China Plots New World Order

China Plots New World Order

from newsmax.com

For over two weeks the world news has been revolving around the massive earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan and left behind tremendous devastation and loss of human lives.

It was one of the worst disasters in Japan’s history.

Some calamities of nature are impossible to predict or cope with. Human calamities are far more predictable because they originate first inside human minds of the rulers of slave states like the “People’s Republic of China” (PRC), so named and created by Mao in 1949.

Few Americans suspected how urgent it was for America to develop nuclear weapon ahead of Germany. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had never heard of the German nuclear project, which was already under way, until the late 1930s, when the news came to him in a letter from a German scientist of genius, Albert Einstein, in which he alerted the president as to how crucial it was for the United States to be ahead of Germany in developing the nuclear bomb. President Roosevelt was quick to act: the United States developed and obtained the nuclear bomb ahead of Germany.

Roosevelt received Einstein’s warning in the late 1930s, and the nuclear bomb was ready in the 1940s. Today it is March of 2011, and I tried to find out if any superweapons as advanced as superweapons in the 1940s have been constructed since then in the United States or in Germany or in any other country. No!

Has any country produced a new, advanced, modern nuclear superweapon in the last 70 years? No one knows. But what is known is that no advanced free country has produced it! It is peace, you know, not the 1940s — which experienced a war between countries like Nazi Germany, the United States, Great Britain, Soviet Russia, etc.

But what has been going on in the deepest recesses of countries like the PRC we don’t know.

I have in my possession the “World’s Most Comprehensive and Authoritative Almanac,” “The New York Times Almanac of Record,” edited by John W. Wright, with editors and reporters of the Times.

It contains more than 1,000 pages, but there is not a single reference to nuclear weapons
(I have the Almanac of 2007).

It is little surprise that the news about powerful war preparations in PRC and other such alarming events does not reach most U.S. populations, who spend public time on searching for wonderful clothes and other pleasurable items.

Let us now recall how Germany surprised the world. Surely it was a country of philosophers, poets, and such others. But it turned out to be the world’s most dangerous military machine, which occupied France as though France and Britain (with British troops in France), were not modern industrial countries but a French-British health resort.

World War III will bring many such surprises, and finally the call will be, “Kill all the people of the so-called free countries, or they will kill us.”

Today it is not the 1940s, but 2011. Slave countries have massive populations and their rulers understand that World War III may end up unfavorably for them, and therefore they should be as ruthless as their weapons.

War is a calamity, which “slave” countries are preparing to win, and the United States has, owing to its “general election,” a U.S. president who is a friend of the PRC, who had invited the PRC ruler to the White House festivities to honor him as the leader of the PRC.

Slave societies do not change essentially in peace and in war, since they are always at war and their inhabitants are always slaves. Hence their output of evermore deadly weapons is not affected.

Slavery is a permanent war against slaves, whom propaganda convinces from the cradle to the grave that they are the happiest inhabitants of the earth and will be angels after what heretics describe as the end of earthly happiness.

Once upon a time, all people were being persuaded that they were immortal and, after what heretics and savages described as their mortal end, they would wake up to a happy, beautiful, eternal experience beyond any description in any human tongue.

That persuasion worked in the European Medieval times. Surely it can work in a slave society today, while all the vital forces of a slave state are being aimed at achieving military superiority over the countries calling themselves free to attract the credulous.

China’s Former Defense Minister Predicted World Domination

It is a dual reality that had been awaiting those born in Russia, after it had become Soviet Russia.

Why did the word “Russia” figure into the name of post-1917 Russia — “Soviet Russia”?

The Soviet culture-propaganda had a dual vision of Russia. On the one hand, Russia was so bad that its replacement with the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” was the greatest achievement of world history.

This “Union” was to occupy the entire world. On the other hand, that horrible old Russia, overthrown by Soviet arms, had produced amazing operas (performed in the opera houses left by that old Russia), unique plays, and music and literature worthy to be called classical.

I quickly found that the only way to make a living for me, away from hated Soviet propaganda, was in translating Russian classical literature into English, and a Moscow publishing house sold the books abroad and paid me handsomely.

From the best-known Soviet pop singer Leonid Utyosov, my wife and I bought a three-storied stone villa, with a birch tree coppice, opposite the back of the building, and an apple orchard — opposite its front.

In 1972, 19 years after Stalin died, the Soviet rulers decided to permit several hundred “Soviet people” to emigrate from the “Soviet country”! The news, however, was too sacrilegious to have ever been reported in the Soviet media.

Now in New York, my wildest dreams have come true. I smuggled out the manuscript of my book (on microfilm), which I clandestinely had written in Russia, and had it published by Harper & Row. I lectured to the university audiences on the future of the world all over the country and abroad. Now I have been writing a weekly column for my appreciative editors — to save freedom, freedom which created genius in old Russia and, having lost it, became a slave society.

On March 24, 2011, I received many e-mails from my readers. One of them, Gesa L., wrote that “I just finished reading some of your columns at Newsmax.” He goes on to say that in 1978, his “Group of 70” faced “a huge communist demonstration in Bonn, Germany, where some of us ended up in hospital.”
“Thank you for opening the eyes of many and keep warning the public,” he concludes.

In another email on March 24, 2011, Ken K. says that he enjoyed my article “China Plots a New World Order.” He also sent me a link to Chi Haotian’s speeches of 2005, “in case you might have overlooked them.”

In fact, I did read them and wrote about them in 2005. Chi Haotian was the Minister of Defense of the PRC and delivered his pronouncements in his speeches in 2005.

First of all, in his first of the three speeches, he announced that “Hitler’s Germany had once bragged that the German race was the most superior race on Earth, but the fact is, our nation is far [!] superior to the Germans.” That is, to the German Nazis.

Now, thanks to Ken, I am again looking at the text of the speech delivered by the PRC Minister of Defense in 2005.

Says Chi Haotian: “Many citizens say in private, ‘We never voted for you, the Communist Party, to represent us. How can you claim to be our representatives?”

Well, Stalin staged a general election, except that the only candidate was Stalin. I decided to go to our “voting station” to vote against him. It was not difficult to slip my anonymous voting paper, with my note against Stalin, into one of the numerous boxes that voting papers were dropped in.

So what did the Chinese government do? Says Chi Haotian: “whether we can forever represent the Chinese people depends on whether we can succeed in leading the Chinese people out of China.” That is, invading the world and giving it to “the Chinese people.”

Further, Chi notes: “Only countries like the United States, Canada, and Australia have the vast land to serve our need for mass colonization.”

It is necessary, he goes on to say, to “focus” on “developing lethal weapons that can eliminate the mass populations of the enemy countries.”

Well, what does this article tell us? When we, watchers of societies deprived of freedom, were speaking about the global ambitions of the country which Mao named “People’s Republic of China” in 1949, we were accused of childish fantasies.

In vain did I try to attract the attention of the free countries to Chi’s speech when it first appeared. Perhaps now in the free countries, there are more sensitive watchers of China?

Time is running out. PRC is working at full speed — in particular, to train its billion people, by which its population exceeds that of the United States, into new builders and users of new superweapons.

Free-Thinking West Must Vigorously Defend Against Slave States

The free countries will not survive if there is only dedication to prosperity and not to freedom, as there is no free thinking but only recitals of university or government texts.

Unique, high-level free-thinking in the West came to be known as genius, and this is what the U.S. president and his British counterpart, the prime minister, should be.

But before analyzing intelligence as uniquely valuable free-thinking, it is worthwhile to repeat what I wrote before in previous columns, such as the fact that the prime minister in Britain gets appointed, not elected by the majority of people.

A majority of 100 million American voters (that is, all who cared to vote) voted for Obama, an open friend of the “People’s Republic of China,” the main enemy of the United States. The PRC was created in 1949 by the communist Mao, said to have killed many more people than did the communist Stalin, without any court hearing or with “propaganda courts,” obeying Stalin and Mao, respectively, as their slave owners.

The U.S. president, elected by a majority of 100 million electors, may turn out to be not a thinker of genius but an idiot. Well, a majority of 100 million American voters may be smart in other fields, but idiots in international relations.

This is why in Britain the prime minister (the equivalent of the U.S. president) is not directly elected “by general vote.” He is chosen by the political party with the greatest number of seats in Congress. After his discussions with the most intelligent people of the land, including the queen and king, he becomes the prime minister.

Are the American admirers of Obama sure that the American people are incomparably more intelligent than the British people?

This brings us to a general question, What is intelligence, that is, free thinking, in contrast to repeating what is trite or absurd or both, and what idiots say?

In classical antiquity and in the West-European Medieval classical culture, thinkers of genius had disciples, and that was how education in intelligence had existed until came those universities which were indeed universal, for they taught above all whatever ensures a prestigious job with a good salary.

But this is not the intelligence or free-thinking that distinguishes an original human mind from a machine.

Intelligence is an inner human ability which endows one human mind decades or centuries before it does other minds, though sometimes the interval of hours or even minutes may spell life or death for the free countries as well as for the owners of the slave countries trying to enslave the free countries, since slaves for slave-owners are their wealth.

Before the 20th century, countries were divided into advanced, industrial countries, in particular where machines and weapons were produced, and those which were mainly agricultural, with their bucolic nature, the main attraction for the travelers.

Russia was the first country which upset this division. The owners of Russia established an industry that was sufficiently powerful in the production of weapons, which later proved to be a decisive factor during World War II in defeating Germany and routing Hitler’s army from the territory of “Soviet Russia.”

It has to be noted that Germany had already been a developed industrial country, while Russia started its speedy yet powerful industrialization by the communist Stalin (who died in 1953).

According to Wikipedia, the number of trained military personnel in the “People’s Republic of China” as of 2010 exceeded that of the United States by 1 million (about one-third), and there is no doubt that the PRC relies or will rely on its surplus of 1 billion (!) people.

The “People’s Republic of China,” often called in the West just China, is a slave country, and yet it is not clear how the United States will defend itself against China if the United States is attacked now or in 20 or 30 years.

Yes, to survive in the next half a century, the world requires intelligence and free-thinking on the part of the free countries, not a “general election” of a U.S. president, friend of the PRC, to defend them from an aggressive slave country.

Slavery is also an economic advantage. The slaves can work for a tiny fraction of what free people get in free countries for the same work. To stay alive, the slaves must obey orders from their owners.

In short, in our age of militarized industrial slavery (as in PRC), the free countries must take all advantages of freedom — above all in the intelligence that results from free thinking.

A Good Defense Against China Is a Solid Offense of Knowledge

France was the country of Napoleon, and in alliance with England, it defeated Germany in World War I. But during World War II, Hitler’s occupation of France, with the British troops that were in France to help France defend itself, was a short pleasure trip for Hitler’s army. Many came to believe that he would conquer the world!

In the late 1930s, a German sent a letter to President Roosevelt. I keep a copy of the letter. The German’s name was Albert Einstein. My Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Einstein was born in 1870, and by the late 1930s he had all scientific titles and awards that can be bestowed on a physician of genius.

In 1913, Einstein became a professor at the University of Berlin, director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, and a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. In 1922, he received the 1921 Nobel Prize in physics. And so on.

There was only one biographical detail which was not disclosed because Nazi Germany began the extermination of Jews, but even my Britannica (the latest edition, which I bought when we came to the West in 1972) does not say in its three-page article about Einstein (vol. 8, pp. 95-97) that this super-genius was a Jew. The Nazi rulers of Nazi Germany forced Hitler to join the extermination of Jews (look up any detailed biography of Hitler published in the United States to see that earlier Hitler had not been an anti-Semite).

In the late 1930s, Einstein and his family decided to leave Germany (while the going was still good, at least for them). As they were leaving, Einstein dropped into the mailbox his letter to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Its moral was simple: Those who would have nuclear weapons would win World War II, and those who would not would lose it.

And those who conducted the anti-Semitic campaign in Nazi Germany could well say, Come on, the destiny of mankind depends on what a German Jew said or did?

Yes, that’s it! Owing to Roosevelt, the United States had nuclear weapons, while Nazi Germany had already collapsed, and the United States dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, whereupon Japan surrendered immediately and unconditionally.

Einstein died in 1955 at the age of 85, and I wonder if anyone asked him to write a column “How I, a lonely Jew, won World War II because Nazi Germany had started the extermination of Jews and I with my family decided to leave it and hence mailed my letter to President Roosevelt.”

Owing to developing science and technology, we can imagine the growth of global-scale military operations. But just as before, much will depend on the performance of human beings, not only machines per se.

A free country makes it possible to see human beings as they are. The slave societies convert human beings into mechanisms behind uniform masks.

Hence any slave may be infinitely dangerous because a slave’s personality is hidden behind his or her mask. Take myself, as an example. The owners of Russia let me and my family leave the country, and I emigrated to become a free man able to freely express myself in my books, my lectures, my speeches on radio in English (for the West) and in Russian (for Russia) what I had not dared publish or say in Russia, where behind my mask I was totally unknown to the totalitarian powers that be until I was safely out of their reach. Yes, in such a society, slaves like myself are totally unknown to their owners as their worst enemies.

Knowledge of the enemy has always been considered a decisive prerequisite of the military victory. But here the totalitarian owners of the countries are thus faced with millions of totally unknown enemies like Albert Einstein or me or anyone such that you know.

The “People’s Republic of China,” which will move to conquer the world (read the speeches of the minister of defense Chi in 2005), will have two armies to defeat: the foreign army and its own native army, whose soldiers may be secretly against their rulers, as was Albert Einstein against Nazi Germany at the end of the 1930s or as was I against the Soviet rulers.

Here the pattern may be more unpredictable than it was during the Western wars among nations whose troops were not made up of slaves. With slaves as soldiers, the picture will be more unpredictable and chaotic, since slaves are unpredictable by definition. No, it wasn’t Hitler who in the late 1930s was told by the German physicist Albert Einstein how to defeat all enemy countries by nuclear weapons!

Globalization Does Not Make an Enslaved Country Free

Globalization has become a fashionable trend. Many industrial goods which originated in Britain, the mother of industrialization, began to be used by both free and slave countries throughout the world.

Another sphere of globally used goods is the military. The unfree countries try to acquire the most advanced weapons of the free countries through espionage. We are led to believe that eventually all countries will thus make up one world; that is, they all will be “globalized.” Karl Marx espoused a similar idea of a single world, but his was to be realized through a global revolution, not through similar goods spreading all over the world.

Slavery goes back to antiquity. On the other hand, in the free countries of today, all inhabitants are free, except those who are convicted of crimes.

The main role of the military in a free country is to protect the country and its people from being annihilated or enslaved. The origination and existence of slavery are inevitable in those countries in which there are no social safeguards of freedom, as there were none in Russia after November 1917.

Ironically, war globalization in World War I played its full role in the conversion of Russia, a country which had produced people of genius in culture, including sociology, into a full-fledged slave state. By 1917, Russia had been too exhausted, demoralized, and desperate to resist Lenin, with his “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and a semi-literate Georgian gangster Stalin, who spoke Russian with a heavy accent and grabbed the absolute power in the country.

The name “USSR,” as Russia came to be called under the pseudo-emperor Stalin, has perished after the dictator’s death, as have other “Soviet” names. Why do the owners of slave countries love and encourage “real globalization”?

Stalin’s slaves glorified him — they had to pretend that they adored “our teacher and friend Stalin,” who owned them. Powerless, with no means to defend themselves, slaves work for their owner on his terms (such as “If you don’t work hard enough, I’ll order to torture you to death”).
Also, slaves, who work for their owners practically without pay — barely enough to sustain life and be able to work — are the ideal slaves.

To a slave owner with a leaning toward Marxism, such social arrangement nurses high hopes of slave countries eventually achieving communism, the conclusive phase of socialism, when everyone will be satisfied according to their needs, not according to their ability to work.

In unfree countries, all inhabitants, except their owners, as was, for example, Stalin, who died in 1953, are slaves, who are watched, arrested, tortured or killed by the secret police. The chasm between the free countries and the slave countries is not getting less pronounced because their slaves can buy the same “global” umbrellas.

Public radio, television, and other controlled media in slave countries exist in order to glorify the life of their slaves and to malign the free countries for their “exploitation” of the “working class” by the “bourgeoisie.”

The owners of the slave countries are trying hard to stifle any display of freedom in their countries, for they know that secretly many of their slaves are yearning for freedom.

In a desperate attempt to prevent the “emancipation” of their slaves and to preserve the status quo of their power, the owners of slave societies are encouraging globalization by providing access to the free Western countries to use cheap labor of their slaves, thereby creating a false impression of the benevolence of their regime, meanwhile acquiring Western know-how and the latest military technology for their future wars to destroy the free countries by conquering them and thus acquiring more slaves.

The fact that, say, the population of the “People’s Republic of China” exceeds that of the United States by 1 billion people should be counterbalanced by the fact that the people of the free countries are more creative (for creativity needs freedom), motivated to defend their freedom, and in case of war with a slave country, they will liberate its slaves and thus win them over to their side.

Yes, the weapons of all countries are being globalized. None of today’s countries can even think of starting a war without having the latest modern weapons based on the latest research in science and technology.

On the other hand, socially, there has never been less globalization: The free countries and slave states have never differed more than they do today. And herein lies the strength of the free world.

China Plotting Communist Takeover

“China’s Master Plan to Destroy America”: This is the subtitle of a book written by two colonels of the People’s Liberation Army and copyrighted in 2002.

The United States is the most powerful country among the Western free countries, and even just by pestering it, PRC becomes globally significant.

Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition) says on page 709: “Maoism in China was developed chiefly by Mao.” (Surely — but with some help from books by Karl Marx.)

According to Marx, the first step of the victorious communists will be to dismiss all non-proletarians; that is, creators of all inventions, all machinery, and other aspects of all production, as well as all advertising of what is being produced. After that, the production would be in a hole and “the working class” would also die of hunger.

Owing to Marx, Mao gave the Chinese a vision of one-country world of the future, following the world “communist revolution.” Mao called himself (and was called) a communist, and the society he named “PRC” in 1949 also called itself and was called “communist.”

But today it is difficult to find the word “communist” even in the PRC materials. The reason is that the PRC was to fight for its communist world in alliance with the most powerful countries. However, the very word “communist” became unacceptable in too many countries to parade it.

Each time the PRC is testing anything new in weaponry, it attacks the United States (though never overtly enough to raise justified suspicion) since the reaction of the United States is useful for the PRC to know.

Also, an honest-to-goodness world war may indeed start in “x” months or “y” years, to make the PRC the owner of a single communist world. The PRC will be all ready to participate in that “communist (shhhhh) war.”

I get the impression that the names of Chinese communists are never revealed in public. They are secret agents, expected to be highly motivated, interested, and active.

Is China’s hope to possess the world on the basis of nothing except Mao’s words? No! The United States is the most powerful country among the free Western countries. But the population of the PRC is bigger than that of the United States by 1 billion people. Imagine a billion people converted into creators, producers, and users of the latest weapons on the world battlefields.

China is said to have existed for 6,000 years. Its science and technology go as far back into history as those of Rome and Greece. So science and technology are not its weaknesses.

I am getting a lot of materials about China from my readers, which they send me in the hope that I will use those materials and make them known. One book, entitled “Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America,” was written by two colonels of the People’s Liberation Army.

Originally, the book was published in 1999 by China’s People’s Liberation Army, Beijing, and then by Pan American Publishing Company, Panama City, in 2002.

The Soviet communists used inventions about the fabulous growth of welfare in their country. The Chinese communists avoid calling themselves communists, and their inventions are about warfare, not welfare. Indeed, in totalitarian societies of the last century, there have been propaganda fictions of either fabulous welfare in their own countries or fabulous warfare in other countries to conquer them and create sources of “welfare for their people.”

Naturally, a country devoted to warfare evokes greater hostility in the outside world than the one devoted to welfare, though warfare and welfare can mix or merge. Warfare destroys the prosperity of the defeated (if not totally destroyed) country, while welfare leaves it open for robbery without warfare.

If the PRC creates a line of allies engaged in warfare, the position of the United States may, indeed, become desperate. Its rescue may depend on its ability to defend itself, not only on its ability to conduct unrestricted warfare.

It is not impossible that what Stalin’s Russia failed to do — create world communism — will be done by a global entity, dominating the world by the PRC, which the communist Mao created and so named in 1949.

Not so long ago, there was a strong general belief in mental development due to education, progress, philosophy, and enlightenment. Surely, Hitler was an illiterate, a soldier in a country left defenseless in a blind alley of a military rout.

