America’s Shame By Paul Craig Roberts

America’s Shame

By Paul Craig Roberts

Why does Israel have a right to exist, but Palestine doesn’t?

This is the question of our time.

For sixty years Israelis have been stealing Palestine from Palestinians. There are maps available on the Internet and in Israeli publications showing the shrinkage over time of what was once Palestine into what Palestine is today—a small number of unconnected ghettos or bantustans.

Palestine became “the occupied territory” from which Palestinians were ejected and Israeli settlements built for “settlers.” Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are full of refugee camps in which Palestinians driven off their lands by Israeli force have been living for decades.

Driving people off their land is strictly illegal under international law, but Israel has been getting away with it for decades.

Gaza is a concentration camp of 1.5 million Palestinians who were driven from their homes and villages and collected in the Gaza Ghetto.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency was created 60 years ago in 1949 to administer refugee camps for Palestinians driven from their lands by Israel. As of 2002, the registered Palestinian refugee population was 3.9 million.

Caterpillar Tractor makes a special bulldozer for Israel that is designed to knock down Palestinian homes and to uproot their orchards. In 2003 an American protester, Rachel Corrie, stood in front of one of these Caterpillars and was run over and crushed.

Nothing happened. The Israelis can kill whomever they want whenever they want.

They have been doing so for 60 years, and they show no sign of stopping.

Currently they are murdering women and children in the ghetto that they have created for Palestinians in Gaza. The entire world knows this. The Red Cross protests it. But the Israelis brazenly claim that they are killing “Hamas terrorists who are a threat to Israel’s existence.”

The American media knows that this is a lie, but does not say so.

Israel has been able to slowly exterminate a people for sixty years without provoking sufficient outrage to stop it.

The United States, “Christian America,” has been Israel’s greatest enabler in its long-term murder of the Palestinian people. Millions of “evangelical Christians” endorse Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

The rest of the world condemns the Israeli military attack on the Gaza Ghetto. Last week the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution requiring a ceasefire and the withdrawal of the Israeli SS from Gaza.

The United States abstained.

While the rest of the world condemns Israel’s inhumanity, the US Congress—I should say the US Knesset—rushed to endorse the Israeli slaughter of the Palestinians in Gaza.

The US Senate endorsed Israel’s massacre of Palestinians with a vote of 100-0.

The US House of Representatives voted 430-5 to endorse Israel’s massacre of Palestinians.

The resolutions endorsed by 100% of the US Senate and 99% of the House were written by AIPAC, as were the speeches praising Israel for its inhumanity.

The US Congress was proud to show that it is Israel’s puppet even when it comes to murdering women and children.

The President of the United States was proud to block effective action by the UN Security Council by ordering the Secretary of State to abstain.

Be a Proud American. Swagger and strut. Pretend that you are not besmirched by the shame that your government has heaped upon you. Take refuge in your ignorance, fostered by 60 years of Israeli lies, that the murder of Palestinians and the theft of their lands is “Israel’s right of self-defense.”

How well a nonwhite majority will perform economically in America 2042?

How well a nonwhite majority will perform economically in America 2042?

Fortunately, we already have a gigantic test case: California, which is now only 43 percent non-Hispanic white.

So what can we learn about the future of America from California, where the state government may run out of money next month without a federal bailout?

For most of this decade, the financial wizards poured hundreds of billions of dollars into mortgage-backed securities originating in California. In other words, they made a colossal bet on diversity.

And lost.

It turned out that, while California’s new diverse population could certainly consume and speculate like old-fashioned white Americans, they couldn’t produce like them.

The collapsing US economy – Will the Government Turn to the Printing Press?

The collapsing US economy

Will the Government Turn to the Printing Press?

By Paul Craig Roberts

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nonfarm payroll employment declined by 3,445,000 from December 2007 through December 2008.

The collapse in employment is across the board.

Construction lost 520,000 jobs.  Manufacturing lost 806,000 jobs. Trade, transportation and utilities lost 1,495,000 jobs (retail trade accounted for 1,120,000 of this loss).  Financial activities lost 145,000 jobs.  Professional and business services lost 713,000 jobs.  Even government lost 188,000 jobs.

Only in health care and social assistance has the economy been able to eke out a few new jobs.

Many analysts believe the job losses will be as great or greater during 2009.

Moreover, the reported job losses are likely understated.  Noted statistician John Williams (shadowstats.com) reports that biases in measurement have understated the job loss over the last 12 months by 1,150,000 jobs.

Williams also notes that the official unemployment rate is an enormous understatement, due in part to the Clinton administration’s decision not to count as unemployed those discouraged workers who have been without jobs for more than one year.  Williams reports the unemployment rate as it was measured prior to “reforms” designed to minimize the measured rate of unemployment.  According to the methodology used in 1980, the US unemployment rate in December 2008 reached 17.5 percent.

Yes, “our” government lies to us about economic statistics, just as it lies to us about “terrorists,” “weapons of mass destruction,” “building freedom and democracy in the Middle East,” and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

An objective person would be hard pressed to find any statement made by the US government that is reliable.

The collapse of the job market means even harder times for last year’s and this year’s crops of college graduates.  The offshoring of professional jobs and the widespread use by US corporations of H-1b, L-1, and other work visa programs for foreigners have left many recent American university graduates without careers.

Recently, Bill Gates of Microsoft was pleading with Congress to allow even more foreigners in on work visas. According to Gates, there is a shortage of American workers despite a 17.5 percent unemployment rate.  I personally know American computer engineers, both seasoned and recent graduates, who cannot find jobs.

What Gates and American corporations want is cheap labor, in effect indentured servants, unprotected people who don’t demand an American standard of living and who have no student loans to repay.

If Congress expands the work visas as US unemployment mounts, we will have one more piece of evidence that “our” representatives have no sympathy for the American people.

Where were America’s leaders while the economy slipped over the precipice?

Our leaders were telling us lies in behalf of special interests into whose pockets Washington was pouring the taxpayers’ money.  Our leaders engineered wars that put billions of dollars into such disreputable pockets as Halliburton’s, the firm of the American outlaw, Dick Cheney, and into Blackwater, supplier of the overpaid mercenaries that the Bush Regime uses to beef up its military force in Iraq.  Some of the taxpayers’ billions, of course, recycled into “our” representatives reelection campaign funds.

Our leaders were too busy making trips to Israel to reaffirm their support for Israel’s ongoing theft of Palestine and for wars that enable this theft.

Our leaders were too busy serving financial interests by dismantling regulatory barriers to over-leveraged greed.  The extraordinary level of leveraged debt and the fraudulent financial instruments resulted in annual compensation for hedge fund managers and investment bankers larger than a king’s ransom.

When the leveraged mortgages went bust, the banksters declared a “crisis” and Congress responded by ripping off the American taxpayers for another trillion dollars.

More is to come.  Credit card debt, car loans, and commercial real estate mortgages have been securitized, too.  There is little doubt there are derivatives based on this enormous pile of debt.  As each “crisis” unfolds, it will mean more bailout rewards for the crooks who deep-sixed the US economy.

It is not implausible that by the end of this year the unemployment rate, honestly measured, will be as high as during the Great Depression.

Few in Washington think there is any cause for alarm.  Obama is calling the situation “serious” not because he believes it is but in order to get another trillion dollar “stimulus” package on the taxpayers’ books.  Stimulus will do the trick, economists say, and, moreover, the Federal Reserve has already extended $2 trillion in loans, but won’t say to whom the money has been lent.

This massive expansion of new debt, economists think, is going to fix the economy and put people back to work.  They think the solution to excessive debt is more debt.

The federal government budget deficit for the 2009 fiscal year will be $2 trillion at a minimum.  That is five times larger than the 2008 budget deficit.

How can the Treasury finance such a massive deficit?

There are three sources of financing.  Possibly people will flee from stocks, bank deposits, and money market funds into Treasury “securities.” This would require a form of “money illusion” on the part of people.  People would have to believe that investments can be printed, and that printing so many new Treasury bonds would not dilute the value of existing bonds or reduce their chance of redemption.  They would have to believe that the bonds would be repaid with honest money, not by running the printing presses.

A second source of financing might be America’s foreign creditors.  So far in our descent into massive debt foreigners have footed the bill.  Our foreign creditors now hold very large amounts of US debt and other dollar-denominated “securities.” They are likely to develop a case of cold feet when they see a $2 trillion expansion in US debt in one year.  Their most likely response will be to start selling their existing holdings.

Who would purchase them?  The only way the Treasury can redeem the bonds that come due each year is by selling new bonds.  Not only must the Treasury find purchasers for $2 trillion in new debt this year but also must find buyers for the bonds that must be sold in order to redeem old bonds that come due.

If foreigners cease buying and instead start selling from their existing holdings–China alone holds $500 billion in Treasury debt–a deluge will fall on an already flooded market.

The third source of financing is for the Federal Reserve to monetize the debt.  In other words, the Treasury prints bonds and the Fed purchases them by printing money.  The supply of money thus expands dramatically in relation to goods and services, and high inflation, possibly hyperinflation, would engulf America.

At that point the US dollar, if still on its feet, collapses.  The import-dependent American population, dependent on imports for their mobility, their clothes, shoes, manufactured goods, and advanced technology products, no longer will be able to afford these imports.

A scary scenario?  Yes.  Overdrawn?  Perhaps, but perhaps not. The United States has spent the last 7 years in pointless wars that benefited only the military-security complex and Israel’s aggression against Palestinians and Lebanon.  According to prominent experts, the out-of-pocket cost and already incurred future liabilities of Bush’s wars comes to $3 trillion.

The cost of the Bush Regime’s wars, together with the 2009 budget deficit that Bush has bequeathed to Obama, equals half of the accumulated national debt of the United States.

Several years ago United States Comptroller General David Walker informed Congress and the White House that the accrued liabilities of the US government exceeded the ability to pay. Yet, “our” leaders ignored the Comptroller General and rushed headlong to add more trillions of dollars to federal liabilities.  In effect, the United States is bankrupt at this present moment.  According to generally accepted accounting principles, the federal government has a negative net worth of $59.3 trillion.

Who is going to lend to a bankrupt government that is ruled by financial crooks, the military-security complex, and the Israel Lobby?  How long will the world finance US aggression that disrupts energy prices, keeps the world on edge, and makes America’s creditors complicit in war crimes?

Sex and War (And Population)—The Forces Ultimately Behind The Gaza Crisis

Sex and War (And Population)—The Forces

Ultimately Behind The Gaza Crisis

By Donald A. Collins

With endorsements high profile people such as Jane Goodall, founder of the Jane Goodall Institute and world’s leading expert on our nearest to human primate, the chimpanzee, one can fully expect to find Sex and War: How Biology Explains Warfare and Terrorism and Offers a Path to a Safer World by Malcolm Potts and Thomas Hayden scientifically credible. It is a highly readable must read.

Sex and War will no doubt excite attention from all among the human species who still can read and think. Since that is quite a small minority, my fear is that its urgent and insightful theme will enjoy even among that sliver only an Andy Warholian 15 minutes of fame. Better not!

You may not be surprised to be told that the authors show with solid empirical proof that it is primarily male humans who bring us war. But perhaps you are unaware or unmindful of the driving force of male war making tendencies since the dawn of human history, the sex drive.

