Posted by Bud White on Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:56 | #

It sounds to me, Kenneth Eng, has a greater hate for Christianity than blacks. He conveniently uses blacks as a conduit to direct his antipathy towards the Christian faith.

Posted by VanSpeyk on Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:13 | #

Pure globalist thrivel this is. This globalist “vision” of how the world should be scares me like nothing else. What an uninteresting place that would be. Typically, he pays no attention what so ever to biological differences. All in all, it’s simply revolting. But yes, Barnett is very good and his case makes sense - from a globalist perspective that is.

Having said that, I’m afraid I don’t quite see the contradiction in the quoted statement. It would be appriciated if you, or anyone else, could point it out to me and elaborate on it. Does it have to do with his assumption that there will still be different “networks” and that this means there is no real “one world community”?

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:57 | #

The money quote: Everybody’s information network is only as secure as every other network it connects to.

Think about a banking network.  Joe, Adolph and Franklin all have banking networks.  They maintain their banking networks within their respective countries.  Are they more secure or less secure than when they connect them all together?

Posted by Bud White on Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:15 | #

“This extension of our networks is how we extend our transparency and our security.  Not stopping things at our border.  Everybody’s information network is only as secure as every other network it connects to.  It’s about extending networks.  Not firewalling them.”

No counteraction here. This fits right into NWO, Global socialist agenda.

One information network; one banking system; one common currency; one central body-of-laws that ALL must obey and answer to…..

Isn’t that what the EU is all about? Isn’t an EU prototype eventually going to engulf the whole world? I think so! The NAU is well on it’s way to becoming reality.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:42 | #

Except for the fact that the bigger the system, the more likely it has security holes someone can find a way to exploit—which is implied by his statement “Everybody’s information network is only as secure as every other network it connects to.” 

The same is true of the evolution of virulence via horizontal transmission.  Everybody’s public health system is only as safe as every other public health system it connects to.

The same is true of terrorist threat.  Everybody’s homeland is only as secure as every other nation it lets cross its borders.

This contradicts his statement: “It’s about extending networks.”

WHAT is about extending networks?  Decreasing financial security?  Decreasing public health?  Decreasing homeland security?  All of the above?

Posted by Daniel J on Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:58 | #

One information network; one banking system; one common currency; one central body-of-laws that ALL must obey and answer to….. -BW

You forgot one synthesized religion…

Decreasing public health?  Decreasing homeland security? -JB

I don’t think the filthy rick care about either of these since they are problems that would plague common people.

WHAT is about extending networks? -JB

Globalism is. The spread of mandatory inoculation, free “education” from the state from three years old on, a planned and centralized economy, medication of lobotomies for those that dissent….

One gigantic homeland which makes real “homeland” security obsolete.

Posted by Bud White on Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:03 | #

“Except for the fact that the bigger the system, the more likely it has security holes someone can find a way to exploit—which is implied by his statement “Everybody’s information network is only as secure as every other network it connects to.”

Makes sense. James.

So then the next logical step for the “globalist,” is to install more “big brother” type oversights into the system as it expands.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:15 | #

But he didn’t say anything about the installing more intrusive controls.  If he had then it might not have been self-contradictory.  If you keep the level of intrusion constant across the “transparent” network, the security decreases by his own admission.

If he had said something about increasing the standards of intrusion for each node in the entire network as the network expands so that p**N is held to some reasonable constant (p is probability of non-failure of a given node and N is number of nodes) then you might be justified in your statement that he’s not being self-contradictory.  Indeed, in other places in his talk he did talk about something akin to ISO standardization, but he talked about such standardization being SET at some constant—only establishes p as a constant, not p**N.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:30 | #

Here’s another reductio ad absurdum:  If we follow his maxim of “extend, don’t firewall, the networks” you get to the point that you do away with sewage systems by standardizing health to the point that there are no pathogens going into the sewage.  That way we can all be eating and drinking each other’s sewage.  The minor detail of how to do away with all pathogens can be left as an exercise to the, uh, rational humans (who processed their own food and water) left after the plague wipes out the rest.

Posted by alex zeka on Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:45 | #

It would be nice if all that explanation had been in the original entry.

Globalism is. The spread of mandatory inoculation, free “education” from the state from three years old on, a planned and centralized economy, medication of lobotomies for those that dissent….