Looking at the festive cover and title of the book authored by the two colonels, I am thinking about a world-sized lunatic asylum, into which mankind will confine itself, as made hopelessly insane by “unrestricted warfare” and “China’s master plan to destroy America.”

China Seeks World Conquest to Protect Its Tyranny

Before the 20th century, China had existed for the West only as a historical memory.

In the 20th century, however, China’s conquest of the world, to protect the tyranny in China, seemed realistic in the West: It was recalled that the population of China exceeds that of the United States by 1 billion, and an army so gigantic and well armed it could conquer the world if it is not defensive enough.

Mao attracted Western attention after he had become the chief military man of China and later its ruler.

The official name of Stalin’s Russia was the USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Well, China is just one republic, and hence it is one in Mao’s acronym: the PRC, or “The People’s Republic of China.”

The name of Mao’s army is the exact replica of that of the Soviet army: “workers’ and peasants’ red army.” All of Mao’s ranks in China are fashioned after Soviet military ranks.

Soviet Marxism was Mao’s original to copy and admire.

What is Soviet Marxism? Marx was not involved in production. So, according to Marx, “leaders of production” are parasites by definition. The results were the enrichment of the parasites and the progressive poverty of the working class. What’s the way out? Eliminate the parasites!

To project his infinite power, Mao introduced or reintroduced mass torture even for a vague and often impersonal offense.

Mao’s status has been elevated during his rule. Outside China there has been a strong fear that China is preparing for war to dominate the world, in particular to deliver itself from the danger of being conquered (by Japan, for example).

Just as some other silent skeptics in Russia, I wondered even as a child why social systems which advertised themselves as the most collective had one person — like Stalin or later Mao — as the overall leader or absolutist owner of the country.

There are discrepancies in all Marxist theories, as there are in life. A human being must be loved and medically treated like Mao, who lived beyond the age of 80. And here we learn that Mao treated human beings like insects, of whom he destroyed from 40 to 70 million between 1949, when he became the “leader” of the PRC, and 1976, when he died.

It is small wonder that after Mao’s death the “leaders” of China have been processing its extra 1 billion people into global human troops and producers of global military weapons.

Let’s face it. The country with the largest and most technologically advanced army on land, in water, and in space will be the owner of the world. The survival contest has started; its advantages in the Western democracies being freedoms used by genius and talent, the defense of individuals and corporations against crime, competitive results, and their protection.

A lawyer in a democratic country would say that nothing above contradicts its legal rationale. Yes, all that is required is to understand that the primary importance of this rationale is not the satisfaction of individuals defended by law, but the eternal renaissance of creativity. The new renaissance needs a permanent renaissance for its own permanent survival.

It is to be hoped, but should not be expected as a law of social spiritual development, that finally the renaissance becomes universal, and the war, kept vigorously alive as a method of criminals (like Stalin, Hitler, or Mao) will be discarded as was cannibalism.

In other words, Mao, who was born in 1893, expected as he was dying (and leaving behind his numerous former wives) that his sermons had convinced mankind to go centuries or millennia back, that is, to live as happily as in the “People’s Republic of China,” to use Mao’s name for the slave state of China.

Mao established his PRC by killing, torture, and maiming, and he evidently expected that his PRC bliss may thus be established everywhere, except those countries where the entire population can be wiped out, as Hitler was forced by a “powerful group” to wipe out Jews.

Mao aimed not at the destruction of Jews, but of all people refusing to become slaves. To become slaves or be dead: that was the only general choice.

Yes, mass murder, mass torture, and slavery for all those who survive in China had the “leader” whose Chinese name was Mao Zedong, or Mao Tse-tung. Well, he had a shortcoming: His forehead was both low and retreating, which made him look like a slave of 3,000 years ago.

China Seeks to Enslave the World

There is an opinion that the cause of slavery is the historic backwardness of a country. Actually, the cause of slavery is the same as that of other crimes: impunity. Slavery is one of the gravest crimes, for the criminal robs his victim of everything except what is needed for a slave to carry out his or her owner’s wishes.

Stalin, Hitler, and Mao were equally uneducated (except for the Georgian Stalin, who could barely speak his working tongue — Russian). But their slaves were to take them for gods, not idiots that they were.

In Russia, I was living in Moscow, when one fine day it was announced that Stalin would be the candidate to vote for in our district. I described how I voted in my earlier columns. But the episode is highly relevant, and so I recall it again.

I was to go to our local voting station to “vote.” At a table, several officials held a list of the “voters” with their addresses. I was to take my voting bulletin and drop it into one of the voting boxes down the hall.

Now, what would have happened if I had not turned up to vote? An official would have come to remind me that it was Election Day and that I was expected to vote before midnight.

So I duly went to our voting place and duly dropped my voter’s bulletin into one of the boxes.

Secretly, I had also picked up (with my hand in glove!) another bulletin, wrote on it (in block letters) why I was voting against Stalin, and, with my hand in glove, dropped that bulletin into one of the boxes.

Soon after midnight there was a ring at the door of our “communal apartment,” shared by five or six families. The police were searching the entire electoral district. At their demand, I showed them my passport. They had found nothing suspicious.

Of course, like any slave-owner, Stalin was assuring his slaves via his powerful propaganda that they were free, in contrast to those whom Marx called the “slaves of capital.”

About 15 years after Stalin’s death, several hundred “Soviet people,” including myself and my family, were granted permission to emigrate. By doing so, the new Soviet rulers were trying to offset the scandalous fact that at that time some Soviet spies were apprehended in the United Nations. The diversion worked: Western newspapers front-paged the unprecedented emigration news from Soviet Russia!

So there we were: from the slavery of Moscow to the freedom of New York, where I started publishing in the then fashionable monthly magazine Commentary.

Of course, on the issues like freedom, many are influenced, at the beginning of or throughout one’s life, by one’s native country.

In Britain, the prime minister (equivalent of the U.S. president) is not elected by the people, most or many of whom are not qualified to do so, but is nominated as the chairman of the largest political party in parliament and then referred to the queen to be confirmed as Her Majesty’s prime minister, provided he or she satisfies Her Majesty’s requirements.

Someone like Obama, therefore, could not have possibly met any of those requirements and could have never qualified for such high office.

By contrast, elected in the United States was a certain Obama, who had Marxist-Maoist leanings and particular sympathies for China. Nevertheless, those who voted for Obama did not pay much attention to that fact or maybe they just didn’t care to find out anything about him and awarded him (through their ignorance) the greatest political honor of being the U.S. president.

On the other hand, unlike Obama, Russia fears, and not loves China, its neighbor. And it is partly out of this fear, which is quite real, that Russia has withdrawn from the territories of what formerly constituted its “national republics.” Officially, Russia is now called the “Russian Federation,” or RF. At the same time, possibly also out of fear, Russia has been helping China to accomplish its military projects.

On Dec. 6, 2010, NEWSru.com carried on its front page an article entitled “An Epoch-Making Shift”: China Has Mastered The Russian Aviatechnology, Which May Change The Military Balance.

According to NEWSru.com, the above is a paraphrase of an article which appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

What’s the gist of it?

After China has copied all the best Russian weapons as well as the best Western weapons and has put that knowledge into its armed forces (which could be based on its “extra” 1 billion people), the RF will practically cease to exist, except maybe for some former Soviet slaves, important for the military industry, who will be relocated to China to slave there for their new master’s world ownership.

China Prepares for Modern War

To their owners, slave states may seem more powerful in principle than free countries and destined to defeat them.

I repeatedly mention in my columns that in late 1930s Germany, only a genius such as Albert Einstein understood that a country that would be the first to possess nuclear weapons would win the war.

Einstein’s letter to Roosevelt saved the world from being conquered by Hitler had Hitler been armed with nuclear weapons. Actually, Japan, which did not have nuclear weapons and which attacked the United States, surrendered unconditionally after the United States dropped two nuclear bombs on Japanese islands Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Einstein was born in Germany in 1879. If freedom is measured by the depth of personal philosophies, Germany before 1914 was the world’s freest country. By the late 1930s, however, it had regressed to totalitarian militarism with global ambitions.

Einstein saved mankind by having discreetly left Germany with his family and sending a letter to President Roosevelt warning him about the crucial military importance of nuclear weapons. The United States built them promptly enough and had them by the end of Hitler’s debacle in Russia and his consequent suicide.

The inside of flap of “Cyber War,” written by two former U.S. government officials, says that the senior of the two authors, Richard A. Clarke, served “in the White House, and Bill Clinton appointed him as National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism.”

What is “cyber war”? Clarke is over 60 years old, but this is his first study on the subject.

I pulled up “cyber war” on my computer and received thousands of results mentioning Clarke, as though the United States is consumed by a “cyber war” and is fighting it back under the expert leadership of Clarke.

Norbert Wiener (1894-1964), a mathematician, engineer, and social philosopher, coined the word “cybernetics” from the Greek word meaning “steersman.” He defined it as the science of control and communication in the animal and the machine.

Cybernetics treats not things but ways of behaving: It attempts to understand how systems behave themselves, control themselves, and organize themselves. Cybernetics cuts across many traditional disciplinary boundaries, like engineering, systems control, computer science, biology, philosophy, and the organization of society.

If the United States stays at the mental level of Bill Clinton and his appointee Richard A. Clarke, the annihilation of this country is almost certain.

Today a global military analysis should begin with the statement that China has about 1 billion more inhabitants than the United States. This 1 billion Chinese are a huge reservoir from which to draw those capable to be involved in science and technology.

Of course, since a born inhabitant of China is a slave, this gives the slave state of China its advantages in war. But its disadvantage is that a genius like Albert Einstein cannot be identified in a slave state because there is no other known genius in the field, and hence the field does not exist.

On the other hand, in a free society, Einstein would be discovered by another Einstein if such exists, or by someone aspiring to be a genius.

Much of what is mentioned by the authors of the “Cyber War” as the “new war” threatening the United States has been used hundreds or thousands of years before: espionage, terrorism, sexual seduction, stealing of military plans and what have you. Of course, new science and technology came up the means to destroy them.

Both free countries and slave states have their own advantages and disadvantages in war in general and modern war in particular.

Many inhabitants of free countries take freedom for granted, as existing for them only to enjoy their private lives. Recall the documentary films showing the carefree French on the eve of Hitler’s occupation of France, which happened at a lightning speed.

And what about the current U.S. president’s friendship with China, his desire to see China grow strong, a country which may yet conquer the United States with such ruthless cruelty that will surpass that of Hitler’s occupation of France?

Incidentally, Norbert Wiener became an opponent of war in general. Why not? Freedom in America! One can study cyber war and be openly against war, any war, war in general, and without as much as paying attention to how China has been using 1 billion of its “surplus” population for preparing its war to win the ownership of the world.

China Readies for World War

Recently China’s intentions to unleash a new world war to conquer the world have grabbed the attention of the Western media.

An unfounded Western invention? No, not this time!

The population of the People’s Republic of China exceeds that of the United States by 1 billion. With such advantage and having adequate weapons, China can bury the United States, to say nothing of smaller countries. This is a fact nobody can deny.

The United States and practically all advanced countries participated in World War I and World War II, not to mention smaller wars. What about the “People’s Republic of China”? Here from my collection is the photograph of the smiling Mao, raising his fist to salute the coming of the next “new Russian revolution.”

Well, the “new Russian revolution” never came. But what was important for Mao was to stop using the word “war” in a positive sense. All wars are mass murders. Mao was interested in revolutions. Hence Mao’s China had no need for the latest weapons, since surely the “new Russian revolution” would be armed by Russians themselves.

For about 10 years the Western media have been suspecting that China is making war preparations to conquer the world. On Aug. 5, 2003, few noticed the headline in the blog ParaPundit: “Students from China Caught Stealing Military Technology.”

Well, for years, some 50,000 students from China studying in the United States have been stealing the knowhow and military secrets and whatever else necessary to make the army of the People’s Republic of China the world’s supreme leader.

But many or most leaders of the democratic countries were worried more about their careers than about the safety of their countries, and in particular, about the scandals involving Chinese students in America pilfering American military secrets and sensitive military data. For example, President George W. Bush had a meeting with China’s leader and the scandals were waived aside.

Why do these 50,000 Chinese study in the United States? Well, the United States has been trying to help the People’s Republic of China to educate its people. Hence 50,000 Chinese “study” in the United States — actually helping to equip China’s army with whatever it needs to achieve its ultimate goal: global victory, requiring the world’s best weapons.

In June of 2010, The Washington Post published an article headlined “China Becoming a Scientific Superpower.”

At this point let us recall the millennial social differences between freedom in the United States and other democracies and the absence of it in the People’s Republic of China, converting its inhabitants into slaves, living by sacred rules of slavery.

There is nothing that a free American cannot say or do unless a court finds that those actions do harm to other human beings. On the other hand, there is nothing a Chinese inhabitant can dare to do or say if that contradicts the sacred rules of slavery, established as they were established millennia ago.

That chasm was understood in the United States and other free countries after China’s inhabitants were shot about 20 years ago for saying that it would be good if some government institutions in their country were elected by the people.

On Sept. 23, 2010, the China’s Premier Wen Jiabao spoke in New York. He said, “There are thousands of reasons for U.S.-China relations to move forward.” He went on to say that he “is an optimist about the relations between the two nations.”

Chi Mak had began sending “sensitive materials” to China in 1983, two years before he became a U.S. citizen. Today he is on trial. That is, for 24 years he was sending American sensitive military (naval) technology to China. He is now 66 years old — well, it’s time for him to get some rest.

But surely there will be others like him until China surpasses the United States in the effectiveness of its military weapons to successfully wage its global war to grab and enslave the world.

In this column, I tried to show the “U.S.-China relations” as the U.S. mass media have presented them, and hence most Americans have perceived them, especially in view of the fact that in his New York speech last month Wen Jiabao expressed his optimistic belief that mutual relations between the United States and China should “move forward.”

However, apart from what top Chinese officials may be openly saying for Moscow and the entire world to hear, something infinitely more important and sinister may be secretly discussed in their offices. And this will be the subject of my next-week column.

China Eyes Free Societies

In the first millennium, China and the countries west of China barely knew of each other’s existence, and if a Chinese were asked why he or she never visited Western Europe, the likely answer would be that those Western countries were so boring that no visit was worth it.

In 1949, China appeared in the West under its new name, which had been invented by Mao and presented in English as the “People’s Republic of China.”

The French word “republic” means “wealth (res) of publica,” that is, of “people,” and so Mao’s new name of China meant “People’s Wealth of People of China.”

In the People’s Republic of China, the Tiananmen Square’s participants publicly dared to call for the free election of the government — and were shot.

In the United States, Obama repeatedly expressed his sympathy for the slave society of the post-1949 China — and remains the freely elected U.S. president.

At one time China was regarded in the West as a “big village,” while many crucial strategic achievements (like the Newtonian mathematics and physics) were made in China before they appeared in the West.

So what’s the way out for the West from the looming disaster threatening it by Mao’s China?

While the population of a country such as post-1949 China may be acting reflexively, the population of the West must act as one human being, aware of the overall goal to preserve freedom. This is a route of suffering, ensuring the superiority of the general awareness of the goal of the survival of a free society over a slave country.

The pacifist mood of France, attacked by the totalitarian Germany, ensured the French collapse. Even the totalitarian Germany lost its war with Russia owing to Hitler’s nonchalant mood, good for a play at war, not the war of Hitler’s Germany against Stalin’s Russia.

Thus we arrive at the most tragic dilemma: Freedom is the possibility to do what he or she wants to do, is it not? But then a free country such as France may be routed, as it was by Hitler, precisely because of her freedom.

Freedom just for the sake of freedom leads to death. The death of that same free person. Or the death of a free country. Freedom has to be meaningful, just as the human life has to be meaningful.

Otherwise even Hitler, having invaded Russia, could expect nothing but a bullet through his brain.

When speaking of the meaning of freedom, we speak of a national freedom or of the freedom of all free nations in the world.

When a free nation ignores the danger to its existence because it finds better ways to enjoy its freedom, contrary to the interests of self-preservation of national and world freedom, the latter gets destroyed, as the freedom of France was destroyed when Hitler invaded it.

Let us not forget that the preservation of freedom depends on us. It is our personal responsibility as well.

In a country in which a friend of today’s China is in the White House, a lot of sensitive information gets released and becomes easily available and harmful to our country. If you happen to be in possession of such secret information, do not divulge it; do not give it away just because you happen to have access to this secret information.

Do not destroy your country while it is still yours.

I wonder whether a healthy change will come to the United States before long. Let us remember that each of us is responsible either for a process of its innovation or for its hopeless decay, which may end up as it did in France with Hitler’s conquest.

I call upon all those who want to preserve freedom in the world. Let each of us act like dramatic personae in a possible, real-life final tragedy of mankind, brought on by slave societies.

Yes, one person can do a lot if he or she acts intelligently and does his or her best for the benefit of freedom in our world, where the population of the People’s Republic of China exceeds 1.3 billion.

At the same time, let us not forget that the scale of death and destruction in war increases automatically with the growth of technology. There may come a time when war will become the suicide of mankind.

The problem now will be to keep the world scale of war deaths and destruction within the crucial limits. Still, let us see and hear more of the best world strategists. Let no one be surprised if everyone in a free country will be a literate, well-informed world strategist saving from death at least the free part of mankind.

This may lead to more time spent on the saving of the free world than on watching the television programs, whose aim is to sell fashionable trinkets or “movies about war.” We should remember that without countries dedicated to freedom the universe will become a corpse.

It is possible that before long we will have the final judgment as to whether the world will embrace freedom as it still does, or whether it will sink into slavery.

Human life, whether free or slave, may disappear forever due to ever-new military technology.

Will the U.S. Be Conquered by China?

At the beginning of the “Sovietia,” Stalin was concerned that by destroying the treasures of Russian art, valued all over the refined world, he would get branded by the West as a vandal.

Osip Mandelstam, a Russian poet considered a genius, wrote a stinging poem about Stalin. These are the opening lines of the poem (which was not published at the time, but it was copied, read, and passed on):

We live without feeling the earth under our feet.
What we say is never heard ten steps away.

Now, was Mandelstam a poet of genius? If he was, he would not be killed publicly right away. There would be problems abroad: “Stalin has killed a poet whom the Russians call the greatest, not only in Russia but in the world at large.”

Stalin contacted the poet Boris Pasternak: “Is Mandelstam a poet of genius?” he asked. “Yes,” Pasternak answered, “but I would like to speak with you about something else.” “What about?” Stalin asked. “Life and death,” was the response.

Stalin hung up.

Mandelstam was committed to a temporary exile, where he lived with his wife, Nadezhda, and where he created his great poetry. Months later he was sent to a concentration camp, where he perished.

There were no changes in the Sovietia except those for the worse, until 1970 brought incredible, impossible news: Several hundred “Soviet citizens” were allowed to emigrate to the countries of their choice!

Where should we emigrate? For quite a few of us the choice was made by history.
The English-speaking countries have the most elaborate freedom rights! And that was where we went — America! — the most powerful free country which would be able to defend us best.

Before going over to the current flow of time, let me devote a couple of paragraphs to the life of myself and my near and dear here in New York City. During our life in Moscow, Russia, we eyed our beloved English-speaking countries, where the freedom of speech (such as writing poetry by Mandelstam) was no crime, one that could end in a poet’s death in a concentration camp.

We had a nervous worry about the survival of the free countries in the age of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, and in New York I began writing a weekly column about the world at large. My wife was my secretary, since both of us went through the same world drama.

Now, after having lived in America for 40 years, I cannot help comparing the electoral systems of the United States and Great Britain.

The majority party in the British parliament, which receives more votes than any other party, nominates a candidate to speak with Her Majesty, after which the Queen either approves or rejects the nominee to be her prime minister.

The British briefcase “Prime Minister” contains about 50 pages. Why did I choose to write the above paragraph? Well, some information is more important the greater the number of those who voted for it. But with other information, it may be the other way around: the fewer the voters know about it, the more valuable it may be.

Had not the U.S. president received the information about nuclear bombs through a letter he received from a great German scientist (who was not even a voter in the United States!), Hitler with nuclear bombs would have become the owner of the world.

The American government power is said to have originated in the American Revolution.
I saw it being abused by Obama after he became president of the United States. Shortly after Obama moved into the White House, he declared a new era of “cooperation, not confrontation” with China and arranged for the two days of high-level talks with Chinese officials. Said Obama: “The relationship between the United States and China will shape the 21st century, which makes it as important as any bilateral relationship in the world.”

