumstances. More particularly, overthrow of the government produces anarchy, a state which is unstable, and which inevitably develops into dictatorship, since most people wish to live under a government of some kind, and since in a state of anarchy, a government will naturally crystallize around a strongman who will impose his will in lieu of law. Instead, what I propose in the present essay is to explain how just a small amount of violence can both prevent anarchy and also maintain the current form of government while securing our freedom by damping out government abuse. Now our situation at the present time is this: All the totalitarian measures are in place to create a full-blown police state, and all that is wanting is some event, such as war, or another ‘Pearl Harbor’ such as 911 was supposed to be—which will spring the trap and give the Powers-That-Be an excuse to impose it. When this occurs, the first thing that will happen is gun confiscation, irrespective of what the Supremes have ruled; and you can bet that the cops are gong to be checking their gun registration and sales lists and knocking at your door demanding that you give up the best means that we now possess to confront the Orwellian nightmare. At that point, we have two choices: To give up our guns, or to resist with force. But who is going to resist? While I am not going to make any generalizations about Americans, let us remember what happened in Britain, Canada and Australia, where there was not a peep of protest when guns were effectively confiscated in these nations. And now that this tragedy has actually happened to these nations, there is not much left in the way of their complete enslavement, which seems to be proceeding apace. In fairness, it should be noted that only Americans have a Second Amendment, and it is this which emboldens such bumper-sticker slogans as ‘They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.’ But whether this makes Americans any more difficult to disarm than Brits, Canadians or Aussies is anyone’s guess at this point. But if all the news seems bad at present, there is in fact good news, because there is a way to take back our freedom, and to keep it. To explain, let us begin by noting that the American Revolution was midwifed by only a relatively few men—and not only just a few men, but those without modern weapons or means of communication. As Margaret Mead once said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed it’s the only thing that ever has.” But how could it be done in this case? It is that very question which cries out to be answered, and it is that question that I plan to answer in this essay. Now in getting to the heart of our question, let us examine what a famous writer had to say about reversing the situation in his homeland of Russia, at the time when it was called the USSR and steeped in totalitarianism. Here are his words: “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!” Old Sol was undoubtedly right about the situation, and yet his solution had an important failing which may have rendered it ineffective. That failing was COMMUNICATION. Unless his idea had been communicated to a great many others, then there would be only a few who would know what to do, and this would not have caused the terror to grind to a halt, but instead only inflamed it. Indeed, it is much like the ‘solution’ that a lot of American patriots are relying on—shoot the NWO enforcers when they show up at the door—and pretty much as unreliable (what if they send a SWAT team after you, or wait till you come out for groceries?). This is not, of course, to say that one should not resist when ‘they’ show up at your door, for resistance is better than allowing yourself to be arrested and tortured, or warehoused with negro criminals who will rapidly turn you into a fuck doll; but it will not be sufficient to make what I will call a Second American Revolution. More specifically, we must be PROACTIVE revolutionaries, ie, we must not wait for ‘them’ to come to our door; instead we must take the war to them. For this reason, I offer the following: First rule of freedom: Take the war to the enemy. The point here is that sitting at home waiting for ‘them’ is at best only an opportunity to kill a few of the opposition, but is much more likely to get you arrested later or put you on the run where you expose your friends as well as yourself to the foul hand of Leviathan. Taking the war to the enemy, however, will keep your identity secret, while helping to monkey-wrench the NWO. Second rule of freedom: Never allow yourself to be abused without retaliation. The purpose of this latter rule is not for the self-indulgent purpose of allowing one to enjoy revenge—indeed, it may be easier and in many ways better NOT to retaliate; rather the point is to CULTIVATE A REPUTATION FOR NOT TOLERATING ABUSE. This is important because, when you have a ‘rep’, people are a lot less likely to abuse you. Or to put it another way, you are less likely to have to fight, as decreed by the First Rule, providing you follow the Second. After all, why do you think so many politicians are willing to cater to negroes? The answer, of course, is that negroes have a known propensity to riot, and it is just cheaper to pay them off. Third rule of freedom: Fight well with words and you may never have to fight with deeds. The real war we are fighting is for the hearts and minds of our countrymen. Unfortunately, because of the power of the mainstream media, all of which are in Jewish hands, most people believe what these media tell them. This is a big disadvantage, because unseating Establishment lies is much more difficult than merely convincing those who are not yet programmed with Establishment memes. But in spite of this, we are nevertheless gifted with a powerful medium for reaching the masses, namely, the Internet—a medium so powerful that the Establishment is doing everything in its power to shut it down or change it in ways so it will be difficult for anti-Establishment truth to leak out. For this reason we have designated the restricting or shutting down of the Net as an act of war against We The People (see below). What all this means, then, is that, as long as the Establishment has not transgressed this or other boundaries which we have singled out as constituting a new Lexington or Concord, our prime effort should be the education of our fellows (Third Rule); for if we win the war of ideas, little further war will be necessary. But if we are going to have to fight, then when does the war start? This question is of special importance because, as noted earlier, our situation is that of the frog in the pot—there will not be a Lexington or Concord that will tell us unambiguously, “Let it start here.” Accordingly, I am going to list some events or actions, any one of which I believe should be counted as an act of war, ie, a war in which patriots must act with violence. Here are my suggestions: * Shutdown of the Internet. We set out these criteria in hopes that ‘they’ won’t dare to transgress them. This is not of course an exhaustive list; but it does cover quite a bit of ground. Not everyone will agree that the government has overstepped its boundaries on every one of the above items, but many if not most will. OK, so now we know when the war starts, what we must do before it starts, and how to avoid the problem that Solzhenitsyn’s solution posed, ie, we know that we must publicize these conditions widely so that a large number of people will know the time when it is no longer reasonably possible to refrain from violence. Another thing we know is that we must take the war to the enemy. But who is going to do this, and when and how, and how much? To answer the above questions, we are going to need to take our cues from several sources. One is my essay The Militia Solution. Another is my book Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy. Another is Louis Beam’s essay on ‘Leaderless Resistance’. And another is Alan Stang’s recent column on ‘Red Dot Blowback’. From this list it should be apparent that what I am going to propose possesses a certain complexity, and yet, all things considered, it is really very simple. To explain, I am now going to give a bare-bones version of what I propose, and then I am going to tackle the major problems which arise and tell you how I believe they can be overcome. The bare-bones version of how we take back our freedom with what I have earlier designated ‘meta-violence’ is to engage in targeted assassinations of people selected from the unfortunately-large-set of bad guys that are driving this nation into the ground. Our targets are selected by consulting compilations of information—websites on the Net, for example, which keep tabs on the bad guys and list their offenses against the people. Other things being equal, we prefer to target the bad guys directly, but if a target is hard to hit, we may instead target those who are the target’s assistants, protectors (bodyguards, etc), or family. (While this will surely be objected to by some, the fact remains that the associates of Bad Guys are also, to some degree, also Bad Guys, and assassination of assistants may at least persuade other potential helpmeets to refrain from giving aid and comfort to such people.) The point here is to remove a selection of bad guys from power, either by killing them, or else by scaring the shit out of them so they are convinced to retire and give up their power, or at least to start behaving properly. The purpose is also—and especially—to scare the men who are our POTENTIAL targets so that they will reform their behavior and stop abusing us. The above is a bare-bones outline of what we will refer to as simply the Shooting Solution. But there is one important problem which must be overcome if the solution is to be viable. To explain, we do not envision assassinations as being done by some sort of guerrilla army, because organizations like armies are subject to infiltration, and thus liquidation—something which is much easier in the present-day world of ‘Total Information Awareness’ where the government has reduced privacy to a mere shadow of its former self. Instead, we envision assassinations as being performed by individuals or small groups who are not under anyone’s command or control, but instead act alone—spontaneously, as it were, and as the opportunity presents itself. This, we should note, is what Louis Beam proposed in his famous essay on ‘Leaderless Resistance’. The core problem, then, is, How does one get people to undertake soldierhood? In his essay, Beam did not—as we shall do below—address the question of how LR would recruit its soldiers—his faith that this would happen spontaneously seems more akin to a religious dogma than to anything which is based in reality. In particular, assassination is an undertaking with a certain danger even in the best of cases. As a second point, LR is beset with the so-called Free Rider Problem, ie, the problem of people doing nothing because they are waiting for others to act, thereby hopefully making it unnecessary for them to take any risks. Beyond this, the difficulty of recruitment—if that is what to call it—for leaderless resistance is compounded by the fact that large swaths of our people are physically soft, addicted to their creature comforts, ignorant of the enemy, and often mind-controlled by the Jew Tube. But for all this, it remains possible that the proper education of white people can turn this situation around, in spite of the sneering disdain which I have seen in some patriots (or is it government agents?) who insist that we all assemble at dawn and make a charge on the Capitol (That would end patriotic efforts REAL QUICK, as my dear departed mother would say). Indeed, as we get closer and closer to what is looking like a combination of World War Three, martial law and world government from Jeru-Salem, it is vital that we recruit as many supporters as possible thru education. We especially need to recruit the young, who are likely to have to shoulder the burden of violence, and whose minds are more open to new ideas than anyone else. Because if we do not make a genuine and sustained effort at doing the footwork and headwork that the Shooting Solution requires, then we may as well just drink ourselves into a stupor in front of the Jew Tube. Now there is no denying that recruitment for leaderless resistance is one of the most difficult problems—if not THE most difficult—for implementing the Shooting Solution. As noted above, Louis Beam seemed to think that fighters would emerge spontaneously as government abuse mounts, but at the present time this is little more than a theory which remains to be tested. But in fact there are ways which can—if not guarantee that freedom fighters will emerge spontaneously—then at least make that emergence more probable. The first, which we have already mentioned, is education; for the better we educate the people (or at least their leaders, real or potential), the greater the chance that people will help in small ways, if not in large. Education, however, involves more than just informing about the Jewish threat and the NWO—it is also vitally involved with what we might call a religious outlook. This is not to say that we need to form a Church of the Great White Spirit, or to encourage people in their variety of religious beliefs; it is rather that the facts strongly support the existence of an afterlife—something which is not strictly religious, but which makes a profound difference in people’s willingness to help when they see that they are not just being asked to be cannon fodder, but instead have a role for which they must answer—if not to a Higher Power, then at least to the other beings with whom they will inhabit the Afterworld, including those who are now their earthly associates. My point here is that most people will not want to subject themselves to an eternity of guilt or shame, and will therefore seek to act ethically and indeed heroically while here on earth. