In case you hadn’t noticed (!) European Americans MUST work and then prepare to carry out effective political struggle in the shadow of our impending demographic crash on or before the year 2042-43.
It’s not as far away as you think.
Otherwise, the best we can look for is the consistent failure which has rewarded activists in the past. Only this time we may not get a second chance. Politically, spiritually and socially – online and on the streets — our organization has to lay a groundwork that will maintain us for a very long battle. And as a part of that battle it’s our job to show people how to turn cultural scrutiny on not only themselves but on society as a whole; in terms of qualitative, long-term thinking.
As we work deep within the system on behalf of our people, as individuals there are many practical things we need to do to give us any chance at all of surviving the oncoming changes. We need to start thinking in terms of real freedom. In other words if it’s even remotely possible we need to get rid of debt, own our own property, learn to grow and store our own food, perhaps produce our own electricity, have at least 1 years supplies of emergency items on hand, home school our children, learn how to do things for ourselves, and so on. The more we can do for ourselves without depending on an increasingly alien multicultural society, the better off we are.
It’s the Constitutional thing to do.
Since food, medical care and protection are used as weapons by the governments of the world, and who says the US is any different, we need to get the chains of wage-slavery and bureaucratic micromanagement off our necks — before we can make a difference in our personal lives. Find other EAU members and supporters. Interact to help each other by forming a group and work together with as little “drama” as possible. Two or more lucid sane individuals can do more and think of more ideas than one.
We can all see the orgy of bailouts and ghost-money manipulation that will translate into immeasurable debt for our offspring as the federal government, which long ago abandoned its Constitutional edict, tries to repair the unholy injuries it inflicted on a sleeping society — by way of intrusive meddling and power mad politics. Of course, the greatest bulk of the population paying the awful price has always been and will continue to be European Americans. And there may soon come a time when our “elected representatives” decide to turn their power on their own people. In fact they have been doing so incrementally for decades; with an ideological shift away from a Eurocentric nation founded on the Bill of Rights, to a global multicultural, immoral basket case. With the exception of the forecast of our racial diminishment in 2042-43 and the resultant lack of interest by the media and government, no one can calculate in detail the net result of this unhinged plot but we can certainly make a few educated guesses.
It is clear, however, that our responsibility now is to continue our outreach efforts whatever they may be; finding the right people in the right places who will in turn reach across whatever barriers they must to find others of like mind. As time goes by – and there isn’t much of that commodity left – a structured collection of people and other resources will continue the improvement and growth of a strong ideological foundation that will ensure the survival of our folk.
Do what you can, wherever you are, with what you have — Roman
Not long ago, syndicated neoconservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh ( don’t TELL ME you haven’t heard of him), said the following which is an excerpt from a much longer monologue:
“There have been populations of people organized as countries since the founding of the planet, since it was created, and since humanity first appeared. People have organized themselves in various ways: groups, families, nations. Now, the earth and humanity, depending on who you talk to, is millions of years old, billions of years old, and throughout the history of human beings, no group of human beings has ever produced the wealth, the freedom, the opportunity, the prosperity, the security, as Americans. The United States of America, throughout human history, is the greatest nation however you wish to define it, in history. Now, how did this happen? We, the United States of America, are just human beings. There are countries that exist at the same time we have, there are countries that existed long before we came into being, of course in Europe and Asia, Africa, Australia, the subcontinents.”
I think we can ascertain here what Mr. Limbaugh is saying. Admittedly, he offers us a scenario that suggests something most Americans no longer think about, and that is their origin in the here and now. But I wonder what he means when he says “we?”
Hello ladies. We agree.
Who exactly is we; we who have produced a standard of living unheard of and undreamed of even by people who were alive 100 years ago. We who have produced a country where the occupants have the highest expectations of opportunity, security, wealth, and education, than any group of human beings has ever had. Who is “we?”
He goes on:
After all China, Japan, Russia, the satellite countries, Italy, France, Australia — all these countries have been around much, much longer than we have. And admittedly, people that founded this country came from Europe. Why were they not able to do where they lived what they did here? You realize our Founding Fathers were Brits. Why were they not able to turn Great Britain or England into the United States when they lived there?
Rush Limbaugh answers this question himself by saying it was the “freedom” from political and social oppression that unharnessed the power that created what we know to be the United States. True enough, I suppose. England and Great Britain were under the rule of monarchs and were not able to exercise the kind of political movement that would eventually build the kind of nation that was later to become America. This condition, we assume, also applied to other Western nations like France, Italy, Australia, Switzerland, Ireland, etc as well as to more cloistered regimes in China, Russia, Japan, countries in the Middle East and in the lower Western hemisphere. Africa of course, with all of its satellite populations that had migrated or were forced across the earth through bondage, comes into play as well.
So in other words, while we can agree not all European derived persons could have replaced the original founders, is Rush saying that Africans and Muslims could just as well have done so? Right.