Has Obama read numberless conclusions of experts about the coming destructive war between the United States and the “People’s Republic of China”?

But what about those Americans who believe that the China founded in 1949 by Mao, the Stalinist who killed 64 million Chinese, will save America because Obama declared it to be its friend?

What about us who emigrated to the United States, and not to Britain, because we believed that as a larger country than Britain, America will be able to defend its citizens better?

Actually, all Americans who want to remain Americans, can, on the contrary, find themselves in a trap, created by Mao and his “communist China.”

It is generally recognized today that the harm to Russia done by the “Russian Revolution,” which took place in a country by no means as free as Britain, was tremendous, and its inheritor Stalin died only in l953, but his unprecedented-scale atrocities continued after his death.

It may be appropriate to mention here that Canada is not part of the United States.

Surely had America remained part of the English-speaking territory, the queen of England would have spoken with Obama after he had been elected and would have rejected him after their conversation.

The opposite result? It seems possible for those who make up Obama’s noisy army of those who have been and will be displeased with any America except if it becomes the “People’s Republic of America.”

Obama discovered the “People’s Republic of China” not by reading scientific accounts, but by “their flesh and spirit” being “mine now and for centuries ahead.”

Russia, US Should Join Against China

A smart Russian friend of mine, an outstanding technologist living and working in the United States, sent me a 17-page transcript of one of Yulia Latynina’s Saturday television talk shows called “Code of Access.”

Google introduces Yulia as a “Russian journalist, writer and radio host” and devotes to her nine headlined paragraphs plus “video results.”

To me, a Russian who emigrated from Russia 40 years ago, Yulia is a Russian woman in a new role in a new Russia. Forty years ago her program would have been impossible and, indeed, inconceivable: a charming young woman discussing life in Russia on her TV program, criticizing its social and political aspects, thinking out loud . . .

Indeed, I find in Latynina’s program the thoughts which I have not heard in the United States, but which are politically infinitely valuable.

Here is my favorite, on page 10 of the transcript: “As for elections . . . Dear ladies and gentlemen, a remarkable public opinion poll was taken in 2007: Does the Sun revolve around the Earth or does the Earth revolve around the Sun? Of those polled, 27% answered that the Sun revolves around the Earth.”

In the elementary school of Russia, it has been explained that the Earth rotates around the sun, but to the people on the Earth it seems that the sun rotates around the Earth. Yet 27 percent of potential voters forgot the school explanation.

I also have developed a similar point when I asked how U.S. President Roosevelt could be presumed to have known that it was a life-or-death matter for the United States to build a nuclear bomb if perhaps none of his voters had ever heard of such a bomb.

It was only Einstein, at the time not yet officially an American immigrant, who in his 1939 letter to Roosevelt explained the nuclear bomb and the dire need for the United States to have it and thus save the free countries from being atom-bombed by Hitler, for Hitler’s Germany had started developing nuclear bombs already in 1939.

President Roosevelt was quick to respond to Einstein’s letter, and the United States outpaced Hitler’s Germany by having obtained the nuclear bomb ahead of it.

Having President Roosevelt, however, was just good luck for the United States and other free countries. But the destiny of the world should not depend on just good luck. The United States should work out a foolproof, reliable electoral system as to leave no opportunity for error, misuse, or failure in choosing a president.

In her television talk show, Yulia is quick, colorful, and witty. At the same time, at the beginning of her talk, some will find that she is too brief and light, considering the gravity of the subject.

This is how the transcript begins: “There are many questions concerning Putin’s negotiations with China and especially concerning the article in the newspaper Vedomosti which mentioned a forthcoming Russian-Chinese treaty, in which sold to China is Russia in total and a little more.”

Latynina goes on to explain: “As far as I know, the Kremlin is afraid of China to a state of horror, to a stomach ache.”

In my weekly columns published in the United States, I keep saying that the People’s Republic of China, with its population of 1.3 billion, is or will be against the United States, with its 300 million people, like four Chinese armies confronted by the U.S. Army. In the case of Russia, with its population half of that of the United States, it will be like eight Chinese armies confronted by one Russian defense army.

But that’s not all. Hitler’s Germany could not bomb the United States: It was impossible to fly bombers across the Atlantic Ocean and back.

Now, the ground army of the People’s Republic of China is capable of invading Russia, since China adjoins the eastern edge of Russia.

It is true that Imperial China never invaded other nations. But it is worth asking why not. Because Imperial China regarded all nations so beneath itself that to invade them would be as aimless as to make havoc of useless and disgusting beasts.

At the same time it is worthwhile to recall the “Tatar-Mongol Yoke” in Russia, which began in 1240 and was overthrown only in 1480, that is, went on for 240 years!

Yet the danger to Russia is far greater than to be invaded by China’s ground army.

I already described in my columns how Col. Larry M. Wortzel (United States, retired) had confirmed in his online memo that the People’s Republic of China had been working on “space warfare.” Google search “Larry M. Wortzel” provides “about 49,100 results.”

There is plenty of such information today, and Yulia describes how much the Kremlin fears China.

The fear is justified (but is not sufficient!). What is China’s “space warfare”? So far wars have been waged at the Earth. But we know that the Earth is only a tiny speck in the vast Universe. And the Earth with its atmosphere and stratosphere is surrounded by the space of the Universe.

It is there that the People’s Republic of China has been creating a new warfare, as Wortzel describes it, with the help of Google. Let us recall that the People’s Republic of China has expelled Google from its territory. The space warfare should be kept secret until it’s ready to go into action.

So what should the Kremlin do, apart from experiencing fear, as described by Yulia Latynina? In the United States, I have been asked by my readers on which side Russia is: on the side of the United States and other Western countries or on the side of the People’s Republic of China?

Yulia, you should say to the Kremlin: Your fear is justified. But surely it is no good to fear just for the sake of fear itself!

The Kremlin should side with the United States and join, together with the other Western countries, in the development of defense against the People’s Republic of China, including its space warfare.

Yulia, do you see any other way out? I don’t. Please use your outstanding intelligence and knowledge to help save Russia and other endangered countries.

China Preparing for World War III

Since the future of our world is likely to be decided by World War III, it may be of interest to predict its outcome.

Owing to my obsession with freedom, I emigrated from Russia with my wife, our son, my mother, and several hundred strangers (the purpose of the owners of Russia was to create the fantastic impression that Soviet Russia was a democracy!).

My eagerness to emigrate was reinforced by my egomania, according to which I fancied that in the West I would be writing in English whatever I thought and be paid for it, since enough Americans and other Westerners would find what I wrote worth reading.

In 2005, Gen. Chi Haotian of China, its “minister of national defense” since 1993 to 2003, revealed in his speeches that in China’s war on the United States, from one-third to two-thirds of Americans would be poisoned or infected biologically by the Chinese, and their homes and property would be transferred over to Chinese settlers, since the Chinese (and not the Germans, as Chi stipulated in his speech) are the superior race and must have everything best in the world.

Anyway, a slave state (China) has this advantage over a free country (the United States): it can reward (enrich!) 100 million or 200 million of its troops and its civilians with what those killed (poisoned and infected) Americans and their ancestors had been acquiring for the past two-and-a-half centuries.

In the United States, an American’s betrayal of his country to China may well be seen to be his use of his freedom.

This certainly applies to the U.S. presidents, whose elections (which have little to do with the appointment of the prime minister in Britain) contradict the knowledge of mental ability, according to which the value of a thought may include its exclusivity: Einstein said that he was understood by seven people in the world.

It was only owing to Einstein’s letter to President Roosevelt in 1939 that the Americans got the nuclear bombs before Hitler’s Germany completed its nuclear project.

Einstein emigrated to the United States because he was a Jew. Suppose he was not a Jew and did not emigrate? Hitler would have “the bomb,” which his Germany began to develop earlier than the United States. But what about the 100 percent American professors?

None of them wrote a letter to Roosevelt about both possibility and necessity of developing the nuclear bomb. Einstein did, though officially he was not yet even an immigrant.

Have you ever heard the word “professor” used before the name “Einstein”? To begin with, he was not a professor.

Mental worker and mental work have been evaluated in the free countries in the past centuries as “genius,” “highly important,” or as “mediocre twaddle,” “a pack of insults, to humiliate his opponents.”

Today such comments are conspicuously rare in the United States. If a holder of an opinion is a professor (something one can buy online!) or has another degree, rank, or title, that opinion is accepted at least politely, and if he/she is just an Einstein, his/her opinion is ignored or met with a pack of insults.

The result? My article “What the CIA Knows about Russia” (worse than nothing!) in the September 1978 issue of the Commentary magazine was reprinted or outlined in about 500 periodicals all over the free world.

The most powerful free country has no intelligence service! A catastrophy? Yes! But the case was buried by professors and other titled officials in total silence as beneath attention.

In the United States, it is still understood sometimes that scientific, technological, philosophical, political or artistic endeavors have different levels of achievement, and not just one level. Yet the academic and government bureaucracy in the United States tends to reduce all of its endeavors to one level of mediocrity.

In the post-1949 China, we have been facing a geostrategic paradox.

By the standards which had prevailed before the “advanced” Hitler’s Germany was routed by the “backward Russia,” China was classified as “backward,” since it had a vast agricultural population living outside cities.

In 1917, the “backward” Russia produced 3.1 million tons of steel, as against 45.8 million of the United States. But in 1989, the figures were 160 million for Russia versus 96 million for the United States.

In 2007, China produced 489.2 million tons of steel, while the U.S. output stayed near its 1989 figure. Which one is a backward country?

Just a decade ago, China was still considered backward because of its huge population.

Today it is obvious (though not to most academic and government officials in the United States) that the population of China, which is 1.3 billion, that is, more than four times larger than that of the United States, can be converted by the slave state of China into at least four times more creators and users of the latest weapons than can the United States.

A “slave state” is a mobilized military country, in which every slave is a mobilized military man or woman.

The slave state of China has been at war, though that war is internal until it becomes an assuredly victorious limited operation, like conversion of the United States (described by General Chi Haotian) into a Chinese country as part of the Chinese world empire.

On the other hand, a free country enables everyone to be a great thinker as Einstein was. But many Americans would not like to be Einsteins even if they had the ability.

I have not met anyone in the East or West more dedicated to freedom than those in charge of Newsmax and WorldTribune. But the tremendous mission of rescue of the free world from the slave state of China requires a far greater attention.

Hence life in the United States is presented by the rest of the media as an ongoing festival, in which money as well as new goods and services, crimes, and sex are the most prominent, while for weeks or months China seems to have never existed.

Few people in the free countries believed that Hitler would launch aggressive wars to become the world dictator until he launched them just as soon as he was able to do so. But to the owners of China, wars should not be started unless there is a certainty that having started them, they will win them.

The masters and slaves of China are preparing for victorious wars while free Americans enjoy their festivals.

How to Ensure Adequate Defense of a Free Country

An adequate defense of a free country requires an adequate government.

In the United States, the British system of electing a prime minister was replaced by the direct election of a U.S. president by a majority of voters, which opens the possibility of electing a mentally average mind, for the more minds think about complex problems in the same way and with a stereotypical simplicity, the lower is their mental level, while Einstein, who in 1939 explained to Roosevelt the immediate need to begin to develop the “atom bomb,” used to say that he was understood by seven people in the world. Fortunately, Roosevelt’s mind happened to be far above the average.

At a two-day meeting in Washington, including top officials from China, President Obama has proclaimed himself and the United States a “partner of China,” while in the past decade China’s Gen. Chi Haotian, the minister of national defense up to 2004, proclaimed in his speeches that China should poison or infect with a mortal disease one-third or two-thirds of the Americans and then transfer their homes and other property to the new (Chinese) settlers as to the really superior race, whom one-third of the Americans left alive are to serve manually.

This information became available in the West via the Western press and television, but the last three U.S. presidents have been deaf to it, not to spoil their “good relations” with the owners of China.

Before the 21st century, the absence of a U.S. president as a unique mind and a unique soul in the defense of the United States was not so tragic for the United States, since North America was protected by the two oceans and Canada against the armed forces of the time in the possession of Hitler.

Canada is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, formerly known as the British Commonwealth. In the American Revolution against Britain, the United States destroyed or ousted those sprouts of the British political wisdom, which had been developing within the English history since the 13th century (Magna Carta).

The Canadians do not elect a Canadian president by a majority of voters.

On the other hand, as William Safire wrote in the New York Times on May 18, 1998, U.S. President Clinton, “hungry for money to finance his re-election overruled the Pentagon; he sold to a Chinese military intelligence front the technology that [U.S.] defense experts argued would give Beijing the capacity to blind our spy satellites and launch a sneak attack.”

George W. Bush saw the threat to the United States coming not from China (population: 1,331 billion) but from the oil-rich Iraq (population: 26 million, 35 percent of whom were Sunni, favoring the free West), and he invaded Iraq in an absurd five-year campaign.

As for Obama, he is a “partner of China” but is vigilant to whatever is going on in Afghanistan (population: 30 million).

The people of England do not elect a U.K. president. They elect members of parliament. The largest party in parliament sends its candidate to the king or queen for the approval as his/her prime minister.

Let us also recall that the word democracy was launched by ancient Athens. The word democracy came from the word demos (“common people”), and the word aristocracy from the word aristos (“best”).

The “revolutionary America” and the “revolutionary Russia” abolished their aristocracy. Yet classical music has been performed in both countries by aristos and for aristos.

All uniquely valuable creativity in arts or sciences, philosophy, or geostrategy, involves aristos.

The U.S. election of a U.S. president by a majority of voters contradicts the organic law of cerebral creativity, according to which the mental ability of members of a similarly thinking group is likely to be the lower, the more numerous the group is, and genius is not a member of a group of millions of similarly thinking members.

If President Roosevelt was a genius, then his election as a U.S. president by millions of Obamas was accidental, and if he had been an Obama, just as were those who voted for him, he could have been fatal for his country.

Today the danger has grown immensely.

If the president is a genius, he must be at the peak of a human pyramid, corresponding to “an intelligence statistical curve,” and transmitting his ideas to the people at large.

This is accepted in cultural or in intellectual endeavors in the West. How can a government do without such a pyramid? Or is the defense against the PRC something so simple that any Obama elected by a majority of Obamas can create it?

Why should President Obama be expected to be smarter than the evil dictators of China?

An Obama who would begin today to engage in a globally developing and vitally important field like war — without any proficiency in it and without any evidence of his proficiency — can be called an idiot and what he has been doing an idiocy.

The U.S. president has been elected by a majority of psychiatrically healthy adult Americans who wished to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Suppose he is a genius in establishing the single-payer healthcare system. And, his all-American healthcare will be the world’s best. But why should a genius in single-payer healthcare be automatically expected to be a genius of today’s geostrategy?

Surely it is safer for him to become a traitor with respect to the United States and a slave of the owners of China, helping them enslave that one-third of Americans who are to remain alive as servants to the superior race from China.

There is a sweet delusion in the free West that a free country is by definition more powerful than a slave country like the “People’s Republic of China.”

This is a delusion.

Freedom has one military advantage: It produces people of genius like Einstein, who flourished in Germany before Nazism, but who emigrated after Hitler’s advent to power — and it was his letter to Roosevelt that was to destroy Hitler, for Hitler stopped the active development of the nuclear bomb in Germany, while the United States had developed it by 1945.

Without the atom bomb, Hitler lost the war in Russia and committed suicide, not to face the public trial and be executed by his war enemies.

But a slave country like post-1949 China has many advantages in war. For example, its every inhabitant (except little children and invalids) is psychologically “mobilized” in war or in peace as in the severest war.

The war losses never deter the owners of a slave country, for they do not sustain any personal losses unless they lose the war as Hitler did.

Are Americans Awakening to the China Threat?

I began publishing columns about the “China Danger” after unarmed Chinese in the Tiananmen Square in 1989 called for a peaceful limitation of the unlimited power in their country, to which the dictators of China responded with what has been described in the West a “massacre.”

What was a discovery to me? The Chinese will to freedom, which later manifested itself again in dozens of millions of withdrawals from the Chinese Communist Party.

I drew the following conclusion: We can well assume that the only way for the dictators of China to preserve their dictatorship is to conquer the world and thus eliminate those countries whose freedom seduces so many Chinese.

That became a theme of my columns, and I was especially interested in the public speeches of General Chi Haotian, China’s minister of national defense from 1993 to 2003.

He now is 80 years of age, but he still is a top official. In his public speeches, he described China’s global strategy. Between one-third and two-thirds of the population of the United States is to be annihilated (biologically) and their homes and other property are to be transferred to the new Chinese settlers.

One-third of Americans will be left alive to serve this “superior” race. Due to such conquests, China will become a global empire.

Initially, General Chi’s predictions were ignored by many “American experts” and passed off for forgeries and what not. Those experts did not seem to understand that if the rulers of China had regarded Chi’s speeches harmful, not useful, to them, they would have made Chi lie to the West that those speeches of his are criminal forgeries and that he, General Chi Haotian, has nothing to do with them.

Even if we accept the totally improbable version that he refused to obey the rulers of China (and had been properly tortured to death, using the Chinese experience in torture of thousands or millions of years), the rulers of China would have found another way of lying to the West that so-called “Chi’s speeches” were forgeries.

Anyway, recently I have noticed that General Chi’s predictions, which I have quoted in my columns, are being taken seriously by American readers of my weekly columns (while President Obama had declared the dictatorship of China and the United States, as represented by himself, to be “partners” in the 21st century).

Chris Reynolds of Dallas, Texas, begins his almost page-long e-mail to me on Sept. 4, 2009: “Please continue writing your outstanding columns about China and other threats facing the United States. You have a rare talent for writing about complex issues in very clear terms, without hyperbole, so that even the most ignorant or stubborn people should be able to comprehend your writing without misunderstanding.”

The day earlier, Sept. 3, an e-mal to me said: “Keep up the good work,” and the next day, in his page-long e-mail of Sept. 4, David Fellows had this to say: “First of all, let me say that every chance I get I read and enjoy your articles. I thank you for what you do to inform my fellow Americans, many of whom are living in an intellectual fog.

“Unfortunately, the ones who are most in need of your insight are too busy ‘drinking the Kool-aid’ as we sometimes say in our country.”

My column of Sept. 17, 2009, produced a string of e-mails. On Sept.18, Bret Simms wrote: Hello, great article! My only question is why are so many Americans asleep into thinking one day we will not be attacked.

“My opinion is that the U.S government is in some ways provoking an attack which will neutralize the U.S.A. An attack that could take place in mere yrs . . . . I am born and raised U.S. citizen and love my country. The people of THE UNITED STATES I fear are in for a rude awakening. Again great article . . . keep speaking truth!”

The following day, Gregory Camp begins his e-mail, “Dear Mr. Navrozov, I just ‘discovered’ your work and am forwarding your articles to my friends and colleagues. Thank you for bringing this information to the public.”

On Sept. 17, the day the column appeared, I received an e-mail from Darryl Hicks, executive administrator of mybestyears.com: “Chilling! You’ve just put together the most striking column we’ve read.” And then he ends, “We would certainly enjoy putting the spotlight on you and this invaluable column about the Chinese official [General Chi Haotian].”

What’s the conclusion? It seems to me that mentally alert Americans who value the United States for its freedom and all that freedom brings with it, including personal safety from political persecution, and not only for advertised goods and services at the lowest possible prices, are ready to understand that the United States is a country that is being threatened by a war of annihilation, to be accompanied or followed by similar wars of China on all the other free countries less capable of defending themselves.

What is necessary is to make the danger signal reach millions and dozens of millions of Americans as it has reached those whose e-mails I just quoted above.

Several months ago I suggested production of a film on the subject. The donations to our not-for-profit Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., are tax-deductible.

Alas, I am too busy, writing, to go into the money jungle, so that the center has no money to create a highly professional and successful film explaining the geostrategic situation of today.

France, together with 10 British divisions in France, was overrun by Nazi troops within six weeks. The French culture, with its intellectual sophistication, education, and Napoleon in its military history, did not help to defend the country from the Nazi invasion. Nor had the 10 British divisions foreseen their destiny.

Will the United States in its defense against the dictatorship of China, with its population exceeding that of the United States more than four times, go the way France did in its defense against the dictatorship of Germany?