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the white race will simply not survive unless it ‘gets religion’, because it takes a powerful force like belief in God or the afterlife in order to motivate people to risk their lives after the fashion of leaderless resistance. More specifically, when men simply play ‘follow the leader’ in ordinary combat, they do so under constraints that they may be shamed as cowards or tried as traitors if they don’t play their part, but such constraints are not sufficient to make them self-motivated and self-commanding soldiers who act independently and whose will is given to the common good. Religion may be as silly as Jerry Lewis leading little kiddies to the ‘gas chambers’, but if our irreligious world cannot fight as hard as the Ay-rabs for Allah or the Foreskinners for themselves, America, the white man and Western civilization are not going to survive in the evolutionary struggle for existence. But there are reasons besides those just mentioned why we have good reason to hope that patriots will emerge from the woodwork, so to speak, and prosecute the Shooting Solution. One of these is anger—a real motivator which has been driving my own behavior for years, and which I can see from the things that many others have said to me is also driving them. Another driving force is experience or fear of personal harm: Just as Mel Gibson in his movie The Patriot did not come to the aid of the Revolutionary cause until he became the object of Redcoat abuse, so the New World Orderlies are going to be pushing the sheeple into tighter and tighter straitjackets, which means that many such people are going to be looking for opportunities to rebel. Indeed, the genius of democracy is to make people believe that they are free, whether they really are or not; so when citizens begin to have that freedom stuffed down their throats in the supposedly-democratic NWO, they are going to gag, and at least some of them are going to realize, like Howard Beale in Network, that they are as mad as hell and aren’t going to take it any more. A third reason we can expect patriots to aid in the Shooting Solution is the reason why men climb mountains—“because it’s there”. There is just so long that men—especially white men—can sit in front of the Jew Tube with their beer and pretzels and watch swaggering refrigerator-sized negroes pretend to be athletes; and when they get fed up enuf, or bored enuf, or whatever is the driving force that makes white men a race of achievers, then we are surely going to see some gunly action. A fourth reason why we believe that the Shooting Solution will emerge under cover of leaderless resistance is that there are still those who believe strongly in the motto of New Hampshire which appears on all that state’s licence plates: “Live free or die.” That is, such people are determined not to live as slaves—whether for the NWO or anyone else—and the very fact that the state of New Hampshire has spread this idea for so many years makes it just that much more potent. And finally there is a fifth reason for believing that enlightened patriots will emerge to embrace the Shooting Solution, to wit, that it is really quite easy and low-risk for a military-type operation. Here is what Alan Stang had to say about it: “Did you happen to know that the .50 caliber rifle has a range of more than a mile? Do you know how far that is? It’s far enough so that by the time you find out where it came from, the sorehead who did it has another name and identity supplied by the nerds and is dancing the tango in Buenos Aires. Now at this point it is worthwhile to note that there is an important paradox which is relevant to the matter of recruitment for the Shooting Solution. This paradox, which as far as I am aware, was first identified by me in my book Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy, is one which I named the Paradox of Voting Motivation (This is not to be confused with the Paradox of Voting, another paradox which is entirely different.) The PVM is involved with the concept of the feedback loop, which is the characteristic of a process that ‘feeds back’ into itself to produce some kind of change in the process. While the PVM is complicated by several factors, the simplest case is one with which we are all familiar: There are three candidates in an election, two of whom are from the major parties and are expected to collect most of the votes, and a third candidate, whom we like, but whom we are afraid to vote for because such an act would constitute ‘throwing away our vote’ on a candidate who cannot win, and where it would therefore be better for us to vote for one of the major candidates in order to have a hand in selecting ‘the lesser of two evils’. But what is really happening here? For one thing, we are not voting our true preference (voting is supposed to be a measure of true preference) because of what we know about the election. Or to put it another way, the voting process ‘feeds back’ into the electorate to cause people to change their vote from ‘true preference’ to ‘lesser of two evils’. To see how important this is, suppose that the ‘minor candidate’ was actually the most popular, altho this fact was not generally known. In that case, people wouldn’t vote for him ‘because he couldn’t be elected’, and he couldn’t be elected because people wouldn’t vote for him. In fact, even if it WERE generally known that the ‘minor candidate’ were the most popular, this STILL might not be sufficient to get his supporters to vote for him because they believe that the major party candidates will still draw most of the votes. A pretty kettle of fish, I’d say. As one might expect, the Paradox of Voting Motivation has a much broader scope than mere elections. For example, it causes people to have a negative reaction to Holocaust revisionism ‘because other people reject it’ and thus it can’t be right. Likewise, it causes people to avoid supporting the white racialist cause ‘because most others don’t do it’ and for this reason it would prove embarrassing and socially negative. And most important of all in the present context, it would tend to keep people from supporting resistance to the NWO ‘because nobody else is doing it’ and would thereby subject supporters to risk. Now in case the reader has not figured it out yet, the paradox which is involved with the PVM is that for a person, issue or idea to be popular, generally accepted or the like, IT MUST ALREADY BE POPULAR, GENERALLY ACCEPTED OR THE LIKE, with the result that unpopular or generally unaccepted persons, issues or ideas WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTED. Of course this is not EXACTLY true, but the point is that the feedback loop which is involved here tends to keep popular things popular and unpopular things unpopular. There is, however, a way to deal with this particular difficulty, because awareness of the Paradox provides a means of overcoming it. To explain, we begin by noting that there is a strong element of self-fulfilling prophecy in an election: If those who support a candidate also believe he can win, then this may suffice to insure his election; whereas if they do NOT believe he can win, then even if the majority supports him, he still cannot win, because his supporters ‘don’t want to throw away their votes.’ But beyond the element of self-fulfilling prophecy, there is also the factor that, even if a candidate’s supporters don’t believe he can win, they should STILL vote for him because A LARGER VOTING TOTAL FOR THE CANDIDATE WILL GIVE VOTERS CONFIDENCE IN THAT CANDIDATE OR HIS ISSUES AT THE NEXT ELECTION WHEN THE SAME CANDIDATE OR ISSUES WILL BE UP FOR VOTER APPROVAL. That is, as a candidate or issue gains popularity, voters will tend to accept or approve the candidate or issue BECAUSE OF THAT GAIN, meaning that the feedback loop underlying the Paradox can work in an underdog candidate’s favor over time. The lesson here for the NWO Resistance, then, is clear: Even if things look bleak, you must support the Resistance, because that may be an important factor in helping the Resistance to gain support. So having made the case that there is real hope for leaderless resistance based on the Shooting Solution, what exactly can be done in the way of the Third Rule, viz, education? FIRST AND FOREMOST, we must see that people are educated as much as possible concerning the facts of Jewish/elitist power, hegemonic aspirations, and hostility to the white race and Western civilization. (This, it may be noted, is the principal purpose of my website, http://www.thebirdman.org) SECO.ND, we must see that people are educated in how to use weapons—something which a militia can provide as discussed in The Militia Solution, but which education can be obtained in other ways, as in military training, or in taking ‘vacations’ to Ireland to learn bombmaking from people on the front lines. THIRD, we must see that people are educated in the sense of being led (or raised) to recognize that they are a part of a community of white men with a distinguished history from which they have received many benefits, and therefore have an obligation to that community to participate in carrying out a plan such as the one we have outlined here, when the need arises and the time is right. And FOURTH, we must see that people are educated about the fact that strong evidence points to the existence of an afterlife, and thus to shirk one’s duty in this life means the possibility of an eternity of shame and grief in that afterlife. Now one final thing which I wish to say on the matter of warriors arising spontaneously from our midst is that the Jews have had an amazing success in finding fellow Jews to do their necessary ‘wetwork’. There are numerous instances which dot recent history—the assassination of two Russian Tsars, President McKinley, Huey Long, Israeli Premier Rabin, Pyotr Stolypin, etc, but these are merely ones I know. Besides these, we have numerous killings of ‘nobodies’, especially by the Clinton gang (Clinton is reputedly a Rockefeller scion, as alleged by the late indefatigable investigator/reporter Sherman Skolnick, a Jew who failed to mention that Rockefeller is Jewish), and of course there are many other killings attributed to the Jews, from two world wars to 911. The point I am driving at is that Jews possess exceptional patriotism and outstanding courage, and if white men, who are far more in number than Jews, cannot produce men of patriotic inclinations equal to those of the Jews, then this is not only a deeply shameful circumstance for white men, but one where we have to ask what this shows about the white character and the moral right of whites to hold what white racialists allege to be a superior place among the races of mankind. Indeed, what good does it do to make so much noise about protecting the white race from the depredations of Jews when we cannot even come close to matching Jewish courage or community feeling? But it is not only the Jews’ behavior which puts white men to shame; for the Arabs are equally devoted to defending their homelands and their religion. More specifically, if the conflict continues between America and the Islamic world, how many more years do you think will elapse before some of that massive Arabian oil wealth is used to purchase a nuclear or some other destructive device that doesn’t just knock down a couple of towers, but does something much worse, such as a ‘dirty bomb’ that spreads depleted uranium all over Manhattan or Washington? What I am saying is that, if we do not clean house and get rid of the Jewish pestilence that is eating away at our country, then the Arabs are going to give it a go, and the cost to us is likely to be far greater than if we did it ourselves. As a final remark, there is much wisdom in those immortal words of Walt Kelly: ‘We have met the enemy and he is us.’ We can whine all we want about Jews and traitorous politicians and the NWO, but there is only one way we are going to solve those problems—to get off our butts and tackle them. It is a task for us—those who love freedom, who have vowed to live free or die. And it doesn’t even necessarily have to be violent, if we can get serious about educating our people. As I have said before, all it would take is a hundred good men, maybe not even that, to turn this nation around with a few well-placed bullets—indeed, to turn the entire world around. But unless the white race can get its act together—can show itself at least as intelligent, courageous and resourceful as the Jews or the Arabs—then we and our race and our civilization don’t have the chance of an ice cube in Hell.