Mandatory inoculation is scarcely the stuff of imperialist aggression, and I don’t quite think we’ll see any lobotomies in the near future. But you are certainly right about the supra-state driven centralisation of economics to a point were economies of scale just don’t justify it anymore. When half the goods in your local Tesco’s are from the other side of the world, you have to wonder just how much more efficient than us the Chinese have to be to justify these sorts of transportation costs. Actually, they probably are that much more efficient, but largely because the UK gov’t focuses on achievement of the Multi-Cult before encouraging and facilitating enterprise among its citizenry. 

Might turn this into a blog essay once I have the time.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:57 | #

Original entry modified to include the explanation.

Posted by FP on Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:23 | #

Barnett is explicitly a neo-con, and as a neocon shares the marxist assumption that human beings are essentially interchangeable (being solely products of their environemnt).  Thus, to use the waterpipe/sewage analogy, Barnett sincerely believes that sewage only exists because of the firewall (read his stuff)!

Hence his support for the misguided attempt to introduce democracy to Iraq, to people who are not ready for it.  Of course realists understand that a average IQ 90 society like Iraq can NEVER be ready to sustain a democracy worth a damn (even without the Islam).  But I imagine Barnett would reject that as racist.

In failing to explain the failure for Iraq, Barnett has now latched on to the dubious “J curve” theory.

The smart 4th generation warfare theorists like the American William Lind and Israeli Martin Van Creveld agree that ” Everybody’s information network is only as secure as every other network it connects to.”, but differ in that the only rational solution is to firewall like hell.

Posted by alex zeka on Tue, 06 Mar 2007 10:42 | #

Fred, Some might want to do that, but alas for them we still have something called trials in the West, and juries as well, one of which kept Griffin out of the slammer. I’d warn against fantasising too much about the omnipotence of the enemy class, thus giving yourself a very nice martyr complex but also leaving yourself too scared to be effective.

Posted by alex zeka on Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:33 | #

Acquittals don’t mean absence of intimidation of individuals and of political parties.  How much of a personal and familial disruption was the treatment meted out to Griffin?  Did his health suffer as a result of months of fear and anguish that he might go to jail?  Did his family’s health suffer?  Did his relations with family members suffer?  How much did he lose in income because of time taken away from being productive?  What was the amount of the legal fees he had to pay out of his own pocket?  How ruinous was that for him?

Very bad for him no doubt, but not quite getting gang-banged by a bunch of AIDS-infected Negroes or really the equivalent of that, is it? And quite a distance away from a lobotomy, as well.

How confident is Griffin, since the acquittal, that it won’t happen all over again the minute he does any truth-speaking?  Have he and the party been effectively castrated?  Has the process he was subjected to put a real chill on all frank talk, using clear, plain language, about the crisis of excessive incompatible immigration and planned deliberate forced race-replacement?

I invite anyone reading to go to the BNP website, and find out just how ‘castrated’ they’ve become. My answer: not very.

How ‘castrated’ has HH Hoppe become after his brush with the thought police? He is still happily prof. at Nevada, while the governing body of that institution has now become acquainted with the question of whether the fact/opinion distinction is a fact or an opinion. Brand was purged by Edinburgh a decade ago, but while that university has slipped down the rankings, much to his glee, he is still getting paid by many of his old students to teach them.

Meanwhile, Larry Summers, afraid of some Princeton equivalent of a dry humping prisoner, has found that no amount of grovelling has done him any good.

The lesson I would draw from this is that the enemy class cannot face up to a show of resistance. Their avowed principles prevent them from categorically dismissing an opinion, save by making an exception so glaring (all opinions are valid, except ones we really disagree with) that just by calling attnetion to this you can make support for them fonder and collapse.

The current ideological order is a house of cards, with nothing but academic theory and brute force holding it together, the latter of which isn’t even legitimate from the point of view of the former! The levers of influence cannot be wielded with a limp wrist, and that applies to WNs and opponents alike.

After reading that, I’ll assume you must be signing with your real full name, Alex ...  If indeed you are, congratulations.  I’m not.

I am no martyr, I leave that to the Islamists. I won’t expose myself to pointless risks. If, however, someone should confront me with what I’ve written, I’ll smile sweatly and say: “Okay, those are my legal, logically and factually backed up views, which I have expressed on a legal website. You might disagree with them, but that no more makes them illegitimate than my disagreement with yours makes the latter so. Your move.”

You, no doubt, would deny it for fear of getting thrown into one of those prisons you imagine (fantasise about?) so vividly.

But, what should I expect after reading PF’s paeon to the direction-less violence found in rap songs? After all, we should respect the Negroes for their violent ways, including what they get upto in prisons. Once we acknowledge that, it’s pretty damned hard not to see their attacks as unstoppable.

