"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free...to a time when truth exists, and what is done cannot be undone...From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink--greetings!" - George Orwell, 1984
Monday, January 30, 2006
The Day of Victory
Seventy-three years ago tonight, the torchlight parades throughout Germany celebrated the beginning of a new era for all of our Folk, a new era which still exists despite the disaster of 1945. Because of the Revolution of 1933, we now have an example for all time of the historical truth that nothing is immutable, nothing is inevitable, nothing is engraved in stone forever.
I can think of little to say on this date that has not been said before or will not sound childishly naive, but nonetheless I will try to distill it all into a few sentences. There is hope, if we will but accept it. Weimar fell. The New World Order will fall as well. What we are trying to do was done once. It is not impossible. It is not beyond reach. It is do-able. We know because Hitler did it. The German people did it. We have farther, much farther to go, and before we can achieve what our Führer achieved we must re-create and re-invent and re-forge our very souls in the white-hot furnace of National Socialism and the Blood of our Folk---but genetically we are every bit as strong and brave as those brown and black clad Germanic heroes who trod the cobblestones of the Fatherland seventy-three years ago tonight, beneath the light of ten million torches.
People ask me often how I stand the kind of treatment I get, how I can keep on going in the face of the madness and the hatred and the revolting cowardly behavior of men with Aryan skins, Aryan faces, and the souls of rodents. I can keep on going because those torches from that January night so long ago in my grandfather's world burn in my mind's eye and in my heart. I keep on going because I know that what we see from so-called "White men" today is an aberration, a corruption, the ultimate expression of Judaic cancer gnawing away at the Aryan soul before death. I keep on going because I know that those who hire lawyers and defile doorsteps and scratch mailboxes are not the true representatives of my Folk---and those men who marched beneath the torches underneath the January stars of Germany on that night are. It is they who fill my thoughts and my spirit, not these other critters.
Sometimes we are so depressed and demoralized and angered and revolted by what we see today from so-called "White people" that we forget---all of this is a very modern phenomenon, less than fifty years old, really, and in its roots no more than about two hundred years old. For thousands of years before that our males were men and our females were women, not consumer organisms or politically correct duckspeakers, and that for all their assault on everything good and decent, you can't sweep away millennia of culture and history and folkways in one or two generations.
Despite it all, I sense a great awakening coming. This is where I have a lot of trouble---conveying to all of you my overwhelming sense of optimism about all this. If I were not convinced, utterly and completely, that history is on our side and that our Folk will survive and conquer, I certainly wouldn't waste my life sitting here being heckled and insulted by crybabies and Federal agents while beating a dead horse. I'd leave and try to grab something for ME with the rest of my life.
I'm still here. This should tell you something.
It's going to happen for us, people. It may not happen like we want it to happen---it may not happen like it happened in Germany. It took me a long time to understand and accept that myself---my longing to see the long brown columns marching beneath the torchlight is every bit as urgent and deep and anguished as yours. But it will happen as the inscrutable forces of history dictate, in ways which are appropriate and natural to our time and place.
We, too, will have our January 30th someday. Stay strong, don't fall by the wayside---be there with me when that glorious day comes!
88! Harold A. Covington
"This destiny does not tire, nor can it be broken,and its mantle of strength descends upon those in its service." - Francis Parker Yockey, IMPERIUM
[I always thought this was one of my more important contributions, but I never could seem to get any traction on it. Let's try again. - HAC]
C-GRAM: July 18th, 2004
As most of you know, for some weeks now I have been working on something I refer to as the Red Line Protocols.
The object of this exercise is to define exactly who we are as a community. It is to demarcate the red lines, the boundaries beyond which White racial nationalists may not cross, the level below which we may not sink, which determine who we are not.
This is being done in order to act as a counter to the fraudulent "New Orleans Protocol" which came out of the David Duke homecoming knees-up over the recent Memorial Day weekend.
The "New Orleans Protocol" has nothing whatsoever to do with the White racial survival struggle or with setting a standard of ethical conduct on our part, and everything to do with letting David Duke off the hook, which is by no means the same thing. Its purpose is not to clean our own house, but to forbid discussion of David Duke's past.
The "New Orleans Protocol" is grounded in the belief that we all have memories two inches long, and that we have forgotten, or we are at least willing to forget, exactly why David Duke went to prison in the first place.
In this the "New Orleans Protocol" seems to have been only partially successful. I am glad to say that, faced with this arrogant demand that we allow a thief, an embezzler, and a pathological liar to return to our ranks and continue where he left off as if nothing had happened, we as a community have put up far more and better than the token resistance I expected.
Judging from the feedback I myself have received, and from comments I see on the internet (always a shaky basis for assessment, to be sure) the organizers seem to have been largely mistaken in their assumption that they could piss down our backs and we would blithely accept their airy assurance that it was merely a gentle spring shower.
What really pisses me off is that these people got Paul Fromm from Canada, just about the one decent individual on the podium without an army of skeletons in his closet to hide, to act as the public promulgator of this bogus "New Orleans Protocol."
The idea of people like David Duke and Willis Carto dictating a code of ethics to anyone else, beggars the imagination. Apparently they had sense enough to realize how skeptically any pontification on the subject of personal and political ethics by a man who'd just come out of prison for embezzling a quarter of a million dollars in donations from poor White working people would be received. So they somehow persuaded Paul Fromm to try and put some lipstick on this pig. God damn them.
Be that as it may--and the jury is still out on the "New Orleans Protocol"--the fact is that we do need some kind of generally accepted definition or delineation as to who we are, what we do, and at what point the standard White male character flaws cross the line and remove an individual from our fellowship, make him no longer one of us. This character issue is one which we have avoided confronting for almost fifty years, and it can no longer be avoided. We have to face up to it and resolve it, at least so far as it is possible for a community as weak and poor and demoralized as ours to do so.
