Hate is the emotion of powerless resistance.

Hate becomes a crime during the last stages of consolidating tyranny.

Since the BNP demise thread transmogrified into a thread warfare thread, I thought it might be helpful to augment previous advice on comment style and content with a few practical tips on staying alive in the thread war.

Choosing your battleground

Different media have widely differing accessibilities for nationalists and tolerances for nationalist opinion.  We are, though, engaged in a war for control of the discourse, and that means finding the level of truth-speaking at which it is possible to participate.

Pre-moderated media, such as the Daily Mail and the BBC, tend not only to exclude the possibility of an exchange of opinion, but weed out radically pro-white comment.  These media have, in my view, to be addressed later, if and when the general discourse has been liberalised.  The place to start is post-moderated sites on the political right, where the tenor of comment provides more cover.  Post-moderated sites on the left, like CiF, New Statesman, and The Independent are good places to conduct raids but are not relevant to the campaign as such (though they have utility when the left is in power).

The Daily Telegraph is clear favourite among the dailies in Britain.  It has the advantage of separate DISQUS systems for the general comment and news system and for the blog system, so a user-name ban in one does not imply a user-name ban in the other (a full IP ban does, though).

READ MORE...

... discussed at the British Democracy Forum in a post titled somewhat more speculatively than it would seem, “Message to Nick Griffin’s Special Branch handlers”.

Bear in mind the that German government court papers of a year or two back indicated that out of 200 leading NPD functionaries, 30 were working as undercover agents.

The interesting part of the conversation begins with a response to another BDF member who had observed that, “There is a great willingness - indeed, an enthusiasm - to believe that Griffin is “state” or an “agent”. To do so allows one to exculpate the mind. It is a nonsense. Griffin is nothing more nor less than a failed would-be businessman with a penchant for dubious practice, like most pyramid salesmen.”

Mike: Fair point for general membership but others knew well what was going on and blanked it from their minds for convenience. The ords look at the tops and say well they are still there so the rumours must be false. The tops are guilty parties.

It’s the same with state plants. They can scream to high heaven ‘I’m a plant’ and people blank it as something which only happens in books - like bank runs. There is one at the moment outside the BNP who screams it. As someone said to me of followers ‘They’ve been told and it goes over their heads’. Now you can never be 100% sure so the correct thing is to be wary of what they are up to and where it might lead not ignore it.

View the operations of Mark Kennedy elsewhere. Appears from nowhere and very helpful plus provides facilities. People like that you keep an eye on. If they are plants they’ll let it slip somehow. It’s only human. Look out for sabotage or luring you into situations which can be used against you but not necessarily involving anything illegal. And keep in mind that the state is obsessed with building databases of ‘enemies of society’. MI5 had files on FOUR MILLION people some years ago. Even they admitted this was a little excessive. A lot of these plants are name and address collectors. Anyone opposing state policy - even writing to a newspaper - is an ‘enemy of society’.

I think these guys must be soft minded. They’ll be dumped as soon as not useful. It’s not worth it.

Mill: The problem is that such a large proportion of prominent nationalists have been labelled “State Plants” at some time or other, that it becomes difficult to separate the fiction from the reality.

READ MORE...

Dear Nikolaos Michaloliakos,

The Golden Dawn can establish a shadow government by creating a new Drachma, issued monthly in a citizen’s dividend, equally to all legitimate citizens, where citizenry is determined by patriotic means.  In exchange, all citizens are expected to participate in the enforcement of the shadow government’s laws and to come to its defense.

This automatically excludes immigrants and other unpatriotic residents of Greece from the delivery of social goods.

If shadow taxation is based on liquid value of only those assets recognized as legitimate by the shadow government, the new Drachma monetary base can be controlled at the same time that the shadow economy utilizing the new Drachma is grown.

Such a system would unify taxation, delivery of social goods and regulation of the monetary base with minimum government management involvement and maximum transparency, hence minimum corruption.  Since the delivery of social goods is in the form of a monthly cash stream, rather than “needs testing”, the typical problems of managing a welfare state are avoided and free enterprise will operate in service of the citizenry.