It all makes for good martyr literature, but as HHH and Brand proved a bit of balls will serve you alot better in practical terms.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 07 Mar 2007 01:05 | #

“You, no doubt, would deny it for fear of getting thrown into one of those prisons you imagine (fantasise about?) so vividly.”  (—Alex)

Why in the world would I “fantasize about” horrific prison scenarios, Alex?  Don’t start being weird, please.  There are enough wacked-out weirdos on the other side.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 07 Mar 2007 01:11 | #

The prisoner rape issue is a pretty good litmus test and I think Alex just failed it.

Posted by alex zeka on Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:46 | #

Ah, litmus tests. Please name one person who has been imprisoned in a gang-ridden prison for un-pc opinions. Now tell me how much certain persons would have wanted many to be. They aren’t as powerful as you imagine, anfd believing them to be will only make you too scared to say anything and yet appear delusional to others at the same time.

Posted by Euroman on Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:12 | #

Fred,

Minimizing intimidation requires economic separation – that is, we must employ and provide goods and services to our own.  Of course this would be a gradual and difficult process.  Nevertheless we’d start by chartering “Exclusive Communities” throughout the North, Northwest and Canada and place our economic focus on energy and agricultural independence, equipment rehabilitation and cloning, material recycling, home schooling and technical education, etc.  The plan would be marketed to young tradesmen, technicians and engineers, and expanded to include others once Maslow’s base was consolidated.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:01 | #

Euroman, such economic separation is risky to asset holders due to the “definition” of “public accommodation”.  As the SPLC has demonstrated, they can and will seize your land if you try to get around this by fleeing to the wilderness to avoid interaction.

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 07 Mar 2007 23:03 | #

Fred’s mention of Prof Vanhanen’s interrogation by Finnish police is particularly interesting, as the ‘IQ and the Wealth of Nations’ co-author’s son was,I believe, Finland’s Prime Minister at the time.

However, it seems that little political opprobrium accrued from the PM’s having such a race-realist sire.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 07 Mar 2007 23:41 | #

“Fred’s mention of Prof Vanhanen’s interrogation by Finnish police is particularly interesting, as the ‘IQ and the Wealth of Nations’ co-author’s son was, I believe, Finland’s Prime Minister at the time.  However, it seems that little political opprobrium accrued from the PM’s having such a race-realist sire.”  (—Al Ross)

Right, Al refers to Matti Vanhanen, Finland’s prime minister.  But who knows?  Maybe being the father of the prime minister was what kept the dad from draconian punishment?  It’s like when Johannes Kepler, the renaissance astronomer and Imperial Mathematicus of the Holy Roman Empire Court in Prague or whatever his title was — let’s just say the guy had connections — had to intervene with whatever string-pulling he could finagle behind the scenes in order to get his agèd mother off on charges of witchcraft arising from complaints lodged by some vindicitive old bat neighbor of hers who was jealous of the way she tended her cabbage patch or something (the same level, suffice it to say, as the creeps and race-replacers who called for Vanhanen’s scalp for the “offense” of writing that book).

Posted by alex zeka on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:34 | #

Fred, you still haven’t answered my request: name one person imprisoned for holding un-pc opinions anywhere. In lieu of an answer, I’ll just assume that the prison rape outburst above was just an aberration, and that you spoke too rashly which you now regret.

Lest anyone think I’m being pedantic, I’d call them to consider the following fable. Fred and I are out for a walk, when we see an apple tree. I want to climb it and get the apples, but Fred cautions me: “Don’t, you’ll get attacked by a gang of feral prisoners and lobotomised as well!” When I wonder how this might come about, he replies that actually I might just fall off and hurt myself. I choose to take the risk and get the apples, which I wouldn’t have done if I’d believed his original scare story.

Now, imagine if the prize is rather more worthy than an apple…

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:19 | #

Alex, it is hard to believe you are serious.  Have you never heard of “hate” crimes?

Posted by jlh on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:38 | #

I think Fred’s essentially right about the threat of prison, with its incredibly hostile environment for whites, being held in reserve as the ultimate punishment for resurgent white solidarity. Here’s a link to an essay that treats this subject. Skip down to the last graph, and you will find links to papers which substantiate what Fred is saying.

http://bedlamnation.blogspot.com/2005/10/its-official-we-are-enemy.html

Why bother defending yourself against the depredations of blacks and mexicans only to wind up in prison subject to them 24/7?

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:50 | #

JLH, what the prisoner ethnic gang rape regime demands of whites is that whites take the regime down by any means necessary up to and including depriving it of the foundation of civilization itself:  agriculture. 

