What Will Work

What Will Work

Farnham O’Reilly

August 10, 2010

The Problem

A short one hundred years ago, the sun never set on the empires of our people. At that time we had brought forth the finest music, explored to the uttermost ends of the earth, pioneered care of the environment and kindness to animals, made the most startling discoveries, created the greatest inventions, wrote the most profound literature, established colonies in foreign lands that — despite contemporary assertion — improved the lot of the indigenous peoples, and began unlocking the very secrets of Nature Herself.

Three generations later — ten decades — this race is now against the ropes, fighting for their very survival. Actually, it is worse than that — only a very few of us are fighting — the vast majority of us are actively or passively engaged in our own demise. Why in the world have we gotten into this situation?

The ‘what’ of it is no mystery — we can look around ourselves and at history over the past 100 years and see what happened. The ‘how’ is also no mystery. We have lost control to an intellectual, media and financial elite that reflects Jewish  concerns and interests. This new elite is intelligent, hyper-ethnocentric, and adept at ethnic networking. They have a malevolence born out of the twin delusions of grandeur and persecution. But, to understand the ‘why’ we must understand ourselves, i.e. — what makes us White on the inside, what makes us different from other peoples, what makes us behave the way we do. For, in the final analysis, the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ are simply byproducts of the ‘why’ — why we are well into our dispossession without firing a shot — literally. If we are to survive, we must come to grips with the ‘why’. Then the ‘what’ and ‘how’ will take care of themselves.

We have spent sixty unsuccessful years trying to reach the minds of our people, appealing to their sense of racial preservation. Our failure has not been through lack of effort, but rather because we have not taken the time to understand ourselves, that we are first and foremost not an intellectual people, rather we are a social people, and the way to reach our people is not through the mind, but through the social emotions. I repeat — the battle is to be won in our emotions, not our minds. The Enemy has not made the same mistake. He took the time to study us, to learn our on/off switches, and he has used that knowledge to his benefit. He knows we respond to emotion, altruism, guilt and social approval, rather than facts, data, proofs, reason, or even common sense, and he has used this knowledge as a weapon.

Yes, from us have come the most gifted intellects the world has ever seen: Caesar, Pythagoras, Dickens, Bach, Alexander, Da Vinci, Pasteur, Newton, Edison, Gutenberg, Mannerheim, Twain, Washington, Goethe, Lee, Ericsson, Ford, Beethoven, Nietzsche, Franklin, Von Braun, Socrates, London, Rembrandt, Kipling, Lindbergh, Dante, Shakespeare, Bell, Napoleon, Magellan, Amundsen, Mozart, Plato, Wagner, Copernicus and Galileo, (ahem) to name a few. But, we are not an intellectual people. Creative? Yes. Intelligent? Undoubtedly. But the key to our demise is to understand that at the core of our being are the social emotions.

I remember once a minister explaining how our emotions must be subject to our reason. He used a train as an analogy, describing how our mind and heart are like the train’s locomotive and caboose, respectively, and that the only way the train could reach its destination was for the caboose to follow the locomotive and not the other way around. This was good counsel, with only one flaw, but the flaw was fatal — we White folk just aren’t made that way.

In failing to understand ourselves we have wasted precious time in assuming our people would respond to appeals for racial preservation. The fact is that we are less ethnocentric than other peoples. Nor can we build in several decades what takes at least several thousand years to develop. Now, White ethnocentrism does exist, but it is deeply buried, and normally manifests itself only implicitly. In any event, it cannot be depended on as a catalyst for change.

What can be depended on for real change is what is already inside us, close to the surface, vibrant, strong, and responsive. Since the days of our Hyperborean home, this has been the spiritual mandate of our people — righteous moral virtue — that undeniable preference of our folk for good over evil. This inborn trait of ours manifests itself in many forms — a sense of fairness, a willingness to forgive and give people a second chance, love of truth and goodness, a desire to keep our good reputation, repulsion to lies and evil, and helping the less fortunate. This trait — an innate desire for Godliness defined as moral universalism, also has caused a weakness to evolve within us that has been exploited by our enemies. This is our predisposition towards guilt.

Our opponents are not dumb enough as to tell us to dismantle the family unit, cut our birth rate, and deprive children of the nurture and guidance only mothers can offer. Instead, we are told the White male hierarchy has suppressed women, shamelessly keeping them barefoot and pregnant in the home, condemned to a lifetime of domestic drudgery when they could be pursuing self-fulfilling careers and securing their own financial independence—an argument framed in terms of our proneness to self-gratifying individualism. Shame on us for denigrating our women!

Nor does anyone like a baby killer, and our enemies know full well that openly encouraging us to commit infanticide is tantamount to political suicide. Instead, this horrific proposition is couched in terms of freedom of choice—another appeal to our individualist proclivities. For is not denial of one’s freedom of choice the hallmark of the tyrant, the fascist, the Nazi? And who of us wishes to be labeled as such?

Speaking of babies, it is each child’s birthright that they be raised amongst their own people and in their own culture, thereby being allowed to fully experience the history, culture, and genetic experience of their folk. This is the way every morally and intellectually healthy person looks at it. The elites that dominate the media and intellectual discourse are loathe to challenge on those grounds. But they are smart enough to know that ethnic preservation — the key domino standing in their way of global conquest — begins in the family. So knowing the altruistic nature of our people and their relative lack of ethnocentrism, we are encouraged to adopt babies of color, knowing that those who do so will be regarded as making the ultimate personal sacrifice to the posterity of their family by allowing a little child that no one else wants to enjoy the tender care of a father and mother. No baby haters here. What sacrifice! What selflessness! What love! Indeed, such parents are not only venerated with the greatest of social approval, but they are held up as the very antitheses to that hallmark of the most despised of pariahs — the racist.

Ah, racism! By any other name, it is the flower of civilization. It is Mother Nature’s only line of defense for preservation of one’s own kind. It is the purest form of patriotism. It is the only guarantee for diversity, for without racism, diversity is doomed — something our elites are well aware of. Indeed, the blessing of knowing who and what you are is reserved exclusively for the racist. But, racism leads to ethnic preservation, and that is the one thing that can gore the ox of the global Power Elite. So, they must put a stop to it, and once again, seeing that racism is based on cosmic truth and therefore attractive to our folk, the task of our elites is to make good into evil, to make the racist the most pilloried of all people, an anathema beyond reproach. And, while much has been written on just how this is done (primarily via the media and the federal/public school system) the one really important feature of their strategy has been overlooked: the attack has not an intellectual foundation, but rather a spiritual one; i.e. the Enemy ignores the unassailable goodness of having a racial identity and pursuing racial interests, and instead simply does whatever he has to do to make us feel bad about it.

Let’s not forget another old favorite, equality. Are we really paying attention to this word? Do we really want equality for ourselves or anyone else? Because of our altruistic, honest nature, we really believe other races want equality. Yet the truth is they don’t want equality. They want us dead. But we just don’t get it. Because of our unfortunately inborn racial characteristic to adhere to lofty principles, we seem to think the objective is equal opportunity, or equality under the law. But that’s not what our elites are after. They really want (except for themselves) equality, period. They want worker bees, the impossible dream of a people that are equal in ability, equal in general appearance, equal in genetic disposition, equal in sexual drive, equal in work ethic, equal in skin color, equal in desires, equal in intelligence, and equal in ambition. In other words, he wants his herd animal. The UN Brown Man, a reasonably intelligent and pleasantly obedient consumer who is completely housebroken and devoid of dangerously creative thought.

Then there is the great taboo, the epitome of social immorality — discrimination. In happier times, discrimination simply meant using good judgment. Discrimination is the prerequisite for freedom of choice. Free people use their God given brains to learn from experience and make decisions accordingly. It is a healthy, natural and Godly instinct that tells us to avoid certain types of people in the future if our experiences with those people have a negative impact — for whatever reason — on our lives or those of our children. This is the prerogative of all free people, and it is called discrimination. In Nature, it is crucial to survival. But our elites, desiring to enslave us, have portrayed this Godly attribute as an evil thing, so much so that the only thing weak sheep fear more than being labeled racist is being accused of discrimination. We are no longer even allowed to think about why discrimination may be wrong — discrimination is just wrong, period, end of discussion. This is no surprise, for in a free republic, children are taught how to think, but in a democracy (capitalistic or communistic), they are taught what to think.

Another way in which were are led to think that good is evil and evil is good is through word play. For example, the natural pairing of humans — male and female — is termed traditional with all the negative connotations that that word carries. The trick here is to make heterosexuality appear somehow old-fashioned and therefore subject to reassessment. Such thinking is tantamount to a declaration of war against Nature Herself, for the precious recipe for higher life that can only come from the intimate male/female union is no more ‘traditional’ than the law of gravity. On the other hand, it is well known that homosexuals are prone to a variety of self-destructive behaviors, including higher rates of alcoholism and drug abuse. Yet our enemies routinely teach that homosexuals are, by their very nature, sensitive, intelligent, and misunderstood variants of humanity. This is not to deny that there are strong biological influences on homosexuality. The point is that homosexuality should not have a privileged place at the center of our culture.

We are not a stupid people, yet we are bewilderingly vulnerable to the word play that emanates from our elite media and universities. Again this is because of our altruistic nature and predisposition to guilt. And so we come to the concept of ‘minorities’. Now, over 90% of the earth’s population is non-White (see the National Policy Institute’s “Global White Population to Plummet”), yet we are told they are a ‘minority’. Slightly over half of the world’s adult population is women, and again, we are told they are a ‘minority’. And the reason we accept this rubbish is because of our altruism or the ‘wounded dove syndrome’ as some call it. There is something in the soul of White people that makes them susceptible to appeals to moral virtue. It is a noble trait, but one that is leading us to our destruction.

Then there is the challenge for tolerance. Now, tolerance simply means enduring something unpleasant. In the long run, tolerance is unnatural. Many people have acquired a tolerance for alcohol — is that a good thing? Yet we are now taught that we should tolerate all sorts of evil people and repulsive lifestyles. Ignore what your grandparents taught you, ignore your little inner voice, ignore the warning bells going off in your soul, ignore Nature, indeed ignore God and replace the healthy freedom of how to think with its mandate of what to think.

White people do not like to think of themselves, or to be thought of, as advocates of what is unnatural, let alone what is wrong or even evil. One of the hallmarks of evil is that it is founded on lies — no truth can issue from it. And so we see that our elites have twisted the meanings of all words to their polar opposite: diversity, gay, tolerance, racism, discrimination, traditional, tolerance — had they attempted to twist these concepts through honest intellectual discourse, they would have encountered iron resistance. But, by making it a moral issue, we fall without firing a shot. We really have no choice, because that is how we are made.

We begin to see a pattern here. These examples may appear simplistic, even childish. But the chilling fact is that they work — quite successfully and consistently I might add — because they dovetail with the White man’s psyche that subconsciously responds to a sense of fairness, a willingness to give people a second chance, a desire to keep one’s good reputation, and helping the less fortunate. The White man, because of the way he is made, is helpless to resist. Our intellectual and media elites know that in order to succeed their attack on us must be a spiritual attack phrased in terms of high moral principle, rather than a purely intellectual attack — that we cannot be controlled through our minds until we are controlled through our hearts.

More than anything else, our future is determined by how we see ourselves. So, to control the future of us as a people, it is only necessary to control how we view ourselves. It follows then that to destroy a people one only needs to get them to feel bad about themselves. There are two weapons used to accomplish this, and they work flawlessly: shame and guilt.

Having studied us closely, the approach our enemies have taken with us is not surprising. For they know that if it’s wrong, we don’t want to do it, and if it is good, we want to do it. Thus it makes sense why they have twisted such noble virtues as discrimination to being a bad thing, and White self-hatred to being a good thing. He has made the things that ensure our destruction into moral issue, cleverly twisting all evil to appear good, and all good to appear evil, knowing that once this is done, we will embrace evil thinking it is good, for such is our inner nature and we are virtually incapable of responding any other way.

The Solution

There are, as of today, still a substantial amount of White people who are of pure blood; i.e. — White on the outside. But that is doing us no good, because very few of us are White on the inside. I am talking about moral purity. Our elites understand this very well, and that’s why they first concentrated on corrupting us with entertainment, pornography and sexual degeneracy (their favorites), destruction of the marriage as an institution, and radical feminism with the resultant destruction of the family unit. This all had to be done before they could proceed to making us lose our racial identity entirely.

The difference between the White people in depression-era America or National Socialist Germany and contemporary Whites is character. The difference between our great-grandfathers and contemporary Whites is character. And, the reason why the pro-White advocacy movement can’t get its act together and has been an abject failure can be summed up in one word: character. Character — moral purity and righteousness — is the White man’s antidote to the Enemy. It is our silver bullet, and it is the only one available. For us to survive we need only to be White on the inside — the outside cannot be deracinated if the inside remains White. Remember, England in particular and the White world in general became strongest during the time of Queen Victoria — at a time when those old fashioned, prudish, wonderful Victorian values dominated.

Unless the character issue is squarely faced, even if 40 million Whites were to pack their bags, move to the Pacific Northwest, and initiate a secessionist movement, it would do us no good. As proof of that assertion I will submit for consideration the fact that there was a time not too long ago when America was over 90% White, and much of Europe nearly 100% so, yet it did us absolutely no good because the character issue was ignored.

Some maintain the White advocacy movement needs to be formed from the bottom up — a grassroots movement if you will. Others hold that it must be from the top down. There are good arguments for both, and there is recognition, to varying degrees, that both are necessary, but this time it is different. The movement must be from the inside out. That is how we got in the mess we are in — not by being attacked from the top down or the bottom up, but from the outside in. Having been involved in advocating the interests of our folk for over 30 years, I can readily attest, as can other comrade kinsmen, that the most salient features of our abject failure have been a lack of money, a lack of women, and an abundance of single men with serious character defects, with the first two problems simply being a result of the last.

For us and us alone moral purity is what awakens wisdom, keen intellect and courage. Wisdom to know virtue must be in word, thought and deed, a keen intellect to figure out how to live virtuously with minimal and acceptable risk of losing one’s livelihood, and courage to take that risk, acknowledging there is no guarantee of success. For if we maintain the moral high ground (a delightfully easy proposition since we live in a society that, for starters, openly and proudly prefers the promotion of homosexuality over the lives of unborn babies — to the point that it vigorously gives legal protection to the former while legally permitting the savage murder of the latter) then racial preservation will take care of itself!

It must be remembered that even a certain unpopular German Chancellor of the 20^th century won the hearts of the people not through an appeal for racial preservation, but rather through upholding righteousness — extolling the family unit, healthy living, sound financial practices, solid education, care for the environment and the sanctity of the family farm, and opposing pornography, homosexuality, animal cruelty, usurious business practices, and exploitation of the common laborer.

It would have been far more productive to have spent the last sixty years exposing the role of our intellectual and media elites in creating our contemporary culture of critique — including the decisive role of Jews in shaping and promoting these transformations. This new elite has vigorously promoted the ‘feminist’ movement, the pornography industry, the abortion industry and the homosexual agenda. We would have had better results if we had exposed the contributions of this new elite in destroying the family unit, rather than investing in the ineffectual, spastic efforts that have ranged from ‘fighting communism’ to slapstick comedy ‘White power’ movements.

Again, the way to win our people is not winning their minds, but winning their hearts. Our people, that is. The eternal truth of race is that races are not equal, rather they are delightfully different. Now, if I were an Oriental, acting for the interests of my fellow racial kinsmen, I might well advocate an intellectual rather than spiritual strategy. Of late I have been reading Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book. Some of it is enlightening, and some of it is very dry, but the most obvious feature is that it is decidedly foreign. That is to say, it does not strike a chord in my soul as do the writings of my favorite European statesmen. The reason for this is that Mao’s writings proceed from an intellectual, rather than a spiritual premise. In other words, the Little Red Book is comprised of words written by an Oriental for Orientals, and the words serve very well indeed as revolutionary inspiration — for Orientals. As the aforementioned 20th-century German Chancellor said, “The inner nature of peoples always determines the way in which outward influences will have an effect. What leads one to starvation will train others for hard work.”

America — the Great Satan

Had the new elite made striving for high moral virtues a foundation stone of his assault on the White world, his victory would have been assured. But he hasn’t and he can’t — there is no good in him nor has goodness proceeded from him at any point in his history. Being what he is, he has chosen to call good evil and evil good. In the process — if we but have eyes to see and ears to hear — he has damned near given us the keys to the kingdom. He has given us the moral high ground.