British born and Cambridge educated, Dr. Potts, now Bixby Professor at UC Berkeley, an obstetrician and research biologist has pursued his humanitarian work worldwide, including helping women in Bangladesh after the War of Liberation in 1972, then in countless other climes torn by conflicts. I met Malcolm in the 1960s when he was the first Medical Director of International Planned Parenthood Federation in London and since have served on several boards and done many travels with him. His co-author, Hayden, a freelance journalist, who is no relation to the Vietnam War Berkeley firebrand, Tom Hayden, also co-authored a 2007 book On Call in Hell: A Doctor’s Iraq War Story with Cdr Rick Jadick, whose experience in ministering to wounded there brought high accolades from readers.

Rather ironically Hayden’s book truly may have helped spark his participation in Sex and War. Tales of heroism and selfless bravery in battle are the historical standards for all such stories, but Sex and War reminds us of our biological evolution. After all, for much of human history the most successful and dominant males went to war, took the spoils and raped women. You know, Genghis Khan, etc.

One can see why Goodall could be so enthusiastic about this book, since Sex and War shows how close to chimpanzee behavior humans are. Bands of young male chimpanzees raid rival territories, finding the fittest females in classic Darwinian behavior, and thus benefitting the next generations.

The step up description from chimps to humans allows the authors to cite similar behavior found in tribal wars, among inner city street gangs, and then in full warfare, whose aftermath Potts personally helped deal with in Bangladesh when helping war-raped women. Terrorists in our day obviously are imbued with ideals of heroic male behavior, which is more powerful than the reported financial inducements. A comparatively benign manifestation of aggressive male behavior can be observed at NFL football games both on the field and in the stands.

Potts’ understanding of the urgency of dealing with our now overpopulated planet leads to explanations of how that crowding leads to wars, again entered into often with enthusiasm by young males, motivated by patriotism, excitement over battle, or even escape from dull underemployment or unemployment. The authors then most logically point to one way of cutting terrorism and the risk of wars and “a path to a safer world” for states we now can see are “failed”: lowering birth rates through planned parenting, birth control, and, yes, abortion. The authors clearly show that rarely in history have women been combatants.

Understand that Potts’ wife, Martha Campbell, who co-authored significant chapters, like her husband brings extensive scholarship and worldwide travel to bear on illuminating a modern woman’s view. These views remain still far from full acceptance in many cultures, including our own. But the book’s strong recommendation of more women’s education as a major contributor to fewer unplanned pregnancies surely is obvious to anyone doing strategic thinking about solving our pressing global problems.

The deep biological nature of human evolution will not be altered easily. The world remains dominated by male leaders who all too often feel so bloody good about solutions than seem to require bloodletting. One could point to our Iraq invasion and countless prior sorties into battle which could have been avoided by less testosterone-dominated negotiations.

Perhaps as the number of nations armed with nuclear weapons grows, as it surely will, major powers may be more globally fixated on planetary survival by means proposed by the authors.

But then again, perhaps not. And of course people who purport to bring us absolute security have in history often led us to absolute tyranny.

Potts had co-authored with world renowned anthropologist, Roger Short, a ground-breaking earlier book, Ever since Adam and Eve: The Evolution of Human Sexuality in 1999. I reviewed for Amazon, writing “that the main evolutionary drive for humans and mammals generally has been and is SEX, for the key to our existence is the need to produce the BEST next generation. For many this book will prove an epiphany of understanding, a creation of more reverence for life, but one not based on the mythology of religion, but on the clear facts of science.”

Now in the nuclear age, where planetary destruction looms in multiple forms both nuclear and environmental. we best find a workable form of making love without war.

Whites (Still) Rule!…They Just Don’t Like To Say So

Whites (Still) Rule!…They Just Don’t Like To Say So

By Steve Sailer

My wife mentioned today: “Normally, I only read one article in The Atlantic at a time because each one gives me so much to think about. But I read three pieces in a row in the new issue—I think because they were so boring.”

The reason the January/February issue of The Atlantic Monthly is so boring: editor James Bennet [email him] decided it should focus on race.

But you can’t write intelligently about race unless you’re willing to tell the truth. And how many journalists want to do that today?

Not surprisingly, this Atlantic issue reads like my VDARE.com articles with the punchlines amputated and replaced by conventional wisdom.

For example, political reporter Marc Ambinder [email him] notes in his article, entitled Race Over, something I wrote about last February. In his words:

“In the primaries, a discomfiting pattern emerged: Obama did best in states with the biggest or smallest percentages of African American voters—think of South Carolina, where blacks made up 55 percent of the Democratic-primary vote, and Vermont, where they made up less than 2 percent.”

Now why would that be? Could it have anything to do with black Democrats voting ethnocentrically while white Democrats in Vermont, who have no experience with being ruled by black politicians, are more naïve than white Democrats in states with more blacks?

Well, you won’t hear that from The Atlantic.

Ambinder goes on:

[Obama pollster] Cornell Belcher’s polling and decades of political-science research showed that white voters held certain stereotypes about black politicians— namely, that they were more likely to raise taxes and redistribute wealth, were weak on crime, and favored heavy government spending to help the poor (read: minorities like them).”

Of course, this stereotype of black politicians as usually advocating tax-and-spend policies is also held by black voters, who like tax and spend policies.

After all, it’s a stereotype because it’s true. All 41 members of the Congressional Black Caucus are Democrats, most of them very liberal Democrats. Heck, members of the Congressional Black Congress are more monolithically Democratic than they are black, as shown by this picture of Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC). (Butterfield is the Black Caucus stalwart on the right.

)

But who cares about truth when it comes to race?

Ambinder continues:

“To Belcher, such stereotypes were a legacy of Lee Atwater and the Republican Party’s infamous “Southern strategy,” which converted overt racial bias into coded language about the economy.”

Right! Nobody would have noticed black political leanings if not for the demonic Lee Atwater.

Sure

In contemporary American public life, debates are won by denouncing inconvenient facts as “stereotypes”. Thus, the more undeniable something is, the more unmentionable it becomes.

Particularly boring is the issue’s cover story by the Chinese-American pop music critic Hua Hsu: The End of White America? It’s based on the same Census Bureau projection of a nonwhite majority in the U.S. by 2042 that I wrote about last August.

It seems to me that this is representative of a growing trend in the Establishment Press—articles that appear to be inspired by my work without mentioning my name or pointing out where my logic actually leads.

You need some ideas? Sailer always has an endless supply of new ideas! But you have to know when to pull up safe! (See also Grand New Party Recycles Old (But Good!) VDARE.COM Ideas, for a discussion of the Sailerian analyses of Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam.)

Considering that Hsu [email him] was born only in 1977, his thinking, when not echoing me, seems stuck in the past. For example, he devotes 630 words to the comically trite topic of 1990s rapper Puff Daddy / P. Diddy / Sean Combs.

Similarly, his observation of “the obvious material advantages that come with being born white—lower infant-mortality rates and easier-to-acquire bank loans, for example …” sounds completely clueless in the wake of the catastrophic 15-year-long campaign by the Clinton and Bush administrations to boost mortgage lending to uncreditworthy minorities.

Not surprisingly, this pop critic’s essay avoids all the serious questions of how well a nonwhite majority will perform economically.

Fortunately, we already have a gigantic test case: California, which is now only 43 percent non-Hispanic white.

So what can we learn about the future of America from California, where the state government may run out of money next month without a federal bailout?

For most of this decade, the financial wizards poured hundreds of billions of dollars into mortgage-backed securities originating in California. In other words, they made a colossal bet on diversity.

And lost.

In 2007, it suddenly dawned on the bright boys of Wall Street that a huge fraction of the subprime borrowers of California (and the other three similar “sand states”—Arizona, Nevada, and Florida) weren’t ever going to earn enough to pay off their huge new mortgages. Nor would California’s “post-white” populace find Greater Fools to upon whom to unload their dumpy half-million dollar houses.

This triggered the end of the global economy as we know it.

It turned out that, while California’s new diverse population could certainly consume and speculate like old-fashioned white Americans, they couldn’t produce like them.

Nor is Hsu much more insightful about his own specialty, pop culture. He interviews Los Angeles writer Christian Lander, author of Stuff White People Like (and a longtime reader of my work). But he completely misses the point of Lander’s wonderful parody.

“For Lander, whiteness has become a vacuum”, Hsu intones, not realizing he’s getting his leg pulled. Hsu extrapolates:

“Matt Wray, [email him] a sociologist at Temple University who is a fan of Lander’s humor, has observed that many of his white students are plagued by a racial-identity crisis: ‘They don’t care about socioeconomics; they care about culture. And to be white is to be culturally broke. The classic thing white students say when you ask them to talk about who they are is, ‘I don’t have a culture.’ They might be privileged, they might be loaded socioeconomically, but they feel bankrupt when it comes to culture…”

The dirty little secret of Stuff White People Like is that whites remain so creatively dominant in 21st Century culture that whiteness isn’t like the vacuum in outer space, it’s like the water in the ocean.

Fish, proverbially, don’t feel wet. Likewise, the fact that we all live in a global civilization constructed over the last half millennium by, overwhelmingly, the breakthroughs of white men is so massively obvious that it’s considered very bad taste to point it out.

For his encyclopedic Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the 20th Century, Peter Watson interviewed 150 scholars from around the world. Watson recounted that

“…all of them—there were no exceptions—said the same thing. In the 20th century, in the modern world, there were no non-western ideas of note.”

As we all know, the reason we have Black History Month is precisely because every year is more or less White History Year. Similarly, we have Women’s Studies departments in universities because all the other departments are, in effect, Men’s Studies.

This is clearly evident in California, where, for instance, 94 percent of Hollywood studio movies are written by whites. The enormous Latino population is largely ignored by California’s white cultural elite, other than to ritually refer to Hispanic neighborhoods as “vibrant”. In the Sunday Los Angeles Times’ arts and entertainment section, only about one percent of all events listed are organized by Hispanics.

This predominance of white innovations is so overwhelming that it explains what Stuff White People Like is actually about: white v. white status striving. One-half of the white population is constantly developing new fads (Sea salt! Adults playing kickball! Barack Obama!) to distinguish itself from the more traditional half of the white population.

To the SWPL set, minorities are merely props to use in demonstrating their superiority over non-SWPL whites (who might actually be closer to blacks on an individual basis due to emotional bonding on football teams or in the military).

A classic demonstration of this occurred in California following last November’s election. Obama got 61 percent of the vote—but gay marriage got only 48 percent. Who were these 13 percent of the California electorate who were for Obama and against gay marriage?

What happened was that black church ladies and the like turned out in unprecedented numbers to vote for that nice Mr. Obama, and stuck around to vote against gay marriage on the Proposition 8 initiative.

The SWPL crowd in Southern California went berserk with rage at gay marriage being turned down. Yet, they couldn’t possibly blame blacks for it because, to them, blacks are not real human beings who should, like all human beings, be held accountable for their moral decisions. No, for progressive whites, blacks are merely set dressing in their eternal war against conservative whites to prove who is better.

So liberal whites in LA quickly decided to agree that gay marriage had been rejected because the media in California was secretly controlled…by Mormons from Utah!

I call this popular conspiracy theory the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion National Park.

Of course, in the real world, Californian Mormons made up very few of that pro-Obama / anti-gay marriage 13 percent.

But who cares about quantitative reality when status is at stake?