But lest I be seen as soft on tyranny—this because such extreme measures apply to any regime violating freedom of association (via immigration and/or “civil rights” laws that prevent us from choosing our national and personal associates)  and it is upon such violation that the prisoner ethnic gang rape regime is founded.  Indeed, in an appropriately structured assortative migration bringing mutually consenting adults together, there would be no need for imprisonment.  Even if there were to be death penalty for treason or espionage, the accused could be sent to a territory with which his behavior was compatible until his execution was to be carried out, and kept with those who were very unlikely to molest him.  Of course, if they refused to extradite the criminal for his execution then it would be an act of war.

Posted by jlh on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:08 | #

James,

I agree with everything you are saying. However, agriculture as it stands is owned lock, stock and barrel by the bureaucrats through the farm subsidy system, and the once-dependable Jeffersonian yeoman is addicted to the subsidies and the rest of the American disease: materialism, TV, pop culture, gas guzzling motor vehicles, phony propositional nation patriotism, etc. Where is the will to do what you are proposing going to come from?

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:32 | #

The ethnic prison gang rape regime has rendered civil disobedience nonviable.  Indeed, the founder of Stop Prisoner Rape was raped by a gang of blacks because he was engaged in civil disobedience and refused to pay the $10 bail on a matter of principles.

So, bye bye Gandhi.

Posted by Daniel J on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:44 | #

The ethnic prison gang rape regime has rendered civil disobedience nonviable.  Indeed, the founder of Stop Prisoner Rape was raped by a gang of blacks because he was engaged in civil disobedience and refused to pay the $10 bail on a matter of principles. -JB

Is that really true?

I must say the threat of prison rape is highly inflated in my estimation. Having spent some time there, one realizes that currently it is still a microcosm of the outside. Blacks and Latinos at each other’s throats and ignoring the whites.

However, prison would be a good place to reach misbehaving brethren that have nothing to do but study.

-jlh

Not only are you correct you get more correct every year. The new government ploy is ethanol. Which creates even bigger corporate corn farming monoliths who grow-somewhere in the range of-50 cents a gallon subsidized “alternative fuels,” government being swept up in the propaganda about global warming and “peak oil.”

This is a rehash of the Jimmy Carter days (thankfully I wasn’t born yet) where a novel way of contracting supply, and increasing demand is a raison d’être for good ole’ fashioned price gouging.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:12 | #

http://ww1.aegis.org/news/ct/1995/CT950604.html

In a comfortable downtown Chicago restaurant, Stephen Donaldson is suddenly silent, his face turning a deep red, his eyes staring at nothing. Donaldson is trying to describe something so horrible, so sickening, so painful that it almost destroyed him.

“It is very difficult for me to talk about it,” Donaldson says, taking a deep breath and pushing away his plate. “This is a good way to lose an appetite.”

It began Aug. 9, 1973, when Donaldson—by then a college graduate, Navy veteran, journalist and Quaker pacifist—participated in a pray-in at the White House on the 28th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan.

Donaldson was arrested for trespassing and sent to the Washington, D.C., jail, where he refused on moral grounds to post a $10 bond. Donaldson believed the bail system discriminated against poor people and minorities.

At first, Donaldson was housed in a section of the jail reserved for older and non-violent detainess. He spent an uneventful week playing chess and talking with other inmates.

But Donaldson said jail officials began pressuring him to pay his bail and get out. “I refused,” Donaldson recalled. “I said I was going to stay until trial.”

Soon after, Donaldson was transferred into the jail’s general population—something officials evidently hoped would force Donaldson to pay the bail. Almost immediately, a young inmate who introduced himself only as “Baseball” approached Donaldson and said a group of inmates wanted to talk to him about his politics.

Not suspecting any threat, Donaldson followed Baseball into the inmate’s cell. Eight men were waiting for him.

“They blocked the exit and told me to take my pants off,” Donaldson recounted. “I said, ‘Like hell.’ They picked me up and began ramming my head against the iron railing of the top bunk. They sat me down on the toliet seat and Baseball stood in front of me.”

Baseball ordered Donaldson to perform oral sex. Donaldson refused. “He started punching me,” Donaldson said. “There just wasn’t any way out. I was totally surrounded. I was terrified. They said if I said anything about it, they would kill me. At that point I gave in.”

Donaldson was forced to have oral sex with Baseball. A second inmate demanded anal intercourse. When Donaldson refused, the inmate tore off Donaldson’s pants, shoved a pillow over his head so that he couldn’t scream and raped him. “It was excruciatingly painful,” said Donaldson.

For the next four hours, several dozen inmates dragged Donaldson from cell to cell raping him.