Why? Why do I continue bringing up topics which you have made it clear to me that you do not want to think about? Why do I keep trying to bring out into the open and deal with issues which confuse you, upset you, and which generate nothing but alarm and despondency? Because there is a greater issue at hand, one that is of far greater import than the fate of one squalid, degenerate gambler who can't keep his fingers out of the cookie jar.
As melodramatic as this sounds, the fate of the entire Aryan race and the civilization we have created over the past three thousand years may well hang on these subtle little internal twitches in our moribund, pathetic little subculture over the next few years. Yes, really.
We face a threat which is greater than anything we have faced since 1945. At first it didn't even have a name, but it has now acquired one--"modernization." No, I didn't make that up; I think I heard it first from someone at Final Conflict, and my impression was that Nick Griffin is the one who started it, although that may be incorrect.
What Is Movement "Modernization?" The idea behind "modernization" is that our so-called Movement has failed, NOT because today's White males are as soft as butter, as weak as water, as dumb as a bag of hammers, and possessed of the physical courage of rabbits. Oh, no no no no, not at all! White males don't need to do any moral re-configuration of their character at all, no no no no, perish the thought!
No, according to the "modernizers," we have failed because we have refused to move with the times. We are out of touch with the common--and I do mean common--man.
We're like, Squaresville, Daddy-O. We have all these outmoded ideas of right and wrong, and moral principles, and other hang-ups, especially about sex. If it feels good, do it! We're not, like, with it, man! Like, politics is the art of the possible, man! I mean, like, ya gotta go along to get along, man! We need to get rid of all these ideological nit-picks and start spelling apostrophe-s with a z like de cool brothuhs, man. Shave your head, sure, but put a backwards baseball cap on and wear hip-hop shorts to go with your tats, dude. Itz cool to be a whigger, dawg!
You think that's exaggerated? I've seen some of this "modernized" guano on the internet from some of our dumb-ass whigger "comrades" phrased in just about those terms.
But that's just the low end. The high end is a very definite movement within the "Movement." It is deliberate, and it has an agenda. Its sources are traceable. and the names and identities of many of its prime advocates are becoming known as more and more step forward out of the closet.
"Modernization" appears to originate in Europe, and to have begun about four years ago. The French National Front and Joerg Haider's party have already pretty much knuckled under; the NF now has a Jewish woman as a deputy leader and Haider has donned a yarmulke in Israel and grovelled at the altar of the Holocaust. Thus far in the English-speaking world, the ultimate flowers of this particular evil are the British National Party under Nick Griffin and the National Alliance under the triumvirs Gliebe, Strom, and Walker, with Stormfront and Double Diamond oozing in around the edges.
What Is The True Agenda of "Modernization?"
On the surface, the game plan seems to be to strip us of every last vestige of racial and moral principle and turn us into just another money-grubbing little collection of political oddities who want to get our snouts into the trough.
1. We are to accept homosexuals, on a don't ask-don't tell basis, and "as long as they stay away from my kids." At least at first. In other words, we are to accept homosexuals, period. Don't ask, don't tell always leads to it being shouted from the rooftops, and in the long run they never stay away from anyone's kids. Ultimately, of course, we are to accept faggots as leaders, viz. the late Pym Fortuyn in Holland, the loathsome Martin Webster in Britain, and current Revisionist impresario Walter Mueller.
2. We are to accept dysfunctional, dishonest, and contemptible behavior on the part of our self-appointed leaders and "quit making such a big deal about it." Basically, this boils down to we must let David Duke off the hook, since it seems to be part of the game plan that Double Diamond's photogenic phizz be seen up front of this "modernizing" mess. [See David Duke raves passim.]
3. We are to accept non-White sexual partners among our members, including non-White children. [Editor's note: This was written before the re-emergence of the repulsive Frazier Glenn Miller back into the Movement via VNN, so I seem to have been more prophetic than I realized.] There is a well known and especially egregious example of this currently in the National Alliance, but it seems to be spreading. I have heard it seriously argued that we must accept White male activists with Asian or reasonably light-skinned Hispanic women partners because "there just aren't enough racialist White women and we can't afford to turn anyone away." Then once we've swallowed miscegenation, we are to accept non-Whites as actual members and where necessary for public relations purposes, allow them to act as public spokesmen and even run for office in order to "prove we're not racists." This is now an increasingly common occurrence with the BNP and NF and other European groups.
4. We are to adopt a kind of racialist proto-feminism, and allow our female members to conduct themselves in assorted obnoxious and disruptive feminist ways, because this is allegedly the only way we will attract women. Perhaps we might even attract enough White feminist bitches so we can dispense with the China dolls and muchachas? Sorry. Silly me.
5. Finally, we are to accept participation and alliance of an unspecified nature with "right-wing Jews." This began back about ten years ago with the David Cole phenomenon, which I opposed even then. This has now progressed to a level I would have thought impossible even a year ago. A notorious Zionist Jew, Barry Chamish, was actually invited to be a speaker at the Sacramento Revisionist cluster-fuck of this April, although he didn't come. I recently saw a post on VNN from a modernizer stating that in order to save Western civilization we must "recognize the contribution of the Jewish people to the European Tradition" and "accept them as fellow White people, cousins if not brothers." This from someone who claims to be a racial nationalist.
I'm not quite sure, but I think that may have been a genuine slippage of the mask, and we may now have gotten a glimpse of the genuine purpose of "modernization," which is to co-opt and enlist the racialist and anti-immigration movements of Europe (and to a lesser extent this country) in the "war on terror." [Read war on Islam and war to deport the Palestinians and create Greater Israel.]