Hsu thinks this is all wonderful. He writes:

“There will be dislocations and resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone’s lives, producing a culture that’s more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.”

I think he’s delusional. The racial order of the 40 years of the affirmative action era has been based on the quantitative assumption that government providing special privileges to minorities will not prove too onerous on the majority because, after all, they’re just minorities so the total impact on the average member of the majority is small. Under this affirmative action system, minorities are encouraged to band together to agitate for more privileges, while the majority is discouraged from coming together to resist.

It might have proven a stable system in the long run, except that the enormous influx of legally-privileged Hispanics has been converting whites into just another minority—but, uniquely, a minority that is supposed to pay for other minorities’ privileges.

How in the world is that supposed to keep working? Yet where is the evidence that minorities will be willing to give up their traditional affirmative action privileges as they become majorities and gain the votes so they no longer have to rely politically upon the goodwill of whites for their privileges?

I know it’s considered rude to mention this, but Barack Obama, who was raised in Hawaii by whites could easily have chosen, like Tiger Woods, to identify as multiracial. Instead, he chose to become a black Chicago activist and politician in order to agitate for his race’s benefit. This distinctly anti-postracial career path he chose seems to have worked out pretty well for him, no? Why won’t others imitate it?

How’s postracialism working out in Obama’s Chicago, by the way? We were offered an informative insight recently into what racial diversity combined with a racial spoils system looks like in practice on the Blagojevich Tapes.

The future looks more like some combination of the Ottoman Empire, which is increasingly celebrated by multicultural ideologues as a role model for America, and old Yugoslavia.

But it won’t be boring—no matter how much Hsu and Ambinder work on it.

On Revolution 7: Lone Nuttism, Violence and Revolution

On Revolution 7: Lone Nuttism, Violence and

Revolution

By John “Birdman” Bryant

This essay is the seventh in an ongoing examination of the subject of revolution. Earlier essays on this series will all be found in the forthcoming new edition of the author’s Handbook of the Coming American Revolution: Vital Secrets of Nonviolent National and Personal Liberation the Establishment Doesn’t Want You to Know.

Part 1: Will Freedom Be Saved by the Lone Nut Phenomenon?

In his book The Evolution of Cooperation, Robert Axelrod observed that violence in humans possesses a self-limiting character — a character that the German ethologist and Nobel prizewinner Konrad Lorenz (On Aggression) first described in the animal world. In particular, Lorenz discovered that many animals have developed ‘inhibitions’ which prevent fights from going to the death — a defeated wolf, for example, will turn his jugular toward his opponent, an act which would make it easy for the opposing wolf to kill him, but which Nature has programmed to inhibit further attack. In like manner, Axelrod described many behaviors in humans which act like the wolf’s to inhibit aggression, “saying ‘uncle’” being only the most familiar.

If, as federal police originally speculated, the killer of the family of the judge who oversaw pro-white activist Matt Hale’s recent trademark- infringement case had been a pro-white advocate bent on revenge, then this could have been construed as a case of self-limiting violence which Axelrod described. That is, if this killing had been an assassination by pro-white elements, this could cause other judges to become more careful in their treatment of white activists who are charged with crimes in furtherance of their political aims, because treating such persons harshly raises the specter of the judges’ own assassination, however remote that possibility may be. In fact, the effect may be much more general, depending on who or how many are assassinated; for such acts can (and probably will) be interpreted as a warning to tyrants that they must take a personal risk if they wish to tyrannize.

It is useful to point out that the dynamic of such situations is not quite the same as the inhibitions of one-on-one aggression, or even the limitations of war which involve competing groups, and which are reflected in such ‘rules of war’ as the Geneva Conventions. Instead, the dynamic here is a population (white men) which is not in physical combat, but which has a tendency toward violence depending on the provocations of its enemies, sometimes said to be ZOG, JOG or BOG, depending on the speaker’s tendency to blame Zionists, Jews or Bankers for the ‘Occupation Government’; at other times is said to be the NWO (New World Order), where the enemy is characterized more generally as ‘the elite’ — albeit an elite which seems largely under the thrall of the Hebraic element; but at all times is agreed to be the ‘feral government’, which is wildly out of control and desperately needs — in Jefferson’s words — to be ‘bound down by the chains of the Constitution’, an entity which has unfortunately been turned by the Supremes into a ‘living document’ which of course means that it is very much dead letter. What these enemies are required to do is to ‘keep under the radar’ of white anger, lest they (the enemies) cause a breach of the ‘white peace’ and find themselves in the firing line. More specifically, what the feral government must do is to act in a manner in which the probability of violence breaking out is low, so that the few times when it does break out can be handled as if the events are merely random acts of ‘lone nuts’, and which serve as harmless but useful test results for the limits of white tolerance for government abuse.

But what, we may ask, is the nature of a ‘lone nut’? The answer is that these are people who, by themselves or in small groups, are willing to strike out at the feral government for one or more of various reasons, perhaps because they feel they can change something important (as by assassinating a major government figure), perhaps because they hope to catalyze change (as by inspiring others to follow in their footsteps), or perhaps just because they are angry and want to vent. We are, of course, speaking of ‘true’ lone nuts, and not CIA mind-controlled zombies who seem to comprise most ‘lone nuts’ of recent vintage, including Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, Timothy McVeigh, John Hinkley, Jim Jones and probably also Squeaky Fromm and Arthur Bremer. We should add that, by using the terminology of ‘lone nut’ we do not necessarily intend to disparage such people, but only to make the point that they must be sufficiently mad to become maddened.

In the present context it is important to realize that there are two significantly different kinds of lone nuts: The one who acts from philosophical motives, and the one who acts out of personal desperation. The lone nuts that have been presented in the press are generally of the first variety — they seem to be out to change the world, and perhaps take some credit for doing so — but those of the second kind may actually be far more important in initiating political change. For example, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, author of The Gulag Archipelago, remarked that the Soviet police state could not have succeeded if the citizens had been armed, and every time the police came to take someone to the gulag, the person or his friends resisted them with force of arms.

But besides the two cases of lone nuttism we have just mentioned, there is a third and very important case which may be roughly described as that in which everyone becomes a lone nut. What I am referring to is populations with low boiling points like negroes, who will riot at the drop of an epithet, a fact which allows negro race-hustlers such as the Jesse Jackson- Al Sharpton ‘axis/taxes of evil’ to shake down white politicians for an unsavory mixture of black gravy and palm oil. In comparison with such uninhibited primitivism, whites are of course at a disadvantage, since the control of emotions which whites have developed as a part of becoming civilized, both genetically and socially, inhibits their reactivity to abuse, as of course does the ZOG/JOG/BOG-controlled mass media which cultivates and implants ‘white guilt’. There is, of course, an irony here, that primitive people are in some sense able to secure and retain liberty more easily than those who once enslaved them, and this for the very reason — being primitive — that they are looked down on by their former masters. We have to wonder just a bit, then, as to whether liberty is consonant with civilization.

The essence of the lone nut is that he is, in the words of Howard Beale of Network fame, ‘as mad as hell and not going to take it any more.’ This could mean that, like negroes, he has a low boiling point, but it could just as well mean that he is sitting on a lot of heat. And it is heat with which the Internet is beginning to arouse somnolent whites, by demonstrating the pattern of abuse that whites and their magnificent Western civilization are undergoing from ZOG/JOG/BOG and its allies. Because many whites feel frightened or intimidated, it may not be apparent how much change is going on in whites’ minds due to the Net. But this medium has unearthed a train of abuses so pervasive and so intolerable that whites who are exposed to it for any length of time have a significant probability of becoming radicalized. This then means that, from a probabilistic ‘bell curve’ standpoint, the threshold of reactivity of whites is decreasing, with the result that any given act of abuse is increasingly likely to set off white anger, and thus increasingly likely to flush from the woodwork someone who is as mad as hell and not going to take it any more without taking one or more of the bastards with him. Thus I predict that it will not be long before lone nuts will begin to appear in far greater numbers than the minuscule following of Matt Hale, Robert Mathews, Tom Metzger and their ilk would suggest. Furthermore, I think that, at some point in the future, the anger of whites is going to reach a critical mass, and then, as so often happens in history, there will be a sudden change or upheaval which will bring to the fore a whole mass of lone nuts that have cast aside their feelings of fear and intimidation, and are ready and eager to right the wrongs that we now see in such profusion. Whether this upheaval will be violent or not, I would not care to wager, but it will perhaps constitute Der Tag (‘the day’) that racial revolutionaries have been talking about ever since the time of George Lincoln Rockwell.

The point I am driving at here is that revolution in general, and a revolution to throw off the tyranny that we are presently experiencing in America and the Western world in particular, may be unnecessary if Lone Nut Theory is true, because lone nuts will make the feral government be careful how they treat the peons. It is somewhat the same theory as that behind so-called ‘concealed carry’ laws: In states where such laws are in effect, criminals know that a lot of people are packing heat, thus making criminal enterprises more risky, and thus less frequent.

Lone Nut Theory, then, is an optimistic one — while it may not be completely true, it nevertheless gives us hope that tyranny can be defeated without resorting to barbarism — and without our risking becoming barbarous ourselves in the process. It does not mean, of course, that we should neglect to organize and ready ourselves for warfare with the NWO tyrants, but it does offer hope that things may never get so bad as to require it.

In conclusion, it is my suggestion that a recognition of this situation — however dim that recognition may have been — was what gave the feral government the trots over the Matt Hale judge family murders, and which may ultimately prove to be its downfall. That is, the Feds seemed to have realized that the situation which they (stupidly or maliciously) thought they were presented with — a response of limited violence to the abuse of Matt Hale by a lone nut who has been probability-flushed from the woodwork — is a situation which suggests that, with every abusive act, they are in danger of overreaching themselves, and that every such overreach may flush out yet another violence-prone lone nut. It is, after a fashion, the situation which I believe was envisioned both by both Louis Beam (‘leaderless resistance’) and Thomas Jefferson (“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure”), where armed individuals or small groups — while not creating a revolution — nevertheless employ limited violence to make the feral government behave itself. It is, in Axelrod’s phrase, another step in the evolution of cooperation. And it may just mean that the long- awaited Revolution is not going to arrive after all because it may just be that we don’t need one — all that we require is the Internet, the bell curve, and a well-armed populace.

Part 2: Violence and Revolution

I have often said that the difference between civilization and barbarism is that civilized men settle their differences by words rather than deeds, that is, that civilized men used such methods as negotiation, arbitration or adjudication to settle their differences, as opposed to violence, threats of violence, or other forms of physical force. This is not to say, of course, that civilization can be entirely devoid of force; for uncivilized elements in civilization can usually only be dealt with by similar means.

But if force is inevitable even among civilized men, this raises the question of when force is ‘legitimate’ (ie, ‘civilized’) and when it is not. In the modern world, the general answer to this question has been the adoption of ‘democracy’, ie, the philosophy that government — and hence the legitimate use of force — must derive from ‘the consent of the governed’. While this concept is somewhat nebulous, it is now generally construed as some form of representative government which is legitimated by a process of ‘one-man/one-vote’.

While the above sounds fine in theory, in practice certain problems have arisen to make the legitimacy of such governments questionable. These involve a long list of issues including voting age restrictions and other limitations on the franchise, the recording and counting of votes, and the role of media and money in influencing both voters and elected representatives. In my book Handbook of the Coming American Revolution I have dealt with a number of these issues, with the intent of showing ways whereby the process of government may be made more fair and hence more legitimate in a moral sense.

