Friday, September 29, 2006

Why Am I Involved? #5

Back in the 1970s, I was growing up in a small Ohio town east of Cleveland. At the time, the town had mostly farms, woods, and some middle-income neighborhoods of homes. The only faces around were white, except for a few families of Jews. It was a white world, except for what was being pumped into our TV, radio, and print media.

When I began to see colored faces on TV commercials in the mid-70s, I was not comfortable with it. Before that time the ads were strictly aimed at whites. There were black sports stars and entertainers, of course, but the TV world was not anything like our town. Rather than hundreds of TV channels, there were only about five back then. There was no remote control, and only one TV in the house. I must also stress that I was not really a racist, and "nigger" was a bad word in our house.

Even so, there was something about blacks that made me uncomfortable. They were not like us. Our town had many Italians, most of whom were open racists. My friend's mother, an Italian lady who was my mom's friend, referred to blacks as "niggers" in any conversation with no shame whatsoever. Some people frowned on that kind of language, but they certainly weren't shunned as evil people.

I started noticing that the "tolerance" being preached to whites was just as one-sided as any racist view was claimed to be. It made no sense to me that people should be expected to criticize their very own people for having racial pride. The double standards were everywhere: United Negro College Fund, NAACP, Black is Beautiful, on and on. I never got a good answer as to why groups for white pride and promotion were bad.

How was racial pride much different from family pride or national pride? People of the same race actually have more in common than people sharing a simple geographical boundary or a government philosophy. Interestingly, we moved to that town from a Cleveland suburb at exactly the time when negroes started spreading from the inner city. The last year that we were in the old neighborhood, I often had to face a group of scary-looking, thuggish, older black boys on my way home from school. I was eight years old, and had to walk about 20 minutes to get home. I usually came face-to-face with the same group of shines (as my dad called them) when walking over a freeway bridge. There was no room to avoid them because of the fence and railing on both sides of the bridge's sidewalk. I literally had to brush against them.

Before this, I had only seen one colored girl at school. Other than her, this was the first time I saw any negroes up close, and I was afraid. The bright whites of their nigger eyes and teeth contrasted greatly against their gorilla-like skin. They looked unafraid and menacing.

Thuggish-looking blacks were not the entire reason we moved - in fact, it was probably not the main reason. But invading niggers would have been enough to prod us to move if they were the only concern. My folks were strict Catholics, but were also completely molded by the pre-1960s America. That America kept negroes in their place. That America did not force or shame people into living among people who were not like them. It was not a crime to be white and there was no guilt in whites being above other groups.

Once we moved out to the country, the nearly all-white community made me forget the race issue altogether. We were insulated from it. Instead, I had my own personal demons to deal with. Around age 15, I associated with the wrong people and began to do drugs and drink heavily. For fun, we did things that today would land us in jail for ten years or more. Usually under the influence, we would throw our beer bottles at the only nigger's house. Or, we thought it would be funny to wear KKK sheets and hoods and scare the Jews down the street. We occasionally smashed their mailboxes with bats, or blew them up with M-100s or pipe bombs.

The irony is that the Jews set up the conditions to make perfectly good white boys into what we were. A chief source of our marijuana was a drug dealer named Rosenbaum. He was still in high school, and made so much money from people like us buying his dope that he bought a mint condition SS Chevelle race car and other expensive toys. Obviously his parents had no qualms about his dealing, because people constantly went to the house for smoke and his folks never said anything.

We had to sneak around other parents, but not certain Jews. Another Jew, Brodsky, would have drug parties every weekend. He lived with his mother, who also smoked dope and didn't care about all the white boys coming over to get fucked up. Later, I learned that the Jews made it "cool" for us to go against everything positive and good - the sex, drugs and rock and roll attitude - the live it up and party attitude. Later they made it cool (with MTV) for young white girls to have sex with blacks, but that was still unacceptable in our town.

Living that lifestyle drove my folks to kick me out of the house right before I turned eighteen. After three years living with grandparents in the city, I decided to stop the destructive lifestyle completely, after going to jail several times for various offenses such as DUI. About this time, my "education" began.

During that period, I worked in a Mr. Coffee filter plant. I got a firsthand look at how negroes really are. At this point I had racial attitudes, but was more or less sociable and friendly to the niggers. I even liked a few of them but in every case their homes and cars were disgustingly greasy and dirty. I observed the ways that they were different from us. Cheating on wives/husbands was almost normal, for example, and accepted as long as they didn't get caught.

But what made me most uncomfortable was that I was constantly being pestered, "Hook me up with a white bitch." That was out of the question. I began to feel a bond with my own people developing. My grandparents told me how once-nice places of the city where they lived in their youth became filthy black ghettos. I saw these horrible places and could not imagine them looking nice, but it was true. Now, a cage had to be put over every storefront at night so the monkeys didn't break in. Old white ladies remaining in the area were sometimes raped or killed.

People resisted the invasion in numerous Polish, Hungarian, Italian, and Slovak neighborhoods of Cleveland, resulting in the 1966 riots that had to be quelled by the National Guard. "Fair housing" laws eventually drove most of the whites out of huge areas of the city, leaving the poor ones behind in the jungle.

By the time I was in my mid-twenties, I began to see injustices being done to whites all over the city, almost every day. Realtors were sued for racial "steering." Girlfriends of mine told me about the rampant, unpunished rapes that began when forced busing was introduced. The newspaper and TV news always supported the niggers and scoffed at any white pride. Jews were organizing "fair housing groups" who targeted "racist" landlords. The latter issue infuriated me to no end. A nigger would be sent to a suspected racist landlord to try and rent a house or apartment. Then, a white traitor or bleeding heart would go undercover to get a favorable reaction from the landlord who had told the nigger that the place was unavailable. The landlord would at minimum receive a hefty fine and have his face on TV and the front page of the newspaper. The courts ruled that this was not entrapment.