Our folk are predisposed to guilt. More than anything else, we want to be on the side of moral righteousness. We just do not feel right inside unless we have full justification for our actions — that we bear the mark of God’s approval; indeed, that God is on our side. For non-religious Whites, there is a similar deep need to feel morally upright but without the spiritual overtones. This is the on/off switch of the Aryan soul. Nothing happens by accident, and there is a reason why our people, more than any other race, embraced Christianity as a set of moral imperatives. Yes, part of it is due to our predisposition to guilt. But there is a power in Christianity that causes good Christians to be deeply disturbed at the baleful events unfolding before their eyes, no less because being the self-proclaimed custodians of moral and spiritual values in the West, it is happening on their watch.

In my line of work I do a fair amount of public speaking to governing boards of various localities. These meetings are almost always opened with a salute to the federal flag (I stopped calling it the American flag some time ago) and occasionally even an invocation (you can still get away with that in some of the more rural parts of the Pacific Northwest). About two years ago I ceased ‘taking the pledge’ at these meetings. Wishing to be respectful, I do stand, but I do not put my hand over my heart. Nor do I tell lies about a republic that is really a democracy, about one nation that is really a conglomerate of nations, about being under God which simply won’t pass the smell test by any stretch of the imagination; nor is there liberty and justice for all.

Often I am confronted by board members or even general members of the audience after these meetings. They are angry, as should be expected. I give them a warm smile, and reply that I would be angry too if the country were still as the pledge described. But, both they and I know this is not so. I explain to them that while I do not mind lying to my enemies, I will not lie to my friends, and most certainly I will not lie to God.

At this point I have them, and I go on. I point out that in righteous societies of the past, sexual perverts were executed and unborn children were protected, but in this country federal law protects the former and gives its blessing to the savage murder of the latter. Why should any person of good moral character pledge his or her loyalty to a system that protects the wicked and slays the innocent? Why should God-fearing people pledge their loyalty to a government that allows a burgeoning pornography industry to go unchecked so it can destroy marriages, that encourages ‘feminism’ and the resultant destruction of the family unit, that funds and encourages sexual impropriety and perversion in the same public school system that vigorously excludes Christian influence, that derides its European heritage and turns its back on the very ethnic group that founded it, that encourages every form of materialism and crass consumerism even to the extent of shipping good jobs overseas and giving what jobs are left behind to alien invaders that cross a border it refuses to seal, that permits the sexual torture of its prisoners, that has a penchant for picking on little countries such as Iraq, Grenada, Serbia, or Afghanistan, that cradles a pop culture and entertainment industry that idolizes entertainers and sports figures with filthy morals, that encourages a better diet for pets than children, that abdicates its wealth to alien interests and subjugates its foreign policies to those same interests, that seeks to destroy the founding culture through multiculturalism, that seeks to genetically alter its founding ethnic group through the encouragement of miscegenation, whose leaders are all attorneys, and whose chief product is trash — trashing the environment, trashing healthy babies, trashing the family unit, trashing music, trashing culture, trashing education, trashing health, trashing morals, trashing marriage, trashing values, trashing its founding race, trashing love, and trashing God.

A society that makes Sodom and Gomorrah appear righteous by comparison, and that had better hope God is not a just God or else He owes those two cities of antiquity and iniquity one hell of an apology. Nay, it is not a nation but rather a beast, a fount of evil, an utterly corrupt and unspeakably malevolent abomination before the eyes of God and all right-thinking Whites.

Speaking these words to my people, people who otherwise are not racially conscious and are incensed at my unwillingness to say the pledge of allegiance, I have discovered an amazing thing: they are immediately disarmed and find themselves, perhaps for the first time, on the moral defensive. Many, indeed most, quickly grasp the new moral high ground, seeing the destruction created by our alien elite through new eyes for the first time. For our people are good people, and they will embrace goodness — including a love for their own ethnos — as quickly as they denied it in years prior, for such is our inner nature and we are virtually incapable of responding any other way.

There is a very big caveat here, which is that in revolutionary politics it is very bad business to go contrary to tradition. People cherish traditions, even dead ones. Just look at the birthdays of all the dead people we celebrate — Washington, Lincoln, etc… It is the same with America. The America we knew and loved is dead. But people still cherish it, which means you do not attack the Constitution, veteran’s organizations, past greatness, patriotic songs, national holidays, dead heroes, misguided wars, etc. What is fair game, and what we can attack, is the federal government — federally supported abortion, federally supported legal and illegal immigration, federally supported race-mixing, federally supported homosexuality, federal support for Israel, federal poisoning of our children through federal (public) schools, and if the circumstances are correct — even the federal flag. Again, if we attack the U.S. in its American context, we will alienate our kinsmen and be counterproductive. Always denounce the Great Satan as embodied in the federal government, and you will be amazed at the support and respect you will receive, including a generous portion from some of the most unlikely quarters.

Were such a revitalization of our folk simply to get us back on the straight and narrow path of knowing the difference between good and evil and choosing the former over the latter, we would have accomplished much in rebuilding the character of White people. But it will even take us one step further — it will serve to create the desire for a homeland and concomitantly sow the seeds for secession.

A White Homeland — Our Safe Haven from Evil

Moral purity and strength, without which our survival is doomed, is yet a prerequisite to our ultimate survival. In order to survive, all living organisms must secure the existence of their kind and a future for their offspring. In other words, they must have a safe and adequate habitat. This is an inviolable law of Nature. For us, this means a homeland. And the truth we must come to grips with here is that, seeing there are no lands left for colonization on this planet, our homeland can only come about through an act of secession from an existing power. We have no alternative. We are not exempt from Nature’s laws.

In Nature, all conflict is ultimately resolved through violence. One would not be too far off the mark to simply say that violence solves everything. Yet in speaking of secession, violence is a topic best left to private discussion for two reasons. First, certain ears may get the impression that violent overthrow of the government is being advocated, and as we all know, that’s against the law. Secondly, a lot of good people simply do not have it in their spiritual makeup to come to grips with the reality of violence. Personally, I have found the best way to address this aspect of secession when asked how we are to go about it is to simply reply that we should follow the example of the Founding Fathers. That says it all, says enough, and yet says nothing should one’s feet be held to the fire.

Regardless, I am for the record not speaking of revolution, but rather secession. There is an immeasurable benefit accruing to secession that is not offered through revolution. Simply put, secession can be prosecuted as a colonial dispute whereby the enemy views the conclusion of conflict not as defeat and resultant loss of power, but rather as a matter of concession to economic expediency. Furthermore, the enemy can afford the rationalization that such a concession is only temporary in nature, thereby saving considerable face and placating its more aggressive elements.

Our homeland will need to be located where we have a generous coastline that will allow for shipment of vital raw materials from sympathetic nations (Russia comes to mind), land and climate that allows for generous agricultural pursuits yet is natural to our genetic makeup (i.e. — the semi-tropics aren’t for us), large enough to obviate saturation attacks yet small enough so that by bordering at least two nations nuclear attack is discouraged by one or the other, and far enough from the seats of enemy power so as not to represent a direct threat. A homeland where little boys can ride their bikes down to the creek to hunt for frogs and catch fish without fear of savage pedophiles, and where girls can grow into womanhood without ever hearing the word lesbian. Where will this homeland be? Your first guess is probably the right one.

We will have our homeland. We won’t force anyone to join us. Those of our kin who wish to stay behind are free to joyously wallow in their multicultural, interracial, and bisexual American cesspool. We will have our nation based on God’s laws, and those who wish to remain behind will have their consumer trading bloc based on man’s laws, free to engage to their evil heart’s delight in killing their unborn, perverting their children, gorging on junk food, lusting in pornography, buying their endless plastic trinkets, and of course supporting Israel regardless of other affected nations in the Middle East — nations that in happier times offered the hand of friendship to America. In short, exercising their hedonistic guarantee to a life of entertainment, liberty to go to hell any way they choose, and the pursuit of degenerate happiness.

We need to start pulling together — physically as well as spiritually. Much of the physical work will involve helping many of our folk, especially young families, physically relocate to the Homeland. Not all of us should relocate, nor is it possible or even desirable that all of us do. For many of us it is simply not a viable option, and there are many of us who can serve our folk better where they are now.

A timely article by Alex Kurtagic appeared recently in TOO: “Learning from the Right.” In it he points out that in learning from our mistakes we need to avoid a single monolithic organization dedicated to serving our needs. Rather, we need many, many small groups covering all facets of life — homeschooling, personal finances, cultural events and organizations, reenactment societies, scholarship foundations, political organizations, benevolent societies, and so on.

We need to gear much of our energies to young families. Many benefits accrue from this. Two come readily to mind: All else being held equal, we get a lot more years out of young people than old ones. Secondly, guess where babies come from?

Two things some of our folk are currently working on are geared towards bringing young families into the Homeland. First, a website is being constructed that will be focused on assisting young people in the relocation process, including guidance on how to become successfully self-employed.

Secondly, a mortgage company is being developed that will be of symbiotic benefit to all involved. Young people moving into the Homeland who do demonstrate successful self-employment skills will be eligible for a favorably structured financing package to allow them a home of their own, in the country, on a minimum of five acres where children can be raised in a safe and wholesome environment. Investors, on the other hand, will be holders of fully secured first trust deeds with a decent rate of return, along with income structured favorably for tax purposes (primarily interest and long-term capital gains). In short, investors will be permitted a secure and profitable investment while knowing they are serving the interests of their folk in the process — something that traditional Wall Street cannot compete with. For years one of the hallmarks of our movement has been financial ineptitude. That’s going to change.

Conclusion

Again, our opponents have damned near given us the keys to the kingdom. This is not unexpected; time and again down through history they have exhibited a reoccurring weakness — not knowing when to stop. The brass ring of power is not enough — they must seek for even greater dominion over their subjects, and this has always been their undoing. The time is ripe for action.

To my Christian kinsmen, I beseech you to rise up. Shall this be your finest hour, or shall it be said you turned your back on duty when God called? Regain the Godly courage of your Christian forefathers and throw down the deceptive, cowardly doctrine to love the sinner and not the sin. Shall you be destined to wear your crown, or shall you go where all dead things go, where the blood of the fifty million aborted children will remain on your heads forever?

We got where we are by way of the path of misplaced altruism, thinking our goodness superior to God’s goodness. This was the path of civil rights (integration and resultant miscegenation), freedom of dress (immodesty), liberation from traditional music (degenerative alien rhythms), freedom of speech (pornography), women’s liberation (destruction of the family unit and infanticide), and sexual liberation (shameless adultery, then homosexuality, and finally — with NAMBLA’s efforts and assistance from our new elite I’d give it a dozen years or so — pedophilia). This was the path to freedom? It is the path of destruction and death for our White race.

The only way back is back the way we came, embracing sexual purity, reestablishing the sanctity of the traditional family unit, intolerance for filth in print or picture, exaltation of the music of our forebears, modesty in dress, and establishing, by whatever means God makes available a homeland of our own. This is the path to Nature. It is the path of upward struggle, and in the end, a wonderful existence for our people and a wholesome, safe future for our children.

Farnham O’Reilly (email him)  is the pen name of a businessman, farmer and investor. A family man, his home is in the Pacific Northwest.

What Would It Take?- Whites are willfully denying the clear and present danger we face

What Would It Take?

Edmund Connelly

July 15, 2010

I believe Whites are willfully denying the clear and present danger we face. Whether it is through late or broken marriages, lackluster efforts at having replacement-level families, or feeble efforts at keeping the governing elite from importing a new (non-White) people, demographically, White Americans are in free fall. About this, the numbers speak clearly; there is no ambiguity. 

The National Policy Institute, for one, has an excellent set of free publications one can (and should) order. Here’s one of their presentations showing how Whites are faring demographically in the Great Darwinian Race for Survival:

NPI: Global White Population to Plummet to less than 10% by 2060

A short video of this is available at YouTube.

The message of this decline is everywhere.  For instance, The Atlantic Monthly, that most American of magazines, founded in Boston in 1857 and featuring such luminaries as Harriet Beecher Stowe, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., John Greenleaf Whittier and James Russell Lowell, was once as White as they come. Now they revel in the dispossession of White men.

Readers no doubt saw the collectors’ cover photo of President-Elect Barack Obama in the Jan-Feb, 2009 issue of the magazine last year:

The cover story read: “The End of White America?” I suppose we exiting Whites should be grateful for the softening question mark attached to the title, though of course the essay itself reads as a elegy for White America.

Hua Hsu

Written by one Hua Hsu, an instructor at Vassar, it aptly points to the 1993 Michael Douglas film Falling Down. There Douglas “plays Bill Foster, a downsized defense worker with a buzz cut and a pocket protector who rampages through a Los Angeles overrun by greedy Korean shop-owners and Hispanic gangsters, railing against he eclipse of the America the used to know.”

In the dénouement, this White character faces a policeman, gun drawn, on the Santa Monica Pier. To his great astonishment, just before he is gunned down and falls into the sea, he learns that this is a new America. Shocked, he stammers, “I’m the bad guy?” And then he’s gone.

Fittingly, the story that follows Hsu’s account of America is one on First Lady Michelle Obama by Ta-Nehisi Coates (I’ll let readers ponder the race and gender of writer Coates). Accompanying it is a two-page photo of Mrs. Obama dancing with her husband.

Further, it’s hard to escape the impression that editors at The Atlantic aren’t begging advertisers to create ads that minimize the exposure of White men. Microsoft, for instance, ran a series in the magazine that imagined a future in which non-Whites and women would replace the White men who built America and sent rockets out into space. Here’s a sample:

Or my favorite, Lockheed Martin’s vision of America’s future:

Recently, after teaching an American culture class where I yet again illustrated the scripted decline of White men because — according to the Hollywood films in question — they were evil, I began to wonder if I had laid it on a bit too thick. Then I went down to the university mailroom and picked up my mail. In it was the July/Aug 2010 Atlantic.  Here’s the cover:

Yes, below the title “The End of Men,” the subtitle reads “How Women are Taking Control — Of Everything,” by Hanna Rosin.

The story, by the Jewish Rosin (“I’m Jewish, and I was born in Israel, and my whole family is Israeli“), begins:

Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history. Most managers are now women too. And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same. For years, women’s progress has been cast as a struggle for equality. But what if equality isn’t the end point? What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women? A report on the unprecedented role reversal now under way — and its vast cultural consequences.

The two-page illustration accompanying it, with its outsized image of the Asian woman in blue, reminded yet again of Kevin MacDonald’s observation: “The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite.” Indeed.

Interspersed throughout the article are snarky pictures showing the petulant beings American men have become due to their loss of status.  As one enlarged Rosin quote reads, “Dozens of college women I interviewed assumed that they very well might be the ones working while their husbands stayed home. “Guys,” one senior remarked to me, “are the new ball and chain.”

Contributor Pamela Paul even gets a little room to ask “Are Fathers Necessary?” A paternal contribution may not be as essential as we think.”

(By the way, last summer The Atlantic published the sizzling anti-male essay

Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off :

THE AUTHOR IS ENDING HER MARRIAGE. ISN’T IT TIME YOU DID THE SAME?

To work, to parent, to housekeep, to be the ones who schedule “date night,” only to be reprimanded in the home by male kitchen bitches, and then, in the bedroom, to be ignored—it’s a bum deal.

Male kitchen bitches.  Ouch.  Then again, any male that so bought into the Alan Alda-inspired demasculinization of the seventies probably deserves a few bad names thrown his way.)

In any case, this summer’s issue is a cultural treasure trove of visual evidence that the White race in America is being shown the door. Upon opening the cover — which, recall, asserts the End of Men — we are greeted with this two-page ad from Shell Oil:

Turn the page and there’s another two-page ad for Altria Group illustrating their support for educational programs aimed at “empowering” students to stay in school and picturing a racially diverse student population. Immediately following this is an ad for Dow Chemical featuring a Black woman stating that she is the “human element” in the “duty to put healthy, abundant food on the world’s table.”

Back in the days when Blacks had no power in America, we never saw them in ads either. What does it say, then, that we don’t see a White man’s face until page 8? (It’s the Pope and the caption reads: “Is the Catholic Church finished?”)

The issue closes on the inside back cover with Shell stepping up to the plate again. Their focus: Japan.  (Opposite it, there’s a column by the sort of person who functions as a stand-in for a “White male”: Jeffrey Goldberg. The implicit message: Don’t worry; with writers like Rosin and Goldberg, it’s obvious that we Whites still run the show.)

Readers won’t be getting a new issue of The Atlantic until September, so make this thick one last. And be sure to interact on the Internet with Hanna Rosin, her husband David Plotz and their three children.

As for me, I am no Hanna Rosin fan.  Her December 2009 cover story most certainly rubbed me the wrong way.  After a year of mind-boggling economic swindles and bailouts that have used up a significant portion of the universe’s zeroes, who gets blamed? Christians. Now that’s why Jews are so often credited with chutzpah.