West Oblivious to China Threat

Why is the West asleep? This is what I was asked by Jonathan Smithson, an Australian of English and Chinese descent, who sent me a piece from a speech delivered by Chi Haotian, the minister of national defense of China up to 2004 and a top military analyst today, and published by the dissident Chinese newspaper The Epoch Times, sold in English in English-speaking countries. The space allocated by The Epoch Times to Chi consists of 571 entries, and the first entry is summarized as follows: “A leading Chinese Communist Party official argues for exterminating the population of the United States.”

In Chi’s 12-page speech, which The Epoch Times published on June 6 under the title “WWIII: War Is Not Far from Us and Is the Midwife of the Chinese Century,” Chi devoted on what is page 2 of The Epoch Times publication to his demonstration that the Chinese are the superior race to win in WWIII its right to the “Chinese century.” Says Chi:

“Hitler’s Germany had once bragged that the German race was the most superior race on Earth, but the fact is, our nation is far superior to the Germans.”

Smithson sent me two e-mails. One contains a piece of Chi’s speech from The Epoch Times. In the other, Smithson (who has degrees in law and medicine) asks me “Lev — Why is the West asleep?”

The piece of Chi’s speech from The Epoch Times reads:

“We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios,” Chi begins. What are they? (1) China succeeds in the surprise attack on the United States. (2) China’s attack fails and triggers a retaliation from the U.S. The result? “More than half of the population of China would perish.”

The conclusion? “Whatever the case may be,” Chi goes on to say, “we can only move forward fearlessly for the sake of our Party and state and our nation’s future, regardless of the hardships we have to face and the sacrifices we have to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever gone!”

But Chi looks into the future without fear or hesitation. “In any event,” Chi goes on, “we, the Chinese Communist Party, will never step down from the stage of history!”

So? “In my view, there is another kind of bondage, that is, the fate of our Party is tied up with that of the whole world. If we, the Chinese Communist Party, are finished, China will be finished, and the world will be finished.”

Chi is actually kind: “It is indeed brutal to kill one or two [or maybe three?] hundred million Americans.” You see? “But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the Chinese Communist Party leads the world.”

Chi wouldn’t want to kill one, two (or three?) hundred million Americans just for nothing! “We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths.” There is one “but” though.

“But if history confronts us with a choice between death of Chinese and that of Americans, we’d have to pick the latter, as for us, it is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party.” Why? “That is because, after all, we are Chinese and members of the Chinese Communist Party. Since the day we joined the Chinese Communist Party, the Party’s life has always been above all else!”

It is curious that the “Party,” possessing China and aiming at possessing the world, no matter what victims, is represented by Chi as an infinitely priceless living being whose “life has always been above all else.”

We can now answer that question Smithson raises in his e-mail to me: “Lev — Why is the West asleep?”

The Western democracies have survived owing to industrialization, including science and technology producing ever more effective weapons, up to the nuclear bombs in 1945 by the United States and its allies. But in the 20th century it also turned out that Stalin’s slave society can also produce no less effective weapons. And in the first decade of the 21st century here is Chi arguing that China should be the first to annihilate the U.S., to be on the safe side.

In China, all humans, except the owners of the country, are slaves used as producers or users of weapons. Now, in the free countries, defense is a matter of will of most citizens. Defense requires money as well as the people with outstanding military abilities. The Iraq War demonstrated that there were no such people to lead that war from the beginning, and the initiator of the war, supposedly an adequate military commander, was an ignorant fool who dragged a war against Sunni, and for Shia, in a small backward country for six years.

No, Bush was not asleep. As the president and commander in chief, he could not help hearing what Chi said as the minister of national defense of China about the need to attack the U.S. and exterminate its population as that of an inferior race. But Bush was not interested. He was absorbed with his own Iraq war for his own reason(s).

Is the West asleep? On the contrary, the West is wide awake, in its daily hunts for money and the best bargains, as well as enjoying life in every other way possible. But even purely financial preparations for war will impose higher taxes, and who wants them of their free will?

In short, the free people of the free countries must do of their own free will what slaves in state slavery countries do out of fear of ruthless vindication, including torture. Is this possible? Or are we living at the end of sociopolitical freedom, and mankind will soon be in global slavery forever and ever and anon?

Why Amerika will die.

Blacks will always claim discrimination against white America, though the majority of the government services support their percentage of the population far exceeds their proportion of the total population, even though government entitlement programs continue to provide food, housing, transportation, bill assistance and even cell phones to their population. The black middle-class exists only because of local, state and federal government jobs, jobs that go disproportionately to blacks, affirmative action system guarantees blacks will benefit from any increase in government employment. Private institutions which are government sponsored such as healthcare fields and non-profit groups also provide employment to the vast majority of minorities. Small businesses which are black owned and operated exist through government sponsored loans, lawsuits and support from a system which has past its breaking point in the last decade. Nearly all black executives are affirmative action appointees, puppets placed in positions which will have little to no influence on the over workings of the corporation, insulating their eternal track record of failure from the overall institution.

Blacks claims of inherit racism within the system they overwhelmingly benefit from, a system they run due to their large employment, is nothing more then a visit to the ATM of white Americans. A system that is built around their benefit, a system within which their existence is funded. The tax base of Black Run America is the white Americans. Without which black run America cannot exist. Each year government spending increases and government employment increase, at a loss of private sector jobs and wealth. Each year the number of minorities applying for government assistance increases, guaranteeing an ever increasing source of democrat voters, organized labor which seeks to fill its coffers with government money, also steadily shifts costs of its parasitic relationship to the various levels of government and consumers. As the bureaucracy grows consuming wealth, driving up the cost of living, inflation, forcing down the standard of living for most Americans. The black population reliance on government money steadily increasing faster then the rate at which whites are able to fund, creating massive government debt which have already forced foreign lenders to other shores. We face the inevitable collapse of the American system. Government spending cannot end on its own, government reliance on entitlement programs will only increase in the coming years, and the tax base cannot meet this demand. Raising taxes as some has suggested will only drive tax producers underground, off shore, or out of business, why produce when you will not enjoy the benefits of production. Any tax increase will kill long term growth, thereby lowering government remittances further, and increase private sector unemployment. This is the system the current generation will inherent from the 50+ members of our population, a system that is beyond repair. They sacrificed long term sustainability for short term stability, they choose their own comfort and retirement over the health and safety of their grand children. Hard choice were demanded of their generation, instead they collectively kicked the can down the road, now instead of reforms and higher taxation, we face both and other government ponzi scheme in a failed attempt at salvaging a dying national system and eventual total collapse.

Wind of Change on the Horizon? Why the Summer of 2011 will be a test for BRA

Wind of Change on the Horizon? Why the Summer of 2011 will be a test for BRA

http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/

The collapse of BRA will rival the fall of the Berlin Wall

The US Postal Service, just like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, is doomed. One of the top employers of Black people in the United States (as all Federal and state government agencies have become), the losses the Post Office continues to post are astounding: 

Reporting a $2.2 billion loss in its fiscal second quarter, the U.S. Postal Service said it expects to hit its borrowing limit by the Sept. 30 end of its fiscal year, and will default on payments to the federal government unless Congress allows it to cut costs and liabilities, Reuters reported.

The Postal Service, which has lost money the last four fiscal years, has asked to cut Saturday mail delivery and in March announced layoffs and post office closures.

We’ve long wondered why the US Postal Service continues to brag about its commitment to diversity when a direct correlation is noticeable in the increase in Black and non-white employees and the persistent trend of massive financial losses.

Remember the vocations with the highest percentage of Black participation? We do:

1.     Barbers—35.0%

2.     Nursing, psychiatric, and home health aides—34.0%

3.     Residential advisors—29.6%

4.     Security guards and gaming surveillance officers—28.6%

5.     Postal service clerks-28.3%

6.     Baggage porters, bellhops, and concierges—27.1%

7.     Postal service mail sorters, processors, and processing machine operators—26.4%

8.     Taxi drivers and chauffeurs—25.7%

9.     Bus drivers—24.9%

10.   Parking lot attendants—24.4%

Two of the top 10 jobs that have the highest Black participation rates are related to the US Postal Service. Could one postulate that “residential advisors” has something to do with the government agency HUD? In 1997, austerity measures hit local, state and the Federal government and The New York Times published this important story:

‘The downsizing of state and local governments is going to have a predictable, disproportionate, negative effect on people of color generally and especially the black community,” said Bennett Harrison, a professor of political economy at the New School for Social Research. Professor Harrison, who has studied urban government workers since the early 1970′s, said minority groups benefited disproportionately from the growth of the public sector and are now simply in the wrong place as history’s wheel has turned. ”The case is unambiguous,” he said.

The New York State Comptroller, H. Carl McCall, who as a young black man in the mid-1960′s got his start working on antipoverty programs in the administration of Mayor John V. Lindsay before going on to a career at Citibank in the 1970′s, said his greatest fear was not so much for the people leaving jobs now, but for their children and grandchildren.

”Public sector jobs helped establish a stable middle class for the minority community, but the next generation will not have that opportunity,” he said.

Fourteen years later, the Black reliance on public sector jobs is at an all-time high. The private sector can’t find jobs for Black people, not because there are jobs Americans won’t do, but because there are jobs Black American’s won’t do. 
 

Yahoo reports:

If the election of America’s first African-American president was expected to give blacks an economic boost, it hasn’t emerged yet. Indeed, the percentage of African-American men with a job has dropped to its lowest level since records began in 1972, according to the government’s monthly jobs report released last week.

Even as the economy added a better-than-expected 244,000 jobs, the percentage of black males over 20 who are currently employed dropped slightly to 56.9, the Labor Department’s April report shows. For whites, the equivalent figure is 68.1 percent.
Before this recession, the percentage of black adult men with a job had never dropped below 60 percent, according to Labor Department statistics.

And among blacks, it’s not just men who are suffering. Just 51.5 percent of African-Americans across the board–compared to 59.5 percent of whites–have a job, the numbers show. That’s the lowest level for blacks since 1984. (That group includes 16- to 19-year-olds, who are employed at a far lower rate than their elders.)

These employment rates are calculated differently from the top-line unemployment rate, which includes only those actively looking for work, and inched back up last month to 9 percent.

Heather Boushey, an economist with the liberal Center for American Progress, told The Lookout it’s not just African-Americans who have been hit particularly hard.  It’s also other traditionally struggling groups, such as ex-offenders and those without a college degree.

“Anyone who would be last on an employer’s list to get a job is really in bad shape” in the current downturn, Boushey said.

And employers’ hiring practices may be making the problem worse. As we’ve reported, online job listings telling the unemployed not to apply have proliferated in recent years. The federal government is currently probing whether such listings illegally discriminate against African Americans, who are disproportionately likely to be among the jobless.

Recall that The New York Times published a story lamenting that the proficiency of Black students lags way behind that of every other testable racial group and you begin to understand that the reliance on McDonald’s for steady income (and, of course, EBT cards which cost the tax payer $34 Billion in 2008) is the wave of the future for athletically-challenged Black people.

Black people unqualified for government work will be competing for fast food service jobs (one can already predict the outcome of this based on the 1 million people who applied for 50,000 jobs at McDonald’s three weeks ago).

We aren’t trying to pessimistic at SBPDL; only painting an accurate picture of what looms on the horizon.

Recall that more than 50 percent of the workforce at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is minority (at least 40 percent is Black) and that fears of shutting down these agencies have pointed out how this would be a major disservice to the minority community.

House lawmakers (all Republicans) have introduced measures that would phase-out both government sponsored mortgage backers:

House lawmakers unveiled seven bills Friday to speed up the eventual closure of government-controlled mortgage giants Fannie Mae ( FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC), part of a Republican push to dramatically reduce the U.S. government’s role in the mortgage market.

The bills are part of a GOP strategy keep public attention on Fannie and Freddie, the two mortgage giants whose government takeover in fall 2008 has cost taxpayers about $138 billion so far.

Republicans, especially in the House, want to unwind the government’s longstanding support of the $10.5 trillion U.S. mortgage market, arguing that the high levels of support that have traditionally been part of American housing policy pose too much of a risk of future bailouts. They face intense resistance, however, from powerful interests such as Realtors and community bankers, who have been lobbying on Capitol Hill to maintain federal support. The Senate, meanwhile, has shown little inclination to take up the issue anytime soon.

Both Freddie and Fannie continue to post massive losses, and news that the Obama Administration is planning to pressure banks to lend money to disadvantaged minority who lack credit access can only be greeted with a smile: isn’t this what brought about the latest financial collapse?

Any attempt to rein in government spending will be greeted with howls of protests from those who defend doomed tax-payer supported organizations that act as minority employment firms. Perhaps it was Ron Paul who said it best in one of those universally derided newsletters from the early 1990s:

“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.”

Those from Koch-money supported organizations and Lew Rockwell acolytes who believe people will instinctively flock to ideas of limited government and nebulous, indefinable terms like ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ fail to understand or take into consideration the reality of human biodiversity.

Why would Black people ever go-along with the dissolution of government programs and jobs that they rely on for a middle-class existence? Why would Black people ever consider defunding EBT cards, which in many states 40 percent of Black people rely on for filling their bellies?

That the majority of Black people and Disingenuous White Liberals (DWLs) are wedded to Black-Run America’s continued existence foretells the troubles that are before us this summer. School is about to let out and we’ve already seen Flash mobs of “youths” plunder stores across the nation with a Jack Sparrow-like zeal for debauchery and unlawfulness (check out the fantastic work of Unamusement Park on this subject).

It will only get worse once school is out.

Just remember that The Wall Street Journal reported that white people now see anti-white bias rising and anti-Black bias decreasing:

Both white Americans and black Americans perceive significant progress in the fight against anti-black bias, but white Americans believe the progress has come at their expense, a new survey finds.

The researchers contacted a random national sample of 209 whites and 208 blacks, and asked them how much discrimination each group faced, on a scale of one to ten, for each decade since the 1950s.

Black Americans saw anti-black bias as declining steadily, from 9.7 in the ’50s to 6.1 in the ’00s. Over the same period, they perceived a small increase in anti-white bias, from 1.4 to 1.8.

White Americans saw an even steeper decline in anti-black bias: from 9.1, in the ’50s, to 3.6, in the ’00s. But more striking, according to the researchers, was the sharp increase in perceived anti-white bias: Among whites, it shot up from 1.8 to 4.7.

White Americans, in short, thought that anti-white bias was a greater societal problem by the ’00s than anti-black bias.

Unemployed “Youths” will use Twitter to coordinate robberies and Flash Mobs

This week saw Omar Thornton’s story of eternal victimhood debunked:

Omar Thornton, who was black, “did not seem to understand the concept of seniority” and therefore believed he was subjected to racism at Hartford Distributors, Manchester Police Chief Marc Montminy said. The company’s most senior drivers pick the best routes, leaving the remainder for less senior workers like Thornton, Montminy said.

Thornton shot 10 people, eight of them fatally, within three minutes Aug. 3 before killing himself in what Montminy said was the worst mass shooting ever in Connecticut.

Immediately before the shootings, Thornton was fired for stealing beer. Afterward, he called 911 and told an operator: “This place is a racist place. They’re treating me bad over here. And treat all other black employees bad over here, too. So I took it to my own hands and handled the problem. I wish I could have got more of the people.”

No word on if restitution will be paid to those white people dead by his hand. Also this week, the USDA released a report on discrimination after the Shirley Sherrod blowup. Naturally, Black people – who have a vested interested to continue reporting discrimination – reported discrimination:

Despite acknowledging a legacy of discrimination, the Department of Agriculture is still plagued by civil rights problems that have in the past led to unequal treatment of minorities seeking loans and other help, according to a government-commissioned report Wednesday.

Most of the employees interviewed by a private consulting firm did not believe the department, sued over the years by blacks, Hispanic, American Indians and women, had a civil rights problem. Research by the Jackson Lewis LLP Corporate Diversity Counseling Group “substantiated in part the anecdotal claims of neglect, at best, and wide-spread discrimination, at worst” at the department.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack arranged for the $8 million review as part of an effort to address long-running problems, many involving minorities denied loans by department field offices staffed mostly by white men.

Discrimination was most acute at the agency responsible for delivering farm loans and other programs to rural residents. The study noted that far fewer minorities participated in many programs than did whites, and found not enough effort to go into minority communities to market loans and services.

“Customers and potential customers stated that USDA policies and practices, often unintentionally, and sometimes purposely by ‘bad actors,’ result in the unfair treatment and denial of program access which have had a broad and longstanding negative impact,” the report said.

Vilsack said the department has put in place some of the more than 200 recommendations from the report. Since he took over in 2009, he has focused on correcting civil rights problems, reviewing long-neglected complaints and settling lawsuits brought by the minority farmers. He calls it a “cultural transformation.”

Black people will forever complain of discrimination, despite the mortgaging of the future of United States by DWLs (and Sanctimonious White Conservatives) who made a Faustian Pact that the Black population could be improved and gradually weaned off the break of government help.

Every effort has been made to improve Black people’s life in America (save the institution of the Michael Oher Act) and every effort has failed.

We at SBPDL want Black-Run America to end, so we lament none of what becomes increasing clearer on the horizon. The Economist reports – without admitting the economic ramifications of such demographic changes – that white people in America are no longer having kids.

When Black-Run America comes crashing down by its own hand, none of these demographic doomsday scenarios will matter. The costs and burden on the US tax payer for supporting the rearing of unwanted Black children (72 percent of Black children are abandoned by Black males and left by the stork on the US tax payer’s front door to care for) will end.

The summer of 2011 could end up being the ultimate Stuff Black People Don’t Like.

This will serve as the last we write on this subject. But we wager that the summer of 2011 will provide the initial thrust that proves to be Black-Run America’s demise.

Sorry for the length of this piece. We want to write about light-hearted things like pop culture, sports, and # posts, but this needed to be written.

Calls us alarmists if you will; we just see and report what others refuse to acknowledge. So give us your feedback.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n4RjJKxsamQ

The God That Failed- A Review of “Thor”

The God That Failed

A Review of “Thor”

By James Kirkpatrick

Heimdall by way of Detroit is not the main problem with Thor. It’s one thing to turn a heathen war god into a comic book. It’s another to turn him into a social democrat.

Kenneth Branagh’s Thor was obviously meant to be a desecration, and it’s already passé to point this out. The casting is so deliberately clumsy that it becomes ironically racist. Idris Elba as the “whitest of the gods,” Heimdall, had no purpose other than to deliberately undermine both European lore and even the comic. Elba’s defensive retort that “Elizabeth Taylor played Cleopatra” is hardly convincing. (If anything, Taylor’s casting was mistaken because she was probably far swarthier than inbred product of a blonde haired Ptolemaic ruling caste).

Beyond Elba, Branagh’s Asgard looks like some fruity multicultural Steampunk nightmare, with Thor accompanied by Asian warriors whose speech is barely comprehensible (one human even refers contemptuously to an Asian-Asgardian as “Jackie Chan.”) The movie constantly appeals to heathen lore, but then casually rips it apart. For example, Sif (Thor’s golden haired wife) is reinvented as a raven-haired grrl warrior out of G.I. Jane. Her place as Thor’s love interest is taken (inevitably) by Natalie Portman. Portman is (of course) an astrophysicist—she took the role to inspire girls to be scientists and fight stereotypes—and does her best to channel a less sexy version of Denise Richards as nuclear physicist Dr. Christmas Jones. As always though, Natalie Portman essentially plays Natalie Portman.

All of this is beside the point. The “color-blind casting” (i.e. deliberately put in non-Whites in White roles) that Branagh uses here and in his Shakespeare adaptations actually reinforces the institutional racism true leftists decry and movement conservatives defend (so long as they take care to note that there is no link between the culture and the people who created it). Classic Western texts and even bastardized pop culture based on Western traditions belong to everyone on Earth because they are the best that can be produced and echo universal themes, whereas non-Western religions, themes, and even pop culture are only relevant to their own peoples. Seeing the college brochure version of Asgard reminds us of the impossibility of a “color blind casting” for tales based on the likes of Baron Samedi. Filling a world based on ancient Western concepts of honor, duty, hierarchy, and tradition with random tokens is in a way a strange form of tribute.