Comments:2
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:59 | # For Germany to live the Jewnited States MUST DIE. 3
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 17:06 | # From the article:
I’m not sure why he sees being turned “into a fuck doll” as one of the significant risks of incarceration as anything but “Torture of Americans”. From “No Escape: Male Rape in US Prisons”:
Another African American inmate, while generally agreeing with the idea of whites as easy victims, gave a more politically-oriented explanation for the problem of black on white sexual abuse:
</blockquote> 4
Posted by Armor on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 03:46 | # Birdman’s essay is a bit too long, and the interesting part only begins in the second half. a few excerpts : “targeted assassinations of people selected from the unfortunately-large-set of bad guys that are driving this nation into the ground. Our targets are selected by consulting compilations of information—websites on the Net, for example, which keep tabs on the bad guys and list their offenses against the people.” “we do not envision assassinations as being done by some sort of guerrilla army, because organizations like armies are subject to infiltration, and thus liquidation—something which is much easier in the present-day world of ‘Total Information Awareness’ where the government has reduced privacy to a mere shadow of its former self. Instead, we envision assassinations as being performed by individuals or small groups who are not under anyone’s command or control, but instead act alone —spontaneously, as it were, and as the opportunity presents itself. This, we should note, is what Louis Beam proposed in his famous essay on ‘Leaderless Resistance’. The core problem, then, is, How does one get people to undertake soldierhood?” “it is vital that we recruit as many supporters as possible thru education.” I like the idea of the “shooting solution”. But giving our young people a patriotic education that includes a list of people to bump off is not very different from raising a guerrilla army. It may lead the teachers into trouble. But I am all in favor of developping websites that keep tabs on the bad guys and list their offenses against the people. The anti-white scum needs to feel our disapproval. Birdman: “violence or the threat of violence is necessary to keep people from engaging in violence.” Let’s say an anti-leftist organization blows up the headquarters of the BBC or the headquarters of some organization dedicated to population replacement. Even if 95% of British people say it is wrong, I think it would still have a positive impact. It would become obvious that there is some strong opposition to the destruction of white society. Normal people would feel less isolated. The leftists would become more aware that they are doing something wrong. White people would get more respect. Politicians would start thinking of the risk of a violent reaction to what they are doing. Maybe there would be copycat attacks against other leftist organizations. Maybe nothing of the kind will ever happen. Maybe organized dispossession of the whites will simply proceed, society will keep getting worse, violence by immigrants will increase, until white people start spontaneously engaging in mindless violence too, but without any political aim. Before we use guns on anti-white activists, we may try softer methods: the pie in the face (which results in an expensive fine), the punch in the face (jail sentence), raising a racket in the middle of the night in front of a politician’s house, things like that. Rotten eggs can be useful too. Birdman: “the feedback loop which is involved here tends to keep popular things popular and unpopular things unpopular” That’s why he says on his home page that he gets 1 million hits every month, although I suspect it is not entirely true yet. He is only priming the feedback loop. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 11:39 | # Armor, We know from experience what happens in a Western society when radicals turn to the bullet and the bomb. The English and Northern Irish and Irish know. The Spanish and Basques know. We don’t have to theorise. We don’t have to speculate. The result is a long and terrible war of attrition in which each side becomes increasingly sophisticated in the three theatres of conflict:- a) Military and Intelligence b) Management of public perception c) Politics Of course, John’s theory of unorganised and uncentralised resistance could get things started. But they have to follow the usual path to complexity. Far from growing apprehensive about its moral and political legitimacy, the Establishment will shore up its ideological position and determine upon a fully-fledged security solution. The resister’s organisational void will have to be filled - and its officers probably sent abroad - once it is seen that the Establishment is not weak and toothless. In the end the notion that atomised young men will sporadically and spontaneously step forward to kill another low-order servant of the Establishment - a policeman, an army officer, a sociology professor, an IRS man, a judge, a prison governor, and so on - will be challenged. Relying on psychos and cases like Schusselman and Cowart will be overtaken by the need to escalate, professionalise, politicise, prioritise and drive the process forward. Limited violence means limited effects means limited aims. But there cannot be limited aims in the terror business. There must be one shining and absolute conviction that stands above everything else ... “an Ireland united, gaelic and free”, as I think IRA/Sinn Fein used to proclaim. So what is the aim of this leaderless resistance? To cast doubt in the minds of government wrong-doers? If that’s all there is, it isn’t nearly revolutionary enough. And if it isn’t that, it doesn’t take the “minimal” loss of human life - the men and women of both sides whom it consumes - seriously. And that is inexcusable. 6
Posted by danielj on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 12:19 | # Who knows? Maybe the Vanilla Guerillas will end up with cushy professorships like Ayers, or an eventual spot in the cabinet of an as yet to materialize pro-White administration? Maybe the Mossad will take to downloading kiddie porn to all our hard drives now that we’ve started down this path. 7
Posted by Armor on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 12:48 | # “when radicals turn to the bullet and the bomb Irish terrorism is really nothing compared to the WW1 butchery that is now celebrated by the BBC. (Today’s ceremony at the London cenotaph is ending just now, but maybe this is mainly a ceremony about WW2). Terrorism of the Irish sort also has a negligible cost compared to the destruction of European peoples. ” John’s theory of unorganised and uncentralised resistance “ he would like to organize something unorganised ! 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 14:39 | # Armor, Check Louis Beam’s Leaderless resistance, which is the basis for John Bryant’s adumbrations. Daniel, We are all but powerless to prevent the Western security services and Mossad from doing whatever they like. If the replacement of European Man means so much to the global elites and to organised Jewry, it will be done. The destruction of reputation, criminalisations in show trials, “turning”, and blackmail will all be used against resisters. Not that the security services are the only practictioners of the dark arts - the BBC has done its share of dirty work. The Guardian too. Even the violent anti-fascist left kept very efficient tabs back in the old NF days. Pressure of this sort will only intensify as the demographic crisis proceeds towards the tipping point. 9
Posted by BGD on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 15:40 | # Didn’t Yggdrasil argue similarly in one of his periodic updates some time back? I had a look at his sites new resting place but couldn’t see it. I guess the main issue with the control of the media as it is (if there hasn’t been a volte face of the opinion of the populace when these actions start) is that actions of this kind are likely to turn the screw more on us and allow us to be categorised as the bad guys and be clamped down on with widespread consent. Just think of government tactics in Ireland with the FRU too (and afterwards Kerr in Iraq) muddying the water in the background. These days one can have a conversation with ‘liberal’ people and our perspectives have a place at the table as far as they are concerned, the reflex action that used to occur in their minds is diminished. This would take us back ten years satisfying as it might be on a baser level. I am not an American and things likely different there. 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 15:55 | #
Oh? And when will that approbation of theirs translate into a place for “our perspectives” in government, a place in the running of the BBC, a place among the views allowed in the mainstream press, a place in the film industry, a place in deciding policy at Lambeth Palace, and so forth? We’re waiting. Impatiently .... 11
Posted by BGD on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:05 | # What I meant is that the situation which these measures seeks to offset might actually be enabled to come into force faster through the suggested actions. Bill White went a little far but if there was a website that listed government employees of whatever stripe and linked to information on their voting records, statements and political work but also noted their home address it might scare the bejesus out of them. No need for threats just name, political party, identifying information, and a digest of their political work with links to the many voting record type sites then 2+2 = ... But inclusive of all parties so not RaceTraitors.com but blue, red, pink and yellow all on one site, “no ill-intent meant m’Lord” then one could leaflet their neighborhoods as a very simple way of exerting pressure etc. etc. 12
Posted by BGD on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:11 | # Fred just meant that they don’t run off scared into the distance at the first suggestion of racial politics, that ‘thought-crime’ not so prevalent now. Many folk I’ve grown up with and were very anti when it came to my politics now are coming around some faster than others, the hour is late but for the first time in a long while the facts on the ground and their maturing and becoming parents etc is causing a reorientation of their politics. Skillful propaganda might capture them. Some nationalist parties are currently getting up to 20% of the vote in some areas. But yes the hour is late. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 17:50 | # BGD, As you are a Brit you probably know Redwatch. This site is, or purports to be, at the leading edge of the confrontation between anti-fascism and neo-nazism. It’s all deeply unattractive stuff, and has about it the tinge of the past. I have my doubts that this is the road we should be travelling down again. 14
Posted by Henry on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:07 | # May I say something?