If, however, the question of the moral legitimacy of government is raised, this then raises the even more difficult question of when it is morally legitimate to use force against the government, or in the pursuit of ends which are contrary to those of the government. The difficulty of this question is reflected in a related issue which philosophers refer to as the dispute between ‘rule utilitarianism’ and ‘act utilitarianism’. The former holds that the best outcome in the sense of maximized social happiness (‘maximized utility’, in philosophical jargon) is to ‘follow the rules’, even if they seem unjust, because greater injustice will likely occur if one ‘takes the law into his own hands’. Act utilitarianism, on the other hand, holds that one should act at all times so as to promote what is believed to lead to the ‘best outcome’, even if ‘the rules’ are violated. Both positions have a certain validity, and it is not my intention to debate a question which I regard as unresolvable, tho — for reasons I have explained elsewhere

(“Thinking About Violence? Think Again!” http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Fight/Fight-ThinkingAboutViolence.html )

I am inclined to the ‘conservative’ position of rule utilitarianism.

The question of when it is morally legitimate to use force against the government is actually a special case of rule vs act utilitarianism: The act utilitarian wants to abandon law and use force against the government as soon as he believes it will lead to greater social good, while a rule utilitarian prefers to keep the law and work within the system until he is convinced that justice can never be gained in that way. Needless to say, there is no love lost between act and rule utilitarians — in JBR Yant’s words, act utilitarians believe that begging is the only way one can hope to work for change within the system (That’s a joke, Jack) — but the fact remains that there are no reasonable moral criteria for choosing between act and rule utilitarianism, if for no other reason than that judgments about projected social good are highly personal, and thus may vary widely. Accordingly, the question of whether force should be used against the government cannot be decided morally, but only pragmatically: Opposition is most likely to come when the opposers think they have a good chance of getting away with it, or at least are angry enuf to make the risk seem worth the candle.

For those who contemplate revolution, whether violent or otherwise, an interesting feature of government is that one of the prime sources of its power is the fact that it is in power. This sounds like some kind of contradiction, but it is not; rather it is what is known in systems theory as a positive feedback loop. In the case of a government in power, people see that it is powerful, so they support it in the sense of paying the taxes it levies and obeying the laws it enacts, rather than opposing it. But such support enhances the government’s power, and thus makes it even more likely to attract people’s support, in the sense of getting people to obey laws and pay taxes. Thus we say that the more powerful a government is, the more powerful it gets, or stays. In terms of systems theory, we say that government power ‘feeds back’ into the system to make it more powerful or to keep it maximally powerful. And this is why people say, “You can’t fight City Hall.”

But despite perceptions to the contrary, government is not monolithic; rather it is a whole collection of little governments at the local level. In fact, just as people sometimes say that all politics is local, so one could say — perhaps with a lot better justification — that all government is local. Someone may, for example, disobey a federal law, but it is always the local cops that arrest him, and local government that prosecutes him. Which means that ‘the government’ is only as strong as its local links, and local links are sometimes not too strong. This may be due in some cases to corruption, but it is also increasingly the case that local governments have been (or are gradually being) replaced by ‘criminal elements’ — traditionally the Mob, but more latterly by ‘gangs’, often of racial or ethnic origin. This is important, because it tells us that revolution can be accomplished at the local level, without any need to muster tanks, storm Washington, or launch nuclear missiles.

It is notable that, in recent years, there have been some important efforts by ‘legitimate’ groups at what might be called ‘local revolution’. One of these is the attempt to get libertarians to move to a single state and take over its government, and another is the attempt of white separatists to establish a ‘white homeland’ in the Northwest. As it happens, neither of these efforts seems to have met with much success so far; but another and rather less legitimate effort is having considerable success, as the feral government allows the largely-uninhibited movement of Mexicans across our southwest border, which, in conjunction with ‘amnesties’, Mexican fertility, the welfare state, Foundation funding of immigrant-advocacy groups, and various other encouragements, is dooming the Southwest to becoming the new Mexican state of ‘Aztlan’.

Besides the items already mentioned, there have been a couple of other notable attempts — if not at local revolution — then at least at some form of significantly-greater local independence. One of these is the fact that numerous local communities have passed ‘opt-out’ resolutions to the so-called PATRIOT Act because this act is regarded as unconstitutional and totalitarian. While the effect of such resolutions is unclear, at least some of them direct local police forces not to cooperate with federal police in enforcement of this law. Less-well-known but perhaps more important is the attempt by local sheriffs in some districts to assert themselves as the highest local authority, with the view to forbidding federal law enforcement activity in their counties without their permission. Beyond law enforcement, there has been an attempt in a number of communities to free themselves from the ever-inflating and unpleasantly-taxable ‘federal reserve note’ by establishing local currencies, as has been done successfully for several years in Ithaca NY with the well-known ‘Ithaca hours’. Ithaca is not the only place where this has been tried, however; for an Internet search for ‘local currencies’ turned up a surprising number of other instances, tho the success of these currencies could not be gauged from the information available.

It is often reported that the Oklahoma City bombing, for which Timothy McVeigh was convicted, was inspired by The Turner Diaries, a book written by the late William Pierce under the pen name Andrew Macdonald. What is not so often reported, however, is that Pierce’s book was a major inspiration for an attempted pro-white anti-ZOG revolution in the early 80s led by the charismatic Robert J Mathews and a substantial band of dedicated followers. Mathews, of course, was a failure in the sense that he ended up dead and his movement shattered, altho for those intent on violent revolution there are undoubtedly some important lessons to be learned from his dramatic tale, which is told in great detail in the book Silent Brotherhood: Inside America’s Racist Underground by Kevin Flynn and Gary Gerhardt (The Free Press, 1989). In my view, however, the lessons which Mathews’ tale gives for violent revolution are far overshadowed by the lessons about why it should never have been attempted. These include the following:

* It was the wrong time. If one is going to foment a revolution, one is not likely to succeed without convincing a lot of other people that revolution is a good thing. Most people don’t have a clue about the ill influence of Jewish power, or indeed even recognize that Jewish power is so pervasive. Yes, people know that one can’t criticize Jews, but they usually see this as a well-intentioned social taboo rather than an exercise of Jewish power. So without support of ‘the people’ — or at least of a rich elite that makes support of ‘the people’ unnecessary — not only will ‘the people’ prove unhelpful and ungrateful, but they are as likely as not to call the cops.

* Mathews’ views were tied up with fringe religion. His Christian Identity faith which held strange Bible-based views on Jews would not have played well in the modern secular world. Yes, there were undoubtedly other things which influenced Mathews — he was a member of the National Alliance, which has often been a good source of information on the darker side of Hebraic influence — but his religion seemed to be the primary engine of his efforts. Religion, of course, is often an after-the-fact effort to sanctify what one already believes; but in any event, Mathews’ beliefs would have made him appear a kook to most whites, the very people for whom he was playing Savior.

* Mathews wanted to ‘do something’ instead of doing the smart thing. And with gun nuts, as Mathews certainly was, ‘doing something’ meant shooting. Mathews’ problem is not unknown, of course — lots of folks want to ‘do something’ instead of settling down to the hard task of spreading the word, convincing others, and waiting for the ‘right time’, which is the time when there are enuf people sharing one’s views to make a revolution work — a ‘critical mass’, so to speak, when a meeting of men’s minds creates one of those explosive discontinuities in world events which are the stuff of history. Needless to say, the ability to wait till the right time is characteristic of the higher intelligence which white men are supposed to possess, but which Mathews, in what amounted to a self-indulgent temper tantrum, evidently did not. In this context, famous novelist of the Wild West Louis L’Amour had it right when he said, “Whatever is worth dying for is worth living for.”

We noted earlier that, while there are clear (if imperfect) criteria for deciding whether a government is ethical, there are no clear criteria for deciding when it is ethical to use force against the government. For this reason we surmised that decisions about the use of violence would be personal — they would rely on whether an individual thought things were ‘so bad’ that violence was warranted, or perhaps a necessity. But when do things get ‘so bad’? That is, can we suggest any criteria for deciding when it is time to take up arms against the government, either in an organized manner or as a ‘lone nut’ who acts from social conscience? I have already suggested two such criteria in Part 1, namely, gun confiscation and closure of the Internet; but there are certainly others. One is the outlawing of health food supplements by turning them into prescription medicines, something which will supposedly happen as a result of treaty obligations come this June (2005), and which may put numerous people at risk of ill health or death, to say nothing of jail. Besides these, there are numerous others which appeal to me as possible justifications for violence. Here is a list of the ones I have thought of in no particular order, tho for completeness I have included the three already mentioned above.

* Confiscation of firearms or severe limitations on their carry and use (Has already happened virtually everywhere except in the US)

* Restrictions on the purchase of ammunition, and particularly outlawing or severely taxing lead bullets * Closure of the Internet, or significant restrictions on its use (in the works)

* Burdensome restriction on the sale of health food supplements (coming in June)

* Suspension of the Constitution or imposition of martial law (Will probably happen on the excuse that some ‘Reichstag fire’ event requires it) * Suspension of any basic freedom, particularly the First Amendment (Has already happened in most Western countries, where ‘racist speech’ and questioning the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust are outlawed)

* Institution of ‘thought crime’ laws (Presently-existing hate crime laws are basically thought crime laws)

* Forced vaccination or medication (Already required for schoolchildren)

* The opening of concentration camps (600 have already been built)

* Roundup and incarceration of ‘dissidents’

* Sudden disappearance of pro-freedom and pro-white advocates on the Net

* Re-instituting the draft (Registration is already required by law, and legislation is in the works for this year (2005))

* Illegalizing the saving of seeds by farmers (Has already happened in Canada and probably other places – Food control is an essential tool in maintaining tyranny)

* Closing off highways or restricting travel (Great burdens have been put on air travelers ever since 911, and much the same is being done with train travelers – Automobile ‘checkpoints’ are now a regular feature of city life)

* Imposing a tax on email (Being worked on)

* The requiring of internal passports (The national ID card — already passed by Congress in the form of standardized drivers’ licenses — is the first major step in this direction)

* Seizure of precious metals (FDR did this; Nixon happily reversed the policy – government money makes it easier for the government to control the economy and tax the participants)

* The institution of major inflation or monetary restriction (Inflation is a tax on savings, and already runs at several percentage points per year)

* The communizing of property (accomplished by the infinitude of regulations and/or high taxes which make people abandon their property)

* The raising of taxes to impoverishment levels (It’s now 40-50%, counting hidden taxes)

* Institutionalization of torture (Already done on Americans by shipping them overseas to such brutal places as Egypt, Israel and other mideast hell-holes)

* Racial discrimination against whites (It’s everywhere, and is called ‘affirmative action’, ‘set-asides’ and other familiar names)

* Mind control experiments (The CIA has long been involved with them)

* The passing of laws of such volume and complexity as to make it impossible to know whether any given act is legal or not. (Already accomplished – have elaborated more on this in my essay “They Can Get You If They Want To”. What has happened, in effect, is that the complexity of the law means that law no longer exists; for if it is impossible for men to know in advance what is permitted and what is not, then there is no longer a rule of law, but only a rule of men.)