The movie thankfully removes the idiotic premise of the comic that Thor is Dr. Donald Blake on earth, a weak but compassionate man who only transforms into Thor when he is holding his hammer, Mjolnir. Here, Thor is Thor throughout the entire movie, whether leading warriors into Jotunheim as a god or as a powerless mortal on Midgard, with the name Donald Blake, cleverly worked in as an occasional disguise. Thor is presented as a brave but brash warrior obsessed with honor and glory, who speaks with pride of his noble heritage and deeds in battle. His father Odin, rather than the god of frenzy, victory, and magic familiar to the lore, is here a paternal Santa Claus who shrugs off Jotun raids into Asgard with indifference and pursues peace at all costs. Thor disobeys his father and leads a raid into Jotunheim in the movie’s best sequence, and we see the God of Thunder cut down frost giants by the dozen with Mjolnir. Furious, Odin strips Thor of his power and banishes him to Earth, where Ása-Þórr is found by Portman’s Dr. Jane Foster.

The movie thus functions as essentially one long fish out of water tale. Thor, obsessed with strength, honor, and his noble status, is cast among the Last Women of Modernity and, in theory, hilarity ensues. Thor boasts of his strength and power and instead is hit by cars, tasered, and tranquilized for comedic effect. Proclamations of mission, identity, and destiny are met with sitcom wisecracks, as even a god must be broken to the sound of the laugh track.

Thor finally recaptures Mjolnir but finds that he cannot lift it. In despair, he sinks to his knees. Captured by government forces (but friendly government forces that are really Good Guys), he is visited by Loki and told that Odin has died and that Thor has been exiled forever. Surprisingly quickly, Thor resigns himself to life as a mortal in modern America and, for some reason, never really explained, falls in love with Natalie Portman. The god of Thunder cooks eggs (but presumably not bacon) for Natalie Portman and relinquishes dreams of glory. The pagan god thus becomes a happy, democratic, American man.

Meanwhile, in Asgard, Loki has learned that he is actually a frost giant by blood, adopted by multicultural Odin as part of his warm and fuzzy plan to unite the Aesir and the frost giants into one people through marriages and interbreeding. Infuriated and confused, Loki confronts his father, whereupon Odin falls into the Odinsleep, a time period where he must rest to recover his energies but remains vulnerable. Loki assumes the throne and begins a complicated plan to invite the frost giants into Asgard to recover a lost treasure that will restore their power. Distrusting their supposed king, Thor’s trusted warriors travel to Earth to find him and bring him back. Loki, to wipe out this threat once and for all, sends Asgard’s most feared weapon to Earth—which for some reason is a giant robot.

It is then left for Thor to redeem himself by becoming as Christ, and sacrificing himself for his friends. While Christ was crucified and died so all men might live, Thor got punched in the face by a cyborg. For some reason, this causes Odin (still asleep) to use magic that causes Mjolnir to fly to Thor, restoring him to life, giving him back his power, and allowing him to effortlessly defeat the robot. Upon returning to Asgard, we learn that Loki’s master plan was not to allow the frost giants to conquer Asgard and kill Odin, but to exterminate the frost giants altogether. Apparently, Loki is a self-hating frost giant, no doubt with some screenwriter congratulating himself for making the comparison to the Hitler-was-actually-a-Jew-and-that’s-why-he-wanted genocide motif.

The frost giants are the eternal enemies of Asgard. Within the movie itself, they tried to wipe out humankind, broke a truce, and then snuck into Asgard in order to kill Odin. Even clumsy humanization doesn’t work, as Loki himself was totally abandoned by his father to die as a baby. Nonetheless, Thor decides that genocide, even of monsters, is a Very Bad Thing because “You can’t wipe out an entire race!” Reasonably, Loki asks why, considering that at the beginning of the movie Thor would have gladly wiped out the whole group himself. The answer is, of course, that Thor fell in love with Natalie Portman and this somehow serves as the explanation—and perhaps, it does.

Loki commits the usual movie villain mistake of engaging in single combat with the guy who has wiped out hundreds of enemies by himself, loses, and is seemingly destroyed (though he returns after the credits, along with Samuel L. Jackson, for the upcoming Avengers movie). Meanwhile, the newly Christianized, or rather, democratized Thor and Portman are separated and pine tragically across the cosmos for each other. Fin.

While watching the coming attractions, which featured a multicultural remake of Conan the Barbarian, a patron commented loudly, “Jesus, they really have just run out of ideas.” Well, that’s true, but it doesn’t matter. Hollywood can still deliver the spectacular special effects and technical ability that can slap enough lipstick on just about any pig. The better movies will be those that can appeal to Western symbols and aesthetics, even as the message of the film itself undermines them. Hollywood will never really run out of ideas as far as settings, characters, and franchises for films.

However, in a deeper sense, Hollywood only has one story left. From The King’s Speech, to Thor, to Avatar, we’re just seeing the same movie over and over again. Aristocracy, identity, pride, and hierarchy must be humbled in the sacred name of equality. While conservatives bleat about the dangers of “moral relativism,” Hollywood reflects a moral absolutism so rigid and uncompromising that we know the White Hats and Black Hats, how a story will end, and What We Will All Learn barely after the movie begins. We don’t even need scriptwriters—provide the characters and the setting and in modern America, the story literally writes itself. Otherwise, it won’t even get made. The result is not just a poisonous culture, but boring movies.

So it is with Thor. The advertisements for the movie lure viewers in with the promise of a pagan badass, with Thor staring out at us with blazing eyes and mighty hammer, his grim visage overwritten with “The God of Thunder.”   Instead, that image is carefully deconstructed and we are left not with a god but a Last Man who has magic powers for some reason, fighting for tolerance and Natalie Portman. Odin, the Allfather of the Indo-Europeans, is now a god of wisdom precisely because he knows becoming one with evil monsters will bring peace, even if they hate him and it means destroying the Aesir. The ultimate symbol of evil is the one who actually wants to destroy his enemies because…well, I’m not sure, but something to do with Natalie Portman (who seems to be the real focus of the movie) and probably something we learned in public school. We’ve seen it all before, and because of that, halfway through the movie we’re squirming in our seats and waiting to leave.

Of course, perhaps this was all just one giant set up for The Avengers, and I’m taking it all too seriously. It is, after all, mostly a way to sell toys. Even as our toys and other products are cheap and disposable, now even our legends are, too. The narrative is set, and the script for whatever we are going to be fed has already been written.

Minorities United…

Minorities United…

By Richard Spencer

…against the WASP menace.

WSJ: Whites see greater anti-white bias than anti-black bias.

WSJ: Whites see greater anti-white bias than anti-black bias.

American whites are waking up.

From Wall Street Journal…

Both white Americans and black Americans perceive significant progress in the fight against anti-black bias, but white Americans believe the progress has come at their expense, a new survey finds.

The researchers contacted a random national sample of 209 whites and 208 blacks, and asked them how much discrimination each group faced, on a scale of one to ten, for each decade since the 1950s.

Black Americans saw anti-black bias as declining steadily, from 9.7 in the ’50s to 6.1 in the ’00s. Over the same period, they perceived a small increase in anti-white bias, from 1.4 to 1.8.

White Americans saw an even steeper decline in anti-black bias: from 9.1, in the ’50s, to 3.6, in the ’00s. But more striking, according to the researchers, was the sharp increase in perceived anti-white bias: Among whites, it shot up from 1.8 to 4.7.

White Americans, in short, thought that anti-white bias was a greater societal problem by the ’00s than anti-black bias.

The researchers described the pattern—which did not vary markedly with regard to age or education levels—as evidence that white Americans see race relations as a zero-sum game, in which one group’s gains must be offset by another’s loss.

Why We Fight- For The People

Why We Fight
People

Guillaume Faye

1,524 words

Guillaume Faye
Why We Fight: Manifesto of the European Resistance
Translated by Michael O’Meara
Arktos Media, 2011

People

An ethnic ensemble — biological, historical, cultural — with a territory, its fatherland, in which it is rooted.

‘The people’ — the very term is suspect to the cosmopolitan Left, which sees it as bordering on the politically incorrect — is not any statistical ‘population’; it’s an organic community embracing a transcendent body made up of ancestors, the living, and their heirs. Though marked with a certain spirituality, a people is diachronically rooted in the past and projects itself into the future — it’s submerged in biological and genetic matter, but at the same time it’s a historical, and spiritual, reality.

It’s belonging to a specific people that distinguishes a man and makes him human. Though modern Western egalitarian doctrines reduce peoples to indifferent socioeconomic aggregates, peoples actually constitute the organic bases of the human race; similarly, such doctrines conceive of the ideal man as an individual ‘emancipated’ from his organic attachments — like an undifferentiated cell in a human magma.

It’s necessary to recall, especially for certain Christians, that a people’s attachment is incompatible with Christianity’s present cosmopolitanism. The claim, for example, that ‘I am closer to an African Catholic than I am to a non-Christian European’ is a universalistic claim that relegates a people’s nation to something of secondary significance. This is, indeed, the great drama of European Christianity, marked as it is by Pauline universalism. A Catholic attached to his people and conscious of the biological and cultural dangers threatening them might instead say, ‘I respect all the Christians of the world, but hic et nunc I fight for my people above all, whatever their religion’.

The Jesuit spirit might resolve the contradiction in reference to the Old Testament’s Hebraic tradition: ‘Babel — the mélange of disparate peoples — is a punishment from God, Who wants His peoples to be separate and diverse — humanity is one in Heaven, but multiple on Earth’.

Arab Islam has no difficulty reconciling the notion of people (the ‘Arab nation’) with that of its universalism. The Jews, on their side, have similarly reconciled a ferocious defence of their ethnicity — their singularity — with their religion, however theoretically monotheistic and universalist it may be. At no moment have Judaism and Islam, unlike the Christian Churches today, engaged in doubting, guiltstroking diatribes against ‘xenophobia’ and ethnocentrism. They are not masochistic . . .

* * *

Like every anthropological notion, ‘people’ lacks mathematical rigour. A people doesn’t define itself as a homogeneous biocultural totality, but as a relationship. It’s the product of an organic alchemy that brings various ‘sub-peoples’ together. The Bretons, Catalans, Scots, etc., can be seen thus as the sub-peoples of a larger people — the Europeans.

* * *

We ought to highlight the ambiguity that touches the notion of the people. The universalist ideology of the French Revolution confused the idea of the people with that of an ‘ensemble of inhabitants who jurisdictionally possess nationality’, whatever their origin. Given the facts of mass immigration and naturalisation, the notion of the French people has been greatly diluted (as have the British or German peoples, for the same reason). This is why (without broaching the unresolvable issue of what constitutes a ‘regional people’ or a ‘national people’), it’s advisable to dialectically transcend semantic problems — and affirm the historic legitimacy of a single, European people, historically bound, whose different national families resemble one another in having, for thousands of years, the same ethnocultural and historical origins. Despite national, linguistic, or tribal differences, haven’t African Blacks, even in Europe, been called on by Nelson Mandela or the Senegalese Mamadou Diop to ‘think like one people’? From Nasser to al-Qadhafi, by way of Arafat, haven’t Arabs been urged to see themselves as an Arab people? Why don’t Europeans have the same right to see themselves as a people?

As for ‘regional peoples’, it’s necessary to oppose Left-wing regionalists, self-professed anti-Jacobins and anti-globalists, who unhesitatingly accept the concept of French or American jus soli — who confuse citizens and residents, and who recognise as Bretons, Alsatians, Corsicans, etc., anyone (even of non-European origin) who lives in these regions and chooses to accept such an identity.

* * *

In belonging to a people, its members are emotionally inclined to define themselves as such, which implies political affiliation. For this reason, we say that a people exists at that point where biological, territorial, cultural, and political imperatives come together. But in no case does mere cultural or linguistic attachment suffice in making a people, if they have no common biological roots. Alien immigrants from people X who are installed on the territory of people Y — even if they adopt cultural elements of their host people — are not a part of Y. As De Gaulle thought, there might be minor exceptions for small numbers of compatible (White) minorities, capable of being assimilated, but this could never be the case for, say, French West Indians.

Similarly, in defining the notion of a people, territorial or geopolitical considerations must also be taken into account. A people is not a diaspora: the Jews felt obliged to reconquer Palestine as their ‘promised land’ because, as Theodor Herzl argued, ‘without a promised land, the Jews are just a religious diaspora, a culture, a union, but not a people’.

There’s a good deal of talk today, on the Left and the Right, about people being ‘deterritorialised’. In reality, there’s nothing of the kind. Every healthy people, even if they possess an important diaspora (Chinese, Arabs, Indians, etc.), maintains close relations with its fatherland.

* * *

Modernist gurus have long claimed that the future belongs not to peoples, but to humanity conceived as a single people. Again, there’ll be nothing of the kind. Despite globalisation and in reaction to it, the Twenty-first century will more than ever be a century of distinct peoples. Only Europeans, submerged in the illusions of their decadence, imagine that blood-based peoples will disappear, to be replaced by a miscegenated ‘world citizen’. In reality what is at risk of disappearing are Europeans. Tomorrow will be no twilight of peoples.

On the other hand, the twilight of several peoples is already possible. One often forgets that Amerindians or Egyptians have disappeared — hollowed out internally and overrun. For history is a cemetery of peoples — of weak peoples — exhausted and resigned.

* * *

A caution is necessary here: Right and Left-wing theoreticians of ‘ethnopluralism’, opposed to humanity’s homogenisation, speak of ‘the cause of peoples’, as if every people must be conserved. In reality, the system that destroys peoples — the title of one of my books that was misunderstood by certain intellectuals — only threatens unfit peoples, i.e., present-day Europeans. It also threatens those residu peoples, whose fate is of interest only to museum-keepers. It seems perfectly stupid and utopian to believe that every people can be conserved in history’s formaldehyde. What a pacifistic egalitarian vision.

The main threat to the identity and existence of great peoples occurs, in contrast, through the conjunction of deculturation and the colonising invasion of alien peoples — which we’re presently experiencing. The Western globalist ‘system’ will never threaten strong peoples. Are Arabs, Chinese, or Indians threatened? On the contrary. It reinforces their identity and their desire to conquer, by provoking their reaction to it.

The people in danger — largely because of its own failings — is our people, for reasons as much biological as cultural and strategic. That’s why it’s necessary to replace the egalitarian ideology of ‘the cause of peoples’ with the ‘cause of our people’.

* * *

There are three possible positions: first, peoples don’t exist, or no longer exist — it’s an obsolete category — only humanity counts (the thesis of universalistic egalitarianism); second, all peoples ought to exist and be conserved (the utopian — also egalitarian — ethnopluralist position — completely inapplicable to our age); and third, only strong, wilful peoples can subsist for long historical periods — periods of selection in which only the most apt survive (the voluntarist, realist, inegalitarian thesis). We obviously support the third position.

What’s essential is reappropriating the term ‘people’ and progressively extending it to the entire Eurosiberian Continent. The present understanding of ‘European’ by the reigning ideology at Brussels is inspired by French Jacobin ideology. This ideology makes no reference to an ethno-historical Great European people, only to a mass of disparate residents inhabiting European territory. This tendency needs to be radically replaced.We propose that European peoples become historical subjects again and cease being historical objects. In the tragic century that’s coming, it’s especially crucial that Europeans become conscious of the common dangers they face and that, henceforth, they form a selfconscious community of destiny. This is well and truly a matter of forging a ‘new alliance’ that — through resurrection, metamorphosis, and historical transfiguration — will lead to a refounding of a Great European people and, in the midst of decline, succeed — not without pain, of course — in giving birth again to the phoenix.

Available from Arktos Media

Amerika

The New Amerika Flag:

Enjoy!

The Martyrdom of Edgar Steele

The Martyrdom of Edgar Steele

This is a transcript of my recent Radio Free Northwest podcast on the Edgar Steele case. I am publishing this transcript to prevent any possible future alteration or tampering with the audio by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The podcast may be downloaded from

http://northwestfront.org/2011/05/radio-free-northwest-may-12-2011/

* * * * * * * *

http://downwithjugears.blogspot.com/

Greetings from the Northwest Homeland, comrades. It’s May the 12th. 2011, I’m Harold Covington, and this is Radio Free Northwest.

This week’s podcast will be shorter than usual, and there will be no musical interludes, because what I have to say this week is of vital importance. I want to keep it short and simple, and avoid any potential distractions.

On Thursday, May the 5th, Edgar Steele was found guilty of all four charges against him. The media has reported that he now faces thirty years in prison at sentencing. They’re wrong. Edgar Steele is a man of 65 with severe medical problems. Whatever the judge gives him, the sentence will be death.

It’s customary to wait until someone is dead before burying them. Edgar Steele will be buried alive. This elderly man, who spent his entire adult life serving the law and the judicial system which betrayed him and destroyed him, will be warehoused in a box somewhere in the GULAG archipelago of the vast slave labor system which the American government and American corporations run for their profit, and there Edgar Steele will wait to die.

The so-called trial of Edgar Steele was an unmitigated horror. The so-called trial of Edgar Steele was arguably the final degradation of the once proud and vibrant legal system we inherited from our ancestors in Great Britain. It is a tradition spanning eight centuries, which began in June of 1215 in the meadow of Runymede with the creation of the Magna Carta, the Great Charter that above all established the rule of law as the basic underlying principle of Anglo-Saxon society.

That tradition of almost eight centuries came to an end on May the 5th, 2011, when a sick and elderly man was murdered by the courts of the United States, because those who rule us did not like what Edgar Steele had to say and decided to destroy him, out of no reason that anyone can determine other than petty, vindictive, senile spite.

With one bang of a federal judge’s gavel, the world has returned to the thirteenth century, as if the previous 800 years had never been. Once more we are back in the days when the king, or the local baron, can simply command his henchmen to drag a peasant away into the castle dungeon so that the lord may take his home, his cow, his daughter or his life at will.

Edgar Steele’s defense was simple: he didn’t do it. He did not say the things that the alleged audio recordings have him saying. Nor was this mere paranoia on his part. There is in fact extensive electronic and forensic evidence that the recorded conversations between Edgar Steele and Larry Fairfax were tampered with and altered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

But the jury was never allowed to see that evidence. Two electronics experts were willing to swear in court to the fact that the audio tracks had been tampered with by the FBI, and were fraudulent. These experts were not allowed to testify by order of the judge.

The precedent has now been established that henceforth no one will be allowed to question the veracity or authenticity of any evidence presented in court by the FBI; from this point on, the American secret police are free to come up with any piece of fabricated rubbish they feel like, in order to frame someone that the government finds inconvenient for crimes that he or she did not commit. There have been others before Edgar Steele, but now that the FBI has been given the green light by the judge in the Steele case, there will be many more to come.

The grotesque and vicious Edgar Steele case has further established that no American any longer has the right to present a defense against whatever absurd and deranged charges some U.S. Attorney sees fit to bring against them, without first obtaining permission from the very system and the very government functionaries who seek their destruction. What’s wrong with this picture?

I’m severely hampered here, because I am unable to say publicly what really should be said. The First Amendment, the right to express any opinion and to do so without punishment and retaliation by those in power, the freedom of speech and of thought which was once this country’s crowning glory, is no more. In Obama’s America, white men who say or write things which the regime or certain politically protected minorities find disagreeable are now subject to harassment, legal persecution, and in Edgar Steele’s case, to judicial murder.

It’s been like that for quite some time, of course, but last Thursday’s verdict has finally stripped the last veneer of legality and legitimacy off the criminal power structure that rules us. It cannot be denied or ignore anymore that the government of the United States is no longer a legitimate or lawful government, for they have finally violated their own laws and their own standards so egregiously that the social contract that allows them to rule us is broken for all time. From now on, the government of the United States is just another gang of thugs, no different from the Crips and the Bloods, only better dressed and better armed.

Nor are they particularly brave or manly thugs. America is a coward that shows its prowess in destroying old men.

In the same week in which Edgar Steele was crucified by the same system he so foolishly spent most of his life serving, another elderly man was murdered in a house in Pakistan by gunmen from the United States who broke into his home and shot him dead, unarmed, in front of his family. without even the shabby sham of a trial that Edgar Steele got.

Many years before, in the same Idaho that perpetrated this ghastly outrage against Steele, the same gunmen murdered 14 year-old Sam Weaver by shooting him in the back and later on shot Vickie Weaver dead in the door of her home while she was holding her baby in her arms.

The government that framed and murdered Edgar Steele are the same people who burned children alive at Waco and continue to fire multi-million dollar Predator drones at elementary schools and Muslim weddings in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The United States and its thugs are really good at killing old men, women, and children. I can’t help but wonder just how big and bad and tough all these FBI and BATF and U.S. Marshals would be if they ever came up against grown men who had the skill and the courage to shoot back. In fact, I’ve written several novels on the subject. America is not an eagle. America is a rat, with a yellow stripe running down its back.