Recall that Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi wrote in his essay The Great American Bubble Machine that

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

I just didn’t get the impression he was appealing to a stereotype about Christians. I did an article on the Jewish nature of massive financial swindles over the years in Take the Money and Run. Of course Israeli Rosin was just doing her part in the old Jewish game of blaming the victim. Kevin MacDonald explained this tactic in a recent blog when he observed, “In contemporary human societies, a large part of group competition becomes intellectual warfare over the construction of culture.” I knew deflecting the blame from Jews was on the Sanhedrin “to do” list when I watched the remake of The Taking of Pelham 123.

In the new version, Travolta’s character is a New York ethnic Catholic very interested in guilt. He was also a high-rolling Wall Streeter who skimmed millions of dollars until he was caught and sent to prison. Between then and now, he has also gone mostly insane, though he’s still canny enough to cook up a scheme to make a killing on stocks when he induces panic in the city with his subway hijacking. Now go back and read James Stewart’s excellent account of the savings and loan swindles of the Reagan ‘80s, Den of Thieves. The thieves were ethnic New Yorkers alright, but they sure weren’t Catholic. Sadly, this concerted media effort to blame others will likely work.

Another area in which White displacement advances is in government favoritism shown toward non-Whites. This was highlighted last year during the nominating process of Sonia Sotomayor for a position on the Supreme Court. She had famously ruled against White firemen, but still had no trouble become a Justice. Quoting TOO editor Kevin MacDonald again, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor “is yet another marker in the march toward the dispossession of Whites in America.” (She’ll likely soon be joined by another woman — this one Jewish — when  Elena Kagan gets appointed this summer.)

Speaking of women, it was Michelle Malkin who just stood up to defend Whites against government neglect. As she wrote,

This week, Justice Department whistleblower J. Christian Adams came forward with damning public testimony about how Obama officials believe “civil rights law should not be enforced in a race-neutral manner, and should never be enforced against blacks or other national minorities.”

I guess we Whites can use all the help we can get, though. Turning again to MacDonald, we have his commentary on the English translation of a chapter from Solzhenitsyn’s book 200 Years Together, which is about Russians and Jews. MacDonald has often written about the murderous hostility of Jews toward Russians, millions of whom were murdered. He also draws parallels to the situation for Whites in America today. Reporting on how Jews displaced Gentiles in Russia, he concludes that

This is a speeded up version of what is happening via affirmative action in America and other Western societies now. There is discrimination against higher IQ Whites in favor of lower-IQ groups. Jews, however, continue to be overrepresented in elite academic institutions on the basis of IQ, so they are not suffering a similar level of discrimination.

I’ve written about this, too. Recall my graph on the student makeup at Harvard:

To put a human face on such dispossession, let me share a letter from a reader:

Your observation that Jews have constructed walls to protect their fields such as government and academia is correct. They have also erected barriers to defend other fields which they claim to be their own. One of these is medicine. You would be surprised at the number of Jews running selection committees and medical education departments in hospitals and universities. There they have developed control of who may enter residencies and how residents are evaluated. The acceptance of white males into medical education at this level has sunk to a low. Preferred are Jews, Asians, Mexicans and females.

Another way in which they enforce a leadership role is by the assignment of labor in residency programs, where Jewish chief residents assign work  so as to favor their own kind and put white males at a disadvantage. Jewish physicians also seem to prefer to run organizations and to control the distribution of funds.

Everything in this article written thus far describes the non-violent dispossession of Whites, but there remains the possibility of the process speeding up through mass slaughter. MacDonald is explicit in comparing the heavily Jewish Bolshevik takeover of Russia to the situation here today: “Again, the analogy is striking. As emphasized repeatedly on TOO, Whites can expect to be increasingly victimized by non-Whites with historical grudges as they sink to minority status and lose political power.”

I don’t need to repeat myself because I’ve written about the potential for such a bloody future for White Americans before. Instead, I’ll try to appeal to readers’ visual sensibilities. Below is a chess set made by Italian Jewish glassblower Gianni Toso. In 1969 he created a stunning set called “Jews vs. Catholics.”

I strongly suspect most Christians are ignorant of the fact that so many Jews still think in these terms. They’ll soon learn, however.

Let me leave readers by revisiting the issue of The Atlantic I addressed above. The writer I noted, Ta-Nehisi Coates, is an African American male. I found out because he has a three-page article in this summer’s issue. There he gives a short biography, noting that as one of seven children, he was less than a scholastic standout. “My roller-coaster ride through the Baltimore-area schools included two suspensions, two expulsions, and an arrest by school police. In 11th grade . . . I was kicked out of the local magnet school.” Still, he (somehow) made it into college, where he proceeded to do little work and failed to graduate. In an America that gave us Obama, however, that’s not always a hindrance.

In 2005 TIME magazine saw fit to hire him as a journalist, and now he has a solid career going. “I had an office 23 floors in the air, in Midtown Manhattan. I used to look down on Sixth Avenue and wonder about the distance between my scholastic and professional lives. How could I utterly fail in practice and then succeed in the game?”  Gosh, I wonder.

Perhaps it has something to do with the program of removing White men from the newsroom (and fire stations and NASA offices and the Oval Office, etc.)  and replacing them with non-Whites who will never threaten those with real power in America today: Jews.

What would it take to make this dispossession process more clear to people? Until they recognize what is happening, there is no hope of confronting it. The loss of the White race would be a true blow to humanity.

How the so-called “Civil Rights” Movement in America has led to loss of the most important civil right of all: life.

The racial murder and rape of White women in America

Lauren Burk, a freshman at Auburn University and Eva Carson of UNC. Also pictured are their accused murderers.

The racial murder and rape of White women in America

How the so-called “Civil Rights” Movement in America has led to loss of the most important civil right of all: life.

The almost simultaneous murders of White co-eds at two different, prominent universities, Auburn and University of North Carolina, should bring attention to an epidemic of brutal African-American crimes against White women in the United States.

The murder of Eve Carson, Student Body President of UNC has shocked her campus and its surrounding community to its core. Ms. Carson was found murdered in the middle of an intersection just outside downtown Chapel Hill on Wednesday, March 5th. Her body … which had two gunshot wounds, including one to the head, laid just a mile away from her SUV, which was left abandoned. Bank ATM video revealed that the murderer-carjacker, an African American, apparently attempted to get cash from Carson’s stolen ATM card shortly after the crime.

In a similar recent incident, police arrested another African American attacker, Courtney L. Lockhart, 23, for the grisly murder and attempted rape of Auburn University freshman co-ed, Lauren Burk, on March 4. Courtney was arrested on March 7 after having brutally pistol-whipped the face of another White victim, 72-year-old Marjorie Llewellyn of Newnan, Alabama and briefly kidnapping her at gunpoint during an armed robbery and attempted carjacking earlier in the day.

The recent murders of two White coeds at major universities by Black predators underscore a racial reality that the mass media in America hides from the public: the tens of millions of White victims of Black criminality in America. Over the past four decades since the “civil rights” movement, crime figures show that millions of crimes have been committed by Blacks and other non-White predators against White people. The crimes include robbery, assault, rape and murder.

The racial component of crime in America has been largely ignored. It took a major newspaper outside of America to address the shocking epidemic Black crime in America. ( See The Race War of Black Against White by Paul Sheehan from the Sydney Morning Herald)

http://www.davidduke.com/race-information-library/the-race-war-of-black-against-white_75.html

Black crime rates against White people are many times greater than White crimes against Blacks. You wouldn’t know it by reading or listening to America’s mass media. Saturation national and international news coverage is given to the very few White cross-race crimes against Blacks such as the James Byrd dragging case in Texas, as well as the media-hyped Tawana Brawley case in New Jersey and the alleged rape of a Black stripper by White lacrosse team members at Duke University. Both of those latter cases, after months of front-page, sensationalized coverage decrying “White racism,” turned out to be complete hoaxes.

There is an incredible disproportionate rate of Black crimes against Whites in contrast to White crimes against Blacks. Per capita Black cross racial crimes of 50 or even 100 percent greater than Whites would be bad enough, but the Black crime rates against Whites are actually many times greater than White on Black crimes. Blacks are an estimated 57 (that is 5,700 percent!) times more likely to commit violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times (13,600 percent!) more likely to commit robbery. (see the color of crime report published by the New Century Foundation – an analysis of crime figures taken from official Justice Department crime reports) http://www.nc-f.org/

Perhaps the most shocking of all the crime data dealing with cross-race crime is the incredible rate of crime by Black males against White women. According to U.S. Justice Department figures over 34,460 White women are sexually assaulted or raped by Black men each year, and most authorities believe that the actual rape figures are at least twice the reported number. In perhaps the most shocking crime figure of all is the number of White rapes against Black women. Statistically, it is 0! Because they have fewer than 10 cases nationally.

According to murder figures released by the Justice Department in 2002, , Black predators are at least 22 times (2,200 percent) more likely to murder White women than the reverse. In regard to gang attacks including the horrible specter of gang rape, the figures are literally off the charts, with at least a 200 times (that’s 20,000 percent!) greater chance of Blacks committing gang assaults and that includes both White men and women victims!

The staggering personal tragedies connected with these huge crime numbers should be a national scandal. Yet, the facts go largely unreported. How many times have the public seen media portrayals of historical or contemporary racial discrimination against Black people. But, the question is, “In the terms of the most important of human rights, how does the discrimination of racially segregated water fountains or neighborhoods or schools compare with the racially born crimes of black slaughter and physical attacks levied against thousands of White people each year?

America has been treated to thousands of media articles for instance about the frontier-style vigilante justice of lynchings, events which have occurred at least since the time of the American Revolution when they began on the Virginia frontier. Lynching got its name from Colonel Charles Lynch of Bedford County. He defended his community against outlaws and against Tories who were treacherously aiding the British. The Lynch organizations not only captured suspicious characters but gave them trials. With the frontier moving west and often with not a single law enforcement officer for hundreds of miles, vigilante committees often hunted down criminals and meted out punishment which was called “lynching.”

Lynching also became prominent again in the face of terrible outrages against innocent women and children during the Black Reconstruction period in the South and was mostly employed there against suspected Black rapists and murderers, but lynching was often practiced against Whites in the South, and quite often against criminal Whites in the North and West.

Of course, everyone today naturally condemns the practice of lynching, as well they should. Mob violence cannot be defended. But, if one wants to characterize lynching as a racial crime because lynchings were more commonly employed against Blacks in the South than against Whites, a few facts must be taken into account. If one considers disproportionate rates of Black lynching in the South, one must also consider the Black disproportionate crime rate.

1) Many scholars who have studied the history of lynching in the United States make it clear that lynching wasn’t simply a racial crime, but one primarily exacted on criminals whether they were Black or White. Consider the fact that even today, Blacks commit more murders than Whites in the United States, and Blacks are many times more likely to commit interracial race crimes such as rape and murder. As pointed out by federal crimes studies, a Black man is 57 times more likely to commit a violent crime against Whites than vice-versa, thousands of times more likely to rape a White women than Whites are likely to rape Black women, and 22 times more likely to murder a White woman than vice versa. There is no reason not to suspect that similar extremely high rates of Black criminality have existed historically. Most of the lynchings up until the War Between the States were against Whites and Significant numbers of Whites in the late 19th and early 20th Century were also lynched. So, considering the rates of crime, historical lynching has always been proportionate to Black crime rates and not one simply based on racist motives.

2) One must also understand that historical lynching was most often applied to those guilty of rape, robbery or murder. Of course, there were cases where innocent men were lynched, but in contrast, the thousands of White women and other White victims of Black crime today are guilty of no crime. Lynching cannot be excused in any way, but most of those men lynched were undoubtedly guilty of vicious and horrible crimes against the innocent, especially against women and children. Those were the kinds of heinous crimes that really drove the extra-legal executions.

The U.S. Senate recently issued an apology for not historically taking a stand against lynching, something that has been condemned because for part of its history Blacks disproportionately suffered from it.

If that is deemed appropriate, why does the U.S. Senate stand mute against the brutal rape of over 34,000 White women per year by Blacks. In just one year the number of White women raped by Black males is 6 times the total number of all lynchings during the entire history of the United States. (Estimated to be about 5,000 including both Whites and Blacks)

If racial disparity is an issue, then the Black rate of murder and rape against White men and women has a far greater racial disparity than that of White and Black lynchings. Remember, according to the U.S. Justice Department official figures, 34,000 White women were sexually assaulted compared to less than ten Black women assaulted by White men.

One should also consider that the victims of lynching were men; only a small number were women (estimates are between 75 and 100 women lynched in the history of the United States), and most of those were lynched for crimes committed along with their male criminal partners. Compare the small number of women who suffered lynching compared to the 34,000 women who suffer from Black rape every year. In addition, 700 innocent White women are murdered each and every year by Blacks. Where is the outrage about this racial crime?

If one wants to talk about moral outrages, the historical lynching of men who were overwhelmingly criminal and guilty of horrendous crimes, is quite minor compared to the mass murder and rape of the innocent going on literally as you read these lines. While you are reading this article another White woman will suffer rape at the hands of a Black man. (One White woman every 9 minutes if you accept the conventional wisdom that less than half of rapes are reported).

Next time someone comes up and tells you about the horrors of Jim Crow and segregation, how it was so terribly awful that African Americans, as well as White Americans lived in their own neighborhoods, went to their own schools, and even drank from their own water fountains, think about that supposed horror compared to horrendous violations of the most important civil right of all, the right to live and not suffer grievous personal assault or even death.

The fact of the matter is that Blacks as well as the Whites of America were a lot safer in the days of “evil segregation” than we are now. When America was a nation living by the values of White heritage, culture, standards and civilization, most Black kids were born legitimate in two parent families, they were not being shot down by each other on the steps of their homes, millions were not enslaved by drugs, half of them were not in prison or in some part of the criminal justice system. In a real sense, for countless millions of African Americans, the most important civil and human rights of all have been lost by the so-called victories of the civil rights movement.

For Whites the change has been just as dramatic. Millions of our people are now victims of Black robbery, rape, and murder. Millions of White boys and girls whose parents can’t afford private or parochial education, suffer in mostly Black public schools filled with sexual and physical intimidation, filthy language and dismal standards, drugs and the violence of the “gangsta rap” culture, a culture that violates the sanctity of womanhood and all of the most basic of human rights.

Millions more of our elderly are practically home prisoners in their own neighborhoods. Let the media and government tell them about the supposed civil rights and blessings of forced integration. Millions more of hardworking, better-qualified White, middle-class people suffer from the racial discrimination of so-called affirmative action. Constant government and media concern about “civil rights” is the greatest con job in history, because so-called civil rights has taken away practically every conceivable civil right of the American people, including the most important one of all, the right to live and the right not to be physically abused, or raped, or robbed or hurt.

Let the government and media drone on about Black “civil rights” to the grieving parents of Eve Carson and Lauren Burk, two bright and beautiful White women who were so full of love and life but who now have lost the most precious civil right of all, the right to life itself.

They were murdered not just by the predators on our streets, but by a media and government establishment who stripped away their right to live a safe and full life. They were murdered by media who have lied to the American people about the joys of multiracialism and multiculturalism. It is a media that constantly tell us the wonderful and loving future we have in America as it is subversively morphed into a mostly non-White nation. It is the same media who have instilled collective White guilt for real or imagined crimes of White history, but have hidden the terrible crimes going on against us, our heritage, freedom and survival, right before our eyes.

Lauren and Eva were murdered by the politicians who sold us out for the bloc votes and for the approval of media that celebrates the coming extinction of our people, faith, heritage and nation. They have also sold their souls and ours to the Jewish money men of American politics who make them pledge their subservience to Israel as a quote, “Jewish State for the Jewish people,” while they would not even dare to invoke the term “White people” except in denigration and apology.

Eva and Lauren no longer have breath in their bodies. To the last moments of their lives they probably never for an instant understood why they lost their lives. They probably never knew that our people were in a desperate struggle for their existence, and they probably never dreamed they could be a casualty in that war.

Eva and Lauren are gone now. They cannot speak to us except by what they left behind. But, they cannot be forgotten. We who are aware of the crisis facing our people will remember them. We will remember them as they were, beautiful expressions of humanity made unique and special by their own efforts and by the imprint of our people’s DNA spiral.

All of us at www.DavidDuke.com are dedicated to the preservation of what they were, and what they are, in us.

For, in the end, the most important civil right of all, is life.

David Duke

Why Was the Understanding of Ethnic Genetic Interests Delayed for 30 Years?

Why Was the Understanding of Ethnic Genetic Interests Delayed for 30 Years?

Ted Sallis

June 17, 2009

The suicide of the West is far more than a figure of speech. All Western societies — and only Western societies — are voluntarily allowing mass immigration of peoples who are not ethnically connected to historical Europe. Not only are they allowing massive non-White immigration, it is being promoted as fulfilling the lofty ethical goal of increasing ethnic diversity rather than any practical goal such as the needs of the labor force.  What this means in the long run is that Europe will cease to be Europe, not only culturally, but also genetically.