In 1985 I found myself filled with joy when someone torched a nigger's house in the Fleet area, killing one. This was one of the last white holdout neighborhoods on the East Side. An eighteen-year-old white boy was put on trial for the act as the media Jews screamed for vengeance. A mostly-white jury found the evidence against him very weak and a retracted confession was thrown out because the cops coerced it. When the jury found him not guilty, the news media went ballistic and wrote editorials for months about the "injustice" and "racism" that still existed as they then smeared the jury members. But, chalk one up for our side - the arsonist was never caught.

By the late 1980s, there were still a few Republican state reps and senators in the area who openly opposed forcing whites to live next to blacks. Gary Suhadolnik, a state senator, told the media that he wanted to see an end to what he called "social engineering." But it was only the beginning, and politicians like Suhadolnik became extinct. One by one they caved in or left office.

I then realized that there would eventually be no voice for us except in groups like the KKK. I didn't know about others at the time. A brief stint with the Young Republicans pretty much ended any hope I had of getting justice from within the system. If you didn't have the right Perry Ellis and Polo clothing or impress them materially, they had little use for you except as a campaign worker. No prestigious degree? Not a business owner? They kept you outside the inner clique. They would listen to an idea, but that is as far as it went. I was a lowly machinist to them, so my opinion carried little weight and my checkbook even less. This was before the present Neocons hijacked the party with their Jewish agenda.

I read many books on World War II, philosophy, and history. I questioned things I had never before questioned. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich left me in sympathy with the Germans, certainly not by intent of the author. Soon I allowed my mind to be open. What if they were wrong about what they told me all these years?

After a few years, I saw that Western Civilization would have dominated the world had the Germans won or even ended up with a negotiated peace that left their ideology intact to influence the world. Just as importantly, England's empire would have remained intact. We all know what happened. Western Civilization is declining and being replaced by inferior cultures, or, at least civilizations and cultures opposed to it. Most of our people didn't see it coming. Now we are faced with completely intolerable conditions, compared with where we were only 70 years ago.

This finally brings me back to the question of involvement. I believe I owe something to our ancestors who struggled for thousands of years. We are pissing away in one century everything that has been gained going back to ancient Rome and Greece. The spirit of the Vikings, Celts, and other ancient Aryans has been snuffed out by Christianity and Jewish trickery. It needs to be rekindled.

Any airhead who thinks that he is enlightened compared to the "intolerance" of previous generations of ancestors needs to be opposed and defeated. This means that most white people today need to be opposed in their thoughts and ideas. Unfortunately, it also means that to stop their ideas they will need to be forced either physically, psychologically, or both.

No matter how I have tried to go about life pushing this reality aside, it has always continued to haunt my thoughts. Daily I get reminders that don't allow me any peace of mind, as most of us do. Nigger and spic culture is everywhere. White people have mulatto babies. People who stand up for us slandered and jailed. Jews controlling our governments for their interests and fooling our people into thinking that their interests are the same.

Ignorance and fear aren't enough to keep me from involvement. I'm in this cause whether I like it or not. But on the other hand, there is nothing more spiritually fulfilling than to do work in the service of your people. This is the strength of the National Socialist philosophy. It's every bit as fulfilling and more natural than serving a god.

The "Movement" has many good ideas and even some exceptional people. Nothing is very promising at the moment, but that's no excuse for me to do nothing. People wondering whether they should be involved in the White Nationalist Cause should follow their conscience. If someone finds racially and culturally unacceptable or offensive situations on most days, that's a good sign that he or she should be involved. Involvement has many different levels, but sitting there steaming is not one of them.

I decided not to be a bitcher. I try to enjoy life. In the back of my mind, I know that I am working towards something. Even if we don't win this thing, those of us out here trying will die with a clear conscience. This is better than dying wealthy, famous, or fat and happy. Not because we think it's noble or superior, but because it's right.

-Scott from Florida

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Why Am I Involved? #4

[This is a good one; I'll leave it up a couple of days. - HAC]

Not so long ago I went through a depressive spurt thinking over just this question.

At times I feel I would have been better off to have chosen the life of consumerism, bought all of my nice little toys, TV's and a sports car, married someone, settled down and paid my dues like a good little white man. Ultimately, I didn't do that, nor would I want to change what I did do with my early years, not that I am that old now. I am pleased with my lot really.

Well, the question "Why am I involved?" is actually three questions in one: "Am I involved?", "Why did I get involved?" and "How am I involved?”

Am I involved? Well, I am the typical "involved" individua. I drink beer, complain a lot, occasionally put out leaflets, join a party, go to right-wing music gigs, and all of that aside, try out of it to rescue some sort of "normal" life.

I am involved to the extent that it's about all I think over. I hate the lot other people have, and that effects me, albeit not very much, but there is nothing worse than having to spectate while some Afro-clad black moron gropes at a physically beautiful young white girl as they sit in my local park (Wardown park....a green speck in the concrete landscape that is Luton,) trying to have a romantic evening.

The initial effect is that I get annoyed at the idea of a black groping a white. The secondary effect is seething anger at the white girl who lets him. And the final, and worst effect, is the idea that this is not a one-off occasion. This then has effects on my life as it spurs me on to go and either preach to the choir, commit acts of mindless violence, or do something constructive (put out leaflets, empty my bank account on donations to the National Front or whatever organization manages to be at the right place and the right time and hit the right chord on why I am pissed off).

These instances aside, my involvement stretches to social life; my friends are all of the right-wing "nasty Nazi" category. So, together, we will preach among the choir, commit acts of mindless violence, or do something constructive.

Bear in mind this is gauged by money; to preach you need lots of alcohol to numb the senses and make you speak up in a voice of truth, same is needed for violence, then when no money and no beer is the situation, you resort to putting leaflets through a door praying that either a small niglet will come out and have a go at you, subsequently getting kicked several times at various points on his body, or that no one will come out at all.

I have to say that there are plus sides; occasionally someone says "thanks mate, nice to know I'm not the only one who is fed up!" but they are few and far between [about 1 in 40 houses.] And as for the rest of my involvement, it merely amounts to thinking and displaying some nasty patches that cause offense and get oneself arrested if spotted by the Thought Police.