Please consider doing this, not just for Greece, but to provide us with an example of how patriotic government can be practical and serve the people.

Sincerely,

James Bowery

PS: Some details on the operation of the shadow economy follow:

If the liquid value of an asset is the highest Drachma bid placed in escrow, the monetary base can be the present liquid value of the shadow economy.  This is made practical by using an electronic exchange such as Cyclos (or other appropriate substitute developed by the GD).  Such an electronic exchange can use debit cards issued by the shadow government, but more importantly, all Drachmas currently in circulation can be automatically transferred from one escrowed bid to another escrowed bid as part of each transaction.  Deciding which escrowed bid to withdraw for use as the Drachmas for a transaction, and which escrowed bid is to be placed as the recipient of those same Drachma’s, would be the job of the shadow banks acting on behalf of depositors.  The banks would be paid interest on their escrowed bids by the shadow government only for those bids that were the highest for a given asset.  In general, the interest paid on eligible escrowed bids would equal the interest rate paid by the shadow government to borrow money over the short term.

Financial instruments, such as mortgages, would have bids placed in escrow for them just as any other asset.  Therefore, bids for assets that may have debts against them, such as homes, would be net rather than gross value—which is a feature of asset liquidation.  For instance, if a home owner has an “underwater mortgage”, it may be the case that during liquidation, the owner would have to pay money rather than receiving money.  The holder of the mortgage, however, would continue to receive mortgage payments and could sell the mortgage on the open market for the present value of its likely future payment stream.

Listen to “The Pagan Bible”, now at Majority Radio.

White mating is the challenge. 

By white mating I do not merely mean getting people with white skin to form families and raise children successfully (whatever “success” can mean in a society such as the one in which we live).  I mean stopping if not reversing the dysgenic breeding that has been imposed on whites and doing so sustainably for at least some portion of the white population.

I’m not going to ask you to accept my definition of “whiteness”.  I’m not going to ask you to accept my proposed definition of “dysgenic”.  Therefore, I’m not going to ask you to accept my proposed answer to the challenge of white mating.

Define these and suggest an answer yourself if you don’t like my definitions and answer.

Below the fold, are my definitions and answer.  Add to that answer or do better.

READ MORE...

From “REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century” A Report of The Project for the New American Century, September 2000:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

On September 11, 1941, in seemingly occult anticipation of the above quote, American hero Charles Lindbergh gave the following speech in Des Moines, Iowa:

It is now two years since this latest European war began. From that day in September, 1939, until the present moment, there has been an ever-increasing effort to force the United States into the conflict.

That effort has been carried on by foreign interests, and by a small minority of our own people; but it has been so successful that, today, our country stands on the verge of war.

At this time, as the war is about to enter its third winter, it seems appropriate to review the circumstances that have led us to our present position. Why are we on the verge of war? Was it necessary for us to become so deeply involved? Who is responsible for changing our national policy from one of neutrality and independence to one of entanglement in European affairs?

Personally, I believe there is no better argument against our intervention than a study of the causes and developments of the present war. I have often said that if the true facts and issues were placed before the American people, there would be no danger of our involvement.

Here, I would like to point out to you a fundamental difference between the groups who advocate foreign war, and those who believe in an independent destiny for America.

If you will look back over the record, you will find that those of us who oppose intervention have constantly tried to clarify facts and issues; while the interventionists have tried to hide facts and confuse issues.

We ask you to read what we said last month, last year, and even before the war began. Our record is open and clear, and we are proud of it.

We have not led you on by subterfuge and propaganda. We have not resorted to steps short of anything, in order to take the American people where they did not want to go.

What we said before the elections, we say [illegible] and again, and again today. And we will not tell you tomorrow that it was just campaign oratory. Have you ever heard an interventionist, or a British agent, or a member of the administration in Washington ask you to go back and study a record of what they have said since the war started? Are their self-styled defenders of democracy willing to put the issue of war to a vote of our people? Do you find these crusaders for foreign freedom of speech, or the removal of censorship here in our own country?