There are several ways that one might think about this phenomenon, but certainly a compelling one is to think in terms of Frank Salter’s concept of ethnic genetic interests. EGI is of fundamental importance for ethnic and racial nationalism, and for the preservation of European-derived peoples because it provides a powerful intellectual  counterargument to those on the left who deny the reality of race.

In this article I first summarize the basic idea of EGI (see also here) and then review a Mankind Quarterly article by Dr. Salter which implies that the reasons that EGI was not discovered sooner were mainly obfuscation by the political left.

Salter’s argument is that all people have reproductive interests — ethnic genetic interests — in the continuity of their ethny or race. Human groups have genetic differences because they were isolated from each other for thousands of years. The result is that we share many more genes with people in our ethnic group than people from different ethnic groups.

For example, a grandfather has about 12.5% more genetic overlap with his grandchild than with a person taken at random from his ethnic group; similarly, I have about 12.5% more genetic overlap with a person taken at random from within my ethnic group compared to a randomly chosen person from outside my ethnic group. And of course there is a gradient of genetic similarity among ethnic groups: Swedes are more closely related to Poles than they are to sub-Saharan Africans

The result is that humans have an enormous genetic interest in their ethnic groups. Just as with genealogical kinship where people with larger families have a higher inclusive fitness, this genetic interest becomes enormous because it is tied to the actual number of ethnic group members which, in the modern world, can total in the millions, or, I suppose billions, in the case of the Chinese.

This is an explosive argument because it implies that ethnic competition is rational in a Darwinian sense. That is, it is rational for an ethnic group to retain control over a territory because allowing people from other ethnic groups to immigrate constitutes a genetic loss to those who were already there.

But of course, this is exactly what the cultural left does not want to hear. Mass immigration into Western societies has been a project of the cultural left for many decades now, culminating in the United States in the watershed immigration law of 1965. Other Western societies went in a similar direction around the same time.

Salter’s argument is basic Darwinism quantified. Since the mathematics of natural selection have been well understood at least since the late 1970s, one would think that evolutionists would accept the rationality of ethnic competition. We can imagine Harvard professors testifying before Congress intoning that immigration is a genetic disaster for receiving countries and that allowing mass immigration would be the height of folly. Allowing mass immigration would be entirely analogous to a situation in nature where a population of a territorial species ceased defending its space against invaders. Zoologists would scratch their heads and wonder what caused such pathological behavior — behavior that is akin to suicide or self-mutilation.

Instead, we have Harvard professors like Richard Lewontin and Steven Pinker continuing to question even the biological reality of family ties, much less racial ties.

Yet, until formally stated by Dr. Salter, the fact is that there had been no discussion of EGI in the scientific literature. And even today, there are some who would deny the importance of, or even the existence of (!), EGI. Dr. Salter’s Mankind Quarterly article is an attempt to dissect the reasons for the long and continuing obstruction of the EGI concept.

Salter attempts to answer that “why?” The history of all modern thinking in this area begins with William D. Hamilton, the brilliant population geneticist, and his theory of kin selection. In his 1964 papers Hamilton thought of kin as having genes that were “identical by descent.” For example, you and your brother share about half your genes because you received them directly from your mother and father — that is, the genes you have descended from the same mother and father, so they are identical by descent.

Hamilton’s idea was that because you shared genes identical by descent you would be more likely to help your brother. Famously, from the standpoint of the genes, it really didn’t matter if you had a child or helped your brother have two additional children. It was all the same genetically. Because your brother on average shares half your genes, there would be the same number of genes “identical by descent” in the next generation whether you fathered one child or let your brother do the heavy lifting of fathering two.

Hamilton’s next big breakthrough was when he realized that it didn’t really matter if the genes came from the same parents and were therefore identical by descent. All that mattered was that the genes were identical — period. Instead of identical by descent, it was enough that they were “identical by state” — that they were in fact the same genes. This implies that ethnic groups really are like extended families. Why? Because if the gene sequences are exactly the same, it really doesn’t matter how the identity was established.

Thus, “identity by state” means that the gene sequences are the same — the “state” of the sequences is the same — even though there is no direct and recent genealogical relationship between the individuals in question. Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones are unrelated, yet they share the same exact gene sequence. Perhaps they share the same gene sequence because they belong to the same ethnic group. Other ethnic groups are much less likely to have the gene sequences that Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones have.

To summarize: Shared genes are shared genes and it does not really matter how and why the genes are shared. And this in turn implies that people have an interest in preserving their entire ethnic group, not just their family, as the original version of kin selection implied.

This evolutionary logic implies that people should not limit themselves to struggling to better themselves within the group (family or ethnic group) but also work to defend the group as a whole in its competition with other groups. In 1979 Henry Harpending made the final step by quantifying how helping your own ethnic group could be adaptive because it would improve the fortunes of the entire group in competition with other groups.

The moral is that it would make biological sense for a person with no biological relatives to devote himself to the good of this ethnic group. In fact, armed with that logic, a White person who sacrificed his life to prevent the 1965 immigration law from being enacted would have behaved in a very biologically adaptive manner. He would have increased his biological fitness dramatically more by helping his race accomplish an immigration cutoff than by having children of his own.

So why didn’t this evolutionary logic take hold among academics and in the popular media? The first “problem” Salter identifies is “disciplinary boundaries,” in which academics are narrowly focused in their one field and they do not look beyond that more broadly. Salter criticizes Cavalli-Sforza:

The question remains as to why Cavalli did not explore the theoretical potential of inclusive fitness theory applied to whole populations after the 1970s. … Based on his best known publications, one would never guess that parents had a genetic interest in their children, let alone in their ethnies. The majority of Cavalli’s research dealt with matters not impinging on altruism, such as the history of human migration. Yet he also discussed social issues, including those contingent on ethnicity and race, from Darwinian perspective…. He denied the genetic reality of these categories, and did not discuss the possible adaptiveness of ethnocentrism.

Salter is being a bit too charitable I think in postulating “disciplinary boundaries” as an explanation here. Isn’t it possible that these scientists did not explore, or recognize, the reality and importance of ethnic kinship simply because the implications of this work were politically unacceptable? After all, it certainly does not fit with the leftist zeitgeist to conclude that ethnic genetic differences are real and these differences make ethnic conflict entirely rational from a Darwinian point of view.

Then there is the issue, popularized by Richard Lewontin, that “there is more variation within groups than between groups; therefore, race does not exist.” More than any other argument, this one by Lewontin had a huge influence. One could almost guarantee that everyone down to the lowliest graduate student would be able to recite it pretty much verbatim.

This argument has been refuted in a number of places, most notably by Dr. A.W.F. Edwards. In addition, Salter shows that within-family genetic variation is roughly three times that of between-family variation; thus, if we were to follow Lewontin’s racial analogy, we would have to conclude that is there no such thing as family!

Given Lewontin’s long association with the political left, it would seem that perhaps politics is more important at this point than “disciplinary boundaries,” and one can consider the ethnic interests of certain scientists as well. Indeed, Lewontin is one of the cast of scoundrels in Chapter 2 of Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique which discusses the role of Jewish Marxist intellectuals in vitiating biological views in the social sciences. As E. O. Wilson wrote of him, “By adopting a narrow criterion of publishable research, Lewontin freed himself to pursue a political agenda unencumbered by science.”

Salter spends much time deconstructing the ideas of Richard Dawkins — the darling of the media when it comes to presenting evolutionary biology to the public. Salter’s piece-by-piece demolition of Dawkins (whose website is labeled “a clear-thinking oasis”[!]) is too comprehensive to be covered in detail here. Salter recounts Dawkins flip-flopping on the question of “identical by descent/identical by state” as well as his confusion over the work of Hamilton and his resistance to Hamilton’s 1971 and 1975 reformulations. Salter reminds us of a typical Dawkins quote in which Dawkins states — against all reason — that kin selection applies only to “immediate close family” and not to those who “happen to be the same color as you” — as if all the genetic differences between ethnies conflate to the single trait of skin color, and as if the differences between family and ethny are somehow mystically essential, and not one merely of degree.

Salter also shows how, despite Dawkins’ obsession in pointing out others’ “misunderstandings of kin selection,” Dawkins himself makes the basic error of confusing helping one’s own ethnic group (which makes excellent sense) with universal altruism (which makes no sense at all). Universal altruism is of course the creed of racial liberals. The reality is that we live in a remarkably diverse human world of competing ethnies, in which gradients of distinctive genetic information do indeed constitute important interests at the group level. This fact cannot be responsibly evaded.

Salter points out that given Dawkins’ high reputation and easy access to the media, his lack of interest in ethnic kinship and his muddled analysis of ethnic genetic interests and group kinship competition have contributed to holding back this field of study.

Salter finishes by discussing what I believe the main factor in the resistance of academia to honest analysis of ethnic kinship: leftist political preferences. Salter recounts the politicization of biology and sociobiology and the harsh criticism directed toward realistic scholars in these fields. He also notes that the concept of ethnic genetic interests does not fit well with the ideas of academic elites in the West: Since the 1960s the left has been ascendant in expressing its values in academic discourse, including mainstream journals.

Ignoring or underplaying ethnic kinship accorded with the political orientation of the Anglo-American academic elite, which led and still leads discourse in evolutionary biology … Highly individualist thinkers as well as those with a universalist vision of society tend to overlook the reality of solidary groups of various kinds, or treat them as inconvenient or irksome obstacles to the ideal society.

And of course, this filtered down to the popular media to become a pillar of the anti-White intellectual left.

I think that Salter could have expanded this section into the preceding parts of his essay, since one can strongly suspect that the alleged “disciplinary boundaries” and “confusions and misinterpretations of Dawkins” possibly have a political basis. Is it merely a coincidence that all of these scholars who, according to Salter, have contributed to holding back the advance of biopolitical analysis, are individuals who, in whatever public comments they’ve made on the subject, fall, generally speaking, into the group of “racial liberals?” These people believe that “race has no real biological validity” and that any expression of White racial consciousness constitutes racism.

Obviously, these are exactly the people who would strongly disagree with the Salter’s EGI thesis and its many implications. It seems quite reasonable then to suppose that the obstruction of EGI has always been primarily motivated by political considerations.

Ted Sallis (email him) writes on scientific issues.

King’s niece defends rally on anniversary of “I Have a Dream” speech

King’s niece defends rally on anniversary of “I Have a Dream” speech

The Beck effect

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• A niece of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is scheduled to speak at a Glenn Beck rally
• The rally is set to take place where the “I Have a Dream” speech was delivered
• Sarah Palin is also expected to speak at the controversial event

(CNN) — The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece is slated to speak Saturday at a controversial rally by radio talk show host Glenn Beck scheduled to take place in the same location as her uncle’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Locust: listen to it, but pay attention at 7:50 you bunch of racist.

Saturday is also the 47th anniversary of the speech the civil rights leader delivered in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

Beck, a hero to many conservative voters across the country, says that the mission of the rally is to honor American troops and that the event is nonpolitical. The rally is hosted by Beck and the Fox News Channel.

A news release for the “Restoring Honor” rally says “this nonpolitical event benefits the Special Operations Warrior Foundation and pays tribute to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.”

King’s niece Alveda King said she supports the event.

“We’re reclaiming America and restoring honor,” Alveda King said on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360.” “I believe we do that with faith, with hope, with charity, and honoring our brothers and our sisters as we honor each other.”

Beck has said he scheduled his rally before realizing it was the anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech. He has since drawn links between King’s legacy and his event.

“This is a moment, quite honestly, that I think we reclaim the civil rights movement,” Beck said on his radio show in May. “It has been so distorted and so turned upside down because we must repair honor and integrity first, I tell you right now. We are on the right side of history. We are on the side of individual freedoms and liberties, and damn it, we will reclaim the civil rights moment. We will take that movement because we were the people that did it in the first.”

Alveda King said she’s been accused of hijacking “the dream,” but said the “the dream” is in her genes.

“I don’t have to reclaim the civil rights movement, I’m part of the civil rights movement,” she said, noting her family’s home and her father’s church were bombed when she was younger.

Tea Party activists from across the country are expected to attend, and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a Fox News contributor, will have a prominent speaking role.

While the NAACP put out a cautious statement regarding the rally, there has been a lot of criticism of the event.

“It’s offensive because it’s out of line with the fact. It’s out of line with the truth,” Michael Fauntroy, an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University, said Friday on CNN’s “American Morning.” “The reality is that the conservative movement in America historically has always opposed expansion of civil rights for all kinds of people.”

One hour after the start of the Beck rally, NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous will join the Rev. Al Sharpton and his National Action Network and other civil rights leaders in a mass rally just a few miles away. Education Secretary Arne Duncan is also participating.

Following an event at Washington’s Dunbar High School, the participants will march to the site of the future Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial just a few blocks from the Lincoln Memorial.

It’s possible participants in both events could cross paths.

Organizers of the Beck rally say they have not coordinated their efforts with Republican Party officials. Officials at the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee all say they are not involved in the event.

World on the Edge of Darkness, from EU times

World on the Edge of Darkness, from EU times

Official US Deficit Put At Staggering $202 Trillion

EU Times Aug 25th, 2010

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecasts the U.S. budget deficit will hit $1.3 trillion this year. An astronomical figure, to be sure, but that’s…

More »

• Nearly Half of United States Considering Arizona-Style Immigration Legislation
• US Said Preparing New Laws To Seize Americans Retirement Accounts
• Holocaust denier death, Mossad linked
• Tougher Than Arizona Immigration Bill Introduced in Utah

Sweden loses patience with refugee champion role

EU Times

Click on the image to enlarge it Six years after his brother was beheaded by Iraqi insurgents, Riyad is still haunted by the memory of identifying the disfigured…

More »

• Italy inspired by France to expel citizens from other EU states by September
• British Villager arrested ‘for firing warning shots at gipsy children who trespassed on his land’
• Lithuanian Court Rules Swastika Historic Sign, Not Symbol of Nazi Horrors
• Expelled Roma promise to return to France

Chinese Eat Baby Soup

Chinese Eat Baby Soup

Posted by EU Times on Oct 24th, 2009

• Asian people eat rats
• Chinese eat Dinosaur Bones Soup
• In Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, people eat Elephant meat, even raw
• Chinese Dish, Specialties, Cousine – Dogs, Cats, Rats, Bugs, Snakes and more!
• How White People are treated in Africa: “We torched your farm and we’ll come back to eat your children”

A human baby is being made into soup for sexual power in China.

Some of the Chinese people are known to be eating babies and the news circulated through the internet or via Email communication is shocking the world.

An Email report received by The Seoul Times confirmed that news with several vivid and appalling pictures of human embryos fetuses being made into a soup for human consumption.

The report went on. A town in the southern province of Canton (Guangdong) is now on trend taking baby herbal soup to increase overall health and stamina and the power of sexual performance in particular.

A human baby is being prepared for food in China.

The cost in China currency approximately $ 4000 (it is about Rs2000).

A factory manager was interviewed and he testified that it is effective because he is a frequent customer.

It is a delicacy whereby expensive herbs are added to boil the baby with chicken meat for eight hours of boiling and steaming.

He pointed to his second wife next to him. She is 19 years old. The 62-year-old man testified that they have sex everyday.

After waiting for a couple of weeks he took this reporter to the restaurant when he was informed by restaurant manager that the spare rib soup (local code for baby soup) was now available.

A human baby is dumped into the water for boiling in China.

This time it was a couple who have two daughters and this third one was confirmed to be a daughter again. So the couple aborted the baby which was five months old.

Those baby who is close to be born and die naturally costs 2000 in China currency. Those aborted ones cost a few hundreds in China currency.

Those couples who did not want to sell dead babies, placentas can be accepted also for couple of hundreds.

One local reporter was quoted as saying that this is the problem arising from Chinese taking too much attention in health or is the backfire effect when China introduced one child in a family policy.

This heinous crimes rise from the fact that majority of Chinese people prefer to have male babies and the poor families end up selling their female babies.

Dead babied can be purchased in Taiwan for 70 US dollars for being used as grilled delicacies.

A human baby is being prepared for food in China.

A human baby is being prepared for food with herb in China.

A baby is lying on the chopping board with a couple of knives.

Baby’s body is being sterilized with alchol for cooking.

A baby is lying on the chopping board with other food material.

A human baby is being made into soup for sexual power in China.

Head of boiled human baby is about to be served at the table.

Source

A White South Africa – What Went Wrong

A White South Africa – What Went Wrong

In 1980, White South Africa was acknowledged — even by her enemies — as the most powerful country on the African continent. Now, 25 years later, this White giant has collapsed and is in the hands of the ANC.

The Afrikaners, once masters of the country, are today a subject nation, ruled by people, who only 120 years ago, did not have the wheel. How did this happen? What happened to Apartheid? Why did that policy not guarantee White survival in that country? What went wrong?

