by I. Bismuth

Semi-jogging home along Market Street this afternoon, I passed a lone beauty at a bus stop. And after passing her, I mused to a halt, for I had heard her, or thought I had heard her, speak certain words into her mobile, words that are totally unacceptable in a decent society. Taking a breather (of which, inhabiting the body of a man half my age, I had no need) I made a show of staggering back towards the suspect, and leaned against the stop.

My intention was to monitor the remainder of her call and catch a possible repetition of the offending vocables, but by the time I could sag within eavesdropping range, she was saying good bye, love you, and now here was her bus.

This was frustrating. I did not have much on her, but letting her go would send the wrong message, if only to her loved interlocutor. Besides, she was guilty all right. She was guilty of having made herself a suspect. It was unthinkable that there would be no consequences.

Feeling I could gather more evidence from an entrapping interview with her before turning her in, I followed her on board and to the upper deck. She sat at the front. Waiting for my chance, I occupied the seat directly behind her and breathed on her hair.

But once the bus had moved off and I looked behind us, I saw that, after all, waiting was unnecessary. I had assumed I would have to let the other passengers disembark before I could tackle her in peace, but there were only five of them, and they were already gone. They were well gone. The first was shouting in Swahili up his sleeve, the second was being spasmodic to rhythms throbbing from his headphones like off-shored industry, the third was snoring, the fourth was cutting his toenails, and the fifth appeared to have been dead for several days.

So, satisfied I could go to work on her unmolested, I leaned slowly forward, tilted my head reassuringly, and whispered in her ear, “Don’t be frightened.”

READ MORE...

An enormously big lumberjack, who was also a bully, took a delight in tormenting the Chinese whenever they appeared at the company store.  He thought it especially hilarious to trip them when they were loaded with supplies and going out the door.  Also he kept alive and continually embellished the mistake of the intended bride being placed in the brothel.  His joy in that joke on these small stature people, when his only pride was his bulk and strength, reached to inexhaustible extremes.  The hatred that the Chinese felt for him is fully understandable when the stories told show that the other loggers were ashamed that he was one of them.  The Chinese had become well enough acquainted with the logger’s ways to understand most of the foul jokes and to understand that this man’s attitude didn’t represent that held by most of the others.  The other loggers continually admonished the bully with “you wouldn’t talk like that to a man who was big enough to challenge you to a fight.”

Then one day when this remark was made after the usual taunts from the giant logger it brought a memorable response from one of the Chinese.  The target at the moment was a slight, sensitive-faced Chinese man named Lin Tse who had come into the store alone.  The fury that had been burning showed itself in this man who contained it with the patient endurance that countless centuries had bred in his being.  It didn’t leap into flame; it glowed with a small controlled dignity like some unearthly fire.

Lin’s purchase was only a small package and although there was a big audience of men gathered in the store the bully didn’t think it worthwhile to trip him as he went out.  He contented himself with foul worded jokes.  Lin heard the other loggers disapproval expressed in “you’d be more careful with a man who was big enough to fight you.”  Lin Tse knew the full meaning of the fight to which the words referred and his understanding and deliberation created drama when he turned and faced the bully and the roomful of men with dignity.

The surprise of his turning to meet them instead of hurrying out the door as unobtrusively as possible caused a hush to fall.  In the waiting silence his words were clear and in fully understandable English, “If you gentlemen will ensure a fair fight, I will meet this man.”

There was only a short pause before someone said enthusiastically, “Let’s give them guns.  That’s the only way to make a fair fight in this case.”

The foreman was there and spoke up.  “No.  We’ve all agreed.  No more guns.  I’d like to see the little guy have his chance, but the judge said if there’s another suspicious shooting every man here will face trial as an accomplice of a murderer.

Before an argument developed on the point Lin announced, “I do not want guns.  Fifteen meters of strong cordage in addition to a knife will make an equal fight if there’s a big area that has not been logged clean.”

The big man didn’t like the sound of things and, with a guffaw, he tried to go back to the joking game, “He wants to tie me up before he fights me.”  He pulled the end of the rope from a nearby coil, threw it at Lin, and held out his wrists with, “Here, let’s see you do it.”