The subterfuge and propaganda that exists in our country is obvious on every side. Tonight, I shall try to pierce through a portion of it, to the naked facts which lie beneath.

When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn’t we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.

National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.

The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.

Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.

I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators.

As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.

Let us consider these groups, one at a time.

First, the British: It is obvious and perfectly understandable that Great Britain wants the United States in the war on her side. England is now in a desperate position. Her population is not large enough and her armies are not strong enough to invade the continent of Europe and win the war she declared against Germany.

Her geographical position is such that she cannot win the war by the use of aviation alone, regardless of how many planes we send her. Even if America entered the war, it is improbable that the Allied armies could invade Europe and overwhelm the Axis powers. But one thing is certain. If England can draw this country into the war, she can shift to our shoulders a large portion of the responsibility for waging it and for paying its cost.

As you all know, we were left with the debts of the last European war; and unless we are more cautious in the future than we have been in the past, we will be left with the debts of the present case. If it were not for her hope that she can make us responsible for the war financially, as well as militarily, I believe England would have negotiated a peace in Europe many months ago, and be better off for doing so.

England has devoted, and will continue to devote every effort to get us into the war. We know that she spent huge sums of money in this country during the last war in order to involve us. Englishmen have written books about the cleverness of its use.

We know that England is spending great sums of money for propaganda in America during the present war. If we were Englishmen, we would do the same. But our interest is first in America; and as Americans, it is essential for us to realize the effort that British interests are making to draw us into their war.

The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish.

It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.

No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.

Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.

Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.

I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.

We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.

The Roosevelt administration is the third powerful group which has been carrying this country toward war. Its members have used the war emergency to obtain a third presidential term for the first time in American history. They have used the war to add unlimited billions to a debt which was already the highest we have ever known. And they have just used the war to justify the restriction of congressional power, and the assumption of dictatorial procedures on the part of the president and his appointees.

The power of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the maintenance of a wartime emergency. The prestige of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the success of Great Britain to whom the president attached his political future at a time when most people thought that England and France would easily win the war. The danger of the Roosevelt administration lies in its subterfuge. While its members have promised us peace, they have led us to war heedless of the platform upon which they were elected.

In selecting these three groups as the major agitators for war, I have included only those whose support is essential to the war party. If any one of these groups—the British, the Jewish, or the administration—stops agitating for war, I believe there will be little danger of our involvement.

I do not believe that any two of them are powerful enough to carry this country to war without the support of the third. And to these three, as I have said, all other war groups are of secondary importance.

When hostilities commenced in Europe, in 1939, it was realized by these groups that the American people had no intention of entering the war. They knew it would be worse than useless to ask us for a declaration of war at that time. But they believed that this country could be entered into the war in very much the same way we were entered into the last one.

They planned: first, to prepare the United States for foreign war under the guise of American defense; second, to involve us in the war, step by step, without our realization; third, to create a series of incidents which would force us into the actual conflict. These plans were of course, to be covered and assisted by the full power of their propaganda.

Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms “fifth columnist,” “traitor,” “Nazi,” “anti-Semitic” were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak.

Before long, lecture halls that were open to the advocates of war were closed to speakers who opposed it. A fear campaign was inaugurated. We were told that aviation, which has held the British fleet off the continent of Europe, made America more vulnerable than ever before to invasion. Propaganda was in full swing.

There was no difficulty in obtaining billions of dollars for arms under the guise of defending America. Our people stood united on a program of defense. Congress passed appropriation after appropriation for guns and planes and battleships, with the approval of the overwhelming majority of our citizens. That a large portion of these appropriations was to be used to build arms for Europe, we did not learn until later. That was another step.

To use a specific example; in 1939, we were told that we should increase our air corps to a total of 5,000 planes. Congress passed the necessary legislation. A few months later, the administration told us that the United States should have at least 50,000 planes for our national safety. But almost as fast as fighting planes were turned out from our factories, they were sent abroad, although our own air corps was in the utmost need of new equipment; so that today, two years after the start of war, the American army has a few hundred thoroughly modern bombers and fighters—less in fact, than Germany is able to produce in a single month.