They need not worry, though. We who remain will not deal with the judicial murder of Edgar Steele as we should, as upright and honorable free men should, as our own ancestors not too long ago would have done. We will not deal with the destruction of Edgar Steele as decency and justice demand because we lack the will, the self-respect, and above all we lack the courage to do so. All we will do while Edgar Steele is dragged away to his tomb is to whine on the internet. No one will hear us, and no one would listen to us if they did, because our craven acquiescence to this monstrous act renders us unworthy of notice.

So be it. One has to play the hand one is dealt.

But at least I’m going to say what has to be said, and if you FBI and Justice Department reptiles who are listening to this are displeased by what I have to say, I promise you won’t have to alter and falsify this recording like you did the recordings of Edgar Steele with your informer Larry Fairfax. I’m going to say what needs to be said, and if you don’t like it, you can all go straight to hell.

Edgar Steele used to end all of his articles on his Conspiracy Penpal site with his signature phrase, “New America: An Idea Whose Time Has Come.”

He was wrong. The solution is not a New America, Ed. It’s No America.

America must end. It is a diseased, leprous thing. There is no health or goodness in it, there hasn’t been for a long time, and the ultimate interest of all humanity lies in this rotting and poisonous monster called the United States being removed from the earth. All of us know in our souls what has to be done. The problem is that out of our own weakness and cowardice, we’re just sitting around waiting for some one else to do it.

But that won’t last forever. Eventually someone will do what has to be done and expunge the United States and the worms and grubs who serve it from the earth. Tyranny such as this inevitably becomes intolerable, and at some point even the most supine and cowardly of people will reach a point where the chains of fear and intimidation and brainwashing and bullying will not hold, and they find that they would rather die themselves than live one more day like this.

It is virtually certain that Edgar Steele will be dead in body as well as in law by then. I wish I could promise you all that someday the prison doors will be blown open, and Edgar Steele will be brought out into the light again, but I can’t. I cannot make that decision. Only you who are listening to this can.

What I will do, as a kind of epitaph for a fine and decent man and a damned good writer and commentator who has drawn the short straw and must now descend into living hell never to return, is I will read an article of my own that I wrote a few years ago. It’s called Let’s Talk A Little Treason.

* * * * * * * *

In Ireland, when a man has an old friend over for dinner, after the meal is over he will generally tell his wife the traditional Irish tale: “Love, Seamus and I are going down to the pub and talk a little treason.” (That’s from Brendan Behan, I think.)

Oh, hell, let’s come right out and say it. Us White boys need to be talking a little treason.

I notice that the great state of Oregon is about to pass more grotesque “hatecrime” laws in favor of sodomites, making perverts who commit the filthiest acts imaginable (people don’t seem to realize what it is that homosexuals actually do) a politically and legally protected class. Better than me, in the eyes of the law. Better than any white man who likes girls, because they will have specific legal protections that we are denied.

There is no more equality under the law. Some states are even worse; in Idaho all women, period are considered a special politically and legally protected class under these deranged hatecrime laws, effectively meaning that only heterosexual white males are without legal protection against “hate” and only white males can be victimized only on the lowest level, as mere Americans. Less than a woman of their own race, less than a Mexican, less than a faggot, less than a black. Three-fifths of a man, at best.

I’m going to say something now to all my fellow girl-loving honkies, and I’m dead serious. I think we need to start re-evaluating our relationship with the United States of America, with a view towards bringing that relationship to an end.

America gives us nothing except ridicule, hatred, contempt and oppression. America ignores our interests, laughs at us and reviles us, picks our pockets, discriminates against us with affirmative action and racial quotas, and kicks us in the teeth when we try to protest or petition for the redress of just grievances. America rigs the electoral process so that no one without ten million dollars in the bank should even think about running for office, and so that only criminals, incompetents, and mentally unbalanced mediocrities can win. America passes laws that give foreigners who are in our country illegally, and perverts who literally wallow in their own filth during sexual acts, a preferred and privileged status over us.

Every time we turn on the television we see grinning black and brown monkey-faces mocking and reviling us, mincing faggots waving their limp wrists mocking and reviling us, toilet-mouthed Jews like the loathsome Sarah Silverman spewing hatred and abuse at us, pathological liars in the White House and Congress pissing down our back and assuring us with solemn faces that it is raining.

Thanks to the media and the Jews who control the media, when the world thinks of White males they think of revolting cartoon characters. George Washington, Daniel Boone, and Charles Lindbergh have been replaced by Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin.

White women are in their own way just as much victims as White men are, although some of them haven’t quite seen sufficiently through the feminist horse shit to understand that. If we can ever succeed in de-programming our sisters and making them understand what has been done to them, so that they realize that their place is by their menfolks’ side and not with the Jews who hate them and hold them in just as much contempt as they do white men, calling them shiksas, etc…well, if we can ever succeed in doing that, you kikes had better start running.

White people do the real work in this country; Mexicans and blacks do nothing that couldn’t be done twice as well and at half the expense by a good cart horse. Robotics will eventually make the black man and the brown man completely obsolete.

White people pay the overwhelming percentage of the taxes that finance the grotesque horror show that is America. White boys, and increasingly girls, are dragged into the military and come back from the Jews’ foreign wars with their bodies mangled, to rot in the filthy Army hospitals like Walter Reed, because the influx of illegal aliens has taken all the entry-level jobs in their home towns and there is no future for White kids where they grew up.

White people, especially boys, are denied access to college education, to employment, to workplace promotion and job stability because of their skin color, because of their gender, and increasingly because of their age. I could go on and on, but if you’re White, you know what I’m talking about, and if you’re not White, I’m not talking to you anyway.

Guys—and gals—let me ask you something. What the hell do we owe a society that treats us like this?

The neocons wave their red, white, and blue Masonic dishrags and babble about all this “freedom” we’ve got. Bullshit.

What freedom? The freedom to never be able to get any kind of decent career because you’re the wrong color and you’ve got convex genitalia? The freedom not to be admitted to college because their quota for White boys was filled by the sons of the wealthy elite long before you even applied? The freedom to spend thirty years in the workforce and see incompetent affirmative action employees promoted over your head year after year?

What freedom? The freedom to pay one third of your income to support stupid wars in the Middle East to protect the Jews from the consequences of their own behavior? The freedom to “vote” in elections where half the time these arrogant swine no longer bother to conceal the massive fraud?

What freedom? The freedom to have your children corrupted by the endless tsunami of filth from the television screen and taught sodomy techniques in school? The freedom to have your son and your daughter come back from Iraq in a plastic bag or minus some limbs because all of the jobs in their home town had been gobbled up by illegals and the military was the only place they could get a paycheck?

What freedom? The freedom to be insulted, belittled, and spat upon every time we turn on a TV or pick up a newspaper? The freedom to eventually be carried off to the living hell of some state-run “nursing home” when the government finally finds some way to steal the Social Security and Medicare fund and piss it away in the deserts of Iraq or blow it on the stock market?

What the hell kind of loyalty do we owe to a government that has made us third-class citizens? What the hell kind of loyalty do we owe to a state that uses us like toilet paper and throws us away?

Why, exactly, should we respect the “rights” of media garbage people who give us nothing but insults, contempt, and vilification?

Why, exactly, should we allow our country to be taken over by millions of Mexican mestizos and all the overflow from the Third World’s sewers, and never raise a hand in our own defense because the tyrant’s law forbids it?

Yes, yes, I know the United States of America is “the law.” Of course it is. Tyrants always are the law. That’s why they’re tyrants and not simple gangsters. The difference between Barack Hussein Obama and John Gotti is only a technicality of paperwork.

(Except that Gotti dressed better and killed a lot fewer people.)

When the law is cruel and uncaring; when the law is vicious; when the law is oppression wrapped up in paper and forced down the throats of the powerless, the coerced and the cowed; when the law is enforced by steroid-popping bullies with badges and jackals with briefcases and reptiles in black robes who use it solely to maintain their own power over other human beings and to squeeze them dry of every last wretched penny they possess; when the law is being used to do you and your family harm, then you are under no obligation to obey it.

In every society there is a social contract that cuts both ways. The United States Constitution was an attempt to create such a contract, and until 1861 it worked. But we need to be very clear on this: the White American has upheld that contract and is even now upholding it as the blood of our young men is spilled in the Iraqi desert. It is the federal government of the United States and the squamous alien things who have stolen it away from us who have violated that social contract, again and again and again over the past century.

Like an abused wife, White Americans have put up with it all from our cheating, lying, thieving, murdering government—the beatings, the drinking up the rent money, the lipstick on the collar, the constant bullying and browbeating. But even the most abused spouse eventually decides it’s time for a divorce. That time has come. Enough! Fuck the United States government, fuck democracy, fuck America! We’ve seen enough, we’ve had enough, and we want out.

Yeah, I know. Our ancestors tried this in 1861. Well, it’s time for a re-match. Here in the Northwest, and anyplace else where White males are tired of being treated like dogs, and finally decide to show the Jews that dogs have teeth.

And you know something? I think if we ever do pull off the old Macbeth trick and “screw our courage to the sticking point,” I suspect the world will discover that as far as the baby-shit brown Barack Hussein Obama goes—well, he damned sure ain’t no Abraham Lincoln.

* * * * * * * *

The United States has murdered Edgar Steele; he’s just not physically dead yet. There is one thing and one thing alone that we can do for him: we can make sure that his work continues to be read and that his name is never forgotten.

The Americans are fools: they have taken from us the lives of our martyred dead, but they have left us their names and their memories, and from those memories and from that martyred blood will spring a force that someday will unleash the fury of hell upon the vile tyranny that has done this, and on all those who have served that tyranny for a monthly direct deposit paycheck into their bank accounts.

Someday, at the hand of someone most likely as yet unknown, the filth that is America will be purged from the world with fire and sword. The darkness that covers this land will be lifted, and a new generation of White children will be born and grow strong in the light.

And when they do, they will remember the name of Edgar Steele, while the dogs who devoured him will be consigned to oblivion.

Well, our time is up and so that’s it for this week’s edition of Radio Free Northwest. This program is brought to you by the Northwest Front, Post Office Box 4856, Seattle, Washington 98194 or you can go to the Party’s website at www.northwestfront.org. This is Harold Covington and I’ll see you next week. Until then, Saoirse an dath Bàn – Freedom!

The Nietzschean Prophecies

The Nietzschean Prophecies

200 Years of Nihilism

By Keith Preston

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

The following is excerpted from The Radical Tradition: Philosophy, Metapolitics & the Conservative Revolution, edited by Troy Southgate (Primordial Traditions, 2011)

Among the many great and enormously influential thinkers of the 19th century, it is Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900) who arguably stands the highest in terms of possessing both the most profound and penetrating criticisms of Western civilization as it was in his time, and the most prescient insights and predictions as to what the future course of the evolution of the West would involve. In our own day, Nietzsche has been a popular topic of academic discourse for some time, and the reading of his works has long been a popular pastime among trendy undergraduates. Yet in Nietzsche’s day, he remained obscure and his works were not widely read or accepted until after his death. Even with the abundance of Nietzsche scholarship that has been produced in the more than a century since his passing, his core ideas remain widely misunderstood or misinterpreted. Indeed, Nietzsche has been largely appropriated by the academic Left—a great irony considering his own considerable contempt for the politics of the Left—and the prevailing academic philosophy of postmodernism includes the philosophy of Nietzsche as a direct ancestor in its genealogical line.

No thinker is more important or relevant to the ideas of the Conservative Revolution than Nietzsche. While Marx continues to retain his status as the most influential radical thinker of the 19th century, it was Nietzsche who was the more revolutionary of the two in the actual implications of his thought. Nietzsche also stands as a polar opposite of the conservative counterrevolutionaries that arose in opposition to the spread of the influence of the Enlightenment. Nietzsche is no mere traditionalist in the vein of Edmund Burke, Joseph De Maistre, or Luis De Bonald. His outlook involves a dramatic departure not only from traditional Western thought as it had unfolded since the time of the Socratics, but from the intellectual culture of even the most advanced or revolutionary thinkers of his own time.

The Historical Context of Nietzsche’s Thought

An adequate understanding of Nietzsche is impossible without recognition of the historical context in which he wrote. Nietzsche’s core works were produced between 1872 and 1888. By that time, the intellectual revolution of the Enlightenment was well-established among Western intellectual elites and among the rising educated middle classes. The Enlightenment intellectual revolution and its outgrowths were existential in nature. The most important aspect of the impact of the revolution was what Nietzsche characterized as the “death of God.” Advancements in human knowledge in a wide variety of areas had the effect of undermining the credibility of traditional theological views on cosmology, moral philosophy, the meaning of human existence, and so forth.

The overthrow of the Christian worldview that had dominated Western civilization for 1500 years left subsequent thinkers with a number of ultimately profound questions.¹ If the purpose of an individual’s life is not to achieve salvation in an afterlife, then what is the purpose of life? If the king or established political authorities do not rule by divine right, then what is the basis of political legitimacy? How should society be organized? If morality is not to be understood according to the teachings of the Church, the Bible, or traditional religious authority, then what is the basis of justice, morality, truth or “right and wrong”? Do such concepts have any intrinsic or objective meaning at all? If the observable universe was not the product of special creation by a divine power, and if humanity was not “created in the image of God,” then what is the meaning of existence? Does it have any meaning beyond itself? If history is not guided by divine providence, then how is the process of historical unfolding to be understood? These are the questions that Western thinkers have been grappling with since the older, theological view of the universe and existence was demolished by the intellectual innovations of the Enlightenment.

The New Religion of Reason and Progress

Western civilization existed for millennia prior to the rise of Roman Christianity, so it is unsurprising that anti-Christian, Enlightenment intellectuals found inspiration in the classic works of antiquity. The Enlightenment thinkers (the “philosophes”) developed a worldview and philosophical outlook relatively similar to that which prevailed among the great thinkers of Greco-Roman intellectual culture.² The traditional Christian emphasis on faith, revelation, mystery, and divine authority was rejected in favor of a new emphasis on the efficacy of human reason and ability to engage in rational criticism.

The Enlightenment view of the universe mirrored the human-centered outlook of the Greeks, with the ideas of the philosophes reflecting the Greek adage that “man is the measure of all things” to a much greater degree than Christian thought had ever done. It was the view of the philosophes that human reason and rational thought alone possessed the capability for the discernment of profound insight into the workings of the universe through the use of science. This confidence had been generated by the scientific revolution of the 17th century. Human reason was likewise capable of discerning the workings of society and of discovering ways by which society and humanity could be improved upon.

Out of this conviction emerged an intellectual optimism that expressed great confidence in the possibility and inevitability of progress. This intellectual framework that was bequeathed to subsequent generations of Europeans by the great thinkers of the Enlightenment formed the foundation for most of modern thought.

The concept of progress was a dominant feature of every major aspect of 19th century thinking, whether in the areas of philosophy, politics, or science. Thinkers of the German Idealist school, such as Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel, attempted to retain the notion of justice, morality, and virtue as concepts possessing transcendent characteristics in a manner similar to that found in earlier Christian approaches to moral philosophy. Hegel developed a philosophical doctrine known as “historicism” that characterized the process of human historical development as one by which reason unfolds towards a higher state of rational unity that contains within itself the collection of prior expressions of, and resolved contradictions within, human thought.

Hegel gave a metaphysical and quasi-theological gloss to his philosophical system in a way that is still debated and subject to varying interpretations. Yet, this linear, progressive view of history postulated by Hegel established the framework for historical interpretation that would dominate Western thought for the next century.³

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels developed a materialist conception of Hegel’s interpretation of history as a dialectical process. The core component of the Marxist interpretation of history is a kind of economic determinism. According to Marxism, history is the manifestation of the struggle between competing socio-economic classes.Other aspects of human life such as politics, religion, culture, family, and philosophy are merely expressions or outgrowths of the material foundations of a given society.Marxism regards history as an evolutionary process whereby class conflict serves as the dialectical process whose impact is the advancement of humanity to a higher stage of social development.⁴

The 19th century idea of progress was further strengthened by the scientific innovations of the time. Evolutionary thinking became dominant in the natural sciences as the older, religious views on the origins of humanity and the universe fell into intellectual disrepute. The prevailing model of evolutionary theory of the era was the “developmental” model. This framework suggested that the evolutionary process was a manifestation of a linear drive towards a particular end. The analogy often used was that of the growth of an individual. The conventional view was that evolution transpires in a way that demonstrates direction and purpose. This particular rendition of evolution, most famously represented by the theories of Jean Baptiste Lamarck, was exploded by Charles Darwin. Darwin argued that evolution takes place through a process of adaption by means of natural selection.⁵

Darwin’s actual theory indicated that the process of natural biological evolution exhibits a great deal of randomness, and unfolds in a haphazard way with no specific outcome being inevitable regarding the ends of the evolutionary process. The actual implications of authentic Darwinian evolutionary theory severely detracted from the established “developmental” model of not only biological evolution but also human social evolution.⁶ Yet the publication of Darwin’s work had the effect of popularizing evolutionary thinking, even if his ideas were misunderstood or misinterpreted.

Subsequent thinkers would attempt to find justification for their preferred social or political views in Darwinian evolutionary biology.⁷ Marx considered Darwin to have found a scientific justification for his own views on socio-economic evolution, and Darwin was also appropriated by racists and proponents of chauvinistic nationalism.

Indeed, efforts to interpret human social evolution within the context of a pseudo-Darwinian biological framework became rather open-ended in nature. Proponents of social reform, humanitarians, advocates of predatory capitalism, utopians, racial supremacy theorists, and proponents of class warfare all appealed to Darwin as a justification for their beliefs, all of which were rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of Darwin’s actual ideas.⁸

It was the philosophy of Nietzsche that provided the interpretive framework of human history that was the most compatible with the implications of genuine Darwinism.

The Revolt Against Reason and Progress: The Philosophy of Nietzsche

If Darwinian evolutionary biology exploded the 19th century idea of progress in the realm of the natural sciences, it was the thought of Nietzsche that provided the most far-reaching assault on the presumptions of the time in the world of philosophy. Nietzsche is perhaps most well-known for his statements concerning the “death of God,” but the meaning of the “death of God” in Nietzschean philosophy involves a good deal more than mere conventional atheism. Other prominent intellectual atheists had come before Nietzsche such as Diderot, d’Holbach and (by implication) Hume, and he was by no means the inventor of modern atheism.⁹ While Nietzsche was certainly an “anti-theological” thinker in the sense of rejecting a theistic worldview in a conventional religious sense, his notion of the “death of God” was also intended as a critique of the intellectual presumptions of his own era, including those of intellectual elites who had rejected conventional religious faith. While Nietzsche was an atheist, materialist, and rationalist of a kind comparable to the most radical Enlightenment thinkers, his outlook sharply diverges from the Enlightenment tradition with regards to the role of reason in human life and thought.

Nietzsche regarded the Enlightenment emphasis on reason as having the effect of denying the role of the passions in forming human character, and shaping human action and human societies. He contrasted the Enlightenment’s orientation towards reason with the earlier manifestations and emphasis on the passions he considered to have been made manifest by the Renaissance. He compared these two eras within the framework of his famous Appollonian/Dionysian dichotomy. The Apollonian aspect of human essence is the rational, logical, prudent and restrained. The Dionysian is the instinctual, impulsive, and emotive. Nietzsche was not a skeptic of the passions in the manner of Hobbes or Burke, who regarded human passion and feeling as prone towards dangerous excesses and in need of restraint. Instead, he counseled human beings to live dangerously. Nietzsche regarded the passionate and the irrational (or pre-rational) as the foundation of all high cultures, which he in turn considered to be apex of human existence. The Greeks had emphasized and explored the passions, rather than having feared or shunned them, and for this reason the Greeks had produced the highest of hitherto existing human civilizations. Nietzsche vehemently opposed the rising egalitarian sentiments and trends towards mass society and mass democracy of his era. Only an elite motivated by the passions can produce a high culture. An egalitarian society would be a society of weak and fearful mediocrities concerned only with comfort and safety.