I think before I move on to the next question I ought to justify some of my life. The violence is useful, or that is what we tell ourselves when we are kicking someone in the ribs. It is supposed to make them think that the Socialists can't ensure everything goes their way. In a few cases (and I can’t give particulars) little immigrants will run home for a month or so, and then return for their next beating. Though this is normally because they are illegals and cant go to a hospital in my land in case those nice immigrant workers their ask them "iff dey got der ID" which in itself shows ignorance in their community; the hospitals will be more interested in getting the police to find the despicable perpetrators of an abominable act of......racial violence! *gasp*.

To justify the preaching to the choir thing; it's my sanity check. Without talking to like minded individuals over a cool pint with one of those cancer-releasing death sticks in my mouth I don't think I'd have the will left in me to resist. I'd probably be making a noose, talking with others ensures me that I am not alone, there are others doing the exact same things and thinking the exact same things, so things can change. And leafleting/campaigning/marches/protests...well, what can I say? It is not always effective, but it's about the only thing that has some effect and is still legal, and I praise anyone completely who has the nerve and balls to leave their safety-nest and hand out literature that spreads malcontent among the masses, or goes on a march that lets our far left enemies know who to hate and scream "scum" at in ridiculously loud voices...we may be scum but we can hear without shouting.

Oh, and if you go campaigning, then good on you. This year we scored rather well in elections with the national front (26.1% in Yarmouth I do, to think that over 1 in 4 people voted for that hatemongering Nazi scum party...things can look up from time to time!).

Okay, second question: why did I get involved? Well. A long story, so I will take it in steps.

Step 1. Starts at five years old (or 0 years old if you consider I was born with white skin...that should be reason enough, but we'll just say 5 to make this interesting). At five began my obsession in a childhood way of soldiers and everything military, and particularly anything World War Two. I remember that when I spoke about AH I said that he was a genius for getting as far as he did with wars, but just a little insane as he picked on so many countries.

That's right; I said Hitler was a little insane when I was 5 years old. Please, 1933 perfectionists! Forgive me!!

My dad was ready to agree with me at this point in my life, he also pointed out that we too had our hero, Churchill (*spit*, *cough*, scum!), and that we too suffered in the war. I thought nothing of it, I was only five.

Some years later I moved up into Junior School; Bushmead, a concrete maze somewhere in the pit known as Luton (I know, second mention of my hometown. Believe me; it's that bad!). There I met niggers. Oh what fun!

I told my dad about the first black kid who tried to be my friend by talking in some unknown language and was replied with "eh?!” I was told by my father, who has years of wisdom regarding the subject of our African friends, and he said to me "All blacks are bastards who don’t belong here, and half-castes are freaks." He was rather worked up at the time, and didn't mean it like that; I’m sure he meant to add not to repeat that to my teachers, which would have been helpful.

Well, you guessed where it goes next, and this little episode ends with a teacher calling parents up and saying their child has been put into his first ever detention.

Step 2. After my wonderful time in detention, I realized that teachers had weapons I could never hope to wield myself. So, I picked on the little black kids instead. I was a smart enough young boy, well, smart enough to get them when no one was looking and thus avoid detention. I had a happy few years, going to school, pinching, punching and kicking little blacks, then going home to draw pictures of tanks and German soldiers (a skill I was quite good at, and still rather good at to this day, only now I paint small figures whenever my father is kind enough to buy me some....which is only when he wants me to keep off the streets for a weekend. It's a good hobby, clears the mind and makes some nice ornaments that impress fellow right-wingers....okay, not impress, occupies their eyes for a short while).

All of this happy life was soon to change, and it changed with the dawn of a new chapter in my life: high school. My first day at high school was an interesting one; I saw the strange creatures that the little nigglets I pinched, punched and kicked would grow into. Swinging arms and Neanderthal faces, smoking dope in school and grabbing as much "whitey aaasss" as they could, trying not to get too many slaps in the process (which they normally did well at, given the quality of the white female moral fabric in this town...).

As well as these there were these hordes of curious brown creatures...busy huddling into groups and grinning like hyenas at some unknown joke which people such as me could never even hope to understand, given that it was spoken in an exotic, arrogant tongue. Their "females" (if they can be called that, I don’t know what they are really....given their dress sense it makes it hard to figure out) crowded around clutching folders and books to their chests with a strange piece of apparatus I assume was designed to keep their hair dry drawn around their heads, some even had them to ensure their faces remained dry too.

These hordes I now call "Pakis", a phenomenon the American readers of this will not fully understand given the racial "make up" (here read "mix up") of their country. The closest America comes to the hordes of sub-continent scum we have here is a couple of pesky little traitor cunts flying planes around without licenses (forgive me here if I offend some, take into account that 7/11 also has an effect on my many Brits dead in Iraq? Fucking Jews...). And so began my life of struggle.

Step 3. The finalization of my racist ways came about by pure co-incidence. My step brother also had racist ideas and even got hold of one of those rare things known as DVD's, a DVD of magical visions, depicting violence against gooks and all sorts of delightful things. I saw in that film (Romper Stomper) some foolish Skins pratting around with their celestially-portrayed neighbors.

However, I also saw a swastika flag over a big bloke's bed. Suddenly it was all clear. Hitler never was "a little insane" as I had thought. The two things I enjoyed in life came together immediately; world wear two and racism, married in a thorough reading of Mein Kampf. Not long after that, my brother, a few of his friends, a few of my friends, and I, formed a Luton-based skinhead gang. Violence was in store for every nigger, Jew or paki in Luton.

How am I involved? Now, I deal with the question. The emphasis of this last section is on "involved". What the hell is "involved"? To be honest, I don't have a clue, though I imagine it has something to do with what you think.

You see, after looking back over all of this, I have come to the conclusion that the only difference between me and your average white lemming is what I thought, think and will think; I am naturally logical (my girlfriend is ready to testify to that, I bore her with long drawn out logical answers to her problems with my racism, though she herself is racist.)

I am also naturally a thinker. I think a lot each day, every bit of literature I get, be it email, poster, newspaper or leaflet is read thoroughly and thought about. This has put me in the position to say that I know exactly what I believe in, what I hope to achieve, and why it needs to be done. Your average white lemming I feel does not have this luxury; he does not know what he believes in at all.