Oklahoma City, 1995, destroyed the “patriot movement” in the United States. It doesn’t matter if McVeigh was unknowingly (or knowingly) assisted by government operatives. It doesn’t matter that damage to the building from 4800 lbs. of relatively unconfined (55 gal. drums), slow-burning ammonia nitrate and nitromethane defied the laws of physics. The public is ignorant, doesn’t know enough to ask questions, doesn’t care, and that information will never be publicized by the “credible” media. As far as the public is concerned, McVeigh alone is guilty of killing those babies in the federal daycare center. Period. End of discussion. The government murder of Randy Weaver’s family and the folks at Waco has been justified and forgotten. Some people think this a game. High IQ, while important, doesn’t a general make. Generals aren’t egoists. Birdman is. Talk like this from amateurs promotes an environment for untrained, idiotic kids like Cowart and Schlesselman to be easily set up by the enemy. It provides easily verifiable “reasons” to justify, in the public mind, censure of the Internet and wide-scale sweeps of White nationalists throughout the Obamanation. Why would anybody do that? Get it through your heads: The Internet will not last very much longer as a means of getting “the word” out. There will be arrests. It is time to behave as if this is real, regardless of whether you think so or not. 15
Posted by BGD on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:57 | # GW, I do of course and concur. In the context of the Birdman’s discussion which sounds a little too revolutionary to British ears to start with I tried to draw a distinction between Redwatch type sites and something with a little more camouflage : i.e. politicalaccountability.com : here is a list of all your politicians, civil servants and think-tankers across the board (red, yellow and blue) here is a digest of their perspectives and political work. Here is their contact info, ‘write’ and express your admiration or disapproval. 16
Posted by BGD on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:14 | # Actually re: Redwatch, 10 years ago (when I was younger) I would have said it would have been useful if it identified and targeted the semi-professional thugs that used to follow active nationalists around and commit violence on their person. Lift the rock and expose to retaliation. But as far as I can tell it never did, just identified schoolteacher types that were vocal in the anti-fascist movements and the like, the ‘clean skins’ for the most part. If it caught a few violent antifacists, waterboarded them and found their way up the food-chain then I would have (and would still) applaud their efforts. It was just an indulgence though on the part of those that participated at best perhaps a justifiable reaction to similar Searchlight tactics but ill-conceived. 17
Posted by Jupiter on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:55 | # Amazing isn’t it, that at this late stage in the game Vdare.com’s Joe Guzzardi and numbersusa.com Roy Beck refuse to even admit that Native Born White Americans exist. Did you read Guzzardi’s current post on vdare.com. At this late stage in the game a white refugee-from California sixty year old White bachelor with no children-insists that WE be proimmigrant? What about Roy Beck over at numbersusa.com? Take a look at the numbersusa.com new video which fefatures a young South Asian male lecturing White Americans about overpopulation. Screw you Beck you faggot. Why does Peter Brimelow keep Joe Guzzardi on his payroll? I have been banned by the conservative faggot John Zimrack over a Taki magazine. Looks like there is a White Nationalist cleansing going on over at Taki. John Zimrack,still working on that Great American novel. Right John. 18
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 20:30 | # “Screw you Beck you faggot. Why does Peter Brimelow keep Joe Guzzardi on his payroll?” That is why I no longer waist my time with kosher ‘it’s about culture not race’ sell-outs. Most of the lemmings are too stupid to see through it. That is why only explicit White Nationalism is legit. Speaking of faggots: I saw a video of Richard Spencer on “Taki TV,” he was lisping like crazy. Faileo-conservatism is rotten to its core. I have openly challenged that Ivy League fairy to debate me, but was met only with silence. 19
Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:04 | # CC, The Takimaggots operate as if from some high pedestal - they don’t have any reason, rarefied persons that they are, to debate lowly insects like us. 20
Posted by Jupiter on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:15 | # Zimirack had me banned from Taki because his Yale university degree did not equip him with the intellectual skills to debate a lowly State University graduate in mathematics.I challenged him to a debte me on the abortion issue-I support abortion-and he went and demanded that Taki have me banned. He also got mad that I called for the stripping post-1965 hispanic beneficiares of of their US citizenship-even though They are in a defacto way stripping US of our US citizenship. I wish Taki was my age. I am a real bonafide street fighter. I’ would have loved to kick this rich Geek’s faggot ass in. At this point in time, Brimelow should take the gloves off and fire the 60 year old childless bachelor form California. Barack Obama has declared a race war against Native Born White Americans and the homosexual bachelor Joe Guzzardi says we should be pro-immigrant. Fuck you Guzzardi and fuck you Roy Beck.Time to make vdare.com a full-blown White Nationalist web site Peter. 21
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:41 | # I’ve identified ethnic prisoner gang rape as the decisive factor. It eliminates even civil disobedience as an option. The question is what does a young man do—especially young men who are being pressed into homelessness where they will fall victims to ethnic gangs anyway? As I said: “Noon April 15 then April 19. Don’t get caught doing anything illegal.” Those who call for “patience” out of a young man facing death in the streets at the hands of ethnic gangs are functionally insane. Give him a more realistic option than I have and he’ll listen to you. Otherwise, at least give him some strategic ideas of what to do with what little is left of his tortured existence. 22
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:46 | # Jupiter, is <a >this</a> the Guzzardi piece you refer to? If so, all he says is we on the side asking for rational immigration policy “are not anti-immigrant.” We don’t go around spending our time “hating” anyone. I feel exactly the same: I’m not “against” other people, I just object to my country’s population being turned into other people. Please remember that it’s long been a tactic of the other side’s to describe us as “anti-immigrant” when what we are is “anti-immigration.” Huge difference which the other side, for convenient propaganda purposes, refuses to acknowledge. (In fact, “anti-immigration” isn’t what we are either: we’re against only excessive incompatible immigration, not all immigration, not by any means, but things have to be simplified to a degree in public discourse — so, many on our side are willing to be known as “anti-immigration,” whereas none on our side are willing to accept the characterization “anti-immigrant” which the other side never stops trying to tar us with.) 23
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:53 | # “The Takimaggots operate as if from some high pedestal…” - Gudmund Faileo-conservatism is a false opposition that drains off real struggle for our people into impotence: time to kick the pedestal out from underneath these phonies. That is also why White Nationalism must necessarily be a populist movement. They don’t care, their ticket is punched, they have no real stake in the game. We are the true populists. 24
Posted by Revolution Harry on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:04 | # Surely it must be obvious that any sort of violent response is exactly what is expected and has been thoroughly prepared for. Resistance must come in new and creative ways. Identifying the true enemy would help. You might also find you have some surprising allies. http://aukina4israel1.multiply.com/journal/item/775/Roots_of_evil_in_Jerusalem http://www.henrymakow.com/henry_h_klein_jewish_martyr_fo.html 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:06 | #
Rare combination: you can get all the girls who want brains but not nerdiness. 26
Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:29 | # “Faileo-conservatism is a false opposition that drains off real struggle for our people into impotence: time to kick the pedestal out from underneath these phonies.” The trouble is that many of the faileo-con readers and writers at Takimag exist on the opposite side of our “culture war” so to speak. We are looking at ostensible conservatives who at heart have no patience for our “racist” agenda and would like to hinder our aims. We seem to invoke deep revulsion and self-righteous sanctimony from these people at the same time. The fools would rather fight us than acknowledge the true threat to the West; its completely maladaptive. They are a menace. 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:33 | # Revolution Harry: regarding one of your Henry Makow links there: I’m not against Zionism. Quite the contrary, I think Zionism is normal, I respect it deeply, I think it’s right, just, and noble, I like and admire it, I support the Jews’ claim to that land over the claim of the Palestinians, and I am not able to identify with Jews like Prof. Judt who oppose Zionism, while I can identify fully with ones who espouse it, such as “J” who comments here occasionally: “J” I understand; Judt I don’t. Where Jews are concerned, what I’m against is not Zionism or the State of Israel (I support those) but the drive by diaspora Jewry to subject all Euro-race popuations in the world to race-replacement genocide, plus all manner of other disgusting and intolerable evils perpetrated on Euro societies worldwide by diaspora Jewry starting two hundred years ago and accelerating this past century as they gained strength in those soceities, in an attempt to weaken, harm, uglify, sicken, deform, demoralize, and outright destroy them. I also am an advocate of truth in scholarly research into exactly what befell Europe’s Jewish community during the German National Socialist years, and I oppose all organized lying on that subject, such as that seen in the aggressive propagation of the myth of the “Holocaust,” standard version (yes there was what can rightly be called a holocaust inflicted on Europe’s Jews, a tragedy far different from what is claimed; there were also bonafide holocausts inflicted on Europe’s Christian populations by Jews both before and after the war). Finally, I advocate separate countries for Jews and Euros, for the reason that Jews can’t keep from trying to ruin Euro countries and subjecting Euro populations to genocide when living among them in the came countries. 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:51 | # CC: We are the true populists We are also the true conservatives, for what is left if one does not first conserve one’s own people? We are, as Norman Lowell said in London in September, the true individualists ... the truly independent of thought, and spirit. We are the true universalists, for we demand for ourselves no more and no less than we freely grant to others. We are the true pacifists, since we need no violence done in our name, and demand an end to that being done to us. 29
Posted by Hebrewnomics on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:27 | # According to Robert ‘The Jew who is genetically deformed from too much Jewish inbreeding’ Reich we are headed in to a “mini depression.” What is his sage advice in these difficult times?—“Deficit numbers themselves have no significance.” [ http://www.rgemonitor.com/us-monitor/254320#129908 ] In other words: more SPEND, SPEND, SPEND…less SAVE, SAVE, SAVE. Keep digging ourselves deeper in to the hole and hope we eventually see light. These parasites are simply astounding. Good news though: Reich is an “informal economic adviser” to Obama—good times ahead! 30