The “death of God” was intended as an attack on philosophical idealism of the kind retained by Kant and Hegel as much as it was an attack on the Christian faith. Nietzsche’s philosophy insisted that there is no transcendent or metaphysical foundation for ethics, morality, or justice. Values of this kind are mere human constructions. They have no meaning aside from what human beings, individually or collectively, assign to them. Nietzsche likewise rejected the view of history represented by Hegel’s historicism. One of Nietzsche’s earliest works, The Use and Abuse of History, is an attack on Hegel.¹⁰ The linear view of history contained within Hegel’s philosophical system had many precedents in Western thought, with roots going back as least as far as Aristotle.

According to Nietzsche, history has no purpose. It is merely a series of events that have no meaning in and of themselves, other than subjective meanings adopted by individuals and human groups relative to their own time, place, and experiences. Nietzsche’s philosophy was an attack on virtually the entire legacy of Western metaphysics since the time of Plato.

Nietzsche regarded the 19th century idea of progress, and the myriad of ideologies, movements, and causes of the time that were a manifestation of this idea to be superstitions every bit as much as the theological superstitions that dominated the Christian era. His parable of the madman found in The Gay Science is to be interpreted in this way.¹¹ Nietzsche is ridiculing the intellectuals of his time who believe they have attained a superior state of enlightenment, and who regard themselves as the progenitors of a higher civilization. He is instead arguing that the thinkers of his time have not yet fully recognized the consequences of the “death of God” for Western civilization.

Instead, they are simply trying to find substitutes by replacing old dogmas and pieties with new ones. Among these new gods are socialism, liberalism, utopianism, humanism, nationalism, democracy, pseudo-scientific racism of the kind represented by thinkers such as H.S. Chamberlain¹² and the anti-Semitism of his former friend Richard Wagner. Such efforts are dismissed by Nietzsche as methods of avoiding or postponing the existential crisis that Western civilization would ultimately have to face. Nietzsche attacked even the conservatives of his era for making too many concessions to rising egalitarian movements such as democracy and socialism, and for retaining their allegiance to the corpse of Christianity. He dismissed the traditional European aristocracies as weak and in a state of decay, and he also opposed the rising nationalist movements of his time as symptomatic of the egalitarian mass societies of mediocre individuals he saw on the horizon. Nietzsche presciently suggested that the 20th century would be a time of great wars between the rising ideological mass movements of his own time, and that it would be the 21st century before the existential crisis for civilization is fully recognized.

Nietzsche’s prophecy that the 20th century would be a time of war on an unprecedented scale between polarized ideological forces found its realization in the Great War and then the Second World War, and the destructiveness of the latter surpassed even the shocking brutality of the former. The suffering and death generated by the two world wars, and the invention of weapons technology with the capacity to destroy all of mankind demolished the 19th century faith in progress and pushed postwar intellectuals towards a confrontation with the nihilistic implications of modern science and philosophy of the kind Nietzsche had previously written about. Existentialism, with its implicitly or explicitly Nietzschean roots, became the prevailing philosophical outlook for intellectuals in the mid- to late 20th century. Existentialism represents an effort to confront the crisis of nihilism suggested by Nietzsche and the serious problems this crisis poses for human ethics and the question of meaning. If existence has no meaning, then what is the basis for proper human behavior? If God is dead, is everything permitted, as Dostoevsky suggested? The struggles of existentialist thinkers with these questions are famously illustrated, for instance, by the efforts of the feminist-existentialist Simone De Beauvoir to establish a framework of ethics in the face of the meaninglessness of existence by pointing to the commonness of the human experience, and the possibility of creating shared virtues and values that advance human interests in the realm of lived experience, even if these values ultimately have no objective or cosmic foundation or meaning.¹³ Her companion Jean Paul Sarte argued that one could create one’s own meaning by participating in the social or political activities of one’s time or even by embracing the irrational by, for example, becoming a devout Christian or a militant Communist. Sartre himself chose the latter.

The Future

Nietzsche predicted that it would be well into the 21st century before Western thought fully confronted the crisis of nihilism. It would thus far appear that he was correct. Western thought since the Enlightenment has attempted to compensate for the loss of the old faith by replacing the discredited Christian worldview with new faiths and new pieties. As these have become increasingly difficult to justify within a framework of rationality and a belief in inevitable “progress,” Western intellectuals have increasingly retreated into the irrational. This is illustrated by the curious phenomena of the present efforts by Western intellectual elites to embrace postmodernism, with its accompanying moral and cultural relativism, while simultaneously embracing the egalitarian-universalist-humanist moralistic zealotry popularly labeled “political correctness” and espousing with great piousness such liberal crusades as “human rights,” “anti-racism,” “gay liberation,” feminism, environmentalism and the like. Such an outlook, which combines extreme moralism in the cultural and political realm, complete moral relativism in the philosophical or metaphysical realm, and at times even falls into subjectivism in the epistemological realm¹⁴, is fundamentally irrational, of course. That such an outlook has become so deeply entrenched indicates that Western intellectuals are desperately working to avoid a full confrontation with the crisis of nihilism.

Pareto argued that civilizations die when their elites lose faith in their own civilization to such a degree that the will to survive no longer exists. Western political and cultural elites presently exhibit abiding contempt for the legacy of their civilization, as demonstrated by their attachment to anti-Western ideologies such as “multiculturalism” and support for political policies, such as permitting mass immigration into the West from the Third World, that ultimately mean the demographic overrun and death of Western civilization. The presumption of present day elites is that dramatic demographic alteration can transpire without consequences of significance, or that the overthrow of Western civilization itself may even be desirable. The prevalence of such attitudes once again indicates that cultural nihilism has become rather deeply entrenched. Yet this nihilism has been thus far masked by liberal-humanist platitudes of escalating silliness.

It remains to be seen what will eventually bring this crisis to the forefront. Genuine threats to the survival of Western civilization itself may well force such a confrontation. These might include the threat of nuclear terrorism, economic collapse or ecological catastrophe, the depletion of resources on which civilization has become dependent, or confrontation with an ideological rival that poses an existential threat. As demographic change on a magnitude that threatens cultural dispossession becomes increasingly imminent, and as the consequences of such become increasingly undeniable, perhaps a belated cultural awakening and renewal will begin. Otherwise, it may well the case that Western modernity and postmodernity will eventually suffer the same fate as the classical Greco-Roman civilization of antiquity.

__________

Notes:

¹ Peter Gay, The Enlightenment: The Rise of Modern Paganism (New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company, 1966), pp. 8-9, 62-63.

² Gay, pp. 59-127.

³ Georg W.F. Hegel, The Philosophy of History, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1991).

⁴ Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (New York: International Publishers, 1948.)

⁵ Peter J. Bowler, The Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth. (Baltimore and London: Johns-Hopkins University Press, 1988), pp. 9-10, 43-44, 24-28, 40-45.

⁶ Bowler, pp. 9-14.

⁷ Bowler, pp. 132-158.

⁸ Bowler, pp. 166-173.

⁹ Gay, pp. 63-64, 103, 105, 407-419.

¹⁰ Werner J. Dannhauser, “Friedrich Nietzsche,” History of Political Philosophy, edited by Joseph Cropsey and Leo Strauss. (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1963, 1972) Third edition, 1987, pp. 829-831.

¹¹ Friedrich Nietzsche, A Nietzsche Reader (London and New York: Penguin Books, 1977), pp. 202-203.

¹² Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. Vol. I. Trans. John Lees. (New York: Howard Fertig, Inc., 1968).

¹³ Simone De Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity, (Secauscus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1948).

¹⁴ Michel Foucault, Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, (New York: Vintage Books, 1965), Originally published in 1961.

The Problem as the Solution

The Problem as the Solution

By Alex Kurtagic

From New Zealand come reports that one Peter Dunne, White, and leader of the Left-wing United Future political party, has called for a ‘multiculturalism act’, to ‘stamp out racism and mark the growing multiculturalism of New Zealand society’.

Apparently, the call has been motivated by an incident, whereby a group called Right Wing Resistance (RWR) distributed leaflets bearing the message ‘Stop The Asian Invasion”.

Dunne disapproves of this activity and would like to see it banned, explaining that

[a] Multiculturalism Act would ensure everyone enjoys equal treatment and protection under the law, while formally acknowledging the freedom of all members of New Zealand society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage without fear of persecution.

Yet, when we look at the RWR’s website, we see that they describe themselves as

an organized unified resistance movement against mass immigration, the dilution of our European culture and pride, and the current multicultural agenda created by the current government networks designed to destroy our colonial rights and identity.

Question: Is not Dunne’s proposed Multiculturalism Act meant to formally acknowledge the freedom to do precisely this?

It seems Dunne seeks both to legally protect and legally ban the same thing, simultaneously.

We can imagine the kind of semantic contortions that will have to be contrived in order to conceal the proposed Act’s racially discriminatory, anti-White aims.

Another remarkable aspect of this incident is that, as an explanation, Dunne declares, entirely unself-consciously and without irony, that

[o]fficial statistics already show that almost one in three New Zealanders today are of non-European origin – within the next 15 years that is likely to increase to over 40 percent.

By 2021, for example, a quarter of our population will be of either Asian or Pacific origin.

Question: Would this not be precisely the reason why groups like RWR form in the first place?

A look at the photographs suggests that the membership consists of working-class Whites, exactly the demographic that has typically been worst hit by non-White immigration.

As usual, the Left’s idiotic answer to the social tension caused by multiculturalism is . . . more multiculturalism.

What arrogance.

It is like a disease.

It bears mentioning that the Māori have a protest movement of their own, which in some ways is broadly analogous to those now emerging in traditional White societies and in other former European colonies. Imagine Māori leaders moving energetically to stamp out activist groups campaigning for the preservation of Māori culture and pride. Furthermore, imagine most Māori applauding their leaders’ anti-Māori measures, ostracising the campaigners, and actively encouraging European immigration and Westernisation, regarding their collective ethnic suicide as a measure of virtue. One could scarcely look at such actions without some perplexity, and would indeed wonder, even if convenient, about the mental soundness of such a people and whether Nature has not meant for them to disappear.

In any event, far-away Mr. Dunne is behind the times politically: the state of the art in European politics is for White politicians to say that multiculturalism has failed, and then to engage in deeper levels of deception, hopeful that the citizen will not notice and thus keep the multicultural pressure cooker from exploding.

Party Like It’s 1929

Party Like It’s 1929

May 11, 2011

Economy Hanging by a Thread

By Mike Whitney

(Editor’s Note: You’d think that governors and state legislators would read the constant flood of information about the American economy and have a mind to avert the tragedy in their own states. But I guess once a leech, always a leech. It doesn’t occur to a leech that he could be anything other than a leech. Leeches are not leaders…they feed off others. They don’t create…they drain. And leeches don’t usually let go of their host voluntarily…right up to and including the host’s death. America is slowly dying from the effect of the government leeches. The American economy will die soon. We can only hope that the leeches will die with it.)

A bleak jobs report sent stocks and commodities tumbling on Wednesday, while new signs of distress gripped the service industries index. An updated report from the ADP showed that private sector hiring slowed more than expected from March to April as companies struggled to meet rising raw material costs and flagging consumer demand. The service industry index (ISM)…which “ranges from utilities and retailing to health care, finance and transportation”…slumped to its lowest level since August signaling widespread deceleration and a progressive deterioration in the fundamentals. The turnaround has forced economists to rethink their projections for 2nd Quarter GDP and to watch more vigilantly for signs of contraction. This is from the New York Times:

“The economy lost steam in the first quarter. Growth in personal consumption — the single largest component of the economy — slowed markedly. Business-related construction cratered and residential construction fell. Exports stumbled. The only unambiguous plus was continued business investment in equipment and software, which is necessary but not sufficient for overall growth.

In all, economic growth slowed from an annual rate of 3.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010 to 1.8 percent in the first quarter of 2011….

When lauding the economy, Mr. Bernanke and many other economists and politicians point out, correctly, that the unemployment rate has declined from a recession high of 10.1 percent in late 2009 to 8.8 percent now. That would be encouraging news if it indicated robust hiring for good jobs. It does not.

Over the last year, the number of new hires has been outstripped by the masses who have either given up looking for work or who have not undertaken a consistent job search, say, after graduating from high school or college. Those missing millions are not counted in the official jobless rate; if they were, unemployment today would be 9.8 percent. The rate would be 15.7 percent if it included those who took part-time jobs in lieu of full-time ones.” (“The Economy Slows” New York Times)

So, even the New York Times agrees that unemployment would be nearly 16 percent if the figures were correctly calculated. Those are Depression numbers. 14 million people are out of work and record numbers of people are on food stamps (44 million).

Wednesday’s down-market sent commodities plunging as signs of emerging deflation pushed investors into Treasuries. Gold and silver fell sharply. Troubles in Japan, China and the eurozone have intensified fears of a global slowdown and perhaps another bout of recession. The dollar strengthened for the third straight session, in spite of the Fed’s zero rates and $600 billion bond buying program. Trillions of dollars in monetary and fiscal stimulus have jolted stocks back to life, but debt-deflation dynamics in the broader economy are as strong as ever. Unemployment remains stubbornly high, consumer retrenchment has reduced discretionary spending, and housing continues its inexorable nosedive. The stock market continues to inch higher buoyed by central bank liquidity and margin debt, but investors are increasingly skittish and searching for direction.

The soaring price of gas has shifted consumer spending from retail to energy consumption, the opposite of what the Fed had intended. This from Early Warning:

“I doubt energy prices can go a whole lot higher without triggering another recession, so it depends on whether the world can scrape up a few more mbd of oil to keep growth going without prices rising too much more. We will be watching oil production statistics closely…

…We are in an era where the availability of natural resources is not sufficient to support the wealth levels that the developed world has grown accustomed to, along with the speed of growth with which the developing world is trying to approach those same levels….. the global economy keeps trying to grow in a way that is inconsistent with the resource constraints, and then some part of the system tears and gives way….

I would argue that this data is at least consistent with the narrative that, in the post 1973 era, energy is consistently in somewhat problematic supply, and you can think of many of the recessions as showing a pattern in which energy prices are rising as the world overshoots what can currently be supplied, or what can currently be supplied drops as a result of geopolitical events, and energy prices rise until some pre-existing weakness in the global economic fabric tears in the course of a recession, and prices fall back again….” (“Energy prices and recessions”, Early Warning)

Welcome to Peak Oil; the era of resource scarcity has begun. Today’s troubles will to be a recurrent theme in the years ahead as the economy goes from boom to bust and previous levels of growth become more short-lived and unsustainable. Naturally, our leaders have settled on a strategy for addressing the impending energy shortages; endless war disguised as humanitarian intervention. This is the type of shortsightedness that passes as policy.

The main economic indicators are still turned up, but just barely. The economy is hanging by a thread. Loan demand is weak, wages are flat, and markets are on a knife-edge. Here’s a clip from The Big Picture:

“…the real problem is loan demand (confirmed while speaking to bank organizations in half a dozen states over the past year). Loans have to be repaid, meaning that the money must be used to finance the acquisition of employees or equipment that will “pay back” the loan. Common sense. But record numbers of owners (as high as 28%) have reported that “weak sales” is their top business problem while only 4% reported “financing” as a top problem….. Ninety-three percent reported all their credit needs met in March, including 53 percent who said they were not even interested in a loan. No customers means no need for a loan to finance hiring, inventory purchases or expansion (only survival – not a good bank loan!).

But they don’t get it in Washington D.C. And not understanding the problem produces bad policy, and there has been plenty of that. If lending is picking up, it is because customers are showing up and there is a reason to invest and hire. The reverse doesn’t work – you can’t force feed the credit to owners and have more customers suddenly show up ….That’s “pushing on a string”. Just ask the banks.” (“Loan Demand, Not Credit, Is the Problem”, The Big Picture)

There’s no demand for credit because consumers are in the red and need to balance their accounts. (“93 percent reported all their credit needs met in March.”) It’s pointless to focus on getting the banks to lend, when people are broke and don’t want to borrow regardless of rates. Just like its pointless to dump monetary stimulus into the stock market if it pushes up food and energy prices (headline inflation) reducing consumers ability to spend on other things. This isn’t hard to figure out; it’s Econ 101. So, why is the policy upside-down?

That said, the stock market should continue to trend upward for another couple months until the Fed’s bond buying program ends and investors realize that the real economy is stuck in the ditch. But, for now, it’s “Party like it’s 1929″. Bernanke’s punch bowl is overflowing and there’s still plenty of time to make money. The hangover comes later.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state and can be reached at: fergiewhitney+at+msn.com

Why I Don’t Fear Islam

Why I Don’t Fear Islam

May 12, 2011

by Tom Baugh
Starve The Monkeys

(Editor’s Note: Welcome back, Tom! Great to have another brilliant think-piece by you. Dear readers, I’ve heard it said that the banco-nationalists intend on bringing down Western Civilization, and intend on using radical Islam as their foot soldiers and enforcers. After reading this article, you might agree. However, remember that a state that secedes, establishes hard money and a militia, will never be subjugated by the one-worlders.)

The title of this article is inflammatory all by itself, isn’t it? And that’s the point. We, even, or especially, in the LibertySphere have been conditioned to think that Islam is the greatest threat to humanity. And, like fans at the big game, we think no further than the artificial conflict which plays out before our eyes every day. The recent rash of spam emails with funny little cartoons about the killing of Osama are but one aspect of this Big Game. Sure, our leaders on both sides of our non-existent political spectrum have been careful to hold Islam itself at arm’s length from blame, but that’s all part of the ground rules.

There’s no political campaign more effective and enduring than one that seems to spring from the individual soul. The campaign against Islam is the finest piece of political astroturf in history, and serves to unite even the most liberty-minded of us underneath the banner of a rapacious federal government we have learned, by experience, to dread and despise. “The lesser of two evils,” we console ourselves, while feeding our children into the jaws of the machine of lifetime servitude to mounting public debt, or in too many cases, youthful death or dismemberment fighting a fabricated enemy for the end purpose of increasing that debt.

I know, I know, we’re all aquiver about the ills of Islam, including abuses against women and children, beheadings, terroristic bombings, political imprisonment, the horrors of sharia law and the dreaded looming specter of Islamic anti-Semitism.

Let’s open our eyes a bit, and take a wider view, shall we? It won’t hurt a bit, and then you can go back to dreaming. If you’ve read any of what I’ve written before, and don’t yet understand the real font from which all evil in our world springs, then go ahead and drift off now. Nighty-night, ye noble fool.

OK, so now that it is once again us adults, let’s discuss some of these ills of Islam. First of all, the woman thing, as it were. This topic deserves an article all its own. I’m working on this one for later publication, as a kind of public-service self-help guide on the topic for Muslims, but here’s a preview: you Muslim boys need to give the virgin thing a rest, fellas. For most practical purposes, slightly used women in the here and now, given a sufficiently sweet disposition, are perfectly serviceable. And stop being so damn jumpy about skin. If some sweet thang gets you boys fussing at each other and makes you lose your religion, that’s your fault, not hers. Learn how to get ‘em under control using positive reinforcement, and it’ll all be good. I’ll toss you boys a few tips later, including that young bride concept, but that’s enough on the topic for now. Now back to our general audience.

Changing sexual gears, the rumors about Islamic homosexual pedophilia are indicative of defectives in positions of power, not Islam. While Islam does feature subjugation of women as an arguably negative point, I don’t think that homosexual pedophilia is in there anywhere. No, just like it isn’t in Catholicism, yet priestly pedophiles lurk behind every rectory, were we to believe the popular media about them. So, dear reader, either believe stories about both faiths, or believe none. Or, come to the conclusion that power attracts those who wish to exercise unchallenged control over their fellow man, and that pedophilia is the extreme of that character defect. For those Constitutionalists out there, you probably better not look too closely at the personal lives of a lot of Congressmen, either. It would be just as absurd to say that, because some prominent Muslims or Catholics are pedophiles, that pedophilia is a characteristic of Islam or Catholicism, as it would be to say that pedophelia is written into the Constitution because some Congressmen enjoy little boys on your dime.

Beheadings? They just lack our sophisticated execution machines. And, unlike Texas governors, those boys don’t mind getting their hands dirty personally. Sure, a lot of them wear masks or hoods while they do it, but when is the last time one of our own state executioners went on a talk-show circuit? Or for that matter, a DEA or DHS agent?

Next on the list is terroristic bombings. Let’s set aside the historical fact that the best way to get your people to demand sending their children off to war is to off a lot of their own countrymen in some grand spectacle. In the modern age, it helps to be able to get a lot of impromptu video from many angles, too. Another good tactic is to blow up a lot of the other guys to get them mad as hornets at you. Intelligence organs such as the CIA, MI-6, Mossad and the erstwhile KGB, got a lot of their budgets for just this kind of intrigue. Oh, sure, they may not get their hands dirty directly, but there’s always some psychopaths out there who can be talked into doing just about anything. And some of these psychopaths even think they’re doing the patriotic thing at the time.