No one laughed.  The men were all on their feet and approaching the little man with an interest that was clearly that of a wolf pack moving up on a fight, but also with a silence that verged on becoming a reverent calm.  They asked what he could do with a length of cordage.

Lin answered, “Man is intelligent.  His intelligence makes him a fit opponent for a bear or even an elephant.  With a knife and a cord a man can make a spear, or a bow and arrow, or a trap.  He can do many things.  He can fight with his intelligence, not just his bulk or his skill in handling a gun.  But surprise is necessary to use intelligence.  Man does not show the bear how he plans to trap him.  I think it is fair that I and this man-bear have equal knives and lengths of cord but do not tell how we will use them.”

The trap had been sprung.  A man had used the weight of a mob for an intelligent purpose by appealing to fair play rather than the usual half-sleeping mob tendencies toward turning a fight into mob entertainment.  The bully tried all the jokes and tricks he had learned in his attempt to put a laughing, leering mob behind him, but the mob weight was all used to make him accept the challenge on the fair terms stated.  He wanted to reduce the size of the combat area but they insisted on making it big enough to give strategy its due weight.

The fight lasted a day and an night and well into the next day.  Three times the big man tried to come out but the jeers of the others drove him back.  At twilight on the second day, when everyone was preparing to go into another all night vigil, Lin appeared at the designated place and said calmly, “A man is dead in the woods.  Would some of you gentlemen help me carry him out.”

If the method Lin used to bring down the big man was ever known, it isn’t of record, but the occasion touched the imagination of the men.  An area big enough to permit strategy, a knife with a 25 cm blade, too short for sophisticated swordsmanship, and a fifteen meter length of cordage, strong enough to jerk up a big man’s weight, became the criteria of a fair fight.

Whether it was: (1) Simple fear of the unknown when contemplated through light and dark hours in the forest or (2) a new respect for the unknown in people, when meeting those different from oneself; would be hard to determine; but the number of deaths by unstated causes in Camp 38 decreased after the establishment of those criteria for fairness.

p. 123-125 “Camp 38: Current Model of Northern European Lifestyle Before Christianity” by Jill von Konen, ISBN 0-914752-19-7, Sovereign Press, 326 Harris Rd., Rochester, WA 98579

[an essay by the mindweapon formerly known as kievsky]

The title of this post is taken from a working paper written for the US Army by Major Michael Aquino and Colonel Paul Valley, as an update to what is known in the military as “Psy-Ops” or “Psychological Operations.”  I went to the Defense Language Institute and had some “Psy-Ops” MOS’s in my unit and in my classes.  They are stationed at Fort Bragg, and as of 1992 still called themselves “Psy-Ops.”

READ MORE...

In 1975, when I turned twenty-four, I finally gave up the process of transforming perfectly innocent family cars into tortured scraps of metal and determined instead to pursue a career as a writer of some sort.  My parents were so pleased by this life-saving decision that they immediately bestowed upon me a portable typewriter, a Collins English Dictionary, and a Roget’s Thesaurus.  I’m not still clattering away at the keys of the typewriter.  But the dictionary and the Thesaurus I do still possess.

The Collins is the 1972 edition and, interestingly, this is its entry for a certain word beginning with “h”:

holo- (holo’-o) a combining form, fr, Gk. holos whole. Used in many derivatives,—holocaust (hol’-o-kawst) n. a burnt offering, the whole of being consumed by fire; hence wholesome sacrifice, destruction or slaughter

Notice anything missing?  Well, language evolves, as we all know, and with the wonder of the internet dictionaries go on-line.  Here is the on-line offering from Collins today:

holocaust
n

1. destruction or loss of life on a massive scale,

2. the Holocaust mass murder of the Jews in Europe by the Nazis (1940–45)
Greek holos whole + kaiein to burn

My dog-eared Roget is undateable since the front cover and fly page went missing I know not when.  But the index is still complete and lists the same two general definitions for the h-word, directing my attention to entry 991 for idolatry and 361 for killing, in that order.  The latter lists twenty-seven substantives for the act of killing, one of which is holocaust.