And what made me think? Well, I guess the thing that made me think was being unpopular, you see, all the way up to the point of watching romper and consolidating my ideas, I had had very, very few friends, and the ones I did have from time to time I didn’t think very highly of at all. Once you are alone, you are left with only your blood, your thoughts and your dreams. And that results in realization and truth.

And so, finally, the answer to the question "Why am I involved?" is simple; because I should be.

-Luton Lad

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Why Am I Involved? #3

Dear HAC:

My involvement is reinforced each time I look at my beautiful, blonde little boy. It is said that our children are the future. Yet what kind of future will he have, with the state of the country being what it is, and growing to be?

I fear for his future. He is only 3 1/2 years old now. What will life be like in 15 years?! What kind of basic rights will he not have, then? What rights, available to 'minorities' now, will be talked about by our White sons and daughters as, "remember when we could..." ?

I flatly refuse to let my son's future be as bleak as it promises to be, at this point. I will do whatever I am able to in order to ensure his freedoms and rights.


Monday, September 25, 2006

The Demonic Evil of George W. Bush

Crisis Is Upon Us
by Paul Craig Roberts

A number of experts have concluded that despite the Bush administration's desire to attack Iran, the aggression would be too rash and the consequences too dire even for the irrational Bush administration.

Military experts point out that at a time when generals are calling for more troops for Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be ill-advised for Bush to add Iran to the war theater. Experts note that Iran is well armed with missiles capable of attacking U.S. ships and oil facilities throughout the Middle East and that Iran can direct its Shi'ite allies in Iraq to assault U.S. troops there and set in motion terrorist actions throughout the Middle East.

Diplomatic experts point out that the U.S. is isolated in its desire for war with Iran and has no ally except Israel, thus validating Muslim claims that the U.S. is Israel's instrument against Muslims in the Middle East. Experts note that military aggression is a war crime and that American violations of international law isolate the U.S. and destroy the soft power on which U.S. leadership has been based. An attack on Iran could be the last straw for Muslims chafing under the rule of U.S. puppet governments in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

Economic experts point out that the impact on the price of oil would be severe and the economic consequences detrimental. With the U.S. housing bubble deflating, now is not the time for an oil shock.

It is difficult to take exception to this expert analysis. Nevertheless, the Bush administration continues to send war signals. Credible news organizations have reported that U.S. naval attack groups have been given "prepare to deploy orders" that would put them on station off Iran by Oct. 21.

How can Bush administration war plans be reconciled with expert opinion that the consequences would be too dire for the U.S.?

Perhaps the answer is that what appears as irrationality to experts is rationality to neoconservatives. Neocons seek maximum chaos and instability in the Middle East in order to justify long-term U.S. occupation of the region. Following this line of thought, neocons would regard the loss of a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf as a way to solidify public support for the war. American anger at the Iranians could even result in support for a military draft in order to win "the war on terror."

The Bush administration could bring Congress around by announcing a Gulf of Tonkin incident or by orchestrating a "terrorist attack." However, this is unnecessary as Bush has prepared the ground for bypassing Congress with his propagandistic allegations that Iran, by arming Iraqi insurgents, sponsoring terrorism, and building nuclear weapons, is a major part of the ongoing "war against terrorism."

Now that Iran is blamed for rising violence in Iraq, an attack on Iran follows as a matter of course. All Bush has to do is to continue with his lies in order to bring the American public to a new war hysteria.

Bush's attorney general has demonstrated that he has no qualms about validating any and all extralegal powers that the White House requires for violating the U.S. Constitution and international law. The congressional attempts to block illegal wiretapping and torture have failed. The Senate has refused to authorize torture, but the Senate has not prevented the administration from torturing detainees.

The compromise leaves it to the White House to decide by executive order whether its interrogation practices are objectionable. In an editorial, the Washington Post concluded that "the abuse can continue."

Polls show that Bush administration propaganda has convinced a majority of inattentive Americans that Iran is making nuclear weapons. Polls show that a majority support an attack on Iran under this circumstance.

The neoconservatives and their media allies have succeeded in causing the public to confuse Iran's legal nuclear energy program with a weapons program. The International Atomic Energy Agency, whose inspectors pore over Iran's nuclear energy program for signs of a weapons program, recently denounced a House Intelligence Committee report as "outrageous and dishonest."

Written by the neocon staff, the Republican report falsely alleges that Iran had enriched uranium to weapons-grade last April and that the IAEA had removed a senior safeguards inspector to keep the alleged breach of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Pact secret.

Once again neoconservatives have shown that they will tell any and every lie to achieve their goal of attacking Iran. Jingoistic anti-UN Bush supporters will automatically believe the neocon lie and swallow right-wing talk radio claims that the UN is protecting Iran's nuclear weapons program. As we learned from the Iraq hysteria, facts and experts are no impediment to the Bush administration's lies.

Rumsfeld's neocon Pentagon has rewritten U.S. war doctrine to permit preemptive nuclear attack on non-nuclear countries. As the U.S. paid a huge public relations cost in terms of world opinion and distrust of the U.S. by endorsing the first use of nuclear weapons, the revision of U.S. war doctrine must have a purpose.

Neocons claim that tactical nuclear weapons are necessary to destroy Iran's underground facilities. However, the real reason for using nukes against Iran is to intimidate Iran from retaliating and to threaten the entire Muslim world with genocide unless Muslims bend to the neocons' will and accept U.S. hegemony over their part of the world.

In his speech to the United Nations, Hugo Chávez might not have been too deep into hyperbole when he described Bush as an example of demonic evil.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Be Careful What You Blog

What you do online can cost you your job. If you work for a medium or large employer, there is most likely someone in ISD who keeps track of any Web sites you visit while using your computer at work. There's a pretty good chance they employ someone like me, too.

I am paid a chunky salary to monitor consumer-generated media, such as blogs and message boards, for mentions of my employer's name. I report what I find to company leaders.
I keep hard copies of everything in my files in case a page is deleted after I've found it. If the blog or message board entry was posted by someone employed by or seeking a job with my employer, I send the information to human resources for investigation.