While it may be the philosopher’s task to ask whether violence is justified in this or that condition, the pragmatist’s task to ask whether he can get away with it, and the strategist’s task to ask whether it is useful, there is at least one other matter impinging on the question of resorting to violence that needs to be discussed, namely, How can we make sure we are not waiting till it is too late to act effectively? This is an important question in view of what seems to be the NWO strategy of ‘the frog in the pot’, ie, the strategy of making changes so slowly that our ability to resist is taken away before we are aware of it, just as gradually raising the temperature of the frog sitting in a pot of water will (supposedly) cook the frog’s goose before it occurs to him to leap out. But the frog- in-the-pot problem is not the only one; for there is also the fact of dumbing down education so that children are unaware of their history or of the struggle for political freedom; the fact of deracializing whites by promoting the myths of racial equality, multiculturalism and white guilt in the media and constantly denigrating white achievement; and the fact of demasculinizing boys and defeminizing girls by promoting ‘sexual equality’, feminism and homosexuality. What I am driving at is that people who do not know their history, who know nothing of our ancestors’ struggle for freedom, who shrink from taking pride in the achievements of their genetic family, whose heads are filled with lies about racial and sexual equality, who do not know courage or the proper role of a man in fighting and defending his family, home and country, and who think that homosexuality is a ‘lifestyle’ rather than a dead end — when people are in such a state, they simply cannot appreciate, much less defend, the civilization that Western man has been building for the last three thousand years. The answer to our question, then — How can we be sure to act before it is too late? — is that there is no clear answer, but that time is surely against us, because our children are being taken from us by NWO brainwashing, if not by the Child Protective Services.

Part 3: Analysis or Advocacy?

My understanding is that it is against the law to advocate violent overthrow of the American government. Since I haven’t read the law, I don’t know exactly what it says; nor do I know the limits and refinements of the law as defined by judges’ decisions (‘case law’). I do know, however, that I find the law troubling, as far as I understand it. One thing that troubles me is that our government seems to have no problem advocating the overthrow of OTHER governments, and indeed, no compunction in actually DOING it, as recent events in Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia, and less recent events in Panama, Grenada and Chile, amply testify. So, clearly, the illegality of advocating the overthrow of the US government has nothing to do with principle, but only with naked power which will evidently be used against anyone who objects too strongly.

Another thing that bothers me about the law is its conflict with free speech. Basically the law says that, even if you agree with certain statements, you can’t say them out loud. There is something pathological about always having to answer ‘no’ to the question, ‘Does the US government deserve to be violently overthrown?’ no matter what you believe. It is a kind of pre-packaged schizophrenia that may actually drove some people mad. And anyway, we are supposed to have the right of ‘free speech’, and particularly ‘political free speech’, so the law appears to be prima facie unconstitutional.

Another thing that bothers me about the law is whether qualified advocacy of violence is ok. For example, the Declaration of Independence is actually an attempt to justify the violent overthrow of the (previous) American government, so what the Declaration amounts to is a qualified advocacy: If the conditions cited there are met, revolution is, in the Founders’ view, justified. So if Mr Echtz comes along and says that such- and-such are the conditions under which revolution is justified, and a prosecutor points out that these conditions currently hold, does this mean that Mr Echtz is guilty of advocating violent overthrow of the government? Furthermore, if Mr Echtz says, not that such-and-such conditions mean that violent revolution SHOULD be undertaken, but only that it is JUSTIFIED, does this constitute advocacy of violent revolution?

The above questions are important in the context of the present essay, since there is little doubt that at least some people would love to make trouble for me by claiming that my analysis constitutes advocating violent revolution. To such a charge, therefore, I would like to make the following points:

* I have long ago advised against violence in my earlier-mentioned essay “Thinking About Violence? Think Again”. In the present essay I also advocate against violence in several places, including the Robert Mathews fiasco and in my inclination to accept rule rather than act utilitarianism.

* In the present essay I note how the mechanism of anger and ‘lone nuttism’ apparently operates to make violent overthrow of the government unnecessary, altho it obviously involves violence.

* The fact that the mechanism of widespread anger will have a tendency to produce ‘lone nuts’ who will attempt to right various wrongs is not an advocacy of such a mechanism. Yes, it is better to have an occasional ‘lone nut’ to put the fear of God into badly-behaving bureaucrats than to have a revolution; but to say that ‘lone nuts’ are preferable to revolution is not to endorse them. Indeed, the best thing is to have everyone as well-informed as possible, which will make it likely that able people will come forward to fight battles WITHOUT violence.

* My list of possible criteria for violence is not advocacy of violence, any more than agreeing with the justification for the American Revolution in the Declaration of Independence is advocacy of violence. In fact, my list of possible criteria does not even rise to the level of the Declaration, since the latter was an actual justification of violence for the conditions of America in 1776, while my own list was a mere proposal of possibilities which individuals might wish to consider.

I have said time and again that I am against violent revolution in all but the most extreme cases, because violent revolution is an abandonment of the very thing — civilization — which we are trying to preserve, and because violent revolution very rarely improves the lot of the population, but only changes the tyrants in charge — a point so artistically made in The Who’s classic rock song ‘We Don’t Get Fooled Again’. Thus if anyone seeks to claim that I am an advocate of violence, I can only reply that I advocate nothing more than did our revered Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence. If that be bad, then make the most of it.

The Racial Question: Liberals vs Archie Bunker

The Racial Question: Liberals vs Archie Bunker

Liberals and other ‘sophisticated’ folk have long regarded those who promote white racial consciousness as ignorant and prejudiced — ‘not smart enuf to think their way out of a paper bag’, as one wit put it. Instead, liberals have supposed that such people have been brought up in a parochial Southern backwater which nurtures a milieu of hatred that keeps them from seeing that blacks, Jews and other ‘outsiders’ are merely their brothers under the skin, and that ‘there is only one race, the human race’. In truth, however, the liberals have gotten things exactly backward. The ugly reality is that, unlike the generally-well-off liberals, the ‘hicks, ‘rednecks’, ‘Archie Bunkers’ and other white members of the lower economic class do not have the financial wherewithal to move from the urban ghetto to the tree-lined glades and gated communities of the ‘good’ neighborhoods once their own area begins to darken. The result is that those whom liberals call ignorant and prejudiced are merely those who have received instruction in racial differences by living cheek-to-jowl with the darker denizens of the multicultural nightmare; and when such people obtain a PhD in the College of Hard Racial Knocks, as they invariably do, they are unlikely to embrace a coat-and-tie approach to the problems that were once regularly handled with a rope and ladder. What is even more important, however, is that while the rest of us may congratulate ourselves on how ‘unprejudiced’ we are and how uncompromisingly we reject ‘hate’, the approach to the Racial Question by the unsophisticated lower-class white — crude as it may be — is far better grounded in fact and reason than the liberal foolishness to which we have been subjected for the last half century. The Archie Bunkers of our world may be an easy target for Hollywood comedy and the documentaries of Morris Dees & Co, but such ‘ignorant and prejudiced’ whites at least know what liberals will continue to deny until they are forced ‘up against the wall, mother fucker’, namely, the difference between Black and White. –JBR Yant

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident. –Arthur Schopenhauer

If you are afraid to speak against tyranny, then you are already a slave. –JBR Yant

To attempt to silence a man is to pay him homage, for it is an acknowledgement that his arguments are both impossible to answer and impossible to ignore. –JBR Yant

Bigotry: Your enemies’ opinions; as opposed to Truth: Your own.–JBR Yant

The free society will always eclipse the unfree one; for while totalitarianism may forbid the bad, it can never compel the good — something which arises spontaneously among free men. –JBR Yant

Crush your enemies. Make them your friends. –JBR Yant

Fucking is a family value. –JBR Yant

Israel warns of imminent escalation of war on Hamas in Gaza

Israel warns of imminent escalation of war on

Hamas in Gaza

Israel has dropped leaflets over Gaza warning residents that it will escalate its offensive in the coming hours as it initiates “a new phase” of the war against Hamas.

Israel warns of imminent escalation of war on Hamas in Gaza

Israel has dropped leaflets over Gaza warning residents that it will escalate its offensive Photo: EPA

The warning has been widely interpreted to mean that the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) will start to confront Hamas in its urban strongholds.

Earlier in the morning, IDF tanks and troops fought their way deeper into the Palestinian enclave’s main cities. Commanders signalled a new phase of the battle to cripple the military wing of Hamas had begun.

As Operation Cast Lead entered a third week, ceasefire talks in Cairo appeared to be faltering when Egypt and the Palestinians resisted Israeli demands for a foreign troop presence on the Gaza border.

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, held talks with Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak. A delegation from Hamas was also scheduled to meet the Egyptian intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman.

Meanwhile, Israeli platoons advanced cautiously on the fringes of Gaza City in the early hours, backed by armoured reconnaissance vehicles and close air support.

Israeli officials warned that more tough fighting lay ahead before Hamas weapons and terror cells were destroyed.

“Hamas still has the capability to fire on Israel,” said one military expert. “Even though the number of rockets coming out of Gaza is dropping, it still has a reasonable infrastructure we have not yet got to and tunnels we haven’t yet destroyed.”

Eight members of the same Palestinian family, including a 12-year-old, were killed by Israeli fire in the northern town of Jabaliya. Six other members of the Abed Rabbo family were wounded.

A meeting of Israel’s security cabinet on Sunday is expected to debate launching a broader infantry assault at the risk of suffering much heavier casualties than the 13 military and civilian deaths suffered since Operation Cast Lead was launched two weeks ago.

There were suggestions that a 48-hour pause in fighting to allow in humanitarian aid could precede the attack.

At ceasefire talks in Cairo, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority of the Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas proposed a joint force to patrol the border but rejected Israeli demands for a foreign troop presence on the Gaza frontier.

Mr Abbas, the moderate Palestinian leader in the West Bank, held talks with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, while a delegation from Hamas was scheduled to meet the country’s intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, questioned if Egypt was Israel’s “partner” in suppressing Hamas.

Mr Abbas called on Israel to accept the compromise deal. He said: “If any party does not accept it, regrettably it will be the one bearing the responsibility, and if Israel doesn’t want to accept, it will take the responsibility of perpetuating a waterfall of blood.”

As if to echo that forecast, the Hamas leader in Damascus Khaled Meshaal compared Israel’s assault to a “holocaust” and said it ended any chance of negotiations.

Platoons advanced on the fringes of Gaza City backed by armoured reconnaissance vehicles and close air support. Israeli officials warned that more tough fighting lay ahead before Hamas weapons and terror cells were destroyed.

“Hamas still has the capability to fire on Israel,” said one Israeli military expert. “Even though the number of rockets coming out of Gaza is dropping, it still has a reasonable infrastructure we have not yet got to and tunnels we haven’t yet destroyed.”

Dogs led the way for the small knots of heavily laden combat forces in olive uniforms topped off with khaki camouflage netting. Hamas fighters had spent much of the campaign living among civilians and shunning engagements with Israeli troops. But a series of firefights took place.

Gaza’s treacherous urban environment presents the stiffest challenge faced by Israeli forces in the battle so far. Military planners warned from the outset that Hamas would set booby traps in the narrow alleys and cramped corridors of the city.

Hamas was expected to replicate the tactics used by Hizbollah in the 2006 Lebanese war.

To counter the unseen threats the Israeli military has augmented its units with specially trained dogs. The dogs move ahead of the troops to detect explosives and trip wires laid across doorways.