Posted by Jupiter on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:05 | # FRed WE should acept the anit-immigrant charge because WE including Guzardi’s Pennsylvania neighbors are anti-immigrant. Why should White Americans be pro-immigrant? Why should White Americans be pro-predatory asian LEGAL immigrants who are waging a vicious race war against Native Born White Americans. Should White Americans be pro-Bobby Jindals hindu parents. This is what it means to be pro-immigrant. Guzzardi along with 31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:06 | # Jupiter, if there’s no excessive incompatible immigration, the immigants aren’t here, they’re still back in their home countries. In that case, being “pro” or “anti” them has little meaning except if you’re discussing, let’s say, how well or how little you enjoyed the locals you met on your last vacation to Sri Lanka, Jamaica, Cancún, Hong Kong, or Mozambique — but that’s not at all what the immigration debate is about over here. It’s about them being here! The other thing is, we on this side of that debate aren’t bigots, meaning we aren’t incapable of judging men of all races fairly on the basis of their personal qualities apart from (or in addition to) race, and when not forced to deal with the threat of our own group’s annihilation through Jewish-engineered massive immigration of the racially unlike can do precisely that, namely appreciate all men fairly for their qualities apart from (or in addition to) the racial dimension. Saying we’re “anti-immigrant” is the other side’s way of saying we’re bigots, which we’re not, and we should never in any way appear to concede that. Not only aren’t we bigots, we’re further removed from bigotry than most on the other side are. We’re less bigoted, less totalitarian, more democratic then they. By far. We have naught whatsoever against immigrants who stay in their own country (in which case they wouldn’t be “immigrants,” but you get the point); we oppose only the act of their immigration into ours in excessive numbers where they are of incompatible race or ethnoculture. (In other words, tiny numbers of them if they’re of incompatible race or ethnoculture might be bearable — tiny numbers of mestizos entering the United States let’s say — or excessive numbers of them if they’re of compatible race and ethnoculture might be bearable — excessive numbers of Swedes entering Norway, let’s say, looking for work, Poles entering Russia, or Englishmen entering Canada — but excessive numbers of them if they’re of incompatible race or ethnoculture — Somalis entering the United States — aren’t bearable.) If we can appreciate their particular race and/or ethnoculture as tourists visiting their country it doesn’t and shouldn’t mean we welcome our own race and ethnoculture being erased by their excessive immigration hither, brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Jews. It doesn’t mean that, and no one can get away with insinuating we’re bigots for questioning that kind of invasion, whence my (and I believe Guzzardi’s) distinction between being against immigration and being against immigrants. 32
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:09 | # Guzzardi is against both the legal and illegal immigation invasions and I am too, of course. NOT just the illegal, BOTH. 33
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:16 | #
Is Richard Spencer his real name? How old is he? I’m sure I know people he went to high school with. Given where he’s from, you might do better with a less hostile approach. 34
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:16 | # “Given where he’s from, you might do better with a less hostile approach.” - ben tillman I’m not precisely sure how old he is. Late twenties or early thirties would be my guess. Go to the website and look at the picture. I think that Takimag has an unstated rule that its writers are not to dialogue with ‘the Nazis.” Fine. Once or twice I have made Spencer look ridiculous and every time Gottfried has come by to clean up the mess. It’s high hilarity. 35
Posted by the Narrator.. on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:21 | # Enjoy it while it lasts… In 2004 the media hinted/signaled who the democratic front runner would be four years later. After his speech at the democratic convention, Barak Hussein Obama was “the guy”. Fast-forward to 2008 and the same media is hinting/signaling who the GOP savior will be in 2012. (drum roll)......Piyush Jindal!!!!...... Yes the current Gov. of Louisiana, Piyush “Bobby” Jindal (whose parents immigrated from India) is “the guy” for the Republican ticket come 2012. . And the truly painful revelation is driving around areas of the nation that are still predominantly White. Because those Whites are also predominantly White haired as well. . Those of us at the vanguard of White survival have to figure out our proper roll. And as I believe events will unfold in their own season and under circumstances that we cannot foresee, I would say that our future roll would be similar to that of (pardon the literary reference) Gandalf in Lord of The Rings. We cannot force our fellow Whites into action. And under current circumstance we can’t persuade them either, as most of them are mentally stuck in The Shire and refuse to see the Orcs amassing. So, like it or not, we have to wait and be patient. We must become familiar with our enemy as well as the differing factions of our own, careful not to drive unnecessary wedges. In America, Western Civilization is going to have to go underground. We need to build our secret sanctuaries where we can get together with trusted friends and read the heroic poems, stories and sagas of our peoples to keep the flame of our civilization alive. Where we can encourage our children to preserve their genetic heritage. But we must form our secret societies in the real world now, not the internet and we must establish communications between these societies in the real world, not the internet. In the mean time, We have two months before it all becomes official. Two months of the last White man to ever hold office in the most powerful nation on earth. From then onwards it is the new era. The post-American America. From then on we must forage the ruins in search of our new phoenix. So enjoy these final days as best you can. 36
Posted by Diamed on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:28 | # Excellent points by Fred Scooby. I approve the balanced approach of being fine with jews in Israel doing their own thing, but not okay with them mucking up white lands. I also approve allowing statistically unimportant numbers of individuals immigrate who are not compatible, while still opposing mass immigration. I also like the idea of pan-whiteism, but only if the individual country agrees to it. I understand some whites want to keep their distinct ethnicities, languages, history and culture and mass immigration even between whites is of dubious value at best for them. As for Guessedworker, I don’t see much value in being a universalist or a pacifist. Life is struggle, the fittest survive, and I want whites to win. The best way to secure the white race is to eliminate all competition and all potential threats to it, this hardly implies universalist pacifism. The best way for the white race to thrive is to gather more resources, of which this planet has a finite amount, which necessarily throws us into violent competition with any other users of said resources. Though tactical arguments can be made like, ‘war is too dangerous’ or ‘it would cost more than it would gain,’ or ‘that can come later,’ I admire most the actions of our ancestors who explored, conquered, and settled new lands and continents for themselves and their posterity. I see no reason why it wouldn’t be moral to do so again. As an American, I have my forefathers’ particularism and non-pacifism to thank for my very existence. Should I, morally, apologize for my existence, repudiate their deeds, and what, emigrate back out of America to europe, the one place we morally can exist? Should we abandon south america, south africa, australia, and all the rest? Should the white indians who conquered India 5,000 years ago or whatever apologize and leave again back to Europe or something? Wars to expand your territory are as basic as breathing for a healthy people, it’s been going on throughout time and when you win, it’s enough to father hundreds of millions of your blood for centuries and millenia to come. Strategically, it’s carebearish to rule out wars of aggression for whites, or giving equal rights to our inferiors, or treating non-whites just as well as we treat whites, I just don’t agree that’s viable in the long run. You can be certain such kindness will never be extended towards us. The moment the other races have the advantage over us, they Will wipe us out. Why am I so sure? Because they are. Obviously when a black is president of our country and we can’t even stop ILLEGAL immigration it’s not the right time to invade Congo for more lebensraum, but morally ruling it out as a matter of principle is different from ruling it out due to practical limitations. Oh and as for the original article, I’m not impressed. Until terrorism has vast popular support it will only make it harder for us, the people will hate us even more, and the government will be justified to crack down on us even further. What is he smoking? Does he really think we could win? More importantly, doesn’t he have any idea that war is won or lost in the newspapers not the battlefields? By the time we have enough popular support to launch a coup/guerilla war/terrorist movement, we could just take power non-violently. It’s silliness. 37
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:34 | # Diamed, My point is that our political goal of racial survival creates outcomes the pursuit of which under liberalism requires our suicide. 38
Posted by Jupiter on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:16 | # If Native Born White Americans have to prove that they are not anti-immgrant or racist then the debate(s) with the enemy will consist mostly of demonstrating that WE are not anti-immigrant and or racist. We will never get around to discussig the harmfull consequences of post-1965 immigration policy on Native Born White Americans. Guzzardi is pushing a big lie and it is this: the racial transformation of California and possibly Western Pennsylvannia in the future is a non-issue at ta time when non-whites and their white liberal supporters our announcing OUR demise on TV. 39
Posted by Armor on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:59 | # Guessedworker, Your writing style is too complicated. 40
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:34 | # A comment of Glyn Roach’s in another thread, lists a few links including a couple on Vilfredo Pareto, excellent reads, one of which contains this passage having relevance to the present log entry: “A lifelong opponent of Marxism and liberal egalitarianism, Pareto published a withering broadside against the Marxist-liberal worldview in 1902. Considering the almost universal respect accorded the more salient aspects of Marxism and liberalism, it is regrettable that Pareto’s book, ‘Les Systemes Socialistes’, has not been translated into English in its entirety. Only a few excerpts have appeared in print. In an often quoted passage that might be taken as a prophetic warning for our own age, Pareto writes:
41