Rush is insinuating here that it was freedom and freedom alone that created the United States, as if freedom is mutually exclusive to the white people who carried the philosophy and outlook of freedom with them. Of course, it can be argued that Russians and Australians could not have built the United the States he’s talking about. But neither could Muslims or Africans. Yet he is clearly insinuating that freedom and freedom alone, regardless of whatever race of people exercised it, would have successfully gave us a country where the occupants have the highest expectations of opportunity, security, wealth, and education, than any group of human beings has ever had — complete with our Constitution and Bill of Rights. This suggestion on its face is ridiculous and smacks of racial relativism and equality dogma. No, its a safe bet that Russians and Chinese founders could not have given us the United States we used to have in the 40’s, 50’s and parts of the sixties. And again, neither could Africans and Middle Easterners. But the irrefutable fact that it WAS British Europeans, who extrapolated the best from their own people’s global wisdom and learned bitter lessons from their foul/ups — who did not share total equality with not only their global racial kinsmen but non-white races as well — saw the time was right and set out to create a true homeland for a distinct race of people.
The wild success of Pat Buchanan’s excellent book “The Death of the West” should reinforce our position here: that although no two European derived nations or groups are on equal footing the fact remains that it is our folk alone who are capable of reproducing themselves and carrying on our culture family by family; that it is culture that can reinforce our genes; and it is our genes that create the culture. The same goes for all races of man. When Rush Limbaugh says that we, the United States of America, are just human beings he’s trying to buffalo his followers to believe that Haitians and Zimbabweans are just the same as Russians and Frenchmen — ALL OF WHOM would have been just as successful in creating America ( as we know it) through freedom alone. Nonsense. Racial variables are one thing. But this is just a nice way for people like Rush to peddle corporate racial equality which, as we know, affects the bottom line.
Now having said all that, we can almost hear the shrieks of horror and demands for my being burned at the stake for heresy; and I would bet that, on some level, Rush would agree with that sentence.
Needless to say there is much trepidation in the ranks of the neocons over the (possible) impending election of the Mocha Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama. Yes, I know that’s a crude thing to say but when it comes down to it that’s exactly what he is, or purports to be by way of the Moveon.org media. (Just ask any one of his ninetieth percentile racially conscious black voters.) Neoconservative talk radio has spared no ammunition trying to marginalize Obama’s efforts to be the next Socialist in Chief, and leading this pack of corporate talkers is our old friend Rush Limbaugh. Not even the onset of a Bill Clinton presidency caused Rush to become so inflamed.
In response to a massive nationally broadcast Obama infomercial scheduled for 29 October and which has already aired — I’ll catch it on YouTube– earlier in the day Rush had posted a preemptive rebuttal to Obama’s impending gas baggery. Below you will see a couple of important paragraphs from his speech. My comments are in red.
“And so it is, my fellow Americans, that I urge you to reject Barack Obama and his cynical campaign for president. I urge you to reject the policies and the wording of the charismatic demagogue. Barack Obama condemns the United States Constitution, our highest law, because it does not empower him to redistribute the income of the middle class and give it to people who do not work.”
I’d say it could be argued that the redistribution of wealth “anti racists” such as Rush decries would have come at a much slower pace, and possibly stopped, had the United States remained majority Euro homogenous. National cynicism was put into motion well before the Marxist Sixties, which is when it finally came to fruition while charismatic demagoguery was perfected alongside a tidal wave of advanced media technology. The United States went from a robust homogenous self sustaining European derived nation to one that decided to embrace multiculturalism and political correctness as a way to undermine not only itself but Western culture overall. Through the mantra of “tolerance” the next generation empowered itself to not only open the borders to the Third World (and encourage radical feminism and white abortion) but to also redistribute European Americans income by way of anti Western multiculturalism.
Obama condemns our judicial system not because it’s too liberal and too activist, but because it will not impose his left-wing policies by judicial fiat. Obama believes that the tax code should be used not to fund the legitimate purposes of government, but to massively expand the size and power of the federal government. It’s time for change. It is time for the kind of change that has made this country great and the change we seek, the change that matters is change that expands our liberty, expands opportunities, expands wealth creation, and expands our horizons. It is time to celebrate capitalism, not demonize it. It’s time to celebrate success, not punish it. It is time to ignite our economy, not smother it.
These “changes” Rush refers to were already in place, so what he ought to be saying is that it’s time to change things back to what they were. Left wing policies, the size and power of the federal government, an onerous tax code were all but non-existent when the United States was racially homogenous; when ethical men walked the halls of power prior to the non-stop brainwashing of multiculturalism. Now European Americans who were once self avowed yet marginalized Marxists are now the majority chanting for free stuff over freedom.
Barack Obama speaks the language of the socialist. Barack Obama peddles class warfare. He peddles human envy. This is not what American leaders do. This is not what would-be American presidents should do. This is the tactic of the authoritarian, to create animosity, to create anger, to create fear, all for the purpose of undermining the strength and the unity of our society.
Strength and unity used to exist when the United States was comprised of one community of people originating from Europe. Absent the fight against established Western culture and institutions that were deeply corrupted by Marxist-inspired creeds in the 60’s and 70’s, no Constitution or Bill of Rights will succeed in capturing that unity until race realism is drilled into everyone’s head, specifically the craniums of most European Americans, and peaceful segregation is achieved. Class warfare and human envy have always been with us, but a nation of similar derived people can more easily overcome these maladies by way of a common ancestry and common values; reinforced without the cries of tolerance for racial equality muddling up the ideological landscape.