“The army moves very slowly,” a resident of the Jabalya refugee camp told the Israeli media. “The tanks approach houses, then they send the dogs. If it’s a three-storey home, they send three dogs. The dogs have a camera on one leg and a walkie-talkie on the other. That’s how the dogs transmit what is in the house.”

Israeli forces uncovered and destroyed an anti-aircraft missile launcher thought to have been put in place to attack low-flying fighter jets or helicopters. Israel has long suspected that Hamas had been supplied with anti-aircraft by Iran but the raid provided the first physical evidence that the group had acquired sophisticated weaponry to challenge its aerial superiority.

Officials said that 40 air raids were also carried out in the early hours of Saturday against tunnels used to smuggle arms into the strip. Residents of the southern town of Rafah said that bombing raids on tunnels, some of which lie 50ft beneath the desert border crossing, had knocked out the town’s electricity supply.

The task of sealing the tunnels poses the greatest challenge for diplomats attempting to resolve the crisis. Clans that straddle the border have created underground shafts that move goods on an industrial scale. According to Western officials, who have been briefed by Israel, some of the tunnels have rail lines that move cartloads of goods between overground loading bays. Hamas was thought to operate 50 tunnels before the outset of fighting but private owners face threats and intimidation if they refuse to handle the group’s shipments.

“The tunnels are important, probably to the point that a preponderance of weapons have come through those tunnels,” a Pentagon official was quoted as saying.

Israel announced a three-hour pause in offensive operations to allow Gaza’s 1.4 million residents time to stock up on food or seek medical treatment. But the spread of troops inside Gaza has made it difficult to maintain a peaceful stance.

Hamas has made no parallel pledges to refrain from attacks or terrorist operations. By attacking the Israeli army, the group can provoke retaliation that is bound to intensify criticism of the siege of Gaza.

Palestinian medical officials said the number of people killed since fighting started in late December rose above 800.

United Nations agencies are ready to resume humanitarian shipments into Gaza after it received improved undertakings on free passage after an incident on Thursday when two forklift operators were killed.

The UN accused Israeli troops of shelling its convoy but the military said that its soldiers had not fired weapons in the vicinity. The alternative explanation is that a Hamas mortar crew had fired on the trucks.

An Israeli official yesterday accused the UN of having allowed its operations to have been co-opted.

“Do you know who the UNRWA’s (UN Relief and Works Agency) workers are today in Gaza: they are Hamas people who distribute aid to those loyal to Hamas,” said Dan Ashbel, the Israeli ambassador in Austria. “Even this aid organisation has been taken over by Hamas and is being used as a weapon against its own people.”

Christopher Gunness, a UN spokesman, rejected the charge. “We have checked all the names of the 27,000 people who work for us against the Security Council list of known terrorists and there have been no matches,” he said.

Riot police clash with protesters at Gaza demonstration in London

Riot police clash with protesters at Gaza demo in London

Police in riot gear have been involved in violent clashes with protesters after demonstrations in London against the Gaza conflict turned violent.

One officer was knocked unconscious and three people were arrested as thousands joined a rally in the capital, with other demonstrations taking place across the country.

Protesters hurled shoes over the heads of riot police in a gesture mimicking the actions of Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi who threw his footwear at George Bush last month.

There were also reports of pieces of wood being thrown by a small number of people. Banners were unfurled saying “Gaza: Stop the massacre.”

The Metropolitan Police made three arrests including one for assaulting a police officer and one for aggravated trespass, a Scotland Yard spokesman said.

Celebrities including Brian Eno and Annie Lennox spoke to the 12,000-strong crowd, which marched from Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park to the Israeli Embassy, in Kensington.

Journalist Lauren Booth criticised her brother-in-law Tony Blair, and said that his suggestions for a ceasefire in Gaza would condemn Palestinians “to a slow agonising death”.

There was a heavy police presence lining the route and officers were forced to calm the crowd on a number of points along the route.

In Edinburgh protesters tossed about 300 shoes and red paint towards the US consulate. Pete Cannell, secretary of the Scottish Stop the War Coalition, said 10,000 attended the event.

Event organiser Nick Napier said the action was taken as a result of the “rage and anger” over the death toll in Gaza over the past two weeks.

“People are here because they know the trail of blood leads from Gaza back to Britain and Gordon Brown. It’s another year, another war, another massacre. It’s a war too many for most people.”

Protests also took place in Aberdeen, Newcastle, Manchester and Southampton.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews will also hold a rally on Sunday, in Trafalgar Square, London, calling for peace in Israel and Gaza.

Fierce Gunfights, Airstrikes in Gaza as Israel Readies Next Phase of Offensive

Fierce Gunfights, Airstrikes in Gaza as Israel Readies Next Phase of Offensive

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Israeli troops battled Palestinian gunmen on the outskirts of Gaza City Sunday in one of the fiercest ground battles so far as Israel’s military inched toward Gaza’s population centers and residents braced for a possible expansion of the offensive.

The fighting in the Sheikh Ajleen neighborhood erupted before dawn and continued through the morning as Israeli infantrymen and tanks advanced toward Gaza City and its approximately 400,000 residents, Palestinian witnesses said. Hamas and the smaller militant group Islamic Jihad said they ambushed the Israelis, leading to some of the heaviest fighting since Israel sent ground forces into the coastal territory on Jan. 3.

Gunfire subsided in the early afternoon, with the Israelis in control of buildings in Sheikh Ajleen.

On Sunday, Hamas rockets struck two Israeli schools — one in Sderot and another in Ashdod. No injuries were reported in either attack.

Israel sent reserve units into the Gaza Strip on Sunday, chief military spokesman Brig. Gen. Avi Benayahu announced — though he declined to say whether the next phase of the offensive had officially begun.

Click here for photos.

Related

Israel launched its offensive against Hamas on Dec. 27 in an attempt to halt years of rocket fire from Gaza at Israeli towns. The Israeli military says troops have killed some 300 armed fighters since the ground offensive began and that many more were killed in the week of aerial bombardments that preceded it.

Thirteen Israelis have died, three of them civilians.

“Israel is nearing the goals which it set itself, but more patience, determination and effort is still demanded,” Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said ahead of his government’s weekly meeting Sunday.

The U.N. Security Council called for an immediate cease-fire Thursday, but Olmert said Israel “never agreed that anyone would decide for us if it is permissible to strike at those who send bombs against our kindergartens and schools.”

Hamas, the Islamic group whose government controls Gaza but is not recognized internationally, likewise has ignored the resolution, complaining that it was not consulted.

Israeli defense officials say they are prepared for a third stage of their offensive, in which ground troops would push further into Gaza, but are waiting for approval from the government. Israel dropped leaflets on Gaza on Saturday warning of a wider offensive.

The first phase was the massive aerial bombardment, and the second saw ground forces enter Gaza, seize open areas used to fire rockets and surround Gaza City. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because military plans have not been made public, said the army also has a contingency plan for a fourth phase — the full reoccupation of Gaza and toppling of Hamas.

At least 14 people were killed in Sunday’s fighting in and around Sheikh Ajleen, Palestinian health officials said. How many were militants and how many civilians was not immediately known. There was no word on Israeli casualties.

“We are safe, but we don’t know for how long,” said Khamis Alawi, 44, who huddled with his wife and six children in their kitchen overnight. He said bullets riddled his walls and several came in through the windows.

Hamas militants launched barrages of rockets at the Israeli city of Beersheba and at the town of Sderot. Hamas has been hard-hit by the Israeli offensive, but continued to fire rockets from Palestinian residential areas, paralyzing much of southern Israel.

Open areas in northern Gaza from which militants once launched many of their rockets are now in Israeli hands.

Israeli warplanes bombed targets along the Egypt-Gaza frontier near the town of Rafah early Sunday, shattering windows at the border terminal. The area is riddled by tunnels used to smuggle weapons and supplies into Gaza, and has been repeatedly bombed throughout the Israeli offensive.

More than 60 airstrikes were carried out by Israel overnight, the BBC reported.

The home of the head of Hamas’ military wing was among the targets, Israel said.

At least 24 Palestinians had been killed across Gaza by midday Sunday.

Palestinian officals report that over 850 Palestinians have been killed and over 3500 people have been wounded since the offensive began.

The military says Hamas fighters were wearing civilian clothes and endangering civilians by operating out of heavily populated residential areas.

Palestinian witnesses said Israeli forces fired phosphorus shells early Sunday at Khouza, a village near the border, setting a row of houses on fire. Hospital official Dr. Yusuf Abu Rish said a woman was killed and more than 100 injured, most suffering from gas inhalation and burns.

Israeli military spokesman Capt. Guy Spigelman denied the claims. One of the main uses of phosphorous shells is to create smoke and mask ground forces, which is legal under international law, but the chemical can be harmful if used in densely populated areas.

Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal made a fiery speech on Arab news channel Al-Jazeera, describing the Israeli assault as a “holocaust.” Still, Hamas teams were in Cairo to discuss a cease-fire proposed by Egypt.

Israel wants a guarantee that any cease-fire would end Hamas rocket fire and weapons smuggling from Egypt. Hamas is demanding that Israel open Gaza’s blockaded border crossings. Israel is unlikely to agree to that condition because it would hand Hamas a victory and allow the group to strengthen its hold on the territory it violently seized in June 2007.

Struggling to keep peace efforts alive, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has urged Israel and Hamas to agree to a truce. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was set to hold talks with Israeli leaders Sunday in Egypt in an attempt to advance the Security Council’s cease-fire call.

“Israel must be persuaded to let the firearms rest now,” Steinmeier told reporters Sunday.

One of the deadliest single incidents since the offensive began was an Israeli strike near a U.N. school Tuesday that Gaza health officials said killed 39 Palestinians. On Sunday, Israeli defense officials said an investigation by the military concluded that an Israeli mortar shell missed its target and hit near the school.

The Israeli investigation concluded that troops fired three mortar shells at Hamas militants who had just launched a rocket, the officials said. Two shells hit the target, but a third missed by about 30 yards, striking near the school and killing bystanders. The Israeli military believes the number of casualties was inflated by Hamas.

The defense officials spoke Sunday on condition of anonymity because the investigation has not been made public, and there was no official comment from the military.

The U.N. agency in charge of Palestinian refugees has resumed its operations after suspending them because of Israeli attacks on its convoys. U.N. Relief and Works Agency spokesman Christopher Gunness said nine aid convoys were planned Sunday, but that the Israeli military had to “stand up and deliver” on its promises to allow aid to reach Gaza civilians.

But the international Red Cross said Sunday it was halting its service of escorting Palestinian medical teams after one of its ambulances came under fire on Saturday during a three-hour lull declared by Israel to allow aid groups to do their work in besieged areas.

Red Cross spokesman Iyad Nasr said his organization is still investigating the source of the fire.

The Red Cross escorts are meant to provide extra protection to Palestinian ambulances and guarantee that all occupants are civilians. In the past Israel has charged that ambulances have been used to transport militants and arms.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Feds Plan Military ‘Surge’ when Mexico Drug Violence Spills Into U.S.

Feds Plan Military ‘Surge’ when Mexico Drug

Violence Spills Into U.S.

Saturday , January 10, 2009

AP

EL PASO, Texas  —

If Mexican drug violence spills across the U.S. border, Homeland Security officials say they have a contingency plan to assist border areas that includes bringing in the military.