My personal feeling right now is that the hidden agenda of "modernization," which is becoming less and less hidden by the day, is to persuade our Racially Conscious Community by offering us a line of least resistance that: *Jews are White people (they aren't); *That homosexuality is no big deal (it is); *That the negrification of young White people is inevitable (it isn't) and should be accepted and accommodated (it should not); *That it's not really race but economics and culture which is important (it's race); *That Muslims are the real enemy (they aren't, the Jews are); *And that there is, or can be, some kind of commonality of interest between White racial nationalists and Jews on some kind of bizarre "agree-to-disagree but mutual respect" basis. (Horse shit. The only good Jew is a dead Jew.)
Now, here is where I need your help.
Most of you will have at least some idea of where I'm getting all this from. But I need details. I need to try and figure out how far it's gone and where the rot has seeped in the farthest. For example, I can state from personal observation that the prohibition against homosexuality has been removed from the National Alliance membership application, and I am told that on the printed version the requirement that an applicant be White has been changed to "must be considered White within their community" or some such weasel-wording. But what is this about Strom removing anti-homosexual and anti-feminist books from the National Vanguard book list? I am not in the habit of keeping up with the NA's book list--can anyone give me specific details here?
I won't go off into a long list of specific questions about specific people, but you all by now pretty much know what I mean. I need to get your take on this with as much specific information as you can provide.
Before we can fight off this Jewish attempt to destroy what little "Movement" we have left, we need a plan. We've got one--Northwest Migration. But I need specific intelligence on exactly what's going on and who's doing what.
I have received a number of heckles in the "comments" section from poofters who claim to be BNP, which they may or not be. Some of them were as filthy as one might expect. I rejected them all, since this is a buggery-free blog. But I note that no one thus far has been able to comply with my request to point me to the place in some published BNP program or document where Mr. Grffin clearly and unambiguously condemns and rejects the loathsome perversion of homosexuality. When someone does, I will be happy to share it. Please make sure, however, that this is something from the "modernized" BNP and not something from the old Tyndall days you're trying to sneak by. Old John could be a pompous ass, but on the basics he was always as solid as Gibraltar, and the absolute rejection of homosexuality in any form and its proactive extirpation is one of the bedrock cornerstones of White Nationalism of any kind.
This is going to sound like a heckle or like I am trying to start something, but I'm not, really. I am asking a question genuinely for my own information, and nothing would please me more than getting a quick and definitive answer.
Can someone who is more familiar with the present state of the British National Party than I am direct me to the relevant section or article or bullet point in the program, of the new, "modernized" BNP under Nick Griffin, wherein Nick Griffin:
A) Clearly and unambiguously denounces homosexuality;
B) Clearly and unambiguously condemns homosexuality as a loathsome perversion and not in any way, shape, or form a "lifestyle" or "choice";
C) Clearly and unambiguously states that homosexuals are not allowed membership or participation in the British National Party?
I have mentioned in the past that the Northwest Migration was not invented by me, and I do not have any kind of intellectual patent or copyright on it. There always have been other Northwest Migration movements based on different visions of the coming Northwest Republic than mine, not the least being the vision of the late Pastor Richard Butler. One such alternative to Horrible Egomaniac Harold is led, or co-ordinated, by Arch Edwards of Santa Barbara, California, who informs me he will be moving to the Homeland within a year and buying a "compound" of some kind. Arch calls his Northwest Migration scheme "The Republic of Aryana-Christiana." You are doing this for your country, for your people, and in the service of history, not for me. For those of you who are displeased for whatever reason with my brilliant self and my apparently Mussolini-like leadership style (whisper, mutter, "it's all about Harold's ego, you know...") by all means, check out Arch's scene. He and I have met in Olympia and talked for several hours, and have had some phone conversations. He's not a bad old duffer, and very sincere. Now, some points about Arch and his "Republic of Aryana-Christiana": *On the up side, he seems to have some money to buy a little land, (he says he does, anyway) which puts him light years ahead of the NPA. Whether we like it or not, "our" people want to see land and a building and other material things. It is what we have come to expect and I understand that some of you are getting impatient waiting for me to sprinkle my magic pixie dust and cause Hayden Lake to rise from the waters of Lake Coeur d'Alene like Castle Ormonde shall supposedly one day rise from the waters of Lough Neagh, if the fairies speak true. We are a materialistic people and we want material and visible things. That's just who we are and there doesn't seem to be any way to change that. *He's already got some "Aryana-Christiana" toys made, pens and pencils and hats and whatnot, which you can buy. He beat us on that by some time. *On the up side, Arch doesn't even own a computer and does all his stuff the old fashioned way, by mail and by leaflet. He early on spotted that the personal computer liberates our Inner Nut, and the drawbacks far outweigh the advantages, and he simply refuses to have one in his house because of its addictive nature. I respect him immensely for that and wish I had the willpower to live like that myself. Unfortunately I seem to be a hopeless cyber-junkie. *On the up side if you're Christian Identity, down side if you're not, Arch is very Christian-oriented and wants to burn all you neo-pagans at the stake, which is not uncommon in the Movement. I don't think Ron Fonda would find Arch to be his cup of tea. *I am honestly not sure, but I think Arch is Wet. Seems to me we've discussed it, but what with my senility problem I can't remember what was actually said, so don't hold me to that. Also, Arch and I share the same low opinion of Movement corruption, and he's almost as outspoken about it as I am. *On the downside, he's in his mid-sixties, which of course he can't help, but it's a factor to be considered. Arch can be contacted at Phoenix Services, P. O. Box 91130, Santa Barbara, CA. 93190-1130.
From the Associated Press - "The Denver Public Library has canceled its subscription to four Spanish-language adult comic books after complaints that the series contain sexually explicit illustrations. City librarian Rick Ashton ordered the removal of 6,569 of the foto novelas earlier this month, pending a content review."
Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. The Denver Public Library had six and a half thousand Spanish love comics? Probably more, in view of the fact that these were only the ones pulled off the racks for being "sexually explicit?"
The word library comes from the Latin word "liber", which means books. One of the prerequisites of using a library used to be that you could read, at least in one language. I assume most of us have come across these Spanish love comics at one time or another and they're on about a six year-old level, which is bad enough, but porno comics?
I wonder what caused the complaint? Did somebody notice that the public library was full of beaners looking at dirty pictures? Or were they lost in the shuffle of the kids looking at porn on the internet computers, the raving of the drunks and the psychotic street people, the snoring of the sleeping bums, the mindless mumbling of the stoned junkies, the smell of the homeless using the place as a bunkhouse and a toilet? The library used to be a place of quiet and learning. Now in many parts of America they are homeless shelters offering heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer, where fights and stabbings and riots and vandalism and drugs are the order of the day.
In downtown San Antonio's library the librarians keep the johns locked in a desperate attempt to keep druggies from turning the place into a crackhouse, and so the bums and beaners urinate and defecate in the stacks. In Durham, North Carolina the public library used to have, and probably still has, a sign on the men's room door, reading "Gay Patrons Are Requested to Refrain From Engaging In Sexual Activity in this Rest Facility." In Raleigh, North Carolina the Dix Hills mental institution was forced by law to release hundreds of lunatics ("returning them to the community") and guess where they all headed? In downtown Olympia's library, the head librarian told the local paper that on the average she had to call the cops once per day to deal with stoned or insane "patrons."
In the stacks of most libraries you can still find some of the ancient wisdom of our ancestors, if you know how to read the Dewey decimal system. (Fewer and fewer people do and many libraries are discarding it now as too complex for today's dumbed-down Americans.) Just make sure you watch where you step.
Fewer than 50,000 Whites now remain in Zimbabwe, down from a peak of 293,000 in 1980 when the former British colony and independent White republic of Rhodesia was transformed into another tinpot black African dictatorship.
The figure has continued to drop since the census was conducted in August 2002, amid the seizure of thousands of white-owned commercial farms forredistribution to black "war veterans" who promptly ran the once prosperous holdings into the ground. Among the findings of the August 2002 census were that whites numbered just 46,743 in 2002. Nearly 10,000 of them were over the age of 65, and less than 9,000 were under 15. Independent analysts estimate fewer than 30,000 whites remain, due to the systematic campaign of robbery, torture, and murder conducted by Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF party.
As a result of driving the out the European population, with their wealth-creating and sustaining skills, the Zimbabwe economy is now a complete basket case. Inflation has soared to 254.8 per cent, unemployment is over 70 per cent and an estimated four million people are in need of food aid in what was once the only nation in black Africa other than South Africa to export food.
South Africa's white population is also dwindling; an estimated one million whites have fled the ANC-ruled Marxist state which replaced white rule in 1994. Ironically, other African nations, including Mozambique and Nigeria, have welcomed Zimbabwe and South Africa's experienced white farmers in the hopes they can help boost commercial agricultural production.
The black population of Zimbabwe has also fallen dramatically, due to death from disease and starvation and mass immigration. An estimated 3,000 blacks are dying from AIDS-related causes each week, and an estimated four million blacks have fled the country in search of work and food, bringing the Bantu population down to about 12 million.
Zimbabwe officials have appeared undisturbed by the dwindling population. Didymus Mutasa, now head of the country's feared Central Intelligence Organisation secret police, told the British Broadcasting Corporation at the time of the census that he would be happy to see Zimbabwe's population halved. "We would be better off with only six million people, with our own people who supported the liberation struggle. We don't want all these extra people," he said.
The Mugabe regime is apparently doing what it can to reduce the black population, in view of the recent Operation Murambatsvina ("Throw Out The Trash") in which Mugabe's police, soldiers, and gangs of thugs tore down tens of thousands of shacks in the two major cities of Bulawayo and Harare, and drove an estimated two million people, most of whom lived by street vending, out into the bush in mid-winter with only the clothes on their backs. It is indeed ironic that black African governments seem to have a far better grasp as to what to do with an excess of niggers than lily-livered White states in Europe and America do.
VOLTAIRE (Francois Marie Arouet) 18th century French philosopher, writer:
"Why are the Jews hated? It is the inevitable result of their laws; they either have to conquer everybody or be hated by the whole human race..."
"The Jewish nation dares to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, and revolts against all masters; always superstitious, always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous - cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity." (Essai sur le Moeurs)
"You seem to me to be the maddest of the lot. The Kaffirs, the Hottentots, and the Negroes of Guinea are much more reasonable and more honest people than your ancestors, the Jews. You have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables in bad conduct and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny." (From a letter to a Jew who had written to him, complaining of his 'anti-Semitism.' Examen des Quelques Objections...dans L'Essai sur le Moeurs.)
Let me pose a question to all the readers of this forum, something we should all think about.
What do you think would happen if every single White American who disagrees with unlimited Third World immigration, who feels sickened by thefilthy perversion of homosexuality, who is worried and concerned by black crime, who thinks the war in Iraq was a mistake, who thinks George W. Bush is a jug-eared moron, who doesn't trust the Jews or their neo-con allies--in short, what would happen if every normal White American were to stand up tomorrow, and simple speak aloud what he feels in his heart? Without fear or retaliation? Without fear of what his friends and co-workers might think? Without fear, period?
We're supposed to have that right, you know, under the United States Constitution. So what if we were to exercise it? All the countless millions of White people who know that things have gone badly wrong in this country and it's time for change? What if, like the people on that movie Network, we were all to open our windows and shout out, "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more!" And when the liberals and the minorities and the media tried to shout us down and threaten us and insult us and humiliate White people into silence, we refused to be silenced, but kept on saying out loud what we really feel, day after day, for the rest of our lives?