Arthur Kemp provides the answer:

It is one of the many bitter ironies about South Africa that the policy of Apartheid – to which Afrikaners clung for decades as their only hope and salvation from Third World domination – was in fact an impracticable and unworkable system which led directly to the Afrikaners’ demise as a political force in that country. The politicians — the National Party — who fostered Apartheid, are the primary criminals in this tragedy, holding out a false illusory hope to the Afrikaners, and then when the inevitable became just that, changed track and gave in, abandoning their followers to ANC rule as callously as they had earlier lied to them.

For Apartheid – in reality forced social segregation – was nothing but an illusion, a twisted distortion of the demographic reality of South Africa, not to mention the truth that it was, ultimately, morally repugnant as well. Who really wants to rule over millions of non-Whites by force? What sane White person would wish that as a legacy to their children? Worse, the conservative White South African politicians – all of them – never understood – and possibly still today, do not understand – what the driving force of political power is: namely, physical occupation. Political power comes from physical occupation: not historical rights, not title deeds, not moral rights – only occupation.

Those people who occupy a territory determine the nature of the society in that region. Two examples, familiar to all, illustrate this point well: Example 1: North America. On that continent, the American Indian (Amerind) people lived for thousands of years, creating a culture which dominated that continent. The culture of North America reflected the fact that the Amerinds lived and formed the majority population there. After 1500 AD, however, that continent filled up with White immigrants from Europe. These White immigrants displaced the Amerinds by squeezing them out of possession of North America.

The great shift in North America then occurred. Whereas the Amerind culture had dominated for thousands of years, in a few hundred years the dominant civilization on that continent had become White European. This shift reflected the fact that the majority of inhabitants of North America had become White Europeans — and the Amerind civilization “fell” because the population of North America changed.

This effect — the displacement of peoples and the subsequent disappearance of their civilization — has direct implications in racial terms. The rise and fall of any particular civilization can therefore be traced, not by the economics, politics, morals etc. of a particular civilization, but rather by the actual racial presence of the people themselves. If the society which has produced a particular civilization stays intact as a racially homogeneous unit, then that civilization remains active. If, however, the society within any particular given area changes its racial makeup — through invasion, immigration, or any decline in numbers — then the civilization which that society has produced will disappear with them, to be replaced by a new civilization reflecting the new inhabitants of that territory.

Example 2: Israel. The state of Israel is today a political reality, not because the Bible says Jews belong there (although many Jews and Christians might think so), but simply because the Zionist movement has ensured that Jews are a majority in that territory. This was done through a deliberate policy of settlement and immigration, coordinated over decades. This also forms the rationale behind the current Israeli government’s plans to build up Jewish settlements in the occupied Arab West Bank: by physically occupying the territory, they hope to change the make-up of that region to the point where it becomes de facto part of Israel.

History teaches us that there are two main reasons for a change in the racial make-up of anysociety: either military occupation or the use of foreign or alien labor. The American Indians serve as a text book example of the “military occupation” case study, as detailed earlier, while South Africa serves as a text book example of the “use of foreign labor” case study. When a change occurs through the use of alien labor, the following process occurs: – The dominant society imports (usually racially) foreign labor to do the menial work in that society. – These racial aliens then become established, settle down and multiply in numbers by drawing upon the society’s structures (in White countries, their science, healthcare, technology, etc.)- They grow in number, and finally dominate that society by their sheer numbers.

It is, simply put, a demographic reality: those who occupy a land, determine the nature of that society. And so it was – and is – with South Africa, where population figures reveal precisely how the use of alien labor by the Afrikaners dispossessed them of their fatherland.Consider the following: in 1904, the first population census of the old Transvaal (one of four provinces in the ‘old’ South Africa) revealed that there were 297,277 Whites and 937,127 non-Whites in that region. (Transvaal,1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.) Importantly, the 1904 census also tells us that of these non-Whites, some 135,042 were not from the Transvaal, and only were in the “Witwatersrand to work in the gold and other mines”, and that only 77% of all Blacks in the Transvaal in 1904 were actually born there. What this means is that, with the transient migrant laborers removed from the equation, there were 297,277 Whites and 802,085 Transvaal born Blacks in the region. Now, according to the 1960 census, the population of the Transvaal numbered 6,225,052, of which only 1,455,372 were Whites (Transvaal, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1966). This was just the figure for the Transvaal, it needs to be noted. For the entire country, the figures were/are even more frightening: in 1966, there were 4.5 million Whites to anywhere between 30 and 35 million non-Whites. What caused this disproportionate population imbalance to swing from 802,000 Blacks in the Boer homeland in 1904, to 4,769,680 in 1960 – just 56 years? The answer: the Black numbers multiplied because they were drawn to the Transvaal by the offer of work, and once settled there, used White society benefits (healthcare, technology, etc.) to exponentially increase their numbers.

It was not just in the Transvaal where the use of non-White labor caused this massive demographic shift. The east coast city of Durban, in the ‘old’ province of Natal provides yet another breathtaking example. According to the Durban city police department’s report of 31 July, 1893, there were only 360 “native women, including Hottentots” in that city in that year. Although that report does not specify how many Black males were in Durban in 1893, given that there were this few females, it is safe to assume that a fairly similar number of males were present. In any event, it is unlikely that the Black population of Durban was more than 1,000 – this in 1893.

According to the 2001 census, the population of Durban consisted of3,090,117 people of whom 277,492 (nine percent) were White, as opposed to2,812,625 non-Whites. This includes some 618,000 Indians, imported by the British to provide cheap labor in the city. The formalization of Apartheid by the National Party after 1948 did therefore not address the real issue: namely that the White population was simply being outnumbered by non-Whites because they wanted the non-Whites to do all the manual labor.

This issue has faced every minority trying to rule over a majority country throughout history: the contradiction of allowing huge numbers of racial aliens into the territory in question to do the labor; whilst trying to prevent that civilization from being overwhelmed by foreign numbers. The truth is that it cannot be done. In South Africa, almost every White household had (and still has) one or more Black servants. They have a maid (or maids) to clean the house; a ‘garden boy’ or two to keep the garden neat; and all building work is always done by Black laborers. It is an ironic truth that Blacks did indeed build the infrastructure of White South Africa – as the laborers, not as the planners or directors, but certainly as the muscle power.

The Afrikaner farmers who are now being murdered complain bitterly of the attacks on their properties, and of the impending government plans to seize and redistribute their farms. Yet it was those same Afrikaner farmers who were the ones who employed (and still do) hundreds of Black laborers on those farms, providing their families with housing, schools, food, and of course, churches. It is estimated that each Afrikaner farmer still to this day, employs anywhere between 100 and 300 Black laborers – and then still provides for their families as well. Outnumbered on their ‘own’ farms by hundreds to one, it is little wonder that the White farmers are subjected to such attacks.

In the mines, the economic heart of the country, the vast majority of common laborers, numbering many hundreds of thousands, are Black. All over the country the overwhelming majority of laborers doing almost everything, from factory work to driving, from road building to house building, were (and still are) Black. Over this mass of economic integration, the Apartheid government attempted to enforce social segregation and still maintain a White government: it was a plan which was doomed from the start. Apartheid was based on a fallacy: the fallacy that non-Whites could be used as labor to drive society; that non-Whites could physically form a majority inside South Africa, but that they could not determine the nature of South African society.

The huge Black housing complex of Soweto, located outside Johannesburg as a dormitory town for non-White labor working in the ‘White’city, was, for example, built up in 1961 – at the height of the Apartheid policy, which was supposed to be saving the Whites. In fact, all that Apartheid actually did was guarantee that Whites would most certainly be overrun by the ever-growing non-White numbers. Apartheid was built on the premise that Blacks could do the labor, and could live segregated in the areas from where they performed the labor.This then, was the lie of Apartheid: that it was possible, through strict segregation, to ensure that Blacks could not rule over a country in which they were/are the majority.

The historical record is clear: there has never been a society in which the majority of the population has not determined the nature of that society. Nowhere, ever. White South Africans, it must be said, more or less believed the lie: they were happy to have Black domestic servants; to have Blacks serve them in restaurants; iron their clothes; make up the very beds they slept in – and were prepared to believe that this mass of established Black labor inside their territory would never have any effect upon the political power structure of their country. It is said, in jest, that the definition of a White South African is ‘someone who would rather be murdered in their bed than make it.’ Amusing? To be honest, not really: consider these true examples:

* Under Apartheid, Blacks could not use White public toilets, but were used to clean those same toilets each day. One can only wonder at the naiveté of such an arrangement.

* Under Apartheid, Blacks could work in restaurant kitchens, prepare the food, put it on the plates and deliver it to the White patrons’ tables, but could not eat that food at the same table in that same restaurant. What hypocrisy is that? Surely if one was going to be consistent, one would have forbidden Blacks from working in restaurants completely: but no, Apartheid didn’t go that far, it was built upon the premise that Blacks did do the work.

Cynical observers talked about the “grass mower” syndrome amongst South African Whites. They regarded Black labor as akin to lawn mowers. A lawn mower sits quietly in its shed or garage until you need it, then it mows the grass, and then you put it back in the shed where it stays quietly, not causing any trouble, until the next time it is needed. Somehow, White South Africans believed that Black labor was like a lawnmower: you could have it around, and when you didn’t need it, you could hide it in its little shed where it would be good and quiet – until you needed it again. The reality is, of course, dramatically different.

Another important part of the Apartheid lie was that military force could keep the system intact. The demographic reality once again belies this: the South African White population totaled about 5 million at its height, while the Black population at that time was around 30 million. Of the 5 million Whites, less than 800,000 were of military serviceable age, and not even all of these could be called up at any one time, so in reality the state had to rely on no more than a few hundred thousand military personnel at any one time – to try and control a Black population of millions. Given that demographic reality, it can be seen that Apartheid was unsustainable by military means. Yet the lie continued, and young White South Africans were conscripted into the army and police to fight and die for a system which was doomed from the very beginning.

At the same time, White Western healthcare and technology was made available on a massive scale: the largest hospital in the Southern Hemisphere was erected in the Black township of Soweto, outside Johannesburg, specifically for the Black population. Infant mortality rates for Blacks fell dramatically (and were way below that of the rest of Black ruled Africa). This rapid population growth put additional pressure on the demographic makeup of the country. As the non-White demographic balloon swelled further and further, the White Apartheid government was forced to think out ever more stringent and oppressive laws to protect the Whites as the Black population continued to leapfrog in numbers year after year.

These laws – detention without trial, banning of books and people, were bad enough by themselves, but as the conflict intensified, both sides started using methods which would be shunned by any decent society: the Apartheid state used officially-funded death squads while police torture became routine; and the ANC placed bombs in restaurants, and encouraged mobs to necklace murder collaborators, amongst other outrages.

In the name of a lie – that Apartheid could be sustained – the state caused, what was in anybody’s book, morally repugnant acts to take place, on both sides of the political divide. The Black resistance movements adopted a guerrilla hit-and-run policy of attacks on strategic targets. To combat this unconventional war, the South African Police were given extended powers of detention and other draconian measures – all of which could only be short term fire fighting measures, as the main issue: that of preventing majority Black occupation of the country– was never addressed by any Apartheid laws.

The White government tried to give practical application to the policy of “Grand Apartheid.” Independence was given to a number of traditional Black tribal homelands, the first in the mid-1970s. In this way, the Apartheid government deluded itself into thinking that Black political aspirations could be satisfied in the exercise of voting for these tribal homelands, despite huge numbers of these tribe members living outside the borders of these states – in the so-called “White” urban areas (which in fact were not majority White at all, once the domestic servants, gardeners, shop workers, factory laborers, miners, drivers, shelf packers etc. etc. were counted in). The White government also refused to adjust the size of these traditional tribal areas to fit in with the changed demographics, stubbornly insisting that the “Black Homeland” land area – some 13 percent of the country’s surface area – could accommodate what was rapidly becoming over 80 percent of the total population, even if it contained much of the prime agricultural land, as was the case.In a nutshell, the Apartheid government refused to accept the basic truth of racial dynamics: those who occupy a space determine the nature of the society in that space, irrelevant of to whom that space originally belonged.

White South Africa’s fate was sealed when the territorial division was not adjusted to fit in with the demographic realities; when all the effort was put into creating Black homelands and none put into creating a White “homeland” and the continued insistence upon the use of Black labor.

The partial reforms of the mid-1980s – which included the repealing of the laws forbidding mixed racial marriages and mixed racial political parties, combined with limited constitutional reforms which gave Indians and Coloreds (in South Africa, these are people of mixed race) their own parliamentary chambers, did little to stop the increasing violence. In fact, racial violence increased dramatically: the reforms created an unfulfilled “revolution of rising expectations,” and it was precisely during this cycle of Black violence and White counter violence that the racial war taking place inside the country exacted its highest death tolls ever.

In 1990, the White government finally faced the truth that it could no longer effectively control the ballooning Black population, and unbanned the ANC and released Nelson Mandela from prison. By 1994, power had been handed over to the ANC in a one-man one-vote election – although strict Apartheid had ended in the 1980s, it is from 1994 that the policy is considered to have been laid to rest.It was an inevitable result: Apartheid could not be maintained. It was, in practical terms, unenforceable due to the demographic reality; and it was morally unacceptable as well, forcing young Whites to partake in a conflict which could not be won. White South Africans therefore sowed the seeds of their own downfall with Apartheid, a system of segregation that could never be maintained in the face of their own use of Black labor.

It is too easy – as many ‘right wing’ White South Africans still do – to blame conspiracies, Jews, the ‘Illuminati’ or the last White president, FW de Klerk, for the collapse of White South Africa. The reality is that the White population itself was responsible for the collapse: they were the ones who used non-White labor; they were the ones who supported and maintained the system which turned out to be the largest non-White breeding program in history.

Apartheid was founded on the deadly logic of petty segregation: History proves this is no answer to the racial question.

The only solution lies in complete physical geographical separation, nothing less. Any attempt to implement, by force, racial segregation over a hopelessly racially-integrated economy by a minority, is doomed to fail, and Apartheid was no exception to this rule.Apartheid had to fall: the only question was when, not if. And the politicians who sold it to White South Africans as their only hope and salvation, lied: either deliberately, or out of ignorance of the reality of the relationship between demographics and power.

Can the Afrikaners be Saved? The question therefore arises: Given the current situation, can the Afrikaners be saved?

The answer is relatively simple:

* In a united South Africa, in which they are the perpetual minority, the answer is no.

* In a smaller region where Afrikaners form the majority population, the answer is yes. No minority has every survived indefinitely in the face of a growing hostile majority, particularly one in South Africa where the material discrepancy between White and Black is so vast.

The only way in which Afrikaners can be saved, is if they come to understand the relationship between demographics and power: with no risk of overrepeating this critical point, namely, that those who occupy a territory, determine the nature of that territory. Only once a majority of Afrikaners understand this truth, can there even begin to be talk of a practical plan for saving them from ultimate long term extermination at the hands of the Third World.

Theoretically, if a majority of Afrikaners should come to this understanding, then it would be possible for Afrikaners to save themselves – as no-one else is going to save them. Let us be positive and say that theoretically, if Afrikaners did come to an understanding of the relationship between demographics and power politics. Then they would stop wasting time blaming crackpot conspiracies for their downfall, stop dancing around wasting time playing party politics in a majority rule system in which they are just as doomed to failure as they were under Apartheid and start practically working towards creating a territory or region in which they become the demographic majority.

This would, ipso facto as a result of their small numbers, be a much smaller territory that then current area of South Africa. Where it would be, could be decided when and if that time ever comes: the only preconditions must be that it must be majority occupied by Afrikaners (like Israel was created by being majority occupied by Jews); and that those who settle there must be prepared to do their own labor. (There are immense problems in this, and this writer would be pleasantly surprised if the majority of Afrikaner farmers could in fact be persuaded to dispense with their hundreds of farm laborers and mechanize like their American counterparts; or if the majority of White South African households could be persuaded to make their own beds and wash their own dishes instead of using the plentiful ‘maids’, but that is another story).

Yes, this means gathering together the stock Afrikaner nation into a defined area – for example, (and this is just a theoretical example) if 500,000 Afrikaners had to settle in the old Eastern Transvaal, and physically occupy it, then this territory would de facto, and later even de jure, become an Afrikaner state. The only way, then, that Afrikaners can be spared the fate of all first World minorities in Africa, is for them to abandon their dependence on non-White labor, accept that their salvation lies in a smaller territory, and finally pack their bags and congregate in that smaller territory where they will form an outright demographic majority.There is no other way: all else is chaff in the wind. History will tell if the Afrikaners have it within them to undertake this second Great Trek, or if they are doomed to go the way of all-White settlements in Africa: be ploughed under as the Third World destroys them bit by bit.
About the writer:

Arthur Kemp is the Rhodesian-born author of March of theTitans: A History of the White Race. He was educated in South Africa, obtaining a BA (Political Science, International Politics and Public Administration). He volunteered for military service in South African Police from 1985-1988, where, in active combat against the ANC-led uprising in the mobile Unit 19 of the Riot Reaction Squad, he first realized the fallacy of Apartheid, namely that the military ability of White South Africa was insufficient, on a purely demographic basis, to contain the Black uprising, and that the White politicians were lying to their White electors.