My work has made a difference in whether a person gets or keeps a job, or whether they get a raise or probationary status. It doesn't matter that the employee might have been blogging on their own time, using their own equipment. Even if what you said in your blog can't get you fired, it can still hurt your reputation at work, since what is shared with company leaders will be shared right on down to your department management if it's juicy.

Most people don't use their legal names in the blogs, but there's usually enough other information in the blogs to figure out who the person is if they are an employee or a potential employee (such as pictures in some part of the blog or information about co-workers or bosses). And a big company has the resources to investigate.

Even if your blog allows you to restrict access to friends only, there are search engines available that will show a savvy searcher like myself a blog entry in its entirety. I pity the person whose blog I discovered a few days ago, in which the blogger mentions his employer in one sentence and goes into great detail about his sexual escapades a few sentences later. The blogger had a big picture of himself next to it all.

So, if you blog or post to message boards, don't do it at work, and make sure there is no reference to your employer anywhere.

-Bob From Boise

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Harold And Wagner Tag-Team A Fool

[Note as of September 25th: many thanks to Ron D. for pointing out my error about Antwerp being in Holland. It is, of course, in Belgium. I actually meant to refer to the Luftwaffe bombing of Rotterdam in Holland. - HAC]

Okay, this is going to be a bit complicated to read. Our comrade Wagner sent me a piece of neo-con drivel which he had commented on, and asked me to add my own comments, which I did. The original drivel is in black, Wagner's comments are in blue, and mine are in red. The original title was removed at some point along the line of a dozen or so forwards. - HAC

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and
had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

[Remember, England declared war on on Germany.]

[Hitler never wanted war with England, and in fact sent his deputy Rudolf Hess in May 1941 to try one final time to negotiate and close that second front before the main show opened in Russia.]

At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war.

[America should have remained so as far as Europe is concerned and as the majority of Americans wanted.]

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan , and the following day
on Germany, which had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing.
We had few allies.

[Again, America declared war on Germany!]

[Hitler did not want war with America, as witness his lack of any aircaft carriers at all, which he would have built had he been planning to "conquer America and make us all speak German as he has been accused of doing.]

[Winston Churchill had been conspiring with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt for months to get America in England's war, as England had bit off more than England could chew.]

France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia. Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico , as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe.

[Now, that's a commonly held misconception, but it is so far removed from historical fact that it's just plain bizarre. I have never heard of any reputable or even disreputable historian who has ever made any serious suggestion or offered any evidence that either Germany or Japan ever entertained any plans whatsoever for the invasion of the continental United States. It simply was beyond the capacity of both their countries, and they knew this perfectly well. Again I must point out the complete absence of any aircraft carriers in the German Navy. The closest anyone has ever come to contemplating a conventional military attack on the U. S. was in World War One, when the Germans designed several Hindenburg-class Zeppelins to bomb New York, but the war ended before these even got off the drawing board.]

America's only allies then were England, Ireland,

[Er, actually, no. Ireland was neutral, much to Churchill's chagrin. Churchill even offered Irish Taioseach Eamon De Valera the Six Counties of Northern Ireland if the Free State would come in on the allied side. De Valera declined, not so much because he was pro-German as because he knew he could nevert trust Winston Churchill to keep his word after the war. He remembered the way the Irish had been shafted at Versailles.]

Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the East, was already under the Nazi heel.

[As past President Ronald Reagan use to say; "There you go again!" Remember, Italy under Benito Mussolini signed a Tripartite Pact between Germany, Italy and Japan in Rome on November 6, 1937. As for the claims that Germany and Japan had long range plans to invade Canada and Mexico in order to have a launching pad into the United States, it is preposterous. There is no evidence in the world to back this claim up!]

America was certainly not prepared for war. America had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WWI and throughout the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW2, army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks. And a huge chunk of our navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.

[This is true and another reason for the United States to stay out of the war in Europe and devote its energy to fighting Japan.]

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England , that was actually the property of Belgium, given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact).

[This actually might be true about the Belgian gold reserve. I'm sure Churchill's Jewish financier friends like the Rothschilds and the Sassoons, the Morgenthals and Lehmann Brothers and Goldman Sachs etc. would have made off with the Belgian gold reserve, or any gold reserve, that they could find a way to glom onto.]

Actually, Belgium surrendered in one day,

[I think he's confusing Belgium with Denmark. Belgium took a couple of weeks, if I recall correctly. Obviously this guy has never seen the movie Sieg Im Westen with gripping footage of the glider assault on Eben Emael, etc., the pontoon bridges being thrown across the canals under fire by the Wehrmacht engineers, etc.]

because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could.

[Uh, no. If memory serves, Brussels was declared an open city. I think he's confusing Brussels with Rotterdam, which is in Holland, but if somebody cares to look it up I'll correct this. I'm not bothering to do any serious research on this joker's allegations; they're hysterical and all over the place and to seriously research responses to him would imply that he has something to say worth refuting, which he doesn't. He's just a neocon flack and part of Jug-Ears' amen corner, and as such is an intellectual featherweight.]

Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later, and first turning his attention to Russia , at a time when England was on the verge of collapse, in the late summer of 1940.

[Yadda yadda yadda. All this looks like standard crap so far.]

Ironically, Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.
[Er, actually, it was the other way around. It was America who saved the Soviet Union's butt through shipping them every piece of military hardware we could through Murmansk, including material we badly needed in the Pacific and the lack of which may well have contributed to early American defeats in the Pacific and certainly delayed the American arrival in the European theater.]

Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone... 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a MILLION soldiers.

[The Russians lost millions in the war, true, but A) nowhere near 24 million, and B) many of them were murdered by Stalin, not the Germans. I knew a Russian girl at D1 who told me three of her family had been killed by the Germans during the war and over 50 murdered by Stalin during the Purges of the 1930s.]