Along these lines, the fact that suicide bombings have started giving way to remotely-detonated IEDs may be indicative of several things: a) the world’s anti-Muslim intelligence services are running out of self-destructive easily-manipulable psychopaths, yet lack the literal guts for the taking on the work themselves, b) the threshold of give-a-damn is too high now for these intelligence services to keep up the propaganda tempo any other way, c) or actual Islamists have gotten smart and are learning to build in organizational growth by sidestepping the virgin sales pitch. This last possibility is heartening, since it indicates a moderation of the most negative aspects of Islam in favor of a strategy which has some legs on it.

Oh, did the idea of the CIA, MI-6, or more particularly, Mossad, blowing up your baby soldier hero in Iraq or Afghanistan for political currency piss you off? That’s the point, of course, to make sure that your loss now requires you, just like teenage abortioner, to take an unthinking political stance for life lest ye live in unconsolable regret for your loss. What you should be pissed off about is the system which exists to grind all of our children into slaves, or at the very least, makes such an outcome possible or even probable. This possibility raises an even more disturbing specter which we’ll explore in a future article.

Or, did the idea of a maturing Islamist strategy upset you? Well, again, that’s the point of your having been propagandized. We, as a reliable pool of soldier-breeding voters, tend to want to classify our enemies as either evil or stupid, or some combination of these. The idea of an enemy learning and growing with a determined and winnable strategy is too upsetting to comprehend, isn’t it? Why do you think that is? Answer that for yourself, and you will understand all. Now back to the list, we’re almost to the good stuff.

Islamic political imprisonment? Talk to a tenth-year marijuana incarceree in one of our modern gulags-for-profit and ask him what he thinks about that. Try to pick a quiet spot out of the traffic flow near the front gate while they let actual murders, rapists and thieves out to keep the quotas up. Worse, we don’t even try to lock up any of the banco-terrorists who cause all of this crap in the first place.

Sharia law? Well, well, well. That is the big boogie-man, isn’t it? I admit, it is frightening to think that one would live in a system of laws dictated by religious beliefs rather than reason and respect for the individual. I have news for you: Jeffersonian freedom is long dead, and was never actually implemented even in his time.

The entire drug war, and the leverage it gives the government over everyone through the threat of unconditional property seizure on a whim, is self-imposed sharia law. But control of substances doesn’t stop, or even start, there. In many states you can’t buy liquor, or in some cases, any alcohol, on Sundays. Alcohol and tobacco have been heavily regulated and taxed since the inception of this land of the free; said taxation having been sold to the populace as necessary for moral reasons. Never mind that fermentation, a scientifically miraculous food-preservation gift from God, has been lauded since Biblical times as necessary for survival for millions in hard times, and good health for all in moderation. This could explain, of course, why such an important and universally accessible staple, in all its forms, is a necessary regulatory component in the plans of tyrants of all faiths and financial orientations.

Marriage, whether straight, gay or polygamous, is heavily regulated for reasons of faith. Yet, few stop to ask why relationships are the government’s realm in the first place. Again, control this necessary aspect of human life, and it becomes much easier to control the rest.

We have faith in a financial system that allows mass theft in front of our eyes; we defend this system thinking that it protects and benefits the long-dead small businessman. We believe that all healing comes in a pill or from a machine and punish the heretics with the regulatory power of the state. We believe that tossing an aluminum can into a green bin or a blue bin really makes a difference, and ostracize those who don’t care. We have faith in the official version of events, and demonize those who question. We believe that in a crisis the military and the police will be on the right side, and so attack with the most venomous bile any competing reasoned thought.

We have faith that universal female suffrage is good and noble. Yet, at any given point in time, including on Election Day, more than fifty percent of women are functionally insane as a natural and delightful consequence of biology. Huh. Maybe the Muslims have a point in not letting them vote. We see what happened to the country after that little sacrament started.

Most people in this country, including most of the self-labeled liberty-minded, revel in their own brand of sharia law, and act, in their own petty ways, as its street-level enforcers, searching about for stones at the slightest breach. This includes, of course, women of both genders who had their sacred ox gored by that previous paragraph.

Sharia law is already all around you, but one cannot recognize a prison if it is in the shape of one’s choices. You have been placed in a Judeo-Christian-Enviromento-Feminized cage, and then taught in school, at church and at work to make decisions which keep you safely within it. The political conflict which you think exists between major factions is merely a play to keep you blind to the reality of your imprisonment.

The only difference between the Islamic sharia cage and our Amerikan cage is that the shapes are different. You are caged, either way. It is entirely likely that many Muslims enjoy the comfort of their cage just as much as Christians enjoy theirs. If you can see the cage at all, and disdain either one, you are in a precious minority.

From our list of the perils of Islam, this leaves only Islamic anti-Semitism. The term anti-Semitism has become so laced with emotion and ingrained response that had the Holocaust not happened, the Ruling Classes, of any faith, would have paid dearly to cause it, so perfect is this shield from criticism. Permanently demonizing the Germans was an important side-effect. Coincidentally, the Germans are the only European race which had for millenia successfully withstood the same banco-Roman empire which murdered that upstart questioning Nazarene. What would Jesus do today? Bitch-slap some bankers (or in those times, “money changers”), of course, but I digress.

Each time anyone writes about the evils of banco-nationalism, the easiest and most effective deflection is to label the author as anti-Semitic. Similarly, any criticism of Israel or its establishment is brushed aside with the same ease.

The banco-nationalists have spent centuries and hundreds of millions of lives building their empire, now with intelligence and special operations forces completely outside the scope of what we think of as civilian control, and propaganda organs willing to spew whatever spin is needed to keep you fighting for them. They aren’t about to give all that up for something so reckless as truth.

The most important truth to understand, and the one that these financial terrorists fear the most, is that Islam is the only force on the face of the earth which has, as one of its core tenets, direct opposition to banco-nationalism.

That one reason is why Islam has been defined as our enemy. All the rest is spin.

Just as the Holocaust was such an effective propaganda coup that it was worth six million Jewish lives (a number highly in dispute. Ed.) for these banco-nationalist monsters to attain, the demonization of Islam is a similarly worthwhile investment. It is one thing to demonize the normally peaceful Germans. Most Germans, although they don’t mind opening a can of Peitscheesel when necessary, really just want to go back to being quietly efficient and rocking out to Rammstein. It is an entirely different thing to demonize Islamists, who have the capacity for manufacturing an endless stream of multi-national Truly Bad Guys, who know, in their heart, that, at least on the banco-nationalist issue, they are on the side of good.

Islam did not change the bankruptcy laws in 2005 and 2006 while simultaneously changing the financial lending rules. Islam did not then extend millions of personal and business borrowers a Hobson’s choice of escalating variable interest rates and balloon payments (many of which have yet to pop). Islam did not deliberately withhold lending in 2008 to then cause desperation and panic as millions of households and businesses struggled to provide the banco-nationalists their tons of flesh. Islam did not bankrupt and then cast thousands of families into the streets and destroy millions of jobs to increase their suffering and thus their political and financial malleability. Islam did not grievously wound or kill tens or hundreds of thousands of bread-winners through stress-related strokes, heart attacks and suicide or destroy their relationships. Islam did not then demand, and receive, a trillion dollars of tribute, or more, for the financial terrorists who deliberately precipitated this crisis in a time of presumed war against terror. Islam does not continue to profit even today on the suffering of people who had their lives, and the lives of their children, destroyed for the benefit of an evil few.

Islam did none of these things. Islam could not do any of these things.

Film at eleven, and coming soon to a neighborhood near you when more and more capable people in this country have had these banco-nationalist vermin steal everything they own. And then be forced to watch the mindless populace cheering those monsters on in the name of capitalism and free trade while waving the federally reserved flag. It only takes a whisper then. And whispers are all around. Whispers, from the right mouth to the correct ear, are a very powerful thing.

It is this same reactionary energy, which catapulted Marxists to power around the globe in the twentieth century, that will catapult Islamists to power around the globe in the twenty-first.

Stealing from people in the name of law, enslaving generations of children, (physically or fiscally) and hollowing out the souls of mankind for the profit of a wealthy few is a crime against humanity which must one day be adjudged. Marxists adjudged this disparity and established the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and too many other equally repressive regimes to list, on the ruins of wealthy places plundered by past banco-nationalists. That plunder was protected by first the power of the British Empire and then later the American. In either case the uniformed human tools of this oppression thought they were doing the right thing, while wrapping themselves in warm thoughts of home, mother and flag. As did I at one time.

This is the “Great Satan” of which mullahs speak; the unchecked ability of the powerful to steal and destroy lives, foreign and domestic, backed by millions of unthinking Americans willing to send their children into death or poverty, and armed with nuclear weapons.

We wonder why so many people can follow the siren song of Marxism or Islam. Islam is just more effective at recruiting those who have suffered injustice as their message rings more true. And, like the horrifying nano-bot of science fiction, it is self-replicating. For once you understand this one tenet of Islam, the absolute forbiddance of the banking industry, you learn how to whisper that magic phrase which rings true only in the ears of the distressed and victimized.

Which is why, if we stay the current course, Islam will probably win. Because the Great Satan has finally started devouring its own.

This is why I don’t fear Islam.

No, I fear something worse than Islam.

I fear a system which makes an Islamic takeover possible. I fear a system which made a banco-nationalist takeover possible. I fear a system which can be perverted by any group into inordinate power by a few. Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, atheist, it doesn’t matter. Religion doesn’t matter in this equation, either. Hetro, homo, metro or undecided. Monogamy, polygamy or autogamy, feminist or macho, misogynist or misandrist. Bankist or Marxist. Rightist or leftist, liberal or conservative, progressive or regressive. Hell’s Angels or Heaven’s Demons. Pick any “ist” you wish. Any one of them in control of this machine of death and accelerating poverty is a bad thing.

That system is the one first conceived by Hamilton’s masters to ensure that a Shay’s Rebellion would never again protect the rights of the individual against the wealthy. That system is the one propagandized by the Preamble and Bill of Rights to hide the unconstrained power which lurks within Presidential control of state and local militias, checked only by legislative and judicial branches, which are in turn checked by nothing meaningful, as even your vote is smothered by propaganda under the control of New York-based and banker-backed media.

That local or state militia is your only possible salvation. But the Constitution, which you mindlessly worship, hands that power to the President alone, specifically so that you would be powerless to resist the banco-nationalists who wrote it. Sooner or later, after hearing messages of well-meaning tolerance from our currently elected masters, our countrymen will elect Islamic congressmen, Islamic senators, or, incredibly, even an Islamic president. And those guys will appoint and confirm Islamic Supreme Court justices. Afterward, you will have only yourselves to blame for the outcome.

But could any Islamic horde or banco-nationalist lawyers stand against your local or state militias without the power of the national government to protect them, a protection for the powerful which reduces all of us to individuals denied the right to band together for self-defense?

Now imagine fifty, or a hundred, or a hundred and fifty such states and militias, populated by men who, as the Founding Fathers of the Revolution intended, stood against any enemies, foreign or especially domestic, who threatened them. Quite a difference from the system where the cowed masses comply with any affront their national government deems necessary, just as the Founding Lawyers of the Constitution intended. They might as well have been Founding Mullahs, so perfect is the central power against you. And so helpless will you be against the coming infection unless you kill the Constitutional vector first.

Wave your banco-nationalist flags, my friends, and wonder why each victory seems to march us closer to the Islamic doom you fear. Widespread secession is your only hope, but that is the one path from which you flee in your Constitutional faith. Deprived of central control and power, secession leaves banco-nationalism fatally wounded, and along with it the reactionary energy which fed Marxism, and which now feeds Islam.

Yes, there will be consequences to secession. Some states, such as Michigan, will fall to Islam. Similarly, some states will fall to Christianity. Others will be reduced to cesspools of wounded bankers feeding on each other at last. But each of these will be powerless to infect the rest. Some states will fail of their own accord and become pits of despair which the good will flee. A few will prosper and act as beacons to the others. Far better than this vast gray paste of compliance we currently enjoy, don’t you think?

It really is that simple. Our centralized national power, essential to banco-nationalist control of our lives and fortunes in order to secure the blessings of imaginary liberty for themselves and their posterity, not yours, is our biggest weakness in the face of encroaching Islam. To fight one, you must first destroy the other. And then we all win.

Still clinging to that “damned piece of paper”, as one of our favorite Islam-fighting Presidents put it? Then get ready to pledge allegiance to those “Stars and Crescents”.

Tom Baugh is the author of Starving the Monkeys: Fight Back Smarter. He is also a former Marine, patented inventor, entrepreneur, professional irritant and a homeschooling parent.

Housing crash is getting worse: report

Housing crash is getting worse: report

Commentary: But all this bearish news makes me bullish

By Brett Arends, MarketWatch

BOSTON (MarketWatch) — If you thought the housing crisis was bad, think again.

It’s worse.

New data just out from Zillow, the real-estate information company, show house prices are falling at their fastest rate since the Lehman collapse.

Average home prices are down 8% from a year ago, 3% over the quarter, and are falling at about 1% every month, according to Zillow.

And the percentage of homeowners in negative-equity positions — with a home worth less than its mortgage — has rocketed to 28%, a new crisis high.

Zillow now predicts prices will fall about 8% this year and says it no longer expects the market to bottom before 2012.

“There’s no way we can get to flat, from these depreciation levels, in the last nine months of the year,” says Zillow economist Stan Humphries. “Demand is a lot more anemic than we had previously thought.”

When in 2012 does Zillow see the market bottoming out? Humphries won’t say.

What a foolish boondoggle those tax breaks for home buyers have turned out to be. The government spent an estimated $22 billion between 2008 and 2010 on tax breaks to prop up the housing market. All it achieved was a brief suckers’ rally that ended last summer.

Click to Play

Zillow plots IPO

Online real-estate listings firm Zillow seeks to go public, looking to run with consumer-oriented Internet companies headed for IPOs like Facebook, Groupon and Pandora.

“As we said at the time, it was a giant waste of money,” says Mark Calabria, economist at the conservative Cato Institute. “None of these things really turned the housing market around. They just put off the adjustment for awhile.”

It’s hard to overestimate the scale of the carnage in the housing market. Zillow found prices fell in all but four U.S. metro areas.

Falling real-estate prices mean spiraling hidden losses throughout the economy, from banks to homeowners.

Remember Japan’s “zombie banks”? These were the financial institutions that haunted that country’s economic recovery after the 1990 crash. They staggered on with huge losses they could never repay — the walking dead.

Here in America we have “zombie homeowners.” Millions of them. According to Zillow, a record 16.3 million families are upside-down on their home loans. Sixteen million! And many are a long way upside-down. Their homes may never be worth as much as their mortgage. But they are hemorrhaging cash to pay the nut every month.

‘Demand is a lot more anemic than we had previously thought.’

Stan Humphries, Zillow

Recovery? What recovery? This looks a bit like a depression to me.

What does this mean?

All the misery makes me think of a great French general, Ferdinand Foch. He’s the one who defended Paris at the Battle of the Marne in World War I. During the darkest hour of the fighting, he is supposed to have looked around him and said:

“Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent — I attack!”

In other words, when it comes to distressed housing, I’m finding it hard not to be a contrarian bull.

Why? Am I crazy?

Well, maybe. But I’m a medium-bull for all the reasons everyone else is gloomy.

First, prices in many areas are now cheap. They have corrected a long way since the bubble began to burst five years ago. Of course, it depends on where you are. I’m still skeptical of the real-estate markets that have held up best — prime stuff like Manhattan, San Francisco or Beverly Hills. It’s hard to get a deal there.

But in the places that have fallen the furthest, there are deals aplenty. Zillow found only four metro areas in America that have leveled out, or risen, lately. Notably, two of those are in stricken Florida — Fort Myers and Sarasota. Have they fallen so far they’ve hit bottom? Maybe.

Look at this chart. It shows Miami real-estate prices, adjusted for inflation, over the past quarter-century, using Case-Shiller data. The picture is pretty remarkable. The gigantic bubble has been completely wiped out. We’re back to prices seen in the 1980s — when “Miami Vice” was on the air.

The second reason: There are tons of foreclosures and short sales on the market. And there are plenty more sitting in the wings. Banks are holding back big shadow inventories of homes. And that means you can get a great deal. They have to sell. You don’t have to buy. You hold all the cards. Remember, the name of the game isn’t “let’s make a deal.” It’s “take it or leave it.”

Third, in many places rental yields are terrific. It’s cheaper to own than to rent. There have been some forced sales in my building in Miami. Based on my math, the latest buyers have bought condominium units for six times gross annual rents, and maybe 12 times net rents. We’re talking net yields of 7% or more. And rents are rising, because so many former owners are now renters.

The fourth reason I’m bullish is that you can get a very cheap mortgage. Thirty-year conforming loans are going as low as 4.3%. Throw in the tax break on the interest, and you are talking cheap finance. See latest weekly mortgage-rate update.

The fifth reason is that, as painful as this collapse has been, real estate has historically proven to offer very good long-term protection against inflation. Returns have typically averaged about 1% or 2% above inflation. At a time when everyone has been piling into gold, commodities and TIPS bonds to protect themselves against the possibility of inflation, it seems odd that the most popular and successful hedge, namely real estate, goes a-begging.

The sixth reason I’m bullish is perverse, but I’m sticking by it. Everyone else is bearish. You cannot find a real-estate bull anywhere. No one wants to own this asset. No one wants to talk about it. No one wants to hear about it. Everyone seems to agree it’s just going down, down, down — forever.

They said much the same about stocks in 1987, 2002 and 2009; Treasury bonds in 1982; and gold in 2000. I cannot prove this is capitulation, but it sure smells something like it.

As ever, if you aren’t disciplined and patient, this probably isn’t for you.

I have absolutely no idea when real estate is going to hit rock bottom. It may take several years. I suspect it will do so in different markets at different times. But there are good homes out there going really cheap. If you hunt down the bargains, you’re disciplined about price, you get the right financing, and you hold on for five years or more, you’ll probably do pretty well from here.

The Ever Swirling Economy

The Ever Swirling Economy

http://www.whitecivilrights.com/?p=5435#more-5435

by Jeff Davis

The American economy keeps on getting worse and worse–but somehow we haven’t had the big stock market crash that everyone associates with a Great Depression. It’s like a falling skydiver who jumped out of the plane without his parachute. He sees the ground rushing up at him, and yet it just goes on, and on, and on…an endless fall.

California and the federal government are essentially in a permanent borrowing mode. Eventually the people loaning them money (the Chinese) will realize that California and the Obama regime can no longer pay back any more loans and the loans will stop and maybe then we’ll see the long overdue crash.

An article from Marketwatch reports: “If you thought the housing crisis was bad, think again. It’s worse. New data just out from Zillow, the real-estate information company, show house prices are falling at their fastest rate since the Lehman collapse. Average home prices are down 8% from a year ago, 3% over the quarter, and are falling at about 1% every month, according to Zillow. And the percentage of homeowners in negative-equity positions — with a home worth less than its mortgage — has rocketed to 28%, a new crisis high. Zillow now predicts prices will fall about 8% this year and says it no longer expects the market to bottom before 2012. ‘There’s no way we can get to flat, from these depreciation levels, in the last nine months of the year,’ says Zillow economist Stan Humphries. ‘Demand is a lot more anemic than we had previously thought.’ “

More people join the ranks of the long-term unemployed every day and many Americans have settled for McDonald’s and temp agency jobs since that was all they could get.

The article continues “When in 2012 does Zillow see the market bottoming out? Humphries won’t say. What a foolish boondoggle those tax breaks for home buyers have turned out to be. The government spent an estimated $22 billion between 2008 and 2010 on tax breaks to prop up the housing market. All it achieved was a brief suckers’ rally that ended last summer.”

But…but…but…I thought we were supposed to be in a recovery? Doesn’t the liberal media tell us so every night? The mainstream media wouldn’t…lie to us, would they?

It looks like we’re going to learn that you can’t spend your way out of a Depression and you can’t throw an endless party on a credit card without ever having to pay off the bill. Too bad no one checked Obama’s college records before he became president, then maybe Americans would have had a better clue he was the wrong man for the job.