Europe Becomes Less European With Each New Wave of Mass Immigration

Europe Becomes Less European With Each New Wave of Mass Immigration

Europe Becomes Less European With Each New Wave of Mass Immigration

Posted by John Western on Jul 13th, 2010

The rise in forced marriages — estimated to be in the region of 10,000 every year, of which 20 percent involve male victims — is yet more evidence that Third World culture has been imported into Britain along with Third World immigrants.

In a disturbing display of the simple truth that a culture is merely the reflection of a people, and that cultures change when the population changes, the incidence of forced marriages in Britain has risen sharply along with the rise in the number of immigrants.

The numbers are so high that the British Government has set up a special unit, Forced Marriage Unit (FMU), whose sole job is to “combat” forced marriages.

The FMU’s work is of course hampered by the ever increasing numbers of Third World immigrants pouring into the country.

According to figures released by the FMU, the “majority of cases involve families from South Asia, particularly Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.”

The unit says it estimates that there are 10,000 incidents of forced marriage involving “British nationals” each year and that up to 20 percent of the victims are males.

According to the FMU, it received more than 220 messages from male victims in 2009, an increase from the 134 reported the previous year.

Male immigrants are forced into marriages for “family commitments and expectations, securing visas or the desire to control behaviour and protect a family’s reputation.”

Apparently the latter reason means that the immigrant families suspect that the males in question are homosexual.

The FMU went on to warn social workers to be on the lookout during summer when incidents of forced marriage increase as the immigrants visit their countries of origin for holidays. There, the forced marriages are either sought or concluded.

Professionals working with young people were urged to be vigilant during summer, a time when incidents increase.

According to the RMA, victims of forced marriages are compelled or tricked into going back to their countries of origin.

Those who refuse, the FMU said, are “often locked up, subjected to physical and sexual violence and forcibly removed to other countries if they refuse to comply with their families’ wishes.”

The existence of this problem in Britain today is proof that culture and identity is not something which can be taken off like a coat and left at an airport gate, as British National Party MEP Andrew Brons said recently in the European Parliament.

“Third World cultures are like overcoats that can be taken off at the port of entry and replaced with a European cultural overcoat that can be issued with residence and citizenship papers,” Mr Brons said.

“The children of such immigrants are allegedly as European as the indigenous population. They’re not. Distinctive cultures are made by distinctive peoples and not the other way round.

“We are not the products of our culture; our cultures are the products of our peoples.

“Replacing Europeans with people from the Third World will mean that Europe will be replaced by the Third World. Europe is slowly but steadily being ethnically cleansed of Europeans,” Mr Brons said.

More Immigration for Europe Says Brussels

Posted by EU Times on Jul 15th, 2010

BRUSSELS: EU home affairs commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom is to alter the rules for migrants

BUREAUCRATS are planning to encourage more new migrants to come to the EU despite ­rising ­levels of unemployment, it emerged last night.

Brussels officials are to simplify entry rules for workers heading to Europe to take up temporary ­seasonal jobs in farming, tourism and other industries.

EU home affairs commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said: “We need immigrant workers in order to secure our economic survival.”

She claimed more were needed to fill “labour shortages”.

But her remarks are bound to provoke new concerns that Eurocrats are determined to press for ever higher levels of immigration.

Last night, Home Office ­insiders insisted Britain would refuse to sign up to the latest overhaul of EU border controls.

Mrs Malmstrom said: “We know unemployment rates are still very high in Europe. Paradoxically, at the same time there are labour shortages.” She plans to speed up procedures for hiring managers, specialists and seasonal workers from outside the 27 EU member states.

The EU lacks workers in ­certain sectors even though average unemployment is at 10 per cent, up from seven per cent before the crisis, commission ­officials said. Mrs Malmstrom – ­responsible for migration policies – has said the EU will continue to need extra workers in the next few years even though slower ­economic growth is putting pressure on some EU governments to curb the number of immigrants.

An ageing population and low birth rates mean that migrant labour will be necessary to help EU growth in the long term.

Mrs Malmstrom said: “In light of the ­demographic challenge the EU is facing, where our active population is forecasted to start falling already in 2013, we need immigrant workers in order to secure our economic survival.

“I will continue to take more steps towards a more inclusive labour migration policy for the EU in the coming years.”

Under the proposals, which have to be approved by EU ­governments and the European P­arliament, companies will be able to bring seasonal workers into the EU more quickly to address changing needs.

Officials insist the measures are aimed at tackling the growing problem of illegal migrants working in a black economy. Thousands, many from Africa, are hired each year to do jobs such as harvesting tomatoes in Italy.

But critics of mass immigration insist that unemployed native workers should be encouraged – or forced through benefit cuts – to take up the work. The new rules would force employers to prove they provide accommodation and set up a complaints mechanism.

And companies would benefit from simplified application procedures when bringing managers and specialists into EU branches of international corporations.

A spokesman for Mrs Malmstrom said last night: “It is up to each member state to decide whether they need more seasonal workers and how many they should take. If they don’t need more seasonal workers, of course that is their choice.”

Source

The Demographic Decline of Switzerland

Posted by EU Times on Jul 8th, 2010

An American traveler’s take on the natural beauty of Switzerland, the Swiss people, and the changing face of the country known for its cheese, its prosperity, and its peaceful nature.

Scientists confirm pyramids in Bosnia are oldest known pyramids in the world

Pyramids of Europe, the largest and oldest in the world

Scientists confirm pyramids in Bosnia are oldest known pyramids in the world

Posted by EU Times on Aug 21st, 2010

Bosnian pyramids have been finally confirmed. Pyramid experts from all over the world have confirmed the existence of the Bosnian pyramids. In addition, 90% of all these experts said that the the Bosnian pyramids are by far the world’s largest and oldest pyramids. There are five (5) pyramids in Bosnia and it is said that they are 12000-26000 years old. In 2010 UNESCO added the Bosnian pyramids into their World Heritage sites. UNESCO and the CIA are planning to make the Bosnian Pyramid Valley the world’s largest and most valuable historical monuments by 2012.
The Bosnian Pyramid Vally consists of the five following pyramids:
-Pyramid of Sun (world’s oldest and largest pyramid)
-Pyramid of Moon (world’s second oldest and largest pyramid)
-Pyramid of Love
-Pyramid of Earth
-Pyramid of Boson

By Mike Smith
24th of August 2010

I am sure by now you must have heard the nonsense that Ancient Egyptians were black, peddled by the Afro-centrists and their pseudo history. So if Blacks built the pyramids in Egypt then who built the ones in Bosnia? The Bosnian pyramids are the oldest pyramids in the world. And larger than any other pyramids found anywhere else on earth.

Check out the fascinating pictures at this Link

Look at how they first tried to cover it up and pretend there were no pyramids Wiki lies

Scientists confirm pyramids in Bosnia are oldest known pyramids in the world
Bosnian pyramids have been finally confirmed. Pyramid experts from all over the world have confirmed the existence of the Bosnian pyramids. In addition, 90% of all these experts said that the the Bosnian pyramids are by far the world’s largest and oldest pyramids. There are five (5) pyramids in Bosnia and it is said that they are 12000-26000 years old. In 2010 UNESCO added the Bosnian pyramids into their World Heritage sites. UNESCO and the CIA are planning to make the Bosnian Pyramid Valley the world’s largest and most valuable historical monuments by 2012.
The Bosnian Pyramid Vally consists of the five following pyramids:
-Pyramid of Sun (world’s oldest and largest pyramid)
-Pyramid of Moon (world’s second oldest and largest pyramid)
-Pyramid of Love
-Pyramid of Earth
-Pyramid of Boson

DISCOVERIES ON BOSNIAN PYRAMID OF THE MOON

Monday, 30 August 2010

Bosnian Pyramid of the Moon is the second biggest pyramidal structure in the world with it’s height of 190 meters. This pyramid has been one of the focus of investigation this season in Visoko. Great number of volunteers, archaeologists and geologists have had a chance to open new archaeological trenches or enlarge existing ones. Three-sided Moon pyramid has a unique design combining paved terraces and clay layers. Clay was used as the construction and binding material. Similar combination can be found in a case of Chinese pyramids in Shaanxi province.  During the period June-August 2010, volunteers and archaeologists have uncovered perfectly preserved paved terrace. Three vertical layers and four horizontal raw have been exposed.  Italian and Spanish archaeologists discovered artificially-made water channels. There is also a step with sandstone blocks cut at the same slope. Half-radius of this terrace is made very diligently with half-circled sides at the meeting point of two blocks.  This trench is labeled “Sonda 20” and has attracted tens of thousands of tourists to the Bosnian Pyramid of the Moon this year. Participantsof the International Summer Camp for volunteers uncovering the paved terrace atthe Bosnian Pyramid of the Moon in July-August 2010 Volunteers from Italy,Croatia, Banlgadesh,Serbia, Canada, Bosnia-Herzegovina,Denmark and United Kingdom,lead by Italian archaeologist Ricardo during the work on “Sonda No. 20” Spanish archaeologist Fernando joined the crew during the month of August 2010 Carefull but intensive investigation have produced a number of proofs for the artificial character of the Bosnian Pyramid of the Moon Leading archaeologist in Visoko this season, Sara from Italy, suggests future actions to the principal investigator dr. sci. Sam Semir Osmanagich Water drainage channels are located between vertical raws Italian archaeologists Sara and Francesco Vertically positioned raw of smaller-size plates Volunteer from Vukovar (Croatia), carefully cleans the terrace Diligent way to make half radius Three raws of shaped sandstone plates have been uncovered this season Water channel curves at 90 degrees before hitting the step Step with shaped blocks and same slope Archaeological trench “Sonda No. 20” have been the most atractive location on the Bosnian Pyamid of the Moon during 2010 View of the Northern and Western side of the Bosnian Pyramid of the Moon

War of the Running White Dogs!

Zimbabwe style land invasions, here we come!

Jump to Comments

By Mike Smith

27th of August 2010

Remember how Julias Malema travelled to Zimbabwe to go and see how Mugabe did it? He came back an educated man. Knows nothing about woodwork, but knows everything about expropriating farms owned by  Whites.

Land reform not working – Malema

2010-08-27 12:28

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Land-reform-not-working-Malema-20100827

Johannesburg – Landowners who refuse amounts offered during expropriation should have their land taken away with no payment, ANC Youth League president Julius Malema said on Friday.

“Willing seller, willing buyer is not working, [Black Economic Empowerment] is not working,” Malema told the Mail&Guardian when asked what the ANCYL meant when it said it did not want leaders to tell the queen (of England) that economic policies would not change.

Malema said that in 10 years, a certain percentage of land should have been transferred to the majority of the population.

“It’s a simple policy. We’re going to take the land, but we’ll compensate and we’ll determine the price. We go to [Eugene] Terre’Blanche’s farm and say: for these many hectares we will give you R2m, thank you very much.

“If you say that’s too little and you don’t want it, then we take the land and give you nothing. It’s called expropriation with compensation determined by the state.”

Zuma’s visit to Britain

Without mentioning President Jacob Zuma, who travelled to the United Kingdom earlier this year and met Queen Elizabeth II, he said that when the ANCYL was formed, it was opposed to forms of struggle such as petitions, or “sending delegations to the queen”.

“Now that you are given power by the people of South Africa, you still go to the queen and behave like you don’t have power from the people.

“When you say that there will be no change in South Africa’s economic pattern, you are saying that it will remain the same as during the colonial regime.”

During his visit, in response to calls for clarity on talk by the ANCYL that South Africa’s mines would be nationalised, Zuma said nationalisation was not government policy.

- SAPA

Locust: whites wake the hell up!  The shit skins hate you!  wake up!

German government warns its citizens about possible crisis situation in SA

Jump to Comments

By Mike Smith

27th of August 2010

Amidst the Civil Service strike in South Africa, the German Government has issued a warning and important notice on the website of their South African Embassy in Pretoria. It urges all its citizens to immediately, but voluntarily, register their details online as a crisis prevention measure.

It seems as if the German government is anticipating possible mass evacuations of its citizens in the event of the strikes getting out of hand and erupting into full blown violence.

The online registering of German citizens, currently living, working or holidaying in South Africa will ensure that their names are on a list and will speed up possible evacuations.

I would like to urge all foreign nationals in South Africa to check the websites of their embassies in South Africa for similar warnings.

Please do not take these warnings lightly. This is serious.

http://www.pretoria.diplo.de/Vertretung/pretoria/de/04/seite__ELEFAND.html

The “War of the Running White Dogs” is Here

Jump to Comments

By Mike Smith
26th of August 2010

The strikes of the Civil servants are unfolding nicely. At first I thought it was only an exercise for a Communist Revolution, but it appears to unfold into the real thing. It looks as if the Revolution is here.

Now the Army threatens to join the strikes as well. Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union, an affiliate of COSATU, has joined the strike on Wednesday 25th of August 2010. At the moment the police, prison services and traffic cops are still working, but they will start their strike on Saturday 28th of August 2010
… Let us pause for a moment and think about the implications of this…

In May 2010 we have seen the army taking over from the police at the borders and it being reported that the borders between Zimbabwe and Mozambique are riddled with holes. The army has to clean up the mess now at the borders they say. The entire fence between the Kruger Park and Mozambique has been removed by Thabo Mbeki to create a so called macro nature reserve.

One thing that I have learned from the Marxist terrorists is that they do everything for a reason and everything they do is a deception. They are disciples of Mao Zedong and Sun Tzu.

All these open borders are just the Marxists establishing a Truong Son Strategic Supply Route or as the American called it, a Hoh Chi Minh trail.

The Communist Master Plan, The Final Solution for South Africa is all moving into place.

Since the 1960’s the Communist have told the Blacks that they would be richly rewarded if they chase the White people into the sea…promising them a chicken in every pot, every night…

That time has now come. The people want their chickens, but the Communists say, “You have not kept up your end of the bargain yet…The whites are still there”

The Communists knows the rules of war and therefore never fight by them. If you know the rules, you also know how to break and by-pass them.

The Communists will never declare an official war. They waged war for three decades on the Namibian-Angola border and never once declared war. They know it will make them look like the aggressor. That is not what they want. They want to be seen as the VICTIMS.

It is called “People’s War”.

The Geneva Convention makes clear the rules of war. Soldiers need to wear identifiable uniforms, etc. The Communists do not want that. They do not want the people to know what their losses are. Besides nobody really cares about soldiers killed in a fair fight, do they? They want the people to think that the other side’s soldiers are killing their civilians. Every so called “Civilian” killed on the Communist side is used to recruit ten more.

The rules of war further states that soldiers are not allowed to attack hospitals…but civilians can do what they want. Soldiers are not allowed to attack schools, but there is no restrictions on what the civilian trade unions can do. It might be crime, but when the police force is on strike, then who is going to enforce the law?

That dear people are the real reasons behind these so called strikes by trade unions.

The Communists see the civilians as objects of war, therefore every person on their side, including women and children become expendable weapons of war and every person on the enemy side, old, young, babies, female or male, becomes a target. People become shields to hide behind and weapons to be used to strike the enemy with.

While a normal army tries to fight a fair and just war against this Communist People’s War, the media will be quick to point out who the Military “aggressors” and “baby killers” are and who the “innocent civilians” are. The strategy is brilliant actually. It defeated America in Vietnam.

Coming back to the Civil Servant Strike…

The Marxist Terrorist Government in South Africa sees every member of every trade union as a foot soldier. The regular army, the SANDF (South African National Defence Force) is not the REAL army of the Communists. COSATU is…and has always been.. the REAL army of the Communists.

When the Army goes on strike and dresses up in their COSATU T-shirts and civilian clothes, they will be joining the revolution. It will open the military bases for COSATU to arm themselves with military weapons.
The same with the police.

The prisoner’s in the jails are the “Special Forces”… the elite of the Communists. They will be set free and unleashed on the enemies of the revolution, read “The White Public.”

When nobody is guarding the borders, thousands of Communist reinforcements, with weapons will be streaming across the borders of Zimbabwe and Mozambique to join their revolutionary comrades in South Africa.

The president of South Africa is currently in China, discussing Communist Chinese support for the revolution and how the spoils will be divided up afterwards.

It indeed appears as if the revolution has finally arrived. It looks as even I was fooled for a moment. It looks as if the Whites in South Africa who could not get out in time are on their own now.