[Russia did not save anyone's butt! On the contrary, Russia was not able to to move forward until it, like Britain, started receiving a large amount of war aid under the American lend-lease arrangement. Most experts agree that if the U.S. had not gone to war against the Germans, that the war with Russia would have left Germany too weak to continue its fight with the west and Hitler would have sought a peace treaty. With the advanced weapons that Germany had under development ready for manufacture and with some in use, America with its hands full fighting Japan, would have led its allies to accept.]

Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. And the Nazis could possibly have won the war.

[True, although this guy has Hitler's priorities in reverse.]

All of this is to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history. There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.

[Actually, it's not a minority at all. The neocons and Jews and Christian crazies do have one point. Right now pretty much all Muslims wouldn't mind seeing all Americans deep-fried in their own McDonalds' fryers, which in view of our habit of constantly insulting them like the Pope recently did and that Danish cartoonist did, and our habit of going berserk and slaughtering them right, left and center like some crazed sniper in the Austin University Tower, not to mention threatening to nuke Mecca and other charming traits, is not really too surprising. For some strange reason, these people seem to resent it when we drop bombs on them and murder and starve their children, turn their cities into fortified concentration camps, and our soldiers rape their women and subject their men to homosexual bondage in Abu Ghraib and such merry pranks. Strange. Jeez, guys, lighten up!]

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in kaffiyahs -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world,

[Actually, while it's true that Osama Bin Laden is a Wahabi, most of his men are not. They're Sunnis, mostly Egyptians and Jordanians and guys from the Emirates, with the odd Moroccan and African thrown in. The Muslims that are giving us the most trouble are not Wahabis. They are Shi'ites and Sunnis and whatever strange variation the Taliban is, which I forget.]

And that all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is their mantra.

[Let me guess. This guy's a Late Great Planet Earther, right?]

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part nota hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not known yet which will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.

[Actually, the "moderate Muslim street" is pretty much a neocon myth. We've made damned sure of that with our behavior. Most Muslims equate "moderate Islam" with their dictators like that charming gent Musharraf in Pakistan with his well-used gallows big enough to hang twenty people at once, and other toadying to America.]

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control theMiddle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies. The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

[Sigh...yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda. This is just the usual neocon bullshit. Doesn't really need much comment.]

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

[Jesus Christ! Is there anyone in the whole world, besides ridge-running bush apes like this with nothing but pork fat between their ears, who seriously believes that this is possible after what we and our Israeli thugs have done to these people over the past sixty years? I almost wonder if this guy can really be so stupid as to believe what he's saying, or whether he's just some paid flack for Jug-Ears blowing neocon smoke.]

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. And we can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our Iraq. Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, wherewe are doing two important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist.

[Uh, no. This is just plain not true, in the sense that he means it. Saddam was a nasty piece of work, no doubt, and I wouldn't have wanted to live under him, but his interest was always in Iraq and holding on to power. He went to war with Iran in 1980 with US/CIA backing and he thought that Kuwait was to be his reward, only Bush I double-crossed him.]

Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

[See above. None of which justifies our invading Iraq in 2003, especially since Saddam was our boy when he did all those things.]

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people,

[Like the 15 year-old Iraqi girl who was stalked, raped, and murdered, along with her whole family, by Pfc. Steven Green and his buddies, a crime against humanity so noxious even the Army itself couldn't ignore it?]

and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

[Oh, HORSE SHIT!!!!]

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again ... a 27 year war.

[I've always thought this is a stretch, but yes, some historians do date it from Manchuria 1928.]

World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly100,000 still missing in action. The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American lives,which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

[I don't see much point in continuing to simply call this guy an idiot. He's simply regurgitating sixty year-old war propaganda.]

Americans have a short attention span, conditioned by 30 second sound bites, 60 minute TV shows, and 2 hour movies in which everything comes out okay.

[Tell me about it.]

The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be. The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.

[Not as long as we keep allowing Israel to keep four million people in conditions that aren't fit for cattle in the world's largest open-air prison, no, it won't go away. Nor should it.]

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East

[What planet is this goof living on?]

The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them. We have four options:

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

[And just how does this yo-yo suggest "we" do that? America has thrown everything except the kitchen sink, i.e. actual nukes, at them, and it doesn't seem to have done much good. Does anyone seriously think that if the U. S. military could "win" this deranged war against a billion people and a third of the globe, they would not have done so years ago? We're getting our asses kicked, and everybody in the world but a few delusionals like this knows it.]

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

[In other words, nuke Tehran, which is what the neocons are plumping for and what they'll probably do after the November elections, raising the price of gasoline to $9.00 a gallon at the pumps and wrecking the world economy when the Iranians shut off the Straits of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world's raw petroleum passes. In order to grab all the available oil in compensation we'll have to invade Venezuela as well, which will bog us down in South America as well as the Middle East and utterly force the re-institution of the draft for more cannon fodder, which I suspect they're going to do after the November elections. These neocon bastards have this strange, almost erotic fascination with mushroom clouds. They want to see one go up so bad they can taste it.]

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

[By "surrender" I suppose he means admit that we made an incredibly stupid mistake because we elected an incredibly stupid man as President, bring our soldiers home to our own part of the world where they belong, and let the people of the Middle East decide their own destiny. Yeah, I know, unthinkable, isn't it?]

4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad ismore widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.

[Or we can actually make peace with them by cutting Israel off at the knees and telling the Arabs, "Enjoy, nebbich!" I think they'd be so overjoyed at finally getting to take on those kikes man to man, without their American big brother behind them and billions of dollars worth of American weaponry to hide behind, that they would forgive us all the rest.]

If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

[As opposed to the Jewish America run by soulless men in business suits and tub-thumping evangelical yay-hoos with brains the size of walnuts, like we live in today?]

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

[WRONG. All wars, without exception, are economic in origin, although granted, sometimes you have to look really deep to find the underlying economic casus belli. In the American Civil War, for example, it was about who would control the natural and agricultural resources and raw materials of the South, northern (often Jewish) capitalists, or a small, highly-educated Anglo-Saxon and Christian planter elite. In the case of the Middle East, the oil factor springs to mind.]