Barack Obama comes from a long line of ideologues who puts the interests of big government above the interests of the individual and the interests of the family. He seeks to replace the American entrepreneurial spirit with government regulations and mandates.
Rush would agree at least implicitly that the use of multiculturalism hides the fact that we have misplaced or abandoned not only control over our national borders but placed government over the interests of the family by redefining the family. However, under the banner of racial and cultural Oneness this would be harder to achieve though not impossible.
James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, all embraced the principle that America was a different place because of its respect for the individual.
That’s part of the problem. The Founders understood that a nation was comprised of one people, who all looked alike and spoke the same language. Madison, Jefferson and Lincoln were race realists and race loyalists. Ronald Reagan was not. America was different because of its people, a people who realized and implemented their freedom from the best ideologies and traditions of Europe. This respect for the individual as we used to know it could not have been achieved had, say; the United States was founded under similar conditions by Haitians or Mexicans.
They did not talk about the government redistributing wealth. They did not talk about the government punishing success. They did not talk about the government reregulating the economy. They did not say that paying more taxes was patriotic.
Nowadays, the federal government redistributes an overly large portion of middle class wealth to illegal immigrants, mostly Mexicans but not limited to them and their heavily larded advocacy groups; groups who make no bones about the reality that they wish to replace European Americans.
How bizarre it is when liberals, leftists and other maniacs suggest that nations where abortion is a “right” are more “democratic” than others. Standing in the shadow of Planned Parenthood, which is the equivalent of a baby slaughterhouse, these creatures bawl that policies backed by the baby slaughterhouse are utterly essential to democratic government and that opposition to those policies is something akin to being undemocratic or fascist.
In the United Sates alone abortion on demand did not come from the ballot box with people physically voting for representatives (on the state or federal level) who would legalize the operation of baby slaughterhouses. No, instead it was unelected Supreme Court “justices” undemocratically imposing abortion “rights” on the masses through the dreadful Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 backed up by the fire power of the police and the federal government. Of course, even the most determined lawmaker who has attempted to impose the most benign restrictions on the baby slaughterhouses, appointed unelected judges have gleefully struck down those limitations and thwarted the alleged “will of the people.”
Needless to say, while sentient people oppose the death of any blameless infants, European Americans who so far are destined for minority status in the next few decades can benefit the most without this horrible practice (Podcasts: How to have more white babies). Then again, it has been by slow imperceptible degrees that people have been financially manipulated and systemically induced to embrace the stainless steel sink over the cradle.
This is called “freedom.”
In China, abortion was imposed by the end of a rifle and threats of prison by unelected bureaucrats as it was in the Soviet Union—again, pulling an end run around the will of the people. In other words, tragic regularity is the hallmark of abortion on demand enforced by antidemocratic ways.
Baby slaughterhouses are not the epitome of freedom, but they are the embodiment of fascism.
Conservative talk show host and author Mark Levin’s new book, “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto,” has just hit the bookstores and from what I’ve been hearing over the last few days it has been well received, to say the least. Mr. Levin’s fellow conservatives have done nothing but rave over this book, describing it in almost mystical terms with one reviewer describing Mr. Levin as the new Thomas Paine. Apparently, conservatives in Washington have forgotten who they are and what they stand for; so Mr. Levin has written a succinct yet defining instruction aid for not only our elected officials who claim to be conservative, but also for firing up the masses, who will in turn — be more conservative. In the era of Saul Alinsky’s acolyte Barack Hussein Obama this book apparently could not have come at a better time.
No, I haven’t read Mark Levin’s book. Regardless, I’m going to comment on its high-profile release, my impression of the excerpts I’ve seen, and the media reaction I’ve been observing. The gist I’m getting from the pundits and book reviewers is that this volume will allegedly resonate with greenhorn conservatives & old guard conservatives for ages to come; defining once and for all without a hint of obscurity what the founding fathers intended for the United States to be and how its government should operate. Basically, Levin’s book says government should exist only for the preservation of liberty; that it should not allow for a federal establishment that continues to expand no matter who (or what party) happens to control the executive branch. In his book he describes an out of control federal bureaucracy as a malignant intrusive creature.
“It churns out a mind-numbing number of rules that regulate energy, the environment, business, labor, employment, transportation, housing, agriculture, food, drugs, education, etc. Even the slightest human activity apparently requires its intervention: clothing labels on women’s dresses, cosmetic ingredients, and labeling. It even reaches into the bathroom, mandating showerhead flow rates and allowable gallons per flush for toilets. It sets flammability standards for beds.”
Well, who in his right mind wouldn’t agree with that assessment?
In fact the few times I’ve listened to Mr. Levin host his radio program he has stuck to this argument faithfully describing a bloated federal government that creates a “culture of conformity and dependency, where the ideal citizen takes on drone-like qualities in service to the state, where persons must be bled dry of individuality and confidence, and frightened away from independent thoughts and behavior.” Instead Mr. Levin envisions a society where the American citizen “is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract statistic or faceless member of some group; rather, he is a unique, spiritual being with a soul and a conscience.”