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:51 | # An idea of JWH’s might also have relevance here: JWH rightly says Euros should be fighting tooth-and-nail right now for the lifting of all these communist-and-Jewish-imposed totalitarian restrictions on freedom of speech which the other side (consisting of communists and Jews mainly, plus bought Euros like Blair and Chirac, plus just plain intimidated ones like Merkel, and so on) (ones like Vaclav Klaus who can be neither intimidated nor bought alas are all too few nowadays) have succeeded in forcing on populations more and more throughout the Eurosphere and plan on tightening progressively. 1) Were these altogether lifted we would win, because truth is with us, so to lift them is absolutely identical to victory for us: the other side simply cannot hold onto its position against repeated blasts of pure truth; 2) at the same time, fighting against these totalitarian restrictions is non-partisan, so in fighting however fiercely against them our side cannot be accused of “fighting for its own narrow partisan aims”: it would be a fight necessarily having universal appeal. So, we could unleash all our energy fighting not for an end to race-replacement or and end to Holocaustianity propaganda or some other specific goal or our side’s, but fighting for an end to totalitarian restrictions on freedom of speech. (Once those are lifted we win anyway: it’s inevitable and the other side knows it.) In so doing we would appear principled instead of self-interested, while at the same time inevitably advancing our side toward victory. It’s a can’t-lose, win-win strategy, no? Concentrate all our strength in a fight against restrictions on free speech instead of on any other specific policly goal we’d ultimately like to see implemented. We’ll get there by a circuitous route, one the other side won’t be able to block because it will have the appeal of a non-partisan principle. 42
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:52 | # (I hasten to clarify, JWH doesn’t call them “communist-and-Jewish-imposed”: that’s my terminology.) 43
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:12 | # Armor, My apologies. Universalism and pacifism are both available outcomes of nationalist politics. Universalism as filtered through liberal politics requires us to self-destruct. 44
Posted by Revolution Harry on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:27 | # Fred, I suspect you admire Zionism because you see some sort of reciprocation with Nationalism. I think they are two very different things. I have grave doubts as to the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to Israel. Firstly because very few Jews in Israel are actually ethnic to the area. I’m also extremely dubious as to the idea of ‘God’ promising Jews that Israel was their homeland. Finally, despite my general dislike of most things Islamic I can’t really avoid the fact that there were countless Arabs driven from their land to make way for Israel. I suspect it’s quite wrong to equate all Jews with Zionism. Zionism is something far more than a narrow attempt for a Jewish homeland. It’s also quite obvious that the forces behind Zionism are the very same as those behind the national destruction we’re witnessing across the Western world. The question is, who or what are those forces? Answer that and get beyond the narrow focus on ‘the Jews’ and you have the beginnings of salvation. I say this because the plans these elites (New World Order/Illuminati/take your pick) have affect the whole world not just the Anglosphere. You would be on the side of truth and justice and you might find allies you didn’t know you had. Thanks for checking the link I posted anyway. If you, or anyone else, is interested in a different perspective then I recommend a few more of Henry’s articles. http://www.savethemales.ca/000482.html “If it had been merely an issue between Zionist and non-Zionist factions within the community, there is little question that the latter would have won,” writes Chaim Bermant in “The Cousinhood.” “But there were the gentile Zionists to consider and they carried the day.” (262) These gentiles included Arthur Balfour, Lord Milner, Lord Lothian (Phillip Kerr) and Lord Robert Cecil. Chaim Weismann recognized that Zionism is part of a much larger game: “To [Cecil], the re-establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine and the organization of the world in a great federation were complementary features in the next step in the management of human affairs…” (Reed, Controversy of Zion, p. 249.) Georgetown University professor Caroll Quigley lists about 100 participants in this world government conspiracy in the Appendix of, “The Anglo American Establishment” (1981) They include the above names and Cecil Rhodes, Lionel Curtis, Wiliam T. Stead, Geoffrey Dawson and Earl Grey. I recognized only three Jews: Nathan Rothschild, Leopold Amery and Alfred Beit. http://www.savethemales.ca/001458.html In reference to the above please check the logo for the 2012 Olympics 45
Posted by Rhodesian SAS on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:46 | # So, we are nearing the end. I guess it really does end with a whimper. Still, I am happy to see these sentiments published at MR, especially since I have at various times been censored for writing the very same things, albeit not as eloquently. Violence works. I will say it a million times: violence works ! And anyone who believes otherwise, is fooling himself and wasting our time. 46
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:18 | # Universal - “Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide” and “Applicable or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations: a universal remedy.” http://www.answers.com/universal Categorical imperative - “In Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy, an imperative that presents an action as unconditionally necessary (e.g., “Thou shalt not kill”), as opposed to an imperative that presents an action as necessary only on condition that the agent wills something else (e.g., “Pay your debts on time, if you want to be able to obtain a mortgage”). Kant held that there was only one formally categorical imperative, from which all specific moral imperatives could be derived. In one famous formulation, it is: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”“ http://www.answers.com/categorical imperative Liberalism - “Contemporary liberalism has been much exercised by the notion of justice. Rawls (1921-2002), Dworkin, Nozick, and Ackerman are perhaps the most highly regarded contributors to this discussion. This concern with justice has been linked to another characterization of contemporary liberalism, a concern with neutrality. The relevant neutrality may be variously conceived, but it certainly includes a neutrality with respect to citizens’ conceptions of the good. communitarian critics have doubted whether the priority of the (justice-based notion of) right over the good can be sustained, but it is clear that in many spheres the liberal ambition is to produce neutral procedures which allow for, but do not discriminate between, the diverse conceptions of the good or ways of life adopted by citizens. Such neutrality suggests that the role of public power is merely instrumental, creating the necessary space for the exercise of individual freedom and providing for conflict-resolution; such an approach has been challenged not only by communitarianism but also by liberal perfectionism.” 47
Posted by Spanky on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:33 | # Glenn Spencer and Guzzardi both praise Cherthoff. Actually Glenn AFTER reading Guzzardi, who I suspect to be a crypto-jew The average white person today is a sad sack of Sh*t, sorry to say that about our race but any person of honor living in America should have enough awareness to see the same thing. As for JBB’s fantasy of “lone wolves” that is all it is, more BS. It is time to acknowledge that what happened was the best of our race, statistically speaking, were snuffed in WW2. Especially the best of the best, the German soldiers. That may rankle some here but I believe it! So as the “Eskimos” continue to eliminate the places where education CAN happen, as they darken beyond redemption point the homelands of Whites, we are supposed to believe in some “Miracle”, right? I take solace in that the “Eskimos” have won a pyrrhic victory. Let the lemming whites enjoy being food. To real men of honor, true NS, they shall survive. 48
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 01:25 | # Guillaume Faye once said, when asked about the Jewish role in all this, that he viewed matters as if the Jews didn’t exist: “I don’t think anything about them. I don’t think about them at all. For me they don’t exist; they’re like the Eskimos.” (Something like that: I’m delving into my memory here; hope that’s accurate.) I surmise Spanky, above, intends “Eskimos” to refer to the Jews. 49
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 01:26 | # “Is anyone going to address the two trillion dollars the “fed” is giving out under cover of darkness?” All yours, Svi. 50
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:33 | # As for JBB’s fantasy of “lone wolves” that is all it is, more BS. “Noon April 15 then April 19. Don’t get caught doing anything illegal.” 51
Posted by silver on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:27 | #
Unbelievable, really. Just unfuckingbelievable. No wonder some people want you eliminated. No wonder they’re determined to keep WN from getting a toe in the door. It’s a true sickness of the mind this kind of WN. No one else is this sick. No one else ever has been, no one else ever will be. Congratulations, you’ve proven the Jews right. Morally right, too. 52
Posted by Armor on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:10 | # - “Life is struggle, the fittest survive” It sounds a little like posturing, from both of you! 53
Posted by silver on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:29 | # Actually, Armor, your shamelessly quoting me out of context and intentionally missing the point is the only act of “posturing” I can see here. I’ve been around WN sites long enough to believe diamed only too sincere. Of my own sincerity, I’m equally certain. 54
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:33 | # Everyone’s against violence, Silver, and I’m as against it as you are, but we Euros are being methodically genocided, and people get mad. You do get royally pissed off, you really and truly do, when you’re on the receiving end of genocide — it just has a way of doing that to a guy. Maybe it’s a Euro thing. 55
Posted by silver on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:58 | # Scrooby, I’m not against “violence” per se. Limited violence may be necessary or unavoidable. I’m not railing against that. Eliminate-everyone-else, however, is unlimited violence. And it’s all too easy to see how tempting it would be—after all, whites have a storied history of attempting more restrained versions of it. (Don’t give me any crap about Mongols, Japs or Turks, either. Only whites went about it with explicitly racial self-justification.) 56
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:14 | # Will you admit now you’re a Pakistani, Silver? I mean, your comments, such as that last just above, leave absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you’re no variety of European, Serb or otherwise. 57
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:39 | #
Predictably, mostly against each other. The non-white populations after contact with Europeans saw massive increase in their populations especially in the 20th century. 58
Posted by silver on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:59 | # White vs white conflicts are not examples of my point, Desmond. The French never attempted to eliminate all or most Austrians, neither did they employ a racial justification for the wars they did wage, for example. And I had in mind events occuring well before the 20th century, by which time modern ideas had well and truly come to the fore: events like the Indian Wars in North America, or even just those alone. Nazi Germany could be another example, and probably a good one, though referring to that cuts a bit close to the bone. To reiterate it, my point is that white racial revulsion, far from being simply a desire to survive, could easily revert to something much more sinister: many want it to and there is solid precedent for it. Oh, and yes, I find the thought of it quite horrifying. Scrooby, yep, sure pal. And only you can see it. Funny that. 59
Posted by the Narrator.. on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:25 | #
Yeah the White man is so evil he invaded other nations and built them hospitals, roads, railways, schools, power grids, water systems and so on. Whites never tried to eliminate anybody. And as for pre-20th century racial attitudes go, Arab poet Ibn Khaldun wrote in the 14th century, “...beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings.”