“It’s a common sense extension of our continued work with our state, local, and tribal partners in securing the southwest border,” DHS spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said Friday.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who described the contingency plan in an interview with The New York Times this week, said he ordered specific plans to be drawn up this summer as violence in Mexico continued to mount.

The plan includes federal homeland security agents helping local authorities and maybe even military assistance from the Department of Defense, possibly including aircraft, armored vehicles and special teams to go to areas overwhelmed with violence, authorities said.

Kudwa would not give specifics on the so-called “surge” plan, but said it does not create any new authorities.

In the last year, more than 5,000 people have been killed and police and military officials have become common targets for violent drug cartels who are fighting with each other and the government for control of lucrative drug and human smuggling routes across Mexico.

More than one-fifth of the deaths have occurred in Ciudad Juarez, the hardscrabble border city just across the Rio Grande from El Paso.

Officials in Mexico reported about 1,600 homicides in Juarez in 2007 and at least 20 people have been killed in the first nine days of this year.

To date, there has been no significant violent spillover from the drug war in Mexico, but U.S. authorities have spent a tense year watching and waiting.

In October, Hidalgo County officials issued fully automatic weapons to deputies patrolling the river in the Rio Grande Valley. Sheriff Lupe Trevino also authorized his deputies to return fire across the border if smugglers or other criminals took aim at them.

In El Paso, the country’s largest border community and one of the safest metropolitan areas in the nation, Sheriff Richard Wiles said that while he doesn’t anticipate the city or county being overwhelmed by border violence he applauded the DHS plan to quickly respond if the worst should happen.

“I think it’s appropriate for the federal government to have a contingency plan all the way up to the worst case scenario,” Wiles said.

The contingency plan was news to most border states.

“At this point, DHS has not contacted the California National Guard to bring any forces … to support first responders, i.e. (U.S.) Border Patrol, at the border in California,” California National Guard spokesman Jonathan Guibord said Friday.

He said National Guard officials in California know only “what’s been publicized” about the plan, but added that state military officials routinely train and prepare to respond to any order from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or the president.

Katherine Cesinger, a spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry, said Texas officials were briefed on the plan but were not consulted beforehand about a plan to fight Mexican drug cartels on the 2,000-mile U.S. border, more than half of which is in Texas.

Cesinger said the state has its own specific security plans for each area of the Texas border should violence from Mexico become an issue. She declined to give specifics of those plans.

Officials with New Mexico’s Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management said they are in constant contact with federal Homeland Security officials but weren’t aware of any specific security plan that could include Department of Defense assets.

“We haven’t seen a specific operational plan for a specific region or specific threat. The use of Defense Department resources … would have to be an extreme situation,” said Tim Manning, the New Mexico Homeland Security director.

Homeland Security officials did not respond to questions about which local or state agencies were notified about the surge plan.

Baltimore mayor indicted for perjury, theft

Baltimore mayor indicted
for perjury, theft

(Reuters) A grand jury indicted Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon on 12 counts of perjury, theft and fraud today, saying she used gift cards intended for poor families to buy herself a fur coat …

UPDATE 2-Baltimore mayor indicted for perjury, theft

Fri Jan 9, 2009 6:14pm EST

(New throughout with details, background)

By Jon Hurdle

PHILADELPHIA, Jan 9 (Reuters) – A grand jury indicted Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon on 12 counts of perjury, theft and fraud on Friday, saying she used gift cards intended for poor families to buy herself a fur coat and other presents.

“The citizens of Baltimore have every right to expect their public officials will be open and honest and will not use the office for personal motives, gain or greed,” Maryland State Prosecutor Robert Rohrbaugh said in a statement.

Dixon, 55, a Democrat who is the northeastern U.S. city’s first woman mayor, said she had done nothing wrong.

“I am being unfairly accused,” she said in a statement. “Time will prove I have done nothing wrong and I am confident that I will be found innocent of these charges.”

Among other charges, the indictment says Dixon received gifts including travel and lodging, and used gift cards intended to be given to needy families at Christmas time to purchase items for herself including a fur coat.

The indictment says Dixon received gift cards to the Best Buy and Target department stores from two unnamed real estate developers. The Baltimore Sun newspaper reported that one of the developers was Ronald Lipscomb, her former boyfriend, who was indicted on Wednesday on charges of bribery.

In December 2005, one of the developers gave her 20 cards, of which Dixon used 19 to buy a camcorder, a Sony PlayStation 2 and other electronic devices “for her personal benefit,” the indictment says.

A year later, she received more gift cards for distribution to needy families but used them to buy more electronics, clothes and other items for herself, the indictment says.

Dixon has been the target of a three-year investigation by Rohrbaugh focusing on allegations that she used her office to give valuable contracts to favored individuals, the newspaper said.

The indictment of Lipscomb accuses him of paying $12,500 to an unnamed third party on behalf of Helen Holton, a member of Baltimore City Council, who was herself accused of bribery, perjury and malfeasance by the same grand jury.

Lipscomb, a partner in a number of real estate development projects in Baltimore during 2007, was seeking city tax incentives for one of the projects in which he was a partner, the indictment alleges.

(Editing by Patricia Zengerle)

Gun-Toting Hamas Supporters in Barcelona

Gun-Toting Hamas Supporters in Barcelona

by Baron Bodissey

Barcelona demo
A Spanish reader named Hordley just sent us the following email about what happened today in Barcelona:

Barcelona demoA gun was held in the air in a pro-Palestinian demonstration in Barcelona this afternoon.

The man holding the gun had his face covered and was right behind the placard that opened the demonstration.

The motto of the demonstration was “Stop the massacre in Gaza”.

It was supposed to be for peace but, in addition to this man showing a gun, the speeches were all violently anti-Israel and no mention was made about Hamas and Islam.

A great number of Muslims, mostly Maghrebins and Pakistanis, were present.

The rest of the demonstrators were all kinds of Communists and post-Communists.

- – - - – - – - -

Although the hysteria is stimulated by the media — especially Catalonian television, which is acting as a propagandist for Hamas — the majority of Catalans are aware of what’s really going and give support to Israel. Because its war is our war.

Links to the photos:

“Gaza Has Made Me Radical”

“Gaza Has Made Me Radical”

by Baron Bodissey

Our Swedish correspondent CB sends along a translation of an op-ed by Mohammed Omar, until recently considered one of Sweden’s prominent “moderate” Muslims.

First, a prefatory note from CB:

This is an article from one of the big tabloids in Sweden, Expressen, by a former “moderate” Muslim — Mohammed Omar, by his father from Iran and by his mother from Sweden. He is the editor of the Muslim magazine Minaret and a self-styled poet. Omar has become quite famous in Sweden as a Muslim who is willing to have dialogue between people of different faiths — even Jews. Yesterday (January 9th, 2008), he wrote the article in Expressen and explained why he has become a radical.

I suppose it’s one of many such stories. But in this case it’s a high-profile and lauded “moderate” who has “become” an Islamist, by his own words. And I have seldom seen a “moderate” come out in such a hot-headed fashion before, with the entire Islamist vocabulary and victim-status painted all over at once.

Besides the normal complaints from Muslims about massacres and a bloodbath in “Palestine”, we get the more interesting statements from Omar about the Zionist conspiracy against Islam, since they (the Zionists) know that Islam is the only force able to withstand the great onslaught by the West. Not so usual is a part-Iranian praising Khomeini, and this an Iranian outside Iran. Note that this guy actually thinks Khomeini is a great leader, worthy of emulating. His exhortation of sexual child-abuse, violence, torture and jihad incitement too? Why does Omar think so many Iranians want to escape his paradise?

Irshad Manji as an Zionist? Give me a break! But she’s not an Islamist, so I guess that sets Omar’s standard.

I think it’s revealing that someone who claims to become more Muslim is taking this path, cheering on people with genocidal views who aim to destroy the free world. The same part of the world which has given him freedom of expression and security from police coming in the night to pick up dissidents.

It’s interesting that he says he wants THE religion (Islam) to guide politics and the constitution. I’m quite sure gullible people don’t know that this means the implementation of the Sharia, and not just religious influence on public life (as in the West).

In my mind, he’s either a Islamist who at last has showed his real face — and that’s good for the public to know — or he’s a young man committing intellectual suicide, because of his desperation in the face of war. Ironic that Islam should be the motivating factor for this. Have we seen this before?

It reminds me of how fear has claimed the very best before, so let me end with a paraphrase of emperor Palpatine’s words: “Rise my friend. You shall henceforth be known as Mullah Omar!”

Now for CB’s translation of the Expressen article:

Gaza has made me radical

Last week was the first time I ever demonstrated against Israel. In my heart I have always been against Israel’s bloodstained oppression of the Palestinians. But I hadn’t taken the step of getting involved in the issue until now. The latest bloodbath was just too much. I felt I had to openly make a stand. But not just that. I decided to support Hams and Hizbullah — the Islamic resistance movements.

The ongoing massacre in Gaza is just the culmination of the 60 years of ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Israel, while the international community has watched with disinterest or impotence. The demonization of Muslims has been and is a important part of Israel’s psychological warfare during recent years, because they know that the source of the strong resistance against the USA and Israel’s colonial enterprise is Islam. That’s the belief that gives them strength to fight. That’s the belief that unites and guides them. The propaganda against Islam, spewed forth by Zionists like Bat Ye’or, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Robert Spencer, Irshad Manji, and the like, and then distributed with fanatic fervor through neoconservative networks, shows that its in their interest to undermine Islam, destroy the view people have of Islam, remove sympathy for Islam, scare people away from Islam.

They have been fairly successful. That’s why Palestinians don’t get the support they should have. People buy into the slander about Muslims hating people because they have another faith or lifestyle. And that’s the reason they fire rockets. My answer is to become more Muslim, that is, a political Muslim. I refuse to be demoralized. My choice is to become radicalized.

- – - - – - – - -

Each time I have written a critical article about Islamism, a view of the religion as guiding the constitution, I have been applauded by journalists, talking heads, and bloggers. Why? Every step to de-politicize the religion is actually a step forward for the Zionists. They know that socialism doesn’t stand a chance. It’s dead in the Middle East. They know that virtually all ideologies from the West have been complemented by war, torture and occupation. Islamism is the only ideology that have any credibility among the masses. And it’s the only ideology that has any viable chance to overthrow the corrupt despots.

During these days I have been sitting in front of my TV, heartbroken, and seen Israel’s mass slaughter of children, women, and the elderly while the despots in the Arab world mumble, explain away, or blame the oppressed for resisting. Some of them, like Hosni Mubarak, are in all probability part of the plot against the people of Gaza.

The despots of the Arab world fear Hamas because they fear democracy. The divide between the people and their leaders, the lackeys of the USA, is growing by the minute. Islam is a faith that demands a stand against oppression and injustice. To be vegetative and thinking of yourself is incompatible with the demands of Islam on us. This is my insight. That is why I have become a radical Muslim.

Whenever there have been democratic elections in the Middle East, Islamist parties have won power. FIS in Algeria and Hamas in Palestine. Even in Iraq, in spite of the elections held under American occupation. If democracy ever gained a victory in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood would take over in an instant. What’s needed in Egypt is a leader of Khomeini’s caliber. He who led the triumphant uprising against the US-agent Reza Pahlavi. A leader like that would open the Rafah-crossing and send in help at once. Khomeini is a role-model for the Islamic resistance.