Mark Levin also points out how the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1917, stripped state power from the state legislatures of the authority to appoint senators and purposely deprived them of a meaningful role in the federal government, thus giving the citizenry an unfamiliar sense of the Constitution. Of course we can also thank the “statists” version of education for that sorry state of affairs.
Overall, there doesn’t seem to be much to disagree with here. So without having read the book “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto,” and listening to the accolades from his high profile conservative allies I come away from all this with the impression that Mark Levin believes the size of the federal government must be decreased; that Republicans have lost their promise to limited government and have become the party of big government. Mr. Levin seems to oppose appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution- a Constitution that each member of Congress swore to uphold. He definitely wants to lower taxes and has railed in the past that the current income tax laws assume that people are guilty and they have to prove they are innocent. He condemns the role of the Federal Reserve for the national debt and for creating inflation; that Congress needs to cut down on spending, reassess monetary and spending policies, and stop borrowing heavily from foreign investors. Yes, this all sounds good to me. I think we can safely assume his book’s message, which is rooted in the legacy of the founding fathers, will be greeted warmly and enthusiastically from not only his loyal conservative listeners but also to his associates in government — who are legion.
Sounds good, doesn’t it? With the release of this book are we finally going to see a return to limited government and a universal conviction to personal freedom, freedom of association, morality, etc at the skilled hands of a truly Constitution oriented president, legislature and judiciary? I doubt it. Why? Well because we as nation, not to mention Mark Levin, had that chance but it was flushed away. All of the above position statements, all of the clear, minimal, states’ rights oriented constitutional mandates accompanied by the philosophical underpinnings that originated in Europe and were transferred here by the Founding Fathers that Mark Levin extols – was expressed almost perfectly when Dr. Ron Paul was running for president. But you see, for the same policies he claims to adhere to and long for in our nation Mark Levin excoriated, insulted, diminished and attacked Ron Paul and his supporters better than any liberal Marxist “statist” could have ever done. He and his pals Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and other neoconservatives ignored and pooh-poohed Dr. Paul’s nearly identical platform contained in Mark Levin’s book; and moreover which utter from their crooked mouths on a daily basis from their radio perches. No, Rudolph Giuliani John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and others were the preferred choice because they all sang from the same globalist war bird sheet music prepared by the supporters of their corporate organizers.
Moreover, all of these “candidates” subscribe to racial and cultural equality and racial blending — to the point of believing and having us believe the Founders could have been Mexicans who created the “shining city on the hill” we are now allegedly composed of. It was –and is—media ghouls and parasites like Levin that shape mold and characterize the political landscape, who point out the parallel path of the Marxist “statists” that people should take — in order to arrive at a place where even demagogue leftist are comfortable. Putting aside the inevitable policy differences we may have had with Dr. Paul, among them being he did not possess one single white preservationist bone in his body, our chance to at least struggle and rebuild a truly Constitutional government with Ron Paul at the helm was subverted by people like Mark Levin, a fraud and influence peddler if ever there was one.
So why did he write his damned book?
I’ve been a little surprised lately at the talk I’ve been hearing from a few acquaintances of mine. People with varying backgrounds and disparate tastes — from a doctor and a warehouse worker, to a biker and a part time musician– all have been speaking quietly about the unsettling political landscape they not only see but feel. They don’t like what’s going on with this schizophrenic economy.
They don’t like the guy in the White House and his socialist-looking policies, either.
It appears alienation and fragmentation are seeping into their psyches from numerous vectors in the form of toxic propaganda; as the rest of their people appear to be living in denial. They see the high profile leaders of the US and the world, who babble endlessly from Fortress Untouchable and yet say nothing, are unable to allay anyone’s fears in terms of international upheaval, domestic unrest, and political and social corruption.
The world has become a dark threatening thunderhead about to unleash full blown hell.
These people I speak of, who are minding their own business, who are paying their share of taxed Federal Reserve Notes while obeying the law — like they are now — have begun talking about things that go along with guns and canned goods; with one of them having purchased a firearm and a healthy serving of ammunition for the first time in his life. Maybe it’s because he and the others, who don’t even know each other, are sensing something is wrong, very wrong, with the very fabric of existence becoming threadbare enough to expose the ugliness lurking on the other side. Maybe what was once, to many of us, safely implicit has now become dangerously explicit. To them there has been a shift in civilization’s machinery, and it has thrown closed an intuitive switch in the minds of only the most perceptive.
Take a look at the following….
Dec 23 2008, NY Post
Are you afraid that the economic downturn could get out of hand? I mean, really out of hand?
Well, don’t worry.
The US Army War College is on the case – ready to handle “unforeseen economic collapse” and the “rapid dissolution of public order in all or significant parts of the US.”
And you thought we were just dealing with a recession!
In a report published Nov. 4 – just in time for the holiday season – the War College’s Strategic Studies Institute posited a number of shocks that the country should be prepared for, including unrest caused by the economy’s failure.