UN Double Standards on Rape in Africa.

Jump to Comments

By Mike Smith
24th of August 2010

OK, one can play a lot with rape statistics, but let us compare African apples to African apples…

In South Africa there are about 55,000 rape cases reported per year with an estimated 450,000 going unreported. Truth about rape in South Africa

When a woman is gang-raped by four blacks; Is that one rape or four rapes? See what I mean?

Nevertheless, it brings the rapes in South Africa to 150 reported rapes EVERY DAY and an estimated 1233 rapes EVERY DAY.

In the DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo) some Hutu rebels and militants calling themselves the “Mai-Mai- Cheka” (note the Communist Cheka association) goes on a rampage and attack a village…raping 150 women in 13 villages. The UN voices its “Outraged”.

According to the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), more than 8,000 women were raped by warring factions in the DRC last year. Yes, this is what happens when you allow the Communists in your country. This is the “Freedom” the Communists promised  Africans.

Now I am sure that in the DRC many rapes are also going unreported as in SA, but going only on the official reports, rape in the DRC war zone is SEVEN times higher than in “peaceful” South Africa.

Where is the outrage from the UN about rape in SA?

What has the UN done to stop any of this rape in the DRC? Nothing! Victims of the attack are receiving medical treatment and have also been provided psycho-social care. Fare and well, but what has the UN done to stop the rapes?

The useless UN has never stopped Communism in any country. They stand by and watch that the country concerned is handed over to the Communists without too much resistance. They did the same in SWA/Namibia. Remember UNTAG?

Rape in the DRC war zone pales in comparison to peaceful Mandelatopia
Where is the UN’s outrage about rape in South Africa?

UN observers on farms?

Jump to Comments

Michael Burne, 24 Aug, 2010

Now this is what could get some attention. If a report like the one below could get to the right ears, and get even a small amount of exposure, we might be onto something.

Just imagine the headlines if observers had to be sent out, observers from a European country, and the had to be physically present while something happened. If they actually had to physically experience  a full on attack, torture, the whole thing. I don’t in my wildest dreams wish it on anyone, but there are whites going through this all the time. Murder, rape, torture and mutilation.

It needs to be brought  out and pushed right down the throats of say, the UN, then they need to bring in sanctions, declare the white race as refugees, etc.

I think we are still a ways from there yet, but if it carries on, it might very well get there. We tend to ignore it, hey we still get to watch the All Blacks, and visit china when we want, etc, wait till it goes back to how the sancions were back then.

Maybe we need that, for certain people to be shocked out of the comfort zone. See the report below, once again, copied and pasted for your attention….

UN hears of farm ‘genocide’

Article By:

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:55

A Rustenburg farmer has petitioned the United Nations to stop the “genocide” against white farmers in South Africa, his lawyer said on Monday.

The unnamed farmer, who filed charges against ANCYL president Julius Malema, President Jacob Zuma and 10 other prominent South African political leaders at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, took his fight to the United Nations.

In a statement, Fanie Van Der Walt said the farmer filed a “petition for the urgent investigation, intervention, prevention and action by the Office of the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide (OSAPG)”.

He urged OSAPG’s assistant-secretary general Dr Francis Deng to “act swiftly” and investigate the “extremely high incidence” of murder, rape, torture and dehumanisation of white farmers.

The African National Congress, he claims, failed to use organs of state to prevent or stop the “gruesome and extremely cruel attacks on civilians”.

The farmer said South Africa was facing a “grave situation” with international consequences.

The petition accuses Zuma of allowing Malema to urge his supporters to kill white farmers. Zuma allowed state-sanctioned dehumanisation of the white minority population and was in violation of many UN conventions, he claims.

“For the second time in the short history of the Afrikaner boer nation they have become the victims of genocide and crimes against humanity,” his petition reads.

The farmer has asked the public to sign the petition online at www.stopafrikanergenocide.co.za, with the goal of getting one million signatures.

In his petition he asks the OSAPG to deploy qualified UN and international investigators to farms around the country.

The OSAPG is mandated by the UN to collect information on serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity.

The OSAPG was initiated by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan following the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

Sapa

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The anc coons cannot stop them coming, so I hope they take this request seriously….

Collapse of World Fisheries

Collapse of World Fisheries

Species of Marine Animals are Disappearing

//

Mar 2, 2010 Rupert Taylor

Sockeye Salmon Stocks are Dangerously Depleted. – GNU Free Documentation License

The over-exploitation of fish stocks is leading to growing problems meeting the demand of an expanding population.

Industrial-scale fishing began in the 1950s, and the catches quickly increased. The size of the ocean harvest levelled off between 1980 and 2000 and has since been in decline. In November 2006, the magazine Science published an article by 14 fishery experts. They predicted a “global collapse” of ocean biodiversity due to over-fishing; all species currently fished, they said, would be gone by 2048.

History Shows Decline in Catches

Researchers working on the Census of Marine Life have been looking at historical documents; they are trying to discover how the populations of fish and marine mammals have changed over several centuries. What they’ve found is disturbing.

Among the documents the research team uncovered was one from Sicily in 1153. It describes the North Atlantic as having “animals of such great size that the inhabitants of the islands use their bones and vertebrae in place of wood to build houses.” British documents from the 17th and 18th centuries speak of huge pods of blue whales, orcas, and sharks turning the waters off Cornwall dark with their mass.

//

//

Collapse of Canadian Fisheries

Canadians know very well the cost of the destruction of a fishing resource. The Newfoundland cod fishery was closed in the early 1990s because stocks had declined so far the resource was in danger of disappearing altogether. Tens of thousands of jobs were lost and the financial cost was at least $2 billion.

But, people don’t seem to have learned much from that painful lesson. It looks as though the same mistakes that were made on the East Coast have been repeated on the West Coast. Here’s what Mark Hume wrote in The Globe and Mail (August 13, 2009), British Columbia’s “Fraser River is experiencing one of the biggest salmon disasters in recent history with more than nine million sockeye salmon missing.”

Vanishing West Coast Salmon

Each year salmon swim up the Fraser River and its tributaries to spawn and die. In all, they make up 40 separate stocks, linked to the lakes where they return to spawn. The 2005 spawning yielded record numbers of young salmon called smolts; about nine million of them. In 2007, these young smolts returned to the Pacific Ocean and seem to have vanished. They were due to return to spawn in 2009, but about 85 percent of them never showed up.

A century ago, the sockeye salmon run up the Fraser had 40 million fish. The stock has declined to the point where the annual run has numbered less than 10 million over the last decade.

Read on

• World’s Oceans Have Huge Economic Value
• Diminishing World Resources
• TOPP Tracks Marine Predators

Causes of Decline in Fish Populations

There are several suspected causes almost all of them tied to human activity:

Over-fishing has played a role;

Global warming has caused a rise in the temperature of the Fraser River and the upstream bodies of water where the salmon spawn. Scientists believe the warmer water is causing a die-off; and,

Fishers are pointing the finger of blame at aquaculture. Sea lice are a problem in coastal fish farms and there is evidence the smolts are being infested with these lice as they swim past aquaculture projects.

West Coast Fisheries Closed

In 2007, there was a widespread closure of salmon fisheries when only 1.4 million sockeye returned to the Fraser. In 2008, the run was 1.6 million and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature placed some spawning stocks of Pacific sockeye salmon on its “red list” of threatened species. As a result of the 2009 collapse a judicial inquiry into the problem was set up; it is due to report by May 2011.

Sources

“Fraser River’s Salmon Stocks ‘beyond a Crisis.’ ” Mark Hume, Globe and Mail, August 13, 2009.

Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List

“Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services.” Boris Worm, et al, Science Magazine, November 3, 2006.

Locust: let it collapse, whites in the west will survive. If the eaters can’t stop eating their way to suicide let them die.

Hologram of Liberty

Hologram of Liberty, by Boston T. Party

Boston T. Party’s classic book details the Constitution’s shocking alliance with big government. Consider the following two civic beliefs: 

Civic Belief #1

Congress was given few specific powers. All else was left to the States and to the people. Ample checks and balances protect the Republic from federal tyranny.

Civic Belief #2

The Federal Government has become so powerful only because despotic officials have overstepped their strict constitutional bounds.

If #1 is true, then how did #2 happen?

As Lysander Spooner described it over a century ago:

“The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.”

Think about that. By either the Constitution’s purposeful design, or by its unintentional weakness, we suffer a federal colossus which takes a third of our lives and regulates everything from axles to yarn.

So, why aren’t Americans free? Perhaps we weren’t really meant to be!

For example, the feds “monitor” themselves through the Supreme Court, like students grading their own tests! Where is any “check and balance” in that? There is no constitutional way to repeal Supreme Court rulings, and this was no accident. The Framers could have (as did the swiss) quite easily confined the Federal Government, but they didn’t want to.

The “Founding Lawyers” of 1787 left the federal fleas in control of their own flea powder, and that’s why we have an unchallengeable government today. Cleverly designed to be weak, the Constitution is more form than substance, or else Freedom would ring in America.

Kenneth Royce proves that the States and the American people were politically “checkmated” 210 years ago, and discusses his three peaceful solutions prior to the imminent insurrection now brewing. Hologram of Liberty is truly the groundbreaking, vital analysis of the Constitution.

About the Author

Kenneth Royce (aka Boston T. Party) is a veteran liberty author who has published books on a wide range of topics, including gun expertise, privacy and Constitutional studies.

Hologram of Liberty…I am reading this book that exposes how the Constitution was weighted toward tyranny to bring about exactly what is occuring…YOU SHOULD READ IT!

Posted by Sherrie Nickerson

A SUMMARY OF WHAT I HAVE LEARNED….

I am learning so much. Much of what I am learning is terrible disturbing, but nonetheless, it is essential for complete understanding. The conclusions I am reaching are very controversial but nonetheless, valid in light of the facts.

There is much ado about our Constitution presently as being the foundation that needs to be reclaimed in order to restore liberty to our land, but according to what I have found to be true, the Constitution is fatally flawed and weighted to ultimately lead to a despotic takeover and elimination of state and personal sovereignty. It is because of this that we currently see happening in our nation what is happening.

Our confederate Union of States under the Articles of Confederation was knowingly hijacked by the “globalist thinkers” in our country and subverted in favor of a Constitutional that would gradually erode and undermine our liberties. The very Convention under which the Articles were abandoned was done under cover of darkness and secrecy. The writings concerning the deliberations of that monumental meeting were not published until 53 years after the Constitution was written – for a reason! If people had known how much internal opposition there was to the Constitution, they would have revolted!

The Convention that was called to supposedly “amend” the Articles was never intended to amend- but to ABOLISH that document and form of government and to erect a consolidated nation-state government system that would eventually swallow up the rights of the states and individuals by design! The Constitution was initially and ever so slightly weighted in favor of Government tyranny in likeness to the example of a bowling ball being thrown only very slightly off center from the delivery. As that ball rolls down the lane, that ball eventually veers completely in the direction in which it was turned slightly at the beginning. So we are now seeing the ball of the weighted provisions of our Constitution rolling so far to the left as to throw America certainly into the gutter of totalitarian despotism especially as a result of Executive Orders and the Juciary that cannot be checked.

“How can this be?” you ask. –I would like to offer this explanation as I understand it:

The people who came to America came here either to obtain liberty or to seek their fortune. A faction from both goups desired freedom from tyrannical rule and monarchial injustice. The globalist powers (Great Britain) sought to squelch that great human effort to be free and self-governed, but the people resisted and declared their independence. The revolutionary war ensued and the colonies, for a short time, won their independence and existed as a nation of freemen under the Articles of Confederation. But as is always the case, globalist elitists were waiting in the wings to co-op the movement and head it back in the direction of Tyranny. Alexader Hamilton was the ringleader that lassoed the movement rerouted it toward globalist ends. (I see this happening now with the Tea Party movement as well!)

The Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry saw the dangers built into the Constitution and tried to sound a warning, but were repeatedly squelched by the Federalists. The Federalists would publish their own writings and would purposefully neglect the writings of the Anti-Federalists. The Convention was couched in utmost secrecy as the globalists performed their dirty deed. Since they had the trust of the American people, they were able to subvert the freedom movement in a way that would not be discovered by the public until it was too late. If the Constitution had been ratified by the rules of the Articles of Confederation, it never would have been ratified, and the last states that did ratify the Constitution were coerced. What does that tell you? Whenever anything is crafted behind closed doors in secret there is reason to be greatly alarmed – and we are witnessing a grave repeat of history even now! But what will be erected in place of the Constitution? I shudder to think – and you should too!

Though I believe the Constitution to be corrupt and ill equipped to secure our liberties in its present form – I do not believe that it should be tossed altogether. With some amending it could be made the bulwark of freedom that it was supposed to be. If people would take notice of the writings of the Anti-federalists and amend our Constitution to heartily defend states’ and individuals’ rights and to restrain the federal government, there would be a possibility of saving our blessed republic, but it would take men of godly character and well rounded understanding to do so.

For men to be self – governed requires them to be submitted to a God higher than themselves, and that is a whole different problem to be addressed.

Anyway, just some thoughts to consider.

Some quotes from Hologram of Liberty to ponder…(CH.5, p.31)

“Some thoughts on the Constitution in general….

So, if you still believe that the Constitution was conceived, planned, debated, created, and sold as a bulwarkof liberty, I ask: on what evidence? There is little in:

the nationalist motivations of its Framers

the secrecy of its Federal Convetntion

the gule of its paper-handcuff “checks and balances”

the interpretive powers given the Supreme Court,

the magnitude of implied powers available,

the fraud, mischief, and deviousness of its promotion,

the slanderous abuse of sincere Anti-Federalists

the deceitful assuagement of the people,

the forced, shrill haste of its ratification schedule,

the diluted, grudging, perfunctory Bill of Rights

and finally, in the 208+ year history of it’s execution…

to prove that Liberty was the goal. Americans didn’t even know what went on in the Convention until 53 years later when Madison’s notes were published in 1840! “

“That system which was pompously displayed as the perfection of government, proves upon examination to be the most odious system of tyranny that was ever projected, a many headed hydra of despotism, whose complicated and various evils would be infinitely more oppressive and afflictive than the scourge of any tyrant:……” Centinel; Essay XII, 23, January 1788 (The Anti-Federalist Essays)

The United States Constitution: A Hologram of Liberty
A Review of the Kenneth W. Royce (a.k.a. Boston T. Party) Book

A few months ago I read Boston T. Party’s book Hologram of Liberty for the first time, and I was shocked. Until then, I was as much of a die-hard Constitutionalist as is possible for someone to be. Not any more.

This book is a well-researched, scholarly dissection of the frauds surrounding the convention, the framing and the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America. Any thinking person who reads this book should walk away angry at the hoax that has been perpetrated on the people of this country. So why hasn’t this happened in droves? Two reasons.

First, this books strikes at the core of all contemporary political debate. Don’t let the publication date of 1997 fool you; the material here is timeless. With a complete grasp of these ideas, it is easy to see that the left-right debate is merely a pointless sham. Powerful interests derive their power from your participation in a heated struggle, and don’t want you to realize that the struggle itself is based on a lie.

Second, people want to believe in the nobility of the framers. Popular conservative talk show hosts are currently putting on such ridiculous eulogizings as “Founders Fridays” to prop up this myth. Yet, those people were fallible, like everyone else, and equally susceptible to the corruption of power, and gullible to fraud. Boston provides many examples in this book of how many of our nobility were complicit in speculative equity and land deals in ways that would make modern schemers blush.

For these reasons, and others, you won’t find many tea party flag-wavers who will enjoy this book very much. Instead, those people will dismiss it, and the author, as treasonous, because that doesn’t require the thought that this book demands.

Consider the following from the back cover:

Civic Belief #1Congress was given few specific powers. All else was left to the States and to the people. Ample checks and balances protect the Republic from federal tyranny. 

Civic Belief #2

The Federal Government has become so powerful only because despotic officials have overstepped their strict constitutional bounds.

If #1 is true, then how did #2 happen?

As Lysander Spooner described it over a century ago:

“The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.”

Think about that. By either the Constitution’s purposeful design, or by its unintentional weakness, we suffer a federal colossus which takes a third of our lives and regulates everything from axles to yarn.

So, why aren’t Americans free? Perhaps we weren’t really meant to be!

For example, the feds “monitor” themselves through the Supreme Court, like students grading their own tests! Where is any “check and balance” in that? There is no constitutional way to repeal Supreme Court rulings, and this was no accident. The Framers could have (as did the swiss) quite easily confined the Federal Government, but they didn’t want to.

The “Founding Lawyers” of 1787 left the federal fleas in control of their own flea powder, and that’s why we have an unchallengeable government today. Cleverly designed to beform than substance, or else Freedom would ring in America. weak, the Constitution is more

Kenneth Royce proves that the States and the American people were politically “checkmated” 210 years ago, and discusses his three peaceful solutions prior to the imminent insurrection now brewing. Hologram of Liberty is truly the groundbreaking, vital analysis of the Constitution.