Supposed all of us, every one of us, stopped being afraid and stood up and said out loud that these things that happen in America are horrible and wrong, and we will not tolerate them any more? There are still millions of us. White people are still the majority, you know, except in a few places like Texas and California. There are still more of us than there are of them.
We could bring about a new world, and we wouldn't have to commit a single illegal or even dangerous act, if only all of us would do it--stop being afraid, and stand up and speak.
With the issue of illegal Third World immigration finally arriving on the national radar screen, courtesy of nervous Republicans desperate to find a way to distract people's attention from the unholy mess in Iraq, a survey released by the Pew Hispanic Center in San Diego Tuesday showed that four in 10 Mexicans would immigrate to the United States if given the chance. More than half would consider participating in a guest worker program like the one proposed by President Bush. Forty-one percent of Mexicans surveyed in February and 46 percent in May said they would live in the United States if they "had the means and opportunity."
"Very significant portions of the Mexican adult population have the thought of migration in mind and view it as an option," said Roberto Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center. "A significant portion, two out of 10, are willing to consider the idea of coming here without authorization." (Breaking American law in order to take what does not belong to them.)
The current estimated population of Mexico according to the World Fact Book is approximately 106,000,000 people. This means that if all of the Mexicans who want to come to the United States were to decide to act on their desires, there would be around 42 million more Mexicans here, and that doesn't even take into account the even more impoverished and unassimilable populations of Central America from such primitive countries as Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Panama.
Meanwhile the Council on Foreign Relations and other high-powered capitalist think tanks are planning on following up the infamous NAFTA treaty of twenty years ago with the CAFTA plan, which would for all intents and purposes erase the borders of the United States, Canada, and all of the Latin countries down to the beginning of the South American continent at the Panama-Colombia line. Those 42 million mestizos may yet get their wish. The only chance that America has remaining is something which has not been seen since 1861, a genuine grass roots, mass movement to curb the arrogance of power in Washington D. C. Not only must the floodgates be closed and the border sealed, but massive and serious action must be taken to remove those mestizos and other Third World immigrants now present on the North American continent.
We must establish once and for all that this is America. It is not Mexico, it is not China, it is not the Middle East, and it is not Africa. America belongs to those whose ancestors created it, not to all of these Third World peoples who want to get on the white man's back and ride. And if we cannot or will not take nationwide action to get these muds out of here, then we need to seize back part of this country, fence it off, and make it our own again. Or else there will be nothing left for anyone. Northwest American Republic - an idea whose time has come.
[Sigh...] Those suppurating Jew bastards won't let the White man have anything, will they? They have to take it all from us, every bit of our history and our culture, everything good in our past, every bit of decency. With this trendy new faggot movie Brokeback Mountain, Hollywood is rewriting the history of the West and trying to give a whole new meaning to the term "ride 'em, cowboy!" According to the Jew scriptwriters of Tinseltown, all those buggeroos, er, I mean buckaroos carry vaseline in their saddle bags as well as a lariat. Well, at least the god-awful monstrosity seems to be flopping at the box office, comparatively speaking. The pro-Christian allegory by C. S. Lewis, Narnia, raked in about ten times the money on opening weekend. Apparently only faggots are going to see Brokeback Mountain and the fruit flies are artificially inflating the box office take by going to see it multiple times, kind of like a sodomitic Star Wars. The critics, or course, are absolutely swooning in delight and adoration over the foul thing. It will probably sweep the Oscars like it did the Golden Globes, even if few people in America seem willing actually to pay money to see two cowpokes poke. This pisses me off. It's a gratuitous, obscene insult directed against one of the last relatively unsullied American icons. Jake Gyllenhaal I never liked. As far as I am concerned, his claim to fame is being Mr. Kirsten Dunst. Donnie Darko was charmingly weird, but anybody could have done it, and he's never done anything else worth a damn. I used to like Heath Ledger, who can actually act when he puts his mind to it, but I have lost all respect for him now, and I won't be watching anything of his again. Henry of Navarre said "Paris is worth a mass." Heath Ledger said, "Oscar is worth Jake's ass."
[I'm leaving this up all weekend in honor of Martin Lucifer Koon's birfday, so no, I'm not just being lazy. - HAC] MARTIN LUTHER KING, JUNIOR - Pop Quiz
1) Name the judge who has sealed King's FBI surveillance file until the year 2027.
Answer: The Honorable John Lewis Smith, Jr.
2) According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last night on earth in an adulterous liaison?
Answer: Reverend Ralph Abernathy. "And the Walls Came Tumbling Down"
3) According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last morning on earth physically beating a woman?
Answer: Reverend Ralph Abernathy. "And the Walls Came Tumbling Down"
4) Who was the U.S. Attorney General who ordered the FBI to wiretap King?
Answer: Robert F. Kennedy
5) Who was the Assistant Director of the FBI who wrote a letter to Sen. John P. East (R-NC) describing King's conduct of "orgiastic and adulterous escapades, some of which indicated that King could be bestial in his sexual abuse of women."
Answer: Charles D. Brennan
6) Who called King a "hypocrite preacher?"
Answer: President Lyndon B. Johnson
7) What U.S. newspaper reported that King had plagiarized his doctoral thesis at Boston University.
Answer: The Wall Street Journal
8) Whom did King plagiarize in more than 50 complete sentences in his doctoral thesis?
Answer: Dr. Jack Boozer
9) Who was the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities who purposely suppressed knowledge of King's plagiarism of his doctoral thesis?
Answer: Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Richard Cheney
10) What was Martin Luther King's real name?