The report has a snappy title, “Known Unknowns: Unconventional ‘Strategic Shocks’ in Defense Strategy Development,” and was written by Nathan Freier, a visiting professor at the college. The foreword was written by Col. John A. Kardos, director of the Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute.
Freier lists a number of possible things we should worry about – because we probably don’t have enough of our own – including run-of-the-mill terrorism and the fact that China and Russia could align against us politically and economically.
“Some of the most plausible defense-relevant strategic shocks remain low-probability events,” Freier soft-pedals before going on to scare the hell out of us.
The War College says “widespread civil violence inside the US would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.”
Among things Freier wants us to worry about are “deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction. . . unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency and catastrophic natural and human disasters.”
Oh, and by the way, have a Merry Christmas!
And a Happy New Year, too?
If the fundamental principles of our economy are so great, as Bush Obama and McCain have said, and President Obama is so dead set that his economic stimulus will save or “create” 4 million jobs, then why are our armed forces preparing for “economic riots”? Not only that, why is the Federal Government funding the construction of ‘detention centers?’
And then there’s this:
Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla., has introduced to the House of Representatives a new bill, H.R. 645, calling for the secretary of homeland security to establish no fewer than six national emergency centers for corralling civilians on military installations.
The proposed bill, which has received little mainstream media attention, appears designed to create the type of detention center that those concerned about use of the military in domestic affairs fear could be used as concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany.
Okay, so he forgot to mention “Uncle Joe” Stalin’s network of gulags-of-death-for-dissidents to which the United States turned a blind eye after the war.
We who oversee the daily operation of EAU fully believe the spirit of European Americans will never be crushed by force of arms, nor by decades of toxic propaganda, or even by a treacherous plutocratic elite groveling to yet another special interest.
The way I see it: the next four years are going to be the most important years of your life, if the above articles have any credence. I believe they do. If and when things take a screaming nosedive into the abyss of naked totalitarianism, a cohesive and dedicated subset of the European American population is going to be desperately needed, and needed badly.
While we urge our people to partake of the all important task of regaining their rightful place in America as it was intended by the Founding fathers — by whatever legal means necessary– we also urge them to take a second look at a more fundamental kind of thinking in terms of survival and progress.
The other day, when I saw former presidential candidate Senator John McCain bloviating about his desire to work on “comprehensive immigration reform” (you know, amnesty) with President elect Barack Hussein Obama, I pulled up the following quote he made during his run for the White House:
“We are a nation of many races…(and) many points of origin. But our one shared faith is the belief that a nation conceived in an idea will prove stronger, more enduring, and better than any nation…made from a common race or culture.”-Senator John McCain
What a guy. We have to wonder if this very thought had ever passed through the mind of Senator McCain –when and if– he ever walked the streets of Tokyo Japan (or even Saigon) with its nearly one hundred percent homogeneous population?
Concerning the nations in Africa we would bet he had to suppress this thought, however.
The Fish and Wildlife Service tells us that before a plant or animal group can receive protection under the Endangered Species Act, concerned persons must bring it to the attention of the proper authorities who then verify these concerns before putting it on the Federal list of endangered wildlife and plants. An “endangered” species is one which is threatened by extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its home. In other words, the life form in question is at risk of becoming extinct because it is either not reproducing or is threatened by changing environmental factors — or it’s being killed off by predators.
Only a few of the many species in the animal kingdom which are at risk of extinction obtain legal protection. Unfortunately, many more species become extinct, or potentially will become extinct, without gaining public notice. A few of the creatures that could very well face extinction are the Siberian Tiger, the Silverback Gorilla, the American Bison, the California Condor and the Loggerhead Sea Turtle, just to name a few. Certainly, many people have heard of these wonderful animals; and if these animals were to become extinct, at the end of the day a very small but vocal segment of the population (including myself) would decry this sad event while the rest would give two-flips-to-the-wind about it. Concerning the only other thing that might awaken the indolent sector of Americans to actually care about preserving something –(that) would be an immediate threat to their television viewing habits.
So while we cannot expect the US Fish and Wildlife Service to put persons of European descent on the list of endangered “species” let me state here and now – for the public record – that European Americans United believes that a corresponding entity such as the United Nations really should do exactly that. According to the U.S. Census Bureau sometime last year in 2007, the so-called “minority” population of the United States reached the 100 million mark. That means only two-thirds of Americans are whites of non-Hispanic background. In four states – Hawaii, New Mexico, California and Texas – non-Hispanic whites are a distinct yet dwindling minority, complete with the cultural baggage of the interlopers overwhelming the landscape. The inexorable vector towards a less and less white United States will continue, even if U.S. borders could be hermetically sealed, because the younger the age of the demographic group, the less white they are.
Virtually half the nation’s children under the age of five are Hispanic, black or Asian. What’s more in 2006, the black American population officially reached 40 million. Because Blacks are regularly undercounted, we can assume that the real number is a lot more than 40 million. While the black population isn’t growing as fast as Hispanics – who are also undercounted — and Asians, European Americans are barely increasing their numbers at all; opting instead for abortion, birth control and childless families in order to facilitate their “careers.”