The Muslim countries need to unite in a federation or a union like that of the EU or USA. That is to be able to defend their populations against colonialism, exploitation and oppression from the west. Therefore I join the worldwide Islamist movement and therefore I now support Hamas, Hizbullah, and Iran. I am a radical Muslim. And I say that with pride.

Mohammed Omar 2009-01-09

Reinhard of FOMI adds these brief items, drawing from comments on Swedish blogs, comments on the Expressen article, and other sources:

From Björn Wiman’s blog, the culture editor of Expressen. Quote: “Omar’s example bodes ill. Not least since it may equate Islam and Islamism, regular Muslims and political extremists.” Another condemning quote from a mainstream liberal heavyweight.

A quote from the comments section to Omar’s article, from a Magnus Braemer: “Mohamed, you are my enemy.” The overwhelming majority of all the comments are in the same vein — and this in the Swedish MSM.

“There’s something sad about someone who voluntarily throws himself over the cliff.” — Translation of the last line in a blog post by Karl Rydå, ledarskribent (opinion editor) at Upsala Nya Tidning, which has previously published several articles by Omar in defense of Islam. It is interesting to note that Rydå has also published criticism of “Islamophobia” in UNT and Expo.

This is from Sanna Rayman, one of several opinion editors at Svenska Dagbladet. One quote from her take on Omar’s article will suffice: “There are so many awful and sad quotes in his article that I hardly know which one to choose”.

These two quotes are from heavyweights in the Swedish MSM. Omar has burned his bridges even with the usually pro-Islamic liberal elite.

This is from Omar’s own blog. A guest essay by Lasse Wilhelmsson, who is friends with Holocaust revisionist Israel Shamir and defends Radio Islam, an anti-Semitic propaganda site whose owner associates with neo-Nazis. More info on him here.

Note especially the picture on Omar’s blog depicting Israelis as Nazis, a classic motif of anti-Semitic propaganda.

The Political Madness

The Political Madness

by Baron Bodissey

Zonka recently sent us the following email:

The other day I read an op-ed by the Danish Cold War researcher, Bent Jensen, in Jyllands-Posten, where he wrote that a Russian friend of his recommended that he read the book The Flying Inn by Gilbert K. Chesterton from 1914, in order to understand what was going on in the European elites in general and the British elites in particular vis-à-vis multiculturalism and pandering to Islam… Naturally he was reluctant to believe that he could find any answers to the current state of affairs in a book almost a century old, however he did read it and gave a short synopsis of the book in the article.

His writing sent me looking for the book, which must have entered the public domain, and I found it online, albeit only in plain-text format that made it hard to read. So I spent most of the day yesterday putting it into a HTML format for better readability as well as reading the book… And I must say that it was an eye-opener. Not only did G.K. Chesterton have the uncanny foresight to see how Europe could be overtaken by Islam, but also describing the effete elite’s hypocrisy and double-standards to the dot.

And so I pass on the recommendations to read the book which can now be found at www.kimcm.dk/Documents/The_Flying_Inn.html.

Inspired by Zonka’s efforts, Henrik Ræder Clausen volunteered to translate the Jyllands-Posten op-ed into English:

The Political Madness

By Professor Bent Jensen
Director of the Danish Center of Cold War Research

We need a Danish Chesterton, writes Bent Jensen after he, on the suggestion of a Russian friend, read the G. K. Chesterton novel The Flying Inn from 1945 [Note: this is an error, the book was published in 1914]. The plot and the problems of the book appear as if taken straight out of the political-intellectual stage of Denmark, Britain and Europe of today.

Sometimes one needs to turn to the past in order to understand the present and get a notion of what is in store for the future. And frequently one needs to turn to fiction in order to gain a realistic and insightful description of what currently takes place in the real world. Sociological and political treatises don’t usually concern the most urgent problems of their time. Many are void of original thinking and suffer from a loss of reality.

A close Russian friend of mine had for quite a while encouraged me to read a devil-may-care novel by the English Catholic author G. K. Chesterton, who died in 1936. His novel, which simultaneously is a utopian piece, takes place in England at the end of the 19th century. “It will teach you what is happening in Denmark and Europe right now,” said my Russian friend. “Read it, the book is named The Flying Inn“.

I was skeptical. What relevance would an old novel from England have to the problems of Denmark and Europe today? But I discarded my skepticism and have now read The Flying Inn — and it is perfectly true: It would appear as if Chesterton is describing the present times. The book was translated into Danish in 1945, and I would imagine that back then it would have seemed weird to Danish readers — funny, but absolutely void of deeper significance. Today it reads as a revelation of wit and insight.

Briefly explained, The Flying Inn is about the ruling class and its fierce discontent with the state of the world, and in particular the way the lower classes choose to live their lives. The spokesman for the upper class is Lord Ivywood, a member of Parliament — a pale, anaemic and humorless world-improver, isolated from the British people, their faith and customs. Personally, the Lord believes in nothing except his own utopian ideas. The world is a failure, and I want to change it, as he puts it. Lord Ivywood’s opposite is a round, fierce and action-oriented captain of the navy, the red-haired Irishman Patrick Dalroy. He believes that the God’s creation is exactly how it is supposed to be. He does not believe in any of the modern rubbish about a state of world peace and eternal happiness, but finds life, with all its challenges, deficiencies and imperfections to be wonderful.

- – - - – - – - -

An important part of this earthly life is to enjoy a glass of beer, whisky or rum as thirst demands. And here we are at the core of the matter. The Higher Society has always considered the lower classes, the common people, to be vulgar. The underclass dresses wrong, eats and drinks wrong; it talks and even thinks in wrong ways. Thus it becomes an important task for the ruling classes in politics, journalism, science, and education to raise the incorrectly eating and thinking classes. It is also of utmost importance to make the lower classes abandon their love for their country and their culture — as well as their skepticism towards alien cultures seeking to intrude and dominate.

Lord Ivywood and his peers in other European countries have decided to make peace with the Islamic world — on Islam’s terms. Partly because there is profit to be made from such a peace, and partly because Islam would be good for the lower classes, for instance by curbing the ongoing drunkenness in England. Thus he becomes the prime sponsor of a law aiming at shutting down the old, public inns in England, where one goes after work for a pint or two. Unsurprisingly, the law contains a loophole that permits the members of Parliament and others of the ruling class to satisfy their own desire for alcohol.

Chesterton exposes in a sublime manner the hypocrisy, the double standards and the foolishness in the dominating layers of society. The pale Lord Ivywood, who is described as a walking corpse (and whose name contains death as well) has the notion that “debates are usually not harmful to parliamentary work.” Nevertheless, when he intends to pass yet another law to limit the harmless enjoyments of common people, he acts like a thief in the night and gets the law passed without even the slightest debate.

The book opens with a description of “a menagerie of asylum members”, that is, the major or minor fools who create a considerable share of the noise also known as “public debate”. Here we find socialists, clowns, priests, a man fooling around with cardboard boxes, someone wearing a garland of carrots around his hat, and an atheist “in a state of rabid anger”. Finally, we also find in the menagerie a Turk wearing a red fez, who explains that British civilization actually originated with the Turks, a fact utterly forgotten by the British. One of his brilliant proofs for this statement is that the British prefer turkey for Christmas. The similarity to the imams of our days is striking.

This ignorant madman is excessively popular with the higher classes. Miss Browning, a regular visitor to the Ethical Society, is fascinated by the wisdom thrown about by the moon prophet (Chesterton’s mocking label). She now believes she has understood a lot about Islam, including that everything originated in the East. A learned Englishman, Dr. Moon, has already proposed that the dome of St. Paul’s Cathedral should be equipped with a hybrid of a cross and a half moon, a mooncross. When voting, Muslims must not be exposed to the humiliation of having to place a cross. Instead, half-moons are to be applied. Lord Ivywood obviously supports the proposal. He works in a diplomatic manner towards the goal of forging Islam and Christianity into a higher union, named Chrislam.

All of his would seem to be taken straight out of today’s political-intellectual menagerie in Denmark, England and Europe. Learned people have already, and with sincerity, proposed the removal of the cross from the Danish flag Dannebrog and from the Danish passports, because they offend Muslims. Muslim public holidays have been proposed. Danish children are no longer able to get leverpostej (pig pâté) and similar traditional Danish food in the kindergartens, because according to Islamic tradition they are “unclean”. A professor of law believes that compensating murder with payment to be made out in camels just might be appropriate in an old European nation. Some Danish judges consider it just fine to have Islamic symbols in Danish courts. Sharia could be just fine as well. The list goes on and on.

One of the hilarious scenes in the book is an exhibition of paintings, which have been censored because depictions of humans are forbidden according to Islam. What remains are the ornaments and decorations in eastern style. Chesterton describes the opening of the exhibition, where “the regular visitors in the marketplace of vanity” as a matter of course attend and happily endorse the censorship. The self-satisfied crowd constitute “a very small world”, though “it is exactly large enough and small enough to constitute the ruling class of a country — noticeably a country void of religion.” Anyone could easily name these self-satisfied and thoughtless regular visitors in the market of vanity in Denmark or England.

But fortunately still present in Merry Old England are simple Englishmen who do not intend to give up their traditions and culture. As mentioned, an Irish Catholic, Captain Patrick Dalroy, spearheads the public revolt against the Islamization from the upper classes. Dalroy may say that he doesn’t comprehend England or the English, but that is only a pretense. He understands and knows classical England, and teams up with his good friend, innkeeper Humphrey Pump, whose inn by the river and the apple trees has been forced into closure by Lord Ivywood — for the good of the people, of course. But the creative Irishman exploits a loophole in the law that enables himself and his English friend to travel around in England on a cart — later exchanged for a car — bearing the old inn sign, a barrel of fine rum and a big, round cheddar cheese.

According to Captain Dalroy modern man is utterly confused as to life and its meaning. He expects something never promised him by nature, and for that reason he destroys all that nature has already granted him. In Lord Ivywood’s atheistic mission houses for social improvement and salvation of the planet there is “a preachery up and down the doors” about the perfect peace, unlimited mutual confidence, universal joy and souls uniting. The atheists are hunting all joy and jolliness out of the country, says Dalroy, they discard all the old songs and good tales. They ruin the basis of friendship between men by closing institutions as the English inns. The simple Dalroy thinks, in opposition to the joyless world-improvers, that it is the intention of God that humans are meant to have some fun in their existence.

Chesterton without respect describes diplomats in this fashion: They are permitted to divulge neither knowledge nor ignorance. This is one of their tragedies. For that reason, they try to appear as if they know everything.

This is an apt description of current Danish and European politicians. They not only assume that they know everything. They also assume that it is their right to interfere with everything. They intend to regulate everything, to control everything — from the tiniest to the largest. What kind of electric bulbs that can be permitted in our living rooms. How cucumbers and tomatoes are supposed to shape themselves. Where people can be permitted to smoke tobacco. Where they are located on the roads. What they can and cannot be permitted to say. And even how the earth and the sky are supposed to behave. Actually, we do have a ministry endowed with the task of making the earth and the heavens do as they are supposed to.

The political madness is becoming all-encompassing. In Chesterton’s novel captain Dalroy saves England from the mad lord and his Islamic allies. We are in need of both a Danish Chesterton and a Danish Dalroy.