It is astonishing that this book, given its age, isn’t the cornerstone of every libertarian or liberty event in the country. It is disturbing that so few people involved in those movements have read it, or in some cases, even heard about it. Neither had I, of course, but I was blown away when I read it. Now, many things make more sense, including the gut-level triteness of most neo-patriots, who cheer something they haven’t taken the time to fully understand. Yet, this book explains why the protections of the Constitution necessarily shrink over time, while the powers expand without bound. Boston clearly explains why our current political environment is a direct consequence of the Constitution, and not in spite of it.

Oh, and for all you veterans (of which I am one, as readers of Starving the Monkeys know all too well), remember that oath you took to the Constitution? Your oath was obtained by fraud, and as such, you are ethically released from any obligation to it. So proceed accordingly. Don’t believe me? Then read this book and decide for yourself.

We are proud to announce that we now carry this excellent book in our shop. You can buy it for a $4 discount off the cover price here. Or, order in a bundle with Starving the Monkeys and save a total of $9, or in a bundle with Starving the Monkeys and Molon Labe! and save $19.

Regardless of how you get a copy of HoL, read Starving the Monkeys first, then apply those thoughts to reading Hologram of Liberty. Afterward, you won’t look at our country the same again, and will long for true liberty on these shores.

Then, this interview, based on this article, will make a lot more sense.

Monkey, Defined

In the context of this book, a monkey is defined as a person that chooses to collectively seize, by unearned means, the property, material or intellectual, temporal or spiritual, of its rightful owner. The means employed may be fiat, guilt, force, theft, fraud, subterfuge, or anything other than a willing and negotiated exchange of value.

In our modern world, each person is given the opportunity to make a conscious choice whether to be monkeys or men.

Conspicuously absent from this definition is race, birth, gender, heritage, cultural influences, or any factor other than that singular deliberate decision.

But men choose to live their lives upon their own merit. It is this very spirit of independence of thought and action that makes men the prey of the monkey collective.

As such, monkeys abandon their claim to the rights of men.

But monkeys could just as easily choose not to, and become men themselves.

Snapshot of economy about to get a lot bleaker

Snapshot of economy about to get a lot bleaker

Aug 27, 6:19 AM (ET)

By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER

WASHINGTON (AP) – The government is about to confirm what many people have felt for some time: The economy barely has a pulse.

The Commerce Department on Friday will revise its estimate for economic growth in the April-to-June period and Wall Street economists forecast it will be cut almost in half, to a 1.4 percent annual rate from 2.4 percent.

That’s a sharp slowdown from the first quarter, when the economy grew at a 3.7 percent annual rate, and economists say it’s a taste of the weakness to come. The current quarter isn’t expected to be much better, with many economists forecasting growth of only 1.7 percent.

Such slow growth won’t feel much like an economic recovery and won’t lead to much hiring. The unemployment rate, now at 9.5 percent, could even rise by the end of the year.

“The economy is going to limp along for the next few months,” said Gus Faucher, an economist at Moody’s Analytics. There’s even a one in three chance it could slip back into recession, he said.

Many temporary factors that boosted the economy earlier this year are fading. Companies built up their inventories after cutting them sharply in the recession to match slower sales. The increase provided a boost to manufacturers, but now many companies’ stockpiles are in line with sales and don’t need to grow as much.

In addition, the impact of the government’s $862 billion fiscal stimulus program is lessening.

That leaves the private sector to pick up the slack. But businesses are cutting back on their spending on machines, computers and software, according to a government report earlier this week. And the housing sector is slumping again after a popular home buyer’s tax credit expired in April.

“What we’re seeing is that the hand-off to the private sector is not looking as robust as we had previously hoped,” said Ben Herzon, an economist at Macroeconomic Advisors.

Many analysts say the uncertainty surrounding the economy is holding back consumers from spending and companies from investing and hiring.

Consumers can’t be sure their jobs are safe, with unemployment so high. Business executives don’t know if sales and profits will grow enough to justify adding jobs. And potential changes to tax laws at the end of this year and other policy reforms also make it hard to plan ahead, economists say.

“People have been overwhelmed by uncertainty,” said Ethan Harris, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

A big reason the government will mark down its estimate of last quarter’s gross domestic product is that imports surged much more in June than expected. GDP is the broadest measure of the economy’s output and covers everything from auto production to haircuts.

Imports rose by 3 percent to just over $200 billion in June, while exports fell to $150.5 billion, pushing the trade gap to almost $50 billion, the biggest in nearly two years. Friday’s report may show that the higher imports knocked as much as 3 percentage points off second quarter growth, economists at Goldman Sachs estimate.

But trade isn’t likely to be as big a drag in the current quarter. With businesses slowing their spending on inventories and capital equipment, imports are likely to slow.

Housing, which added to the economy’s growth in the second quarter, is now likely dragging it down. The homebuyer’s tax credit boosted home sales in the spring, raising real estate brokers’ commissions.

But home sales fell sharply in July, and new home construction also declined. That will weigh on economic growth this quarter, but its impact won’t be as bad as earlier in the recession. That’s because housing has shrunk so sharply.

It made up more than 6 percent of the economy at the height of the boom in 2005, but now accounts for only 2.5 percent.

High unemployment is making it harder for people to make their mortgage payments and stay in their homes.

About 9.9 percent of homeowners had missed at least one mortgage payment as of June 30, the Mortgage Bankers Association said Thursday. That number, adjusted for seasonal factors, was close to a record high of more than 10 percent at the end of April.

Friday’s report is the second of three estimates the government issues for each quarter’s GDP.

An Open Letter to American Law Enforcement

“Choose this day whom you will serve”: An Open Letter to American Law Enforcement

August 30, 2010

by Mike Vanderboegh

Dear Gentlemen and ladies of American Law Enforcement,

There is a growing perception among many Americans that we are headed for one of those periodic moments in our history when our reactions to events will redefine who we are as a people, where we are going as a country and who gets to call the shots when we get there — what George H.W. Bush called “that vision thing.” This is happening in the middle of unprecedented external and internal stresses on our social order, the results of which you see daily on the streets.

It is going to get worse.

Odds are, it is going to get MUCH worse before it gets better.

IF it gets better any time soon, which I doubt.

And so, ladies and gentlemen of American law enforcement, the prudent among you should be considering this question now, rather than later: “What am I going to do when we get to ‘much worse’?”

Consider first where we are.

The Justice Department’s National Gang Intelligence Center estimated last year that there were over a million hard-core gang members in this country who were responsible for over 80% of the crimes in many communities. Other experts have suggested that when you add in the gangs’ “extended families” and wannabes the number is closer to between five and ten million. As unemployment has increased, their numbers have likewise swelled.

But the gangs, as bad as they are and as great a threat as they pose to public order, are nothing compared to the larger problem, and that is this.

Respect for duly constituted authority and social trust are essential ingredients of civilization. These elements represent the basic glue of society.

Respect for duly constituted authority is, as every cop knows, at an all-time low. There are two general reasons for this, one systemic and the other so personal that if you look yourselves honestly in the mirror you can see it.

Systemically, “duly constituted authority” derives its legitimacy from the founding documents of our country, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and from the Founders’ concepts of the rule of law. These have all been under attack for a hundred years or more by both corrupt political parties and their union and business familiars. The Constitution has become for some a joke and for others an inconvenient speed bump on the road to tyranny. As long as this degradation of the legitimacy of our political and legal system was perceived by only a narrow portion of the population, it was manageable in a societal sense. This is no longer true.

When a president and Congress robs one set of people to enrich their cronies, when they violate the settled rule of law regarding bankruptcy to stiff secured creditors in the case of General Motors while rewarding self-anointed unsecured creditors — their political allies, the auto unions — the rest of the population cannot fail but conclude that we are no longer under the rule of law, but the rule of men, which is to say, the law of the jungle. Or, put another way, they — the “authorities” — can do anything that the citizenry can’t or won’t stop them from doing. This is the societal Catch 22 we are now in (and have been for a while) that I call “Waco Rules.”

Other cases such as that of David Olofson, a veteran and marksmanship instructor and family man who was railroaded by the ATF on an automatic weapons charge when his semi-automatic AR-15 malfunctioned (and he was chosen for prosecution simply because the ATF did not care for his low opinion of them), have convinced many that a fair trial is no longer possible in federal court if an agency decides to “deal with” them. And if we are no longer guaranteed a fair trial in the federal court system, then if we are innocent and decide that we do not wish to play drop the soap with either the Aryan or Muslim Brotherhoods, our only guarantee is the right of an unfair gunfight when the ATF comes calling.

And remember that Olofson is merely one example of federal misadventure. There are many others, as there are plenty of similar cases in local and state jurisdictions. When the law-abiding rightfully no longer trust the law enforcers and begin to view them as a class of criminals merely acting under color of law, anarchy is not far away.

Yet, you will say, “don’t blame me, I enforce the law, I don’t make it.” True, but insufficient as an excuse, and here we get down to that look in the mirror.

My friend, fellow gun rights blogger and National Examiner columnist David Codrea over at WaronGuns has a description for feral cops. He calls them the “Only Ones.” His daily blog is filled to overflowing with example of rogue cops, their partners who never rein them in and the prosecutors and judges who find reasons to go easy on even the most heinous of criminals with badges. You know who I’m talking about. If you say there are none of these currently operating or in the making within your department then you are either lying or uninterested in seeing the truth, which amounts to the same thing.

Everyone knows what happens to honest cops who “rat out” their uniformed criminal associates. They are hounded, despised, disciplined and shunned — and that’s on a good day. Can you blame many of us who pay attention to such law enforcement corruption for concluding that you may merely be a member of an “official gang” as opposed to a freelance one? Such dereliction of duty begs the question: If your excuse is that you don’t make the law, you just enforce it, and then you don’t enforce it upon yourselves, why should we be paying tax dollars to support “official” law breaking?

There is another image that many of you can see in the mirror if you choose to take an honest look — that of tax collector and nanny state bully boy. Yes, we know, you didn’t make the laws, some liberal puke with a control fetish did. But when you write speeding tickets for 3 miles over the limit because you’ve been told to write “x amount” of dollar value, or when you pull people over for “seatbelt violations” at random roadblocks and then ransack their cars without probable cause, can you understand how such behavior eats away like acid on your reputation — individually and collectively — as servants of the citizenry? What part of “to protect and serve” does that represent?

But worse than all that is the militarization of the police — in equipment, tactics and, worst of all, attitude — and the federalization of all law enforcement over the past forty years, but especially in the last ten. There were, last time I checked a few years ago, something like 750,000 full time state, city, university and college, metropolitan and non-metropolitan county, and other law enforcement officers in the United States. Add to that another 150,000 or so full time law enforcement personnel working for the federal government. With the growth of new agencies like the TSA during the “war on terror” (who, because of political correctness can’t seem to figure out who the real “terrorists” are so they merely oppress the rest of us in order to be “fair”) that number has certainly risen.

In any case, there are hardly enough Feds to work the administration’s will upon a nation so vast and a people so numerous, so, much thought and effort has gone into suborning and subverting local and state law enforcement for federal purposes — “Joint Task Forces” and “fusion centers” being two principal ways. Yet, as the Founders quite clearly understood, it is one of the duties of local law enforcement, especially the county sheriffs, to interpose themselves between the federal government and the people of their jurisdictions when the federal government becomes oppressive.

Now, however, local law enforcement is looked upon by federal agents as force multipliers and willing stooges — “local yokels” in their parlance. And as a mark of how successful their campaign has been, many local law enforcement officers agree and happily lick the boots that kick them.

A recent case in point. Two county sheriff’s deputies showed up at the doorstep of a man out west who had expressed his contempt for Nancy Pelosi and and other federal politicians in letters and emails. These deputies, saying that the FBI had sent them, interrogated the man, threatened him “with Leavenworth” and engaged in intimidation of political speech. These local cops, having no jurisdiction to do anything of the sort, would have been laughed off of my porch here in Alabama and told to bugger off and return with real federal cops, if that was in fact their intention. Too often these days, when the federal man says “frog” many of you merely ask “how high?”

Of course, if this intimidation had back-fired on the locals in any way, the Fibbies would have been the first to disavow them, leaving them hanging out in the legal laundry to dry. So when y’all are looking in that mirror, ask yourselves how truly stupid you actually are when it comes to enforcing an agenda and not the law just because the Feds ask you to.

Because here’s the essential thing: you, ALL OF YOU, took an oath to, among other things, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” You swore that, the overwhelming majority of you, to God. Did you think that oath had a shelf life? Do you think that now that you have by your reckoning faithfully upheld that oath for, say, twenty years now that tomorrow it is okay to forget it? You swore, whether you realized it at the time or not, an OATH, before GOD, and it was a LIFETIME oath.

While you are looking in the mirror, evaluate your career based upon that oath. It was not to a man, or an administration, or a political party but to an idea — the idea of ordered liberty as codified in the Constitution of the United States of America. So ask yourself, did you or did you not intend to faithfully uphold that oath? Because the answer to that question is going to become very important very quickly as this politically divided and morally fractured society continues to spin out of control.

To quote Joshua, “Choose this day whom you will serve.”

Katrina showed us many things. It showed that in a disaster many cops will look to their families and not the public duty, leaving their fellow law enforcement officers with an even greater burden. It showed us that cops can be opportunistic criminals as well, partaking in looting with as much energy as professional criminals. It also showed us that the police no longer trust the law-abiding citizen with arms, depriving them of their only means of self-defense once the cops have moved on, thus leaving them to the tender mercies of robbers, rapists and murderers.

It is perhaps dangerous to make too large of a generalization, for there are many rural jurisdictions where this does not apply, but the fact of the matter is that by and large, the police no longer trust the people they are supposed to protect, and they especially do not trust an armed citizen, even if he represents no danger to the cop. This is standing the oath on its head. The people do not exist to serve the servant, but rather the other way around.

When a policeman pulls over a driver whose computer record shows not only the driver’s license of the vehicle’s owner, but the fact that they have a concealed carry permit, it is too often SOP for the cop to approach the vehicle, gun drawn, order the man or woman from the car, put them on their knees and cuff them before anything else transpires. These are not the acts of public servants but rather of an occupying army. And with each breach of trust, the glue holding society together is further weakened. For the more you distrust us, the more we are reminded to distrust you.

It is important to remember, Mr. and Ms. Law Enforcement Officer, that you need us, the law-abiding armed citizenry, one hell of a lot more than we need you. Just ask any criminal. Who is it that they fear most? The encounter with a policeman or a would-be victim who turns out to be armed? I tell you this uncomfortable truth and I hope you have the honesty to admit it — the criminals of this country are far more scared of the armed citizenry than they are of the police.

It is not the fear of the patrol car that inhibits criminal behavior the most, but rather the prospect of screwing up and getting his brains blown out by a citizen in righteous self defense. And so, when you participate in citizen disarmament efforts, whether gun seizures like Katrina, or merely identifying otherwise friendly peaceable folks as “the enemy” just because they are armed, you are alienating your most valuable friends and empowering your most vicious enemies. Not to mention the fact that you are violating that sacred oath you took.

So ponder that deteriorating social trust that holds civilizations together, and then ponder this: the worst is yet to come.

What will happen when we are faced, God forbid, with some dislocating national disaster — natural or man-made — that makes Katrina look like a kindergarten playground? Now, even if you intend to run off like some New Orleans policemen did, to see to the safety of their families rather than keep order in the city, you are still going to need the cooperation of the armed citizenry in your home neighborhood to protect your family.

You — ALL of you — law enforcement officers, will then need us, the armed citizenry — ALL of us willing and competent to muster — to defend public order against the tide of chaos represented by five or ten million gang members and the tens of millions of panicked unprepared refugees or opportunistic criminals left unrestrained by a breakdown.

Do you seriously think that federal police, all 150,000 of them, will actually help you in that event, beyond issuing orders that they will not be personally endangered with carrying out?

You will then be on your own, and you will have us. At least those of you will who have the sense to plan now to make that happen in the event.

You might start by remembering your oaths, by beginning to trust us, by refusing to engage in petty harrassments of CCW permit holders and by strengthening your department’s auxiliary program (or starting one if you do not have one).

But first and foremost you must quit looking at and treating the law-abiding armed citizenry of the United States as the enemy. For if you don’t, we certainly will be.

Convince us by your actions that you are no better than the gangs who commit crimes without uniforms and we will treat you similarly. And there ain’t nearly enough of you to shove us around in a real national emergency.

Remember, Americans are nothing if not a practical people. We’re predisposed to help and support you. Please, take our hand when it is offered, BEFORE it is needed.

Sincerely,

Mike Vanderboegh

sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com