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them. Remember, perspective is everything, and America 's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

[So instead of "Heather Has Two Mommies" you want the schools to teach blind obedience to a Stalin-like American empire run by neocons and Jews? Six of one, half a dozen of the other, as far as I'm concerned. Jewish neoconservatism is just as loathsome as Jewish liberalism.]

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came downin 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th centuryfighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting GermanyWorld War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept. The US has taken more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq . The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy invasion to rid Europe of Nazi imperialism. In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

[This maroon reminds me of Patton--his men used to call him "Old Blood and Guts, his guts and our blood." I wonder how many sons or daughters the writer of this piece has in the military who are actually exposing their precious privileged rich-kid skins to rebel steel and shot in Iraq along with the farm boys from Iowa and the trailer park kids from West Virginia who are in uniform because Jug-Ears has wrecked the economy and they can't get any job besides flipping burgers for Asian engineers and affirmative action black and brown "managerial" yuppies and wealthy neocons at home?]

But the stakes are at least as high ... A world dominated by representative governments [of Jews and wealthy multinational corporate businessmen]
with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms ... or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law). It's difficult to understand why the American left does not grasp this. [Because they're just as dumb as you are.] They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.

[Judging from the atrocity reports coming out of Iraq every day, neither do the U. S. military.]

"Peace activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America, where it's safe. Why don't we see Peace activists demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq , Sudan, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the most?

[You obviously haven't heard of my favorite lefty, a brave and noble young woman named Rachel Corrie.]

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

[Wagner, I did what you asked and commented on this tripe, but it's just neocon BS and not very good neocon BS at that. David Horowitz and Charles Krauthammer are at least entertaining and incisive in their arrogance. Pass my comments along where you please, but I doubt it will do any good. Stupidity and ignorance on this scale is invincible and irredeemable. These people don't need to be argued with or debated with they need to be...well, before 9/11 I would have told you what needs to be done with them, but thanks to Jug-Ears and his tawdry police state he's created, I'd better not. - HAC]

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Why Am I Involved? #2

My involvement dates from the seventh grade when I got bused for the first time. About the fourth week, after I had been assaulted by niggers for about the third time, I saw the light.

-K. L.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Why Am I Involved? #1

Ah, good question Harold!

My first overt stirrings of racial thought occurred when I was around 10 or 11 years old. My grandmother had been mugged by nigger criminals twice in a fairly short period of time.

I really did not begin to feel an inclination toward political racism (for lack of a better term) until around age 16. (I should also mention that I felt guilty for my racist thoughts around my early - mid teens and underwent a bit of an internal struggle throughout that period.) Around the beginning of my junior year in high school, I began having the first inclinations toward true racial awareness.

While volunteering for the Reagan/Bush campaign (the 'great White hope', you know), I also began reading up on the history of the original Ku Klux Klan. Somewhere in those old books and articles, I came across the names Connie Lynch and J.B. Stoner. Within months thereafter, I became acquainted with the name George Lincoln Rockwell.

Mind you, nigger-hater and budding anti-Jew that I was, I still basically believed the system line in general ways: WWII was necessary; Hitler was an evil man who killed innocent people and tried to take over the whole world; Jews were basically good and only a few bad apples existed among them; the government was still basically 'ours'; the FBI was our get the idea....)

It wasn't until 1984 (when I was, give or take, age 17) that I truly became a National Socialist, at least as far as not believing the system lies about the Leader. I read Mein Kampf (in sections, not cover to cover), wore Swastika stick pins to school and preached the gospel of God (the Leader) to any classmates that would listen. Another point to keep in mind here is that there were no visible Skinheads or Nazis in my area at this time. I was about as isolated and odd as a vegetarian at a roadkill cookout. My first look at unretouched racial literature came via some SS Action Group mini posters around the time I was 16.

I joined my first groups in 1986: Bob Miles' Free Association Forum, Ron Pash's Green Guard (pro Qaddafi group centered in Australia), Dave Duke's NAAWP and Pastor Butler's Aryan Nations. I also corresponded with J.B. Stoner (then incarcerated), members of the Detroit SS Action Group and Jim Burford (Chicago ANP).

I was fortunate enough to make the '86 meeting where Blood in the Face was filmed as well as the '87 and '88 Aryan Nations Congresses. Those were also my most active years with the SSAG. We employed every tactic known to the White nationalist movement: literature distribution (both covertly at night and overtly in public settings), rallies, researching known enemies national and local, stickering public signs/lightposts/billboards,
publishing bulletins, educating ourselves through reading standard racialist books, meeting w/ like minded racists and (of course) getting drunk together.

That pretty much sums up my early experiences. I would assume this is all pretty much par for the course in the world of White power politics.

-John from Detroit

Monday, September 18, 2006

Why Am I Involved?

Hi, guys:

Kudos to Comrade Nate Schubert for his idea in tonight's Northwest Chat:

Sit down and tap out the story of your own involvement in the Movement. How did you become a National Socialist or Christian Identity or Odinist or whatever? What was your first Movement grouplet? What motivated you to join, etc.?

Best examples will be published on Thoughtcrime, unless you specifically request otherwise. Pseudonyms fine.


Sunday, September 17, 2006

Benedict Insults Islam (But Not His Kosher Bosses)

Fr. Joseph Ratzinger (acting as Pope Benedict XVI) entered the Synagogue of Satan at 12:00 noon on a Friday, the exact hour and day that Christ was crucified. This public act of apostasy confirms that Ratzinger cannot be the legitimate successor of Peter. He essentially handed Jesus over to the Pharisees to be re-crucified, in imitation of his role model, Judas Iscariot.

Since the death of the last real pope, Pius XII, in 1958, the Church has been under Jewish management. So it should come as no surprise that those acting as popes today would insult their rival, Islam, and defend the indefensible Talmudists. It is Talmudic Jews who actually pose a greater threat to Christianity than Muslims do. The only threat that Islam poses to the Church today is the ciphoning off of Catholics through conversions to Islam.