In other words the racial graffiti is on the wall. And just exactly what does that graffiti say? According to a 2008 Pew Research Center paper the population of the United States will grow to 438 million in 2050 from 296 million in 2005 if current population trends continue. Non-Hispanic whites – European Americans — will account for 47 percent (or less) of the total in 2050. By that time, one in every five “Americans” will be a foreign-born or Third World immigrant, compared to one in eight in 2005. That means 67 million Third World persons will be added to the population plus another 50 million of their children for a mind-boggling total of 117 million people. (EDITOR’S NOTE: Like Hillary Clinton and John McCain, Barak Obama must love this) Race does matter, and when the non-white majority continues to expand in scope, power, and influence our nation will descend into chaos. And you can forget about affirmative action for our people, bank on it. All you need to do is look at places like the previously Boer White South Africa and French abandoned Haiti to understand this dangerous reality. As a matter of fact, elsewhere in the West and for the same reasons Britain is about to fall to the steady march of the Muslims and Australia will soon collapse under the weight of the Asians and Middle Easterners. You know as well as I do the vast majority of Third World immigrants will never admit there are flaws in their own culture that create the problems they are trying to move away from, which can only mean the same problems will follow them and be recreated in the countries to which they move. Like I’ve said before, our enemies in high places here in the United States have all but discarded their masks since they no longer feel compelled to hide their true intentions. After all, when you observe the magnitude and velocity of our changing cultural and demographic trends toward a non-white America it is clear some where along the way “someone” decided the United States had reflected the people of Europe long enough — and it was time to for a change. Their malicious objective is on full display now; and as far as I am concerned their hearts are blacker than a lump of coal in a boxcar headed to Dachau.
If an awakening doesn’t come soon European Americans are permanently fated for minority status by the middle of this century if not sooner. But don’t look for that awakening or the information cited in this broadcast to come from mouths of people like Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or any particular strain of politician, clergy or university professor. They would find themselves cast into the outer darkness by their own colleagues faster than you can say ‘liars and damned liars.’ So it’s up to you. Remember…in the disciplines of biology and ecology, extinction is the ending of a way of life for a group (or race) which in turn actually reduces the precious diversity the politically correct crowd likes to squawk about. Any group (regardless of its ethnos) will become extinct when it is no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition. The moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of that species (although the capacity to breed and recover may have been lost long before this point). Because a species’ home range may be very large or scattered, determining this moment is difficult, and is usually done with hindsight. Now of course I am referring to European Americans in a worst case scenario — if the analogy wasn’t lost on you. But as it stands — according to the information we cited above — in 2050 if our people are unable to survive or reproduce in our own environment, and unable to move to a new environment where we can do so, we will eventually die out and become extinct if not pseudo extinct.And yet many Americans and their European cousins abroad continue to whistle past the graveyard at midnight preferring insipid distractions and mindless pursuits. They are utterly clueless about the future.
And while I cannot accurately predict what that future will bring in terms of either upheaval or enlightenment you can be sure something unpleasant could very well be in the works.
Yes, yes I know the subject of Nelson Mandela is “old news” to the majority of European American activists and supporters who want to see their nation returned on some level to a semblance of sanity framed with the preservation of our people. But, history has a nasty habit of repeating itself. So, like another ethnic group whose actions never fail to imply: ‘Never forgive. Never forget.’
Several weeks ago (and again recently on YouTube) I saw some footage of former South African president Nelson Mandela on the Idiot Box. His gaunt frame and ailing demeanor were sharply contrasted to the newly elected burly looking SA president also featured on the Idiot Box, Jacob Zuma. The blonde network twinkie (I forgot her name) whose chirpy voice served as the sound track for what I was watching reported this mighty transfer of power in hushed reverential tones punctuated by respectful-sounding enthusiasm for the two African rock stars she was priveleged to be covering.
Of course, the vast majority of conditioned nitwits who were watching this presentation simply accepted what they were seeing as a good and wholesome affair: demigod of racial equality President Mandela who was once imprisoned by vile white people for simply being born the wrong color and promoting views that had no place in a “neo-Nazi” regime like South Africa, was handing over his benign reigns of power to the next generation of fair-minded often persecuted black activist politicians; heroically working towards racial Utopia under the restless shadow of apartheid.
Mandela was a Marxist, a terrorist and a killer. That’s why he was sent to prison. Additionally, the majority of white SA people knew what would happen if they handed their nation over to the likes of Mandela and his African spawn-- in spite of his grandfatherly eloquence, in spite of the media’s love affair with him: their total and bloody expulsion. In the end SA whites have only themselves to blame for their sheep-like manner that let the treacherous handover take place.
And really, its all about the media. What I was watching hid the reality of an all black South Africa, up to and including the rapes, burnings, shootings, hackings, hangings, and overall butchery of the white SA farmers, their wives, children, and elderly at the hands of their new “rulers.”
Read on. Pass it on.
Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s first Black president, who is widely admired across the political spectrum more for his performance in office than for his beliefs, is now retired and thus free to express his long standing Marxist and often bizarre beliefs freely. He continually attacks U.S. “imperialism” and “arrogance” while voicing support for the likes of Libya, Iraq, and Cuba. This is not surprising. Mandela did support violence in the past – a fact that is largely forgotten or trivialized. Indeed, in 1961 he was the founder of Umkhonto we Siswe (”Spear of the People”), ANC’s terrorist arm, and never during his long years in prison did he condemn that organization’s acts of indiscriminate terrorism. Moreover, throughout his career Mandela has remained close to regimes actively supporting terrorism – the former Soviet Union, Libya and Cuba.
There were good reasons for such fears, not the least being the decades old cohabitation of Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) with, and its penetration by, the Communist Party of South Africa (SACP), one of the world’s most committed Stalinist parties. There were also the ANC’s close links with the militantly leftist (and SACP dominated) trade union federation, COSATU. Importantly, despite the rhetoric about Black economic oppression under apartheid, the fact remains that a Black middle and indeed upper class had developed in South Africa, the interests of which had little to do with the traditional socialism advocated by the ANC throughout its history.
Mandela implemented an aggressive affirmative action policy once he took office – which slowed down the economy. His government established a criminal law code on the European model – abolition of the death penalty, excessive rights for accused criminals, etc., with destructive results. South Africa today competes with civil war-torn Colombia for the dubious distinction of being the world’s most crime-ridden country. Interpol’s International Crime Statistics say it all: in 1999 South Africa had 121 murders and 119 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants, compared with Colombia’s 69 and 6 respectively (and the United States’ 5 and 32). The trends are no more encouraging considering that in 1994 the world’s average murder rate was 5.5 per 100,000, compared to South Africa’s 45. In such circumstances, and with a slow justice system, which only produces a 10 percent conviction rate, South Africa has seen the rise of vigilante groups filling the void left by an incompetent (affirmative action, again – one third of policemen are functionally illiterate) and violent police – who between 1997 and 2000 killed 1,550 people, compared with 2,700 killed by the apartheid regime in 30 years.
The high crime rates, and a decline in educational standards, led to a massive emigration of White professionals to the United States, UK, Canada, and Australia. A 1998 poll of 11,000 skilled professionals suggested that 74 percent wanted to emigrate – with then-president Mandela responding with “Good riddance” to them. The problem is that not just professionals leave South Africa – major corporations also moved out, including mining giant Anglo American Co. and South African Breweries, both of which are now headquartered in London.
When it comes to African opinions at the UN, Pretoria prefers to side with the worst. Libya for chairmanship of the UN Human Rights Commission? Yes, said Pretoria, and so did the rest of the African bloc. Support Mugabe’s “right” to be invited to Lisbon for the EU-African Summit? Yes again, at the cost of billions of dollars in aid to Africa. Mandela’s ideological legacy seems to be alive in Pretoria’s international behavior. None of this should come as a surprise. The once dominant South African National Defense Force (SANDF) is now only a shadow of its past self, largely as a result of budget cuts and affirmative action, which put former ANC terrorist thugs and gang members in charge and led to a massive exodus of White and Coloured officers.
President Mbeki has a problem with his own ANC party, specifically with Nelson Mandela’s former wife, Winnie. Mrs. Mandela is the loose cannon of the ANC. A convicted torturer and felon and thoroughly corrupt, she remains a very popular figure with Black South African youths and was repeatedly elected to the ANC leadership. The disturbing thing here is not so much Winnie’s criminality, awful as it is, as the general decline of South Africa’s judiciary, which is becoming increasingly more “African” and less and less Western.
- Michael Radu, Front Page Magazine, February 6, 2003
The Rivonia high treason trial, in which Mandela was one of the accused, is in the news again. According to reports Dr Percy Yutar, who was the prosecutor in the case, is going to sell his documents and books in a public auction. Foreign universities are allegedly very interested. The first reaction is alarm that these very valuable and unique Africana could become lost to South Africans. However, after a little reflection one has to admit that the documents will probably be safer in the library of some foreign university than in South Africa, where the ANC/SACP is trying to wipe out the past by neglect and destruction. Mandela and others were found guilty of high treason in the Rivonia trial. The case was a culmination of the firm and effective actions of the security services and the courts in those days, which brought a long era of political stability and economic prosperity to South Africa. Keeping in mind that the people who were prosecuted then, are now ruling South Africa, it could be meaningful totake note of what the courts findings were. Dr Yutar wrote the following in a prologue to Lauritz Strydom’s book “Rivonia – Masker af!”, and we quote:
“I was deeply shocked and could hardly believe what I read in the documents, which either were in their handwriting, or was found in their possession. These documents clearly indicated that the accused purposefully and maliciously planned and effectuated deeds of violence and destruction throughout the country. This was aimed at creating chaos, disorder, and unrest in the Republic of South Africa, which according to their plans, would be aggravated by the actions of thousands of trained guerilla fighter deployed all over the country…… . The combined actions were planned to lead to confusion, violent insurrection and rebellion and malicious destruction, followed up at a suitable opportunity, by an armed invasion of the country by military units from foreign countries. In the midst of the resultant chaos the accused planned to bring about a revolutionary government…. . The accused admitted to the validity of all these documents as well as that their policy included the eventual violent overthrowing of the Government of South Africa. It is for this reason that I presented the court with the fact that this was pre-eminently a case of high treason. Broadly seen these documents supply us with more than enough evidence for every accusation ….. including, (a) the involvement of Moscow, the Communist parties of Algeria, China, Czechoslovakia, East Germany [GDR] and several other countries regarding the provision of monetary help, weapons, ammunition and military personnel. (b) the fact that the African National Congress is totally dominated by the Communist Party and that they consulted altogether less than 1 percent of the total population in South Africa….”. So far Dr Yutar. There is much more in the prologue and even more in the book itself, but what we have quoted here depicts a valuable picture of the people to whom the De Klerk government has handed the country in 1994. We hope that Dr Yutar’s documents will find a place in a foreign archive where it will be kept safe from malicious destruction. We believe at a suitable time it will be used for research by a postgraduate student and that he will then unmask the ANC/SACP for the whole world to see.