Ever since its inception, our arms program has been laid out for the purpose of carrying on the war in Europe, far more than for the purpose of building an adequate defense for America.

Now at the same time we were being prepared for a foreign war, it was necessary, as I have said, to involve us in the war. This was accomplished under that now famous phrase “steps short of war.”

England and France would win if the United States would only repeal its arms embargo and sell munitions for cash, we were told. And then [illegible] began, a refrain that marked every step we took toward war for many months—“the best way to defend America and keep out of war.” we were told, was “by aiding the Allies.”

First, we agreed to sell arms to Europe; next, we agreed to loan arms to Europe; then we agreed to patrol the ocean for Europe; then we occupied a European island in the war zone. Now, we have reached the verge of war.

The war groups have succeeded in the first two of their three major steps into war. The greatest armament program in our history is under way.

We have become involved in the war from practically every standpoint except actual shooting. Only the creation of sufficient “incidents” yet remains; and you see the first of these already taking place, according to plan [ill.]—a plan that was never laid before the American people for their approval.

Men and women of Iowa; only one thing holds this country from war today. That is the rising opposition of the American people. Our system of democracy and representative government is on test today as it has never been before. We are on the verge of a war in which the only victor would be chaos and prostration.

We are on the verge of a war for which we are still unprepared, and for which no one has offered a feasible plan for victory—a war which cannot be won without sending our soldiers across the ocean to force a landing on a hostile coast against armies stronger than our own.

We are on the verge of war, but it is not yet too late to stay out. It is not too late to show that no amount of money, or propaganda, or patronage can force a free and independent people into war against its will. It is not yet too late to retrieve and to maintain the independent American destiny that our forefathers established in this new world.

The entire future rests upon our shoulders. It depends upon our action, our courage, and our intelligence. If you oppose our intervention in the war, now is the time to make your voice heard.

Help us to organize these meetings; and write to your representatives in Washington. I tell you that the last stronghold of democracy and representative government in this country is in our house of representatives and our senate.

There, we can still make our will known. And if we, the American people, do that, independence and freedom will continue to live among us, and there will be no foreign war.

This conference provided one of the largest releases, to date, of information on a relatively secretive industrial development of a high power cold fusion device.

The program for the conference is available here.

Below is a video of the most important session:

Development and Future Aspects of E-Cat Technology
- Overviewabout the environmentally friendly Nickel-Hydrogen technology
Magnus Holm, CEO Hydrofusion, Great Britain and Sweden
- Test results of the 600 degree E-Cat, report from an impartial testing company
Andrea Rossi, CEO Leonardo Corporation Inc., Miami/USA and Bologna/IT
- Parameters of the automatized E-Cat control system
Fulvio Fabiani, Engineer, Leonardo Corporation, Miami/USA

This session is about an independent report on a high temperature E-Cat that is under development.  This module purportedly reaches very high temperatures (up to 1200C) with a higher power density than the commercial furnace.  Its dimensions are 30cm by 9cm O.D.

The takeaway message from the conference is that there is* a 4-month delivery for a heating system that has a lower levelized cost per thermal unit, including O&M, Fuel and 10 year straight line depreciation, than current natural gas price per thermal unit alone.

1dollar/MWh+1dollar/MWh+((1.5e6dollar/10year)/1MW)?dollar/1e6btu

([{1 * dollar} / {mega*Wh}] + [{1 * dollar} / {mega*Wh}]) + ([{1.5E6 * dollar} /  {10 * year}] / [1 * {mega*watt}]) ? dollar / 1e6btu

= 5.6045044 dollar/1e6btu

Current natural gas price for commercial heating is $8.22/1e6btu.

The proximate significance of this would be that even if a commercial business immediately writes-off the sunk-cost of a heating system on the order of 1MW (3.4MMbtu/hour), it still makes sense to replace it immediately.

*The meaning of “is” here must be qualified as follows:  If you have one third of the $1.5M purchase price to place in escrow, you can have your engineers perform whatever non-destructive tests you like to certify the system.  If not certified by your engineers, you get the $500k back.