But like the Collins, Roget is also available today online, and lists thirteen much more lurid synonyms for holocaust.  So under mass extermination we find:

READ MORE...

The video below is of course only the tip of the iceberg of male “discontent”.  What the video doesn’t discuss is that the entire “feminist” game is instigated by a tiny minority of insular males (above the “glass ceiling” some call it—although protected minority males are also effectively insulated from its effects) targeted specifically at reducing white population and white male sovereignty.  “Blame it all on yourself” so the song goes.  The video’s writer, Rich Zubaty, calls on women to do “real work” as his solution.  When whites are gone, women will do “real work” as they do in Africa now.  What Zubaty gets right is that civilization based on female individual sovereignty without corresponding male individual sovereignty will not last.  Moreover, there is no turning back feminism short of eliminating white males, so if whites are to be preserved, civilization must fall.

PS: Forget “game”.  Men who experience hostility toward women would do their physiology good if they would simply see the abuse to which they are subjected as a demand from the ancestors, speaking through the females in their actions—a demand that they take it down.  The women can’t be aware of everything their genes are telling the men but they will respond positively when the men hear it.

Although it doesn’t shed light on the trends in prime foreclosures, Google’s Map’s foreclosure feature is a fun toy—especially if you have money after all the scams of the last decade.  Oh, that’s right—that’s the whole point:

Put more of the real estate into the hands of the banksters and their social networks before the Federal Reserve money trickles down to the rest of us and inflation hits.

I have been asked whether we would be interested in producing a review of the recently translated The Problem of Democracy by Alain de Benoist.  The hardback edition is to be released in a few days.

The book discusses how the very concept of democracy has moved away from the original Greek idea of a folk ruling itself through responsible citizens participating directly in the governing of the state, towards a soft-totalitarian, multicultural catch-phrase.  If, as an MR regular, you would like to review it please let me know and I will arrange for a copy to be despatched to you.

by Christian Miller ©

Most violence and violent rhetoric is leftist in origin.  As the left has a firm grip on the reins of mainstream media, it should come as no surprise that the right is the scapegoat for the sins of the left.  The irony is that the left is guilty of what its favorite leftist psychologist, Sigmund Freud, coined “projection.”  The left denies its own violent actions and rhetoric and instead ascribes it to its chief political opposition - the right.  The left projects its own violent tendencies upon the right through extensive use of media propaganda.  “Right-wingers” are immediately blamed for any outburst of random violence perpetrated by isolated and disturbed individuals, yet the entire history of leftist aggression, angry rhetoric, and physical violence is swept into the dustbin of history.  Leftist riots, leftist terrorists, leftist serial bombers, leftist calls for genocide - all of these sink down the memory hole, purposefully eclipsed by a barrage of stories about right-wing violence.  Reality is quite different.

Worldwide, the left-wing forces of communism are responsible for more than 100 million civilian deaths in the Twentieth Century.  Russia, Romania, Yugoslavia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and other communist-controlled nations became killing fields in the name of social progress - a favorite term of the left.  America mistakenly believes that Marxism and leftism largely died with the fall of the Soviet Union, but the parasite merely changed hosts.

In the dawn of the new century, the American left and incognito left - neoconservatives who infiltrated the Republican Party to subvert it toward leftist ideas - pounded war drums that led to the second invasion of Iraq.  The mainstream media conveniently places the blame for this war upon the right, covering up the fact that neoconservative ideology is merely leftism in strategic disguise.  The neoconservative infiltrators of the Republican Party were the catalyst for the second invasion of Iraq and these leftists-in-disguise were aided and abetted by most mainstream leftists in government and media.  The elite leftist press and Democratic Party politicians were firmly in favor of invading Iraq.  Combined with their neoconservative compatriots at the spear’s point, there seemed to be a “consensus” regarding Iraq - but few understood that it was a leftist consensus.  Nation-building, foreign intervention, and pre-emptive war are not genuine conservative values.  They are the hallmarks of a leftist, a person who wishes to impose ideologies upon the rest of the population by force, all in the name of “progress.

READ MORE...