Answer: Michael King, Jr. In 1935 his father, Michael King, declared to his congregation that he wound henceforth be known as Martin Luther King and his son would be known as Martin Luther King, Jr.
11) In his first public sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in 1947 who did King plagiarize?
Answer: Harry Emerson Fosdick
12) Name the man who served as King's personal secretary from 1955 to 1960, had joined the Young Communists League at New York City College in 1936, went to prison for draft evasion in 1944, and in 1953 was sentenced to 60 days in jail in California "lewd vagrancy and homosexual perversion."
Answer: Bayard Rustin
13) According to whom had King "privately described himself as a Marxist?"
Answer: His biographer, David J. Garrow
14) Who edited King's book Stride Toward Freedom?
Answer: Communist Stanley Levison
15) Who made the following speech?
That's exactly what we mean-- from every mountain side, let freedom ring.Not only from the Green Mountains and White Mountains of Vermont and New Hampshire; not only from the Catskills of New York; but from the Ozarks in Arkansas, from Stone Mountain in Georgia, from the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia --let it ring not only for the minorities of the United States, but for the disinherited of all the earth--from every mountainside, LET FREEDOM RING!
Answer: Archibald Carey, 1952
1-3 questions correct means you could be dangerous.
4-6 questions correct means you must read too much.
7-10 questions correct means you must value historical correctness instead of political correctness. Congratulations!
I got the Northwest Tricolor flag in the mail today. I can't thank you enough.
I'll be honest, looking at it for the first time damn near made me cry. I didn't believe the impact that othercomrades told me it has, but it was amazing. When the checkbooks open, or if people decide to go for it, it should be another tool that must be utilized. The impact is fantastic and truly gives the first physical reality of our new nation. Unless you've seen it in person, you have no idea. I advise everyone to get one.
[Guys, I apologize for slowdown in internet output. Feeling a bit under the weather. The following isn't mine, found it floating around the Net. Yeah, I know, it's lame. At least it's something to drop in here until I feel like writing again. - HAC] History began some 12,000 years ago...
Humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer & would go to the coast & live on fish & lobster in winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer & the invention of the wheel.
The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization & together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into 2 distinct subgroups: Liberals & Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered it required grain & that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early human ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed. Some men spent their days tracking & killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer.
This was the beginning of what is known as "the Conservative movement." Other men who were weaker & less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's & doing the sewing, fetching & hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as 'girleymen.'
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy & group hugs & the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat & beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, & French food are standard liberal fare.
Another interesting revolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood & group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat & still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, military men, athletes & generally anyone who works productively outside government. Conservatives own companies and hire other conservatives who want to work for a living. Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to "govern" the producers & decide what to do with the production.
Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tame & created a business of trying to get MORE for nothing.
Here ends today's lesson in world history. It should be noted that a Liberal will have an uncontrollable urge to respond to the above instead of simply laughing and forwarding it.
Has anyone noticed that our "elections" keep getting dicier and dodgier all the time? It used to be that it was more or less impossible to fix an election on a national scale in this country, although John F. Kennedy managed it in 1960 with the help of Sam Giancana and the Chicago Outfit, who voted every dead Chicagoan for the past century Democratic and swung JFK Illinois' electoral votes. In 2000 there was the whole Hanging Chad mess, of course, and so we ended up with a jug-eared moron appointed President by the Supreme Court, which constitutionally speaking isn't supposed to happen. Then there was all that mysterious stuff going on in Ohio in 2004, plus all the registration-related shenanigans by the neo-cons before the vote. Wonder what the neo-cons will try to pull in 2006 to bolster their sagging electoral fortunes?
We seem to have started the New Year off in Iraq with a bang. The Iraqi rebels brought down another Black Hawk helicopter and five Marines were killed in assorted ambushes around the countryside. Total American dead: seventeen in one day. Jug-Eared moron.
Looks like the fat bastard's going to be a vegetable. Okay, so why not pull his feeding tube and let him die in agony? It was all right for Terry Schiavo, right? So why not for a mass murderer like Ariel Sharon?
The Social Security system celebrated its 70th birthday a few months ago, and to everyone's relief it's still intact, despite the efforts of Jug-Ears to dismantle it and hand over all that lovely money to his cronies on Wall Street to play with. Bush's plan to "fix Social Security" seems dead in the water, probably due to the fact that it's such an obvious scam to get the Social Security account, the only remaining government fund that's in the black, into private hands. Amazingly, there seems to still be a few things the neo-cons can't get away with. Americans pay more attention to their own wallets than they do to minor things like the demented and increasingly pointless war on Iraq.
Granted, there is a problem with Social Security. In a few years, the Baby Boomers are going to start retiring and there are going to be more people drawing on the fund than there are paying into it. The solution is to quit pouring money down the rathole of Iraq and top up the Social Security fund as needed with the dollars we'd save by not trying to conquer the world...but NOOOOO. Many pundits and left-wing media propagandists claim that this is one reason why we need massive Third World immigration in this country, since White people are no longer having babies in any demographically significant numbers. Supposedly all those wonderful brown young people are all working legally and paying their withholding taxes,and joyfully contributing towards the retirement of all us White folks. That's bushwah (or Bushwah?) The majority of our beloved Third World immigrants are working completely off paper and not paying withholding tax one, while drawing every available welfare benefit. But that's still not the main point of Social Security "reform." Jug-Ears is in fact coming to bury Social Security, not to save it.