Now why would Christians be converting to Islam? I really believe it has less to do with these Christians’ loss of faith, than it has to do with their disgust at the debauchery, Judaizing, liberalism, and gutlessness of Catholicism since 1958. The Church has stepped aside and let the Jews corrupt all Western societies while only paying lip service to the perennial teachings of the Church; as they continue to tear down the citadel and weaken the last vestiges of tradition left upright after Vatican II.

People like myself, who were born and raised in the cesspool created after Vatican II, are sick to death of immorality. They are looking for something solid, something innocent, something that demands a very high moral standard. Many people are finding that in Islam. It used to be that Christians needed to look no further than their own Catholic Church for moral absolutes. But now that the Church is in the service of world Jewry, people are lost, disgusted, floating along aimlessly, while Church officials visit synagogues and schmooze with the Pharisees.

Since the Church is now under the control of her ancient enemies, they cannot criticize those who are actually the greatest threat to Christianity, so they pick on the Muslims. They should thank the Muslims for holding onto their morality and keeping the Jew World Order in check. That used to be the job of the Church before it was usurped in 1958. But instead, the cowardly hierarchs of today show their fidelity to the Christ-killers, like true Judases.

Even though I am a Catholic, it must be admitted that it is not we who are impeding the Jewish onslaught. In the past we did so, but no longer. It is the Muslims who just defeated the Israeli Army in Lebanon, putting a temporary halt to the Zionists’ march for total world conquest. It is the Muslims who still have large families, do not have abortions, dress modestly, respect their complementary feminine and masculine roles, and defend their faith. It is the Muslims who live more “Catholic” lives than Catholics do these days. Muslims should be held up as an example of how Catholics should be.

Ratzinger is insulting Islam for not having contributed anything to the world? The Muslims’ contribution to the world is in being the last holdouts against Zionist hegemony! That’s no small contribution! If Ratzinger wants to see someone who has not contributed anything positive, all he has to do is look in the mirror. His job is to protect the Catholic faithful, guard his sheep, so to speak; and yet, he has handed us over to the wolves. The Muslims are the ones fighting the wolves. It is they who are the world’s only hope of keeping the Zionist juggernaut from consuming the entire planet - and exterminating all of us in the process.

Instead of insulting Islam, Fr. Ratzinger should get his own house in order!

-Alan Border

Saturday, September 16, 2006


Integrating the races is like mixing manure and ice cream. It does wonders for the taste of the manure, but it doesn't do much for the ice cream.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Iranian Holocaust Cartoons

The famous Iranian Holocaust cartoons can be found at:

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

The Last Line Has Now Been Crossed

One of the widely known but seldom publicly stated items on the left-liberal agenda has always been to decriminalize all sexual conduct of any kind. The ultimate goal of the so-called "Love Generation" is a world where any old perv can just hump anything he wants, black or white or brown or purple, male or female, alive or dead, child, goat, whatever.

Sexual morality of any kind is seen by the lefty-libs and their Jewish handlers as too redolent of that awful no-no Christianity which they hate so badly. Bringing down any principle of sexual morality or restraint is a major part of bringing down the Christian religion as a whole.

Now Hollywood has crossed the last line and broken the last barrier. Child actress Dakota Fanning--blonde and blue-eyed and cute as a button, of course, since they wouldn't dare do this to a black or a Mexican child--is set to star in a so-called "independent film" which features paedophilia, child rape, and the torture of animals, all to a kicking sound track by none other than Elvis Presley.

The British Daily Mail reports that "War of the Worlds star Dakota, aged 12, has signed up to appear in the movie Hounddog. The screenplay calls for Fanning's character to be raped in one explicit scene and to appear naked or clad only in underpants in several other horrifying moments."

Lest there be any doubt that these people know quite well what they are doing, "A source close to the film said: 'The two taboos in Hollywood are child abuse and the killing of animals. In this movie, both things happen."

Incredibly, the article goes on, "Fanning's mother, Joy, and her Hollywood agent, Cindy Osbrink, see the movie, written and directed by Deborah Kampmeier, (anyone care to guess what her "ethnic heritage" is?) as a possible Oscar vehicle for the pint-size star."

In other words, this poor kid's own mother has handed her own child over to be abused and tortured on film, her humiliation preserved for all time. For the rest of this little girl's life the jaded and corrupt millions of perverts with whom this society abounds will be able to watch Dakota Fanning being violated and tortured and degraded, which is apparently fine so long as each viewing puts a penny or two in Mom's pocket in residuals and royalties.

I suppose Dakota is lucky she's a young white female instead of a young Mexican boy, or else Mom probably would have pimped her out to Michael Jackson for a cool few million.

The article goes on to tell us that "Fanning's carefully choreographed rape scene has already been filmed." In other words, the damage is already done. "But then the production - which also stars Robin Wright Penn, David Morse and Piper Laurie - was stopped because of a lack of money." I. e. some of the investors themselves may have been sickened and revolted by what they were paying for and pulled out.

Let's hope so. I'd like to see some little ray of decency in this noxious stew of filth. "But emergency investors were found and the movie is set to be finished by the end of the week." Yeah, I'm sure there are always millions available for some project which degrades and shames young white girls.

I don't even want to think about what this is doing to that poor child's mind. What is she going to be like when she grows up with a childhood like this?

Mother of God! Words fail me.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Yet Another Ghastly American Crime In Iraq

[Since a certain other blog hasn't updated in two months, perhaps people who are bored with that idiot's comment on a certain case might be interested to hear mine. This is from an article I wrote at the beginning of July. - HAC]

A discharged soldier just back from Iraq has now been charged by Federal prosecutors with murder and rape in connection with the slaughter of an Iraqi family in Baghdad.

The army had previously "disciplined" former private first class Steven D. Green, age 21, by giving him an honorable but early discharge for a "personality disorder." Yes, I suppose that rape and murder fall into the category of a personality disorder.

It has long been a matter of common knowledge that American occupation troops in Iraq routinely commit hideous acts of torture, murder, rape, sexual humiliation such as making captives strip naked and leading them around on a leash, so forth and so on. This case seems to be a little more egregious than most, though.

The incident occurred in March in Baghdad, and was apparently a product of total pre-