Baseball collected two packs of cigarettes from each inmate who raped Donaldson. That was the price of sex in the D.C. jail. “This is just the way we welcome new kids on the first night,” one of the rapists told Donaldson.

“You won’t have to go through all this again.” The inmate lied. The next night Donaldson was gang-raped again. “It was devastating psychologically,” says Donaldson, his voice almost inaudible. “It seemed like I was going to spend the rest of my life . It was like the end of all hope.”

Donaldson managed to escape his attackers and run to the nearest guard post, where he collapsed. The next day, after posting bail and being released, Donaldson held a press conference to tell the world about what had happened to him.

Since then, Donaldson hasn’t stopped talking about the problem of prison rape, which he estimates affects more than 300,000 inmates each year at juvenile centers, adult jails and prisons nationwide.

Posted by Daniel J on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:53 | #

Thanks James… I though you meant he got raped after he had started the organization…

That would have been ironic…

I believe the lady that started MADD got a D.U.I several years back…

Posted by alex zeka on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:18 | #

I must say the threat of prison rape is highly inflated in my estimation. Having spent some time there, one realizes that currently it is still a microcosm of the outside. Blacks and Latinos at each other’s throats and ignoring the whites.

And so the ways in which Scroobster has been exaggerating pile up… Dreams of martyrdom are fun but not particularly productive.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 09 Mar 2007 00:15 | #

Race and Ethnicity

Past studies have documented the prevalence of black on white sexual aggression in prison.(213) These findings are further confirmed by Human Rights Watch’s own research. Overall, our correspondence and interviews with white, black, and Hispanic inmates convince us that white inmates are disproportionately targeted for abuse.(214) Although many whites reported being raped by white inmates, black on white abuse appears to be more common. To a much lesser extent, non-Hispanic whites also reported being victimized by Hispanic inmates.

Other than sexual abuse of white inmates by African Americans, and, less frequently, Hispanics, interracial and interethnic sexual abuse appears to be much less common than sexual abuse committed by persons of one race or ethnicity against members of that same group. In other words, African Americans typically face sexual abuse at the hands of other African Americans, and Hispanics at the hands of other Hispanics. Some inmates told Human Rights Watch that this pattern reflected an inmate rule, one that was strictly enforced: “only a black can turn out [rape] a black, and only a chicano can turn out a chicano.”(215) Breaking this rule by sexually abusing someone of another race or ethnicity, with the exception of a white inmate, could lead to racial or ethnic unrest, as other members of the victim’s group would retaliate against the perpetrator’s group. A Texas inmate explained, for example: “The Mexicans—indeed all latinos, nobody outside their race can ‘check’ one without permission from the town that, that person is from. If a black dude were to check a mexican w/out such permission & the mexican stays down & fights back, a riot will take place.”(216)

The causes of black on white sexual abuse in prison have been much analyzed. Some commentators have attributed it to the norms of a violent black subculture, the result of social conditioning that encourages aggressiveness and the use of force.(217) Others have viewed it as a form of revenge for white dominance of blacks in outside society.(218) Viewing rape as a hate crime rather than one primarily motivated by sexual urges, they believe that sexually abused white inmates are essentially convenient surrogates for whites generally. Elaborating on this theory, one commentator surmised that “in raping a white inmate, the black aggressor may in some measure be assaulting the white guard on the catwalk.”(219)

Some inmates, both black and white, told Human Rights Watch that whites were generally perceived as weaker and thus more vulnerable to sexual abuse. An African American prisoner, describing the situation of incarcerated whites, said:

    When individuals come to prison, they know that the first thing that they will have to do is fight. Now there are individuals that are from a certain race that the majority of them are not physically equip to fight. So they are the majority that are force to engage in sexual acts.(220)

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:

    Before I continue, let me explain that I consider myself to be speaking from mainly a black perspective. The reason I say that is not to be racist, but to emphasize that on the main, blacks, whites, hispanics, etc. . . . have a different outlook on prison rape from a convict viewpoint. Most [blacks] feel that the legal system is fundamentally racist and officers are the most visible symbol of a corrupt institution & with good reason . . . . lacks know whites often associate crime with black people. They see themselves as being used as scapegoats . . . . So is it any wonder that when a white man comes to prison, that blacks see him as a target. Stereotypes are prevalent amongst blacks also that cause bad thinking. The belief that all or most white men are effete or gay is very prevalent, & that whites are cowards who have to have 5 or 6 more to take down one dude . . . . Whites are prey and even a punk will be supported if he beats up a white dude.