It's partly ideological. For generations, America has been ruled from the back rooms and boardrooms by country club Republicans (and Democrats), soulless White men and Jews in business suits who believe in what is known as laissez-faire capitalism, i.e. screw thy neighbor. Their ancestors in the nineteenth century were black-moustachio'd villains who evicted poor widows and orphans out into the snow and made little children work fourteen hours a day in the mines and mills. They hate labor unions and hate anything that stands in the way of their making money hand over fist. These are the people who gave us NAFTA in their eternal search for cheap, disposable labor, and who are about to give us CAFTA. These people hate Social Security because from their point it gives away precious money to useless old White people, money they could be using to rampage through the stock market with, money that could be used to stock mini-bars in their hotel suites and buy corporate executives more Rolls and Lear jets.
The suits have had their knives sharpened for Social Security, in their Victorian lust to un-do the very last remaining significant piece of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's hated New Deal. (Which FDR stole lock, stock, and barrel from Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Germany.) In essence, the Bush "reform" plan would transform Social Security from a social insurance program into a mutual fund, with nothing except a name in common with the system originally created to let working people retire with some dignity and safety.
Under the "reformed" system a worker begins slaving for the Judaeo-capitalist state at age sixteen or so, pays into Social Security all his life, and instead of receiving a guaranteed benefit at his retirement at age 65, what he gets, if anything, depends on how his "investment" has done. He isn't paying into a central kitty any more, he has given his retirement money to a group of Enron style soulless men in suits to "invest" for him in whatever Ivan Boesky-style junk bonds come along. The "reformers" claim benefits would still be "guaranteed." Guaranteed with what? Instead of putting the money in the bank, so to speak, it is being taken to the casino of the stock market and put on the table for gambling purposes. Suppose it is lost? There is no way on earth any government can "guarantee" a gamble. Oh, did I mention they keep raising the retirement age for full benefits higher and higher? It's now officially 67, and it will be 70 soon.
Jug-Ears has already neo-conned us into this stupid war in Iraq and thrown open our borders to the mudflow. It's not too late to raise enough holy hell to keep his kosher hands off our retirement money.
[Okay, I pinched this off another blog. Yeah, yeah, bad habit, I know, but there is just so much good shit out there you sometimes just can't help it. I can understand the compulsion and obsession of the mad re-poster who sends out 50 articles a day by e-mail that no one will ever have the time to read. You get the feeling that if the right people would just read all this really good, logical, sense-making stuff somehow it would all come right. Oh, well..anyway, I just couldn't resist this one. It's from http://www.antiwar.com , where else?- HAC] Sorry, Neo-Cons, Reality Is Not Optional
At his retirement last September, Jimmie Miller had spent 28 years in the Air Force, rising to the rank of Lt. Colonel. From a still-classified location, Lt. Col. Miller acted as mission director for the “Shock and Awe” air assault in the opening days of the Iraq war. For his fierce devotion to the success of his mission and the safety of his pilots, Miller earned the sobriquet “Mad Dog” during his four months as an intelligence officer with the 419th Fighter Wing (Reserve).
Like most professional military men, however, Lt. Col. Miller has a sane and sober perception of the realities of combat. Which means, predictably, that he is an unabashed opponent of the needless and catastrophic war in which he offered exemplary service.
“I thought it was a stupid idea” to go to war in Iraq, Miller told the Deseret Morning News of Salt Lake City, Utah (where he now works with Ameriprise Financial). “It was the wrong thing to do.... The idea that we are going to install a pluralistic government that is going to smile and work together is a pipe dream. They are never going to do that.”
Granted, Lt. Col. Miller doesn't command the strategic insight or martial skills of a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity. All he has to his credit is nearly three decades in the armed forces, seven combat support missions in the Middle East and the Balkans, lengthy immersion in the culture and politics of the Persian Gulf, and fluency in several languages (including a working knowledge of Arabic and Turkish).
Miller's problem, which he shares with other critics of the war, is that he is a creature of the reality-based community -- unlike the visionaries who brought about this war, and the herd-poisoners in the media who promote it. Typical of that group of self-anointed seers is Abram Shulsky, the individual selected to run the Office of Special Plans – the neo-con “lie factory” that was embedded in the Pentagon to generate spurious intelligence in preparation for the war.
Shulsky, like many other architects of the war, was a disciple of Leo Strauss, a University of Chicago professor of philosophy whose followers embraced the idea that the world should be run by a numinous elite controlling the masses through the use of noble lies and needful deceptions. Strauss peddled a version of gnosticism stressing the concept of hidden, esoteric meanings within various texts – such as Plato's dialogues – which were understandable only to the elect. Straussians in the political realm apply that same conceit to matters of public policy.
In his recent book The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq, war correspondent George Packer, a self-described liberal supporter of the war, recalls his dealings with Straussian professors as an undergraduate at Yale.
With their “awkward social manners and pale cryptic smiles,” the Straussians gave off the sense of being the custodians of a “secret body of understanding to which only a select few would be admitted,” writes Packer. Prominent Straussians in the Bush administration include former Undersecretary of Defense (and present World Bank chief) Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, the neo-“conservative” ideologue without portfolio who despite having no official government position essentially created the OSP; according to Packer, “all roads from Special Plans lead back to Perle.”
OSP director Shulsky “believed the writings of his old professor Leo Strauss could be useful antidotes to the narrow-mindedness of the American intelligence community,” observes Packer. For “narrow-mindedness,” we can read: intransigent devotion to objective facts. “Strauss's view certainly alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception,” wrote Shulsky. “Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life....”
For Shulsky, his comrades at OSP, Douglas Feith and William Luti, and the rest of the neo-con nomenklatura, deception was not only a tactical luxury, it was also a positive virtue. Packer compares the neo-con doctrine of virtuous deception to the Muslim “concept of taqiya – dissembling in defense of the faith, the sanctioned lying to outsiders that allowed a persecuted religious sect to survive. Taqiya also explained the decoy name and hidden work of the Office of Special Plans, home of that other persecuted sect newly arrived in power, the neoconservatives.”