60
Posted by Jupiter on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:40 | # Guzzardi is basically a 60 year old childless multicultural fag who fled California. More and more of these childless white degenerates ar fleeing to the Whiter North East. Guzzardi is knowingly, lying through his teeth when he does not mention the racial transformaton of America as being the fundamental issue. Scroobywitz still hasn’t explained why -at a point in time when a coon with very strong racialist politics who was voted in by post-1965 non-whites and their “Amerian” born children who want US dead-Native Born White Americans should be good liberals and announce to our enemy..“WE LOVE YOU”. WE need to tell post-1965 non-whites that"WE ARE ANTI_NON-WHITE IMMIGRANTS” I Despise the liberals at vdare.com. Alan Wall is much better than the degenerate Guzzardi. But because he is married to a Mexican he can’t bring himiself to stating the obvious:the racial transforation of America by post-1965 non-white immigrants is THE PROBLEM. The multicultural degenerates such as Guzzardi who are fleeing California are the very same scum from the 1960s who created the cultural cesspool that softened up California so that the non-white invasion can take place. Brimelow should cleanse vdare.com of the degenerate liberals. 61
Posted by Diamed on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:21 | # I believe history has shown definitively that whites are the superior breed of mankind. Our extended phenotype, our culture and accomplishments, are the greatest on earth and always have been. Our physique is the most athletically gifted and beautiful. Our IQ’s are the highest and most creative and dynamic. This gives us more than equal rights with the rest of the world, this gives us superior rights, just as no one would demand equal respect be given to apes or ants and humans, whites should not be treated like non-whites. Unless you can prove that non-whites, the inferior portion of mankind, pose NO threat to whites, the superior portion, it is morally incumbent on us to make sure the superior breed of mankind is the one that survives this struggle for survival. Not only now, but also for Eternity, we must secure a homeland for our people and a future for white children. We will Never be secure so long as this overly cramped earth is shared with the genocidal monsters called collectively the third world. Their mass immigration, white-guilt inducing hate speech, crime, terrorism, miscegenation, mass overbreeding compared to their wealth generation, begging and thieving has nearly wiped out the white race—they pursue us to every corner of the globe and spare none of us anywhere. Even if we heroically, somehow, save ourselves from our impending doom which is only 50 years from now, what’s to stop a new generation of whites from making the same mistakes, or a new more cleverly diabolical invasion from succeeding even better, and the last 10% of the world population that is white being snuffed out forever? How can we be content with some tiny corner of the world, surrounded and eternally threatened by WMD even Trading Blows with us and thus securing their victory over our tiny remnant? How can we be content with some tiny corner where the reign of even one bad king, one bad president, one bad congress or whatever, could reopen the borders and immigration in a matter of seconds destroy our last tiny bastion on earth? While the world was divided by oceans and deserts and the like, other races posed no threat to us and we could all live in mutual peace and harmony. Now that all natural boundaries have been erased by technology we of necessity are affected, or can be affected, by every other human on earth. In that case it is incumbent upon us to make sure that the rest of mankind is not affecting us and CANNOT affect us adversely. We cannot simply huddle behind some maginot line and hope the germans don’t invade. We must Proactively ensure the future of our race and children by taking what steps we can now to help them for all time. The only way to ensure our survival is to always be the strongest people on earth, the most numerous, with the most resources, the most power, the most technology, the most everything. Any other formula is GAMBLING the future of our race, our children, for some sappy sentimentalism so we can feel oh so good about ourselves. We cannot turn back the clock of time. The world IS one now and building walls or drawing imaginary national boundaries on maps will not keep the third world from affecting us in one way or another. It should be obvious that just by trading with them they undercut our labor market and filch off our natural resources, our water, food, and power. It should also be obvious that any temporary truce where they are no longer trying to genocide us through their manifold tricks and schemes they’re currently using is inherently unstable because nothing enforces it and nothing stops them from gaining the upper hand again later. We would be relying on the third world’s good will alone. Us, the ever dwindling white minority of the world, and them, the ever growing non-white majority, with the balance of power eternally shifting more and more in their favor, and we want to hide inside our shells and hope they magically go away and leave us alone if we just ask them kindly? It isn’t viable. Swearing off offense and relying on eternal vigilance is not viable—no war has ever been won by ‘surviving’ or ‘not losing’ or ‘not being conquered quite yet.’ Every war you must eventually take it to the homeland of your enemy and defeat them there. We are in the midst of a world war, we are losing it, and we can never win it so long as their power base is not forever broken—their endless breeding, their evil ideologies, and their natural resources that fuel their economies. You do the math—get serious! An all-white world would be the best future for both our race, and humanity, given we are the evolutionary pinnacle of mankind. Every time a non-white is replaced with a white, the average value of mankind goes up. This is because we are better than them in every way, and their own abysmal behavior proves it. Go look what they’ve done to our beautiful South Africa, see for yourself how the world is wasted on nonwhites in previously great cities like Detroit, compare the legacy of Greece and Rome to Zaire and the Aztecs. Eugenics is the act of increasing some birth rates and decreasing others with the goal in mind of selecting for superior traits that best bejewel the brow of mankind. If eugenics is good within the race, why not outside the race as well? What could be a greater eugenic blessing to the world than replacing all non-whites, especially the third world, with whites? That would be an immediate rise of 30 IQ points and an inestimable gain in civilization. It is hard to imagine any intra-eugenic movement could produce remotely as much good as this wholesale sweep of the earth, this world reset button, but this time starting with only the chosen people instead of the haphazard hand of nature. I cannot see any reason behind the whining about all the suffering this would cause, because any suffering would be temporary whereas the benefit would last forever. But if people cannot stomach hurting anyone, we could just as easily do it humanely by simply restricting non-white birth rates to 1.0 and requiring white birth rates to be 4.0—in a few generations we’d own the world and not a hair on anyone’s head hurt, we could even include special exemptions for any ‘good’ non-whites we found and breed them into our race or live alongside them as special exotic ingredients (personally I have a soft spot for the japanese and would hate to see them go). We could even give all our competitor races little enclave nations (the very ones people here apparently want for themselves) that could never threaten us again like the Indian reserves the USA set up. What’s important isn’t the method but the Result. The endpoint. A desirable conclusion to the struggle for survival. Not only must we survive this terrible Holocaust on the white race, this worldwide genocide of whites with new atrocities occurring daily against us, but we must like the Jews state “Never Again” and gain the power to Enforce that vow. Not only do we have the right to act out of self defense against already self-declared enemies of the white race who through their actions have shown their collective will and decision to genocide us, but we as the superior specimens of mankind have the right to the whole universe if we damn well please and nonwhites, apes, ants, and fungi be damned. 62
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:29 | # Diamed’s Malthusian view of our situation will gain increasing currency unless carrying capacity creators are freed from their current slavery to those who have usurped control of Western Civilization from them. There is no denying that the current group-rights oriented structures will degenerate into race war if the carrying capacity creators are not freed. 64
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:44 | # Diamed: “I believe history has shown definitively that whites are the superior breed of mankind.” I agree. “How can we be content with some tiny corner where the reign of even one bad king, one bad president, one bad congress or whatever, could reopen the borders and immigration in a matter of seconds destroy our last tiny bastion on earth?” That is why we must retake Europe, New Zealand, Australia, Europe, Russian Siberia, and North America; no if’s, and’s, but’s, or apologies. “Any other formula is GAMBLING the future of our race, our children, for some sappy sentimentalism so we can feel oh so good about ourselves. We cannot turn back the clock of time.” I take it you have read the Turner Diaries. As James Bowery points out, these arguments are not compatible with the moral constitution of our people. Our people may be all the things that give them the potential to have the most unrestricted ‘will to power’, indeed, we are capable of becoming the ‘Blond Beast’; but if one reifies those things as having value why not also our morality? 65