- Report sent by the “Boernews” news service.
Concerning Mandela’s jail sentence. The crimes he committed were shamelessly criminal, and included no heroic acts. In fact, it is still a mystery why Percy Yutar (the then state attorney) did not file for murder, but manslaughter instead. Based on the facts it is commonly agreed by legal scholars that Mandela would have been hanged if Yutar filed for murder. You can easily get access to the case and you will find facts that the media, for whatever reason, prefer to ignore. 2) They often show Mandela’s cell on Robben Island. That is not where he spent most of his time. He later lived in a house under so-called “arrest”. It was comfortable if not luxurious, and most people work every day of their lives for the privilege to live in something not nearly as good as that. Why do they never show photographs of that? 3) What is really mind-boggling is the fact that while he was in the “house jail” he had free access, on account of the S.A. tax-payers, to telephone, fax and other communicating facilities to organize the ANC. That is why he was still the leader when he was “released”. 4) You already know of the terrible deeds he ordered for his own people who disappointed him. He has many murders of his own on his hands. 5) He was supposedly in “jail” for 20 or more years. One would expect that he had a negligible income in that time. Yet when he and his wife were divorced about 4 years after his “release” he had to pay her millions in settlement. Where did these millions come from? Who else could earn millions in 4 years from a salaried job after taxes? Obviously something is seriously wrong. You find out where all that money came from and you will discover a lot about Mandela that the press never report. 6) Once he left “jail” (the house the government provided) he moved into a very luxurious home in one of the richest suburbs of Johannesburg. However, he kept a little four-room house in Soweto and pretended to live there. That is where he would interview reporters and where photographs were taken. What a liar and bigot. I cannot believe that the press did not know this. It simply played along to sell this falsehood of a hero and martyr. These are six leads that anyone from S.A. should be able to confirm easily with documentary proof. Mandela is a murderer and a liar. He only lived in “poverty” when it suited him. Just ask where he is presently living. There are very few Whites or other people that can, after a lifetime of working, afford the house he is living in now. Nonetheless, for some reason, I have no reason why, the media are ignoring all of this and misrepresent the actual situation.
- Report sent by South African historical expert living in the United States.
The ANC is part of an alliance with the SA Communist Party and the Black super-union COSATU, of which the Communists are the numerical minority, but the most influential and dominant partner. Most key positions in the ANC are occupied by SACP and ex-SACP members. Before 1990 the ANC/Communist alliance was a terrorist organisation, which waged a relatively unsuccessful, but nasty and cowardly “war”, mostly against civilians and against what was supposed to be “their” people, the Blacks, through the barbaric “necklacing” (torching a helpless victim with a burning tyre around his neck to death), bombs and assassinations. From 1990 to 1994 the last White president of SA, F.W. de Klerk, railroaded the traditional power structure of the country into accepting a staged “democratic election” in 1994, which was manipulated to bring the ANC/Communist alliance to power. By lying and cheating he kept many Whites in the dark about his real intentions. Since 1994 the ANC/Communist regime is dutifully busy destroying everything good and strong in the country in the name of “affirmative action” and “Black empowerment”, while step by step suppressing the freedom of the people and nations under its heel. “Nelson R. Mandela”, a Xhosa from the Transkei, got involved as a young lawyer with a bunch of White would-be terrorists with large caches of explosives and weapons in Johannesburg, who were found out and tried in a court of law (the old SA courts were still independent). Left to face the music by the White instigators, who had mostly run away overseas, Mandela got a life sentence for his involvement in terrorism, being part of the planning of attacks on installations and non-military targets and the beginning of the terrorist war mentioned above. He sat in prison for 27 years, treated as a political prisoner, regularly visited by all sorts of monitors and others, in clean, efficient prisons of the old SA (not like the new SA’s hell-holes). In the early nineties de Klerk let him out to become the “nice” figurehead of the “new SA”. This is just a nutshell. Quite tragic really what is happening in SA. But in the end the Whites have only themselves to blame for the gutless way they allowed the treacherous handover to happen – and the even more disgusting way many of them are now helping keep the regime in power by fawning and toadying up to the new rulers.
- Report sent by “Southern Cross Africa”.