“Persecuted”? Were neo-cons being hurled down wells, or at least banished from polite company? Hardly; the most severe trial the Bush administration's neo-con contingent had to endure was polite skepticism about its plans for the Middle East. To express misgivings about the wisdom of war in Iraq, from the neo-cons' perspective, was a moral crime akin to plotting a pogrom. Some neo-cons have treated every syllable of public criticism directed their way like the echoing hoofbeats of an approaching Cossack horde.
Packer documents how the neo-cons forged an alliance with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the two dominant personalities in the Bush administration. This gave the neo-cons the muscle to purge war skeptics from the upper ranks of the military and intelligence establishments. Among the casualties were General Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command (who was denounced by Luti as a “traitor” for expressing doubts about the wisdom of the war), and former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, who infuriated Wolfowitz by estimating – correctly – that occupying Iraq would require a much larger deployment than what the administration had predicted.
Shinseki's estimate triggered an irate phone call from Wolfowitz to Army Secretary Thomas White. “He was agitated that we in the Army didn't get it,” White told Packer. “He didn't give arguments or reasons. Their view was almost theological in nature – that it was going to go the way they said it was going to go.”
The gospel according to the neo-cons dictated that once the Iraqi regime had collapsed, the transition to a post-Saddam government would be seamless, painless, and pay for itself – leaving the U.S in a position to continue its war of “liberation” elsewhere in the region.
“We're going to stand up an interim Iraqi government, hand power over to them, and get out of there in three to four months,” declared Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita, propounding the neo-con gospel on behalf of Rumsfeld during a briefing in Kuwait in early April 2003. “All but twenty-five thousand soldiers will be out by the beginning of September.” Yes, he meant September 2003.
How many times in the last several months has the Bush administration recited some variation of the formula that our troops would “stand down” as soon as Iraq's army and police are ready to “stand up”? How often have we been treated to some tantalizing hint that we will begin drawing down the number of troops mired in Iraq by some numerically insignificant amount, by some unspecified future date? I'd estimate that not one American in a million would recall that the original time-frame for that transfer of power called for all but 25,000 troops to be out of Iraq by September 2003.
Like many other intelligence and military professionals, Lt. Col. Miller knew that projections like those offered by Di Rita in April 2003 were delusional. He knew, going into Iraq, that it would prove to be all but impossible to get out. Notes the Deseret Morning News, “Miller sees no end in sight for the military men and women in Iraq today.” “We're in it for 20 years, in my opinion,” he ruefully predicts. “I hope to God I'm wrong. There is no way we can leave Iraq now.... There is just no getting out of there.”
For the self-enraptured neo-con gnostics who dominate the Pentagon, it's not enough that our men and women in uniform kill and die on behalf of grand ideological designs; our military personnel are now being conscripted to act as evangelists on behalf of the war. A Pentagon public relations offensive dubbed “Operation Homefront” reportedly urges – or requires – veterans of the Iraq war to give positive media interviews extolling the success of the war and the benign wisdom of those who planned it.
One account of the program offers this description of the standard “talking points”:
*Admit initial doubts about the war but claim conversion to a belief in the American mission;
*Praise military leadership in Iraq and throw in a few words of support for the Bush administration;
*Claim the mission to turn security of the country over to the Iraqis is working;
*Reiterate that America must not abandon its mission and must stay until the `job is finished';
*Talk about how “things are better” now in Iraq.
At least some Iraq veterans claim to have been pressured to “sell the war” back home, amid promises of an early discharge for doing so -- or implied threats of a less than honorable discharge should they refuse. Lt. Col. Miller obviously didn't get the memo. Neither did Sgt. Jonathan Wilson, a recently discharged reservist who has nothing but contempt for the Pentagon's new PR campaign.
“Iraq is a classic FUBAR [an inelegant expression describing a huge mess],” Sgt. Wilson told his home-town newspaper. “The country is out of control and we can't stop it. Anybody who tries to sell a good news story about the war is blowing it out his [Cheney].... [E]ventually we will leave the country in worse shape that it was when we invaded.”
The question is: How much damage will our nation and our military suffer before reality is re-enthroned as the basis of our foreign policy?
As of this writing, almost 2,200 American troops have died in Iraq, over half of whom were White. The combined cost of the George W. Bush's dementedimperial adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan is $340 billion and rising by a billion dollars per week. There is no not so much as a fig leaf of Constitutional control of the American President's war-making powers.
Our so-called democratic form of government can barely govern America, never mind the rest of the world. In view of the dog's dinner that our corrupt and bloated Federal tyranny has made of our own country, what right on earth do we have to proclaim that it is superior to all others, never mind impose it on other countries at the point of a gun? It is none of our business how other people choose to run their own countries, or whether they choose to live by the commandments of a religion other than George W.Bush's televangelist brand of Protestant fundamentalism.
By now everybody and his dog knows we were lied into this war. The Bush administration knew full well that Iraq had neither the capability nor the desire to create weapons of mass destruction. The only point left for historians to settle is whether George W. Bush is a fool or a knave. I personally think he's both.
What have we gained from the Iraq war? 2,200 dead soldiers, over 20,000 wounded (in some cases horribly maimed with injuries of a kind not seen since World War One) and $3.00 per gallon gas. Not to mention a war without end that will most likely go on for generations and cause our grandchildren to curse us for being so spineless that we dared not stand up to Jug-Ears and his little Jewish neo-con buddies.
It is time for us to leave Iraq now. Every day we stay in that godforsaken hellhole only makes it worse for everyone, including the Iraqis. George W. Bush is Commander in Chief. All he has to do is pick up the phone on his desk, call the Pentagon and say "Tell the guys over there to start packing their gear." He hasn't got the intelligence or the moral courage to do that. He is going to hell, and he's going to drag the whole world with him.