Posted by Jupiter on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:57 | # James I wa going to raise the ecology issue but you beat me to it. Anyhow…it is really shocking that now, with election of mulatto-son of white-whore ,the ecological/carrying capacity issue will now enter the realm of oblivion…..for nonwhites smell blood. The republican how now expired, but as of nonv3 2008, whatever passed for an environmental movement has expired. For non-whites full steam ahead fuck carrying capacity. 66
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:28 | #
We’re not anti-them, comrade, only anti-them-being-here. When they’re not here, what concern are they to us? It’s the here part that’s the problem. Sorry, I don’t get upset over African Negroes in Somaliland, Togoland, The Ivory Coast, and Cameroon. I only get upset over them in Maine, North Carolina, Iowa, Toronto, Montreal, Paris, London, Amserdam, Berlin, Rome, Athens, Madrid, and Malta, all brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Jews. 67
Posted by Jupiter on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:00 | # Scroobywitz, you are also playing word game. Anti-immigrant has an obvious and specific meaning. In the context of the ongoing racial dispossession of White America anti-immigrant means : post-1965 non-whites who are enthusiastically cheering and bringing about our dispossession. You and Guzzardi are just playing a fucking game based upon a pack of pc lies. 69
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:37 | # Jupiter: “Anti-immigrant has an obvious and specific meaning.” I’m afraid not. Does it mean that “immigrants” (i.e., non-Whites - “immigrants” itself being a euphemism) in the sense of ‘subhumans’, in the Diamedian sense, who deserve to be, or at least prudence would mandate that they be, exterminated? Or does it mean “immigrants” in the sense that they are fully human, but their presence here is detrimental to our peoplehood? Scrappiness is admirable in a White man, but churlishness directed at a White comrade is not. 70
Posted by Desmond jones on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:31 | #
The least expected is some evidential basis for the assertion, and the claims of genocide against North American indigenous populations are at the very best contentious. 71
Posted by Jupiter on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:32 | # Captain Chaos Just hold on there now!!!! This is not as complicated as you and comrade Frederick make it out to be. In this day and age-especially with th election of Barack Obama, accusing someone of being anti-immigrant means your are anti-Bobby Jindals parents,the H-1B L-1 visa thieves, the parents of Sonilia Sha-do a google search on this creepy hindu “American” and many other “lovely” non-white immigrants. In a debate, the enemy will accuse you of this for no othr reason than to get you or anyone to distract the debate away from the harmfull effects of non-white immigration on White Americans. White Americans are in fact anti-non-white immigrants. I here derogatory comments about the South Asians on a more frequent basis. This is just one group. At this point in time, the discussion over at vdare.com should be:are Native Born White Americans justified in being anti-immigrant. The “I’m not an anti-immgrant” nonesense leads to nonesense such as numbersusa.com basing immigration refrom completely on the basis how it afffects the south asians,east asians,mexicans blaks and muslims. White Americns are completely Whites out over at numbersusa. So I say fuck you numbersusa and fuck you Roy Beck. Native Born White Americans-a growing number of them -are anti-immigrant. This sentiment should be encouraged not discouraged. The basis for raced based White Nationalist politics will depends on this. When Non-Whites fully understand that we really don’t like them here in OUR country-we would really “love” them if they had stayed in their own homelands-they will start to contemplate packing their suitcases. I completely despise Guzzardi and Beck. I have 0 tolerance for White Liberal immigration reformers. By the way, Brimelow gave Beck a little spanking over at vdare.com recently for ignoring the fundamental issue of the racial transformation of America via post-1965 immigration policy. It is time to give the disgusting Liberal degenerate Joe Guzzardi a reading of the White Nationalist riot act. sooner or later-sooner would be much better-Vdare.com is going to have to morph into White Nationalist web site/organization. Captain Chaos Isn’t funny to see how many people respond to my Ghostly prescence-my deleted comments- over Taki.com. By the way, I like Fred. He writes the best stuff at majority rights. I just thought I give him a kick in the pants to keep him honest. I have no doubt that he understands what I was doing. 72
Posted by Red Mercury on Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:17 | # Fred is awesome. He’s the main reason I keep reading MR, part from CC and GW and the rest. 74
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:46 | # With minimal tinkering, Diamed’s last comment in the thread (several above: scroll up) can be made to express exactly why the Jews have made genocide of Euros a major goal: go through his comment, substituting Jews wherever it puts Euros, and Euros wherever it puts non-whites, leaving everything else unchanged. The result is a perfect glimpse into the inner reasoning and motivations of a great many of the visible and behind-the-scenes Jews running race-replacement, such as the Abe Foxman types and many more with the exact same mentality who remain hidden. Here, I’ll do it to show what I mean. Read the following, and you’ll understand the mind of one kind of Jew, one of the types who are pushing open borders on us with an almost religious ferocity (there are very many who think like this among the innermost core of those who’ve made the forcing of Euro race-replacement a central priority for Jews):
75
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:51 | # That last comment of mine was NOT in any way meant to be a joke, by the way: that slightly-transformed comment of Diamed’s expresses EXACTLY what motivates many of the Jews both visible and invisible who are pushing open borders and race-replacement on us the most fervently. Many on our side who read that will say, “Ho-hum, we already knew that, what else is new?” But to any who didn’t already realise lots of very powerful, very influential Jews think exactly like that: YOU’D BETTER BELIEVE IT. Dealing with the adversary requires understanding him. 76
Posted by Diamed on Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:47 | # I laughed out loud while reading the new version over and over. Though jews probably do think like that, their position is unmerited whereas mine is merited based on the true facts of human history. There are many differences making this a false parallel between the two cases. First off their genocide was six million tops (I’ve been studying revisionism like you suggested in the previous thread so I’m not even convinced of that number anymore), and they even got their own country out of it, a net genetic plus. Ours is numbering in the hundreds of millions and by the end we really will have nothing. Theirs was 60 years ago, ours is happening right now. We once ruled the world at 40% of world population and controlled 100% of its people politically, now we’re to 10% and still plummeting with no outside control (in fact nonwhites politically control white america now!)—jews have never been anything but a tiny wandering minority. Our fall is much worse than theirs. Their enemies are long gone, and yet they continue to lash out at people who never hurt them in all of history. Ours are all around us, their hate speech, policies, crime, terrorism, voting records and demonization has made their views quite clear, and the harm they have done us is well documented and proven beyond question. Second off jews have other, less appealing characteristics than whites in non-IQ issues, and only a small subset of them are even smarter than whites—most are dumber! Their small population and love of burrowing into other people’s countries shows they are like viruses who can’t even perpetuate their own life cycle but require hijacking the life-giving powers of their hosts to themselves reproduce. Whites have shown time and again that we can create beautiful, glorious, prosperous countries, kingdoms, and empires all on our own, using no one else but ourselves. An all white world would thrive and prosper. I can just imagine an all jewish world. With no one to manipulate, exploit, rob, deceive, or conquer they’d quickly wither away and go extinct in little sad clouds of dejection. Anyway, if my speech can help describe the psychosis of jews in any way then at least it accomplished something! Carry on Fred. 77
Posted by silver on Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:13 | # Desmond,
I’m really expected to provide evidence that whites came into possession of North America by way of dispossessing the Indian tribes which once inhabited those lands? Or Australia, the aborigines? Those events obviously occurred and a racial justification was employed in each case.
In any case, even if one insists on “this time the world”—and, being an avid eugenicist, method pending, I’m not completely opposed to it, mind you—one ought to be practical. Surely the moral case for survival is infinitely easier to make and to appeal to one’s own with. The (de)population of the rest of mankind will likely resolve itself, in very ugly ways, in coming decades. Securing your own territory now would lay the groundwork for later actions. Even then, though, I think very few buyers would be found for the diamed brand of supremacy, which insists on making enemies of people who are not one’s enemies. Post a comment:
Next entry: On the 90th anniversary of the signing of the Armistice
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by onetwothree on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 03:42 | #
I’m sure it’s a good essay, but I couldn’t get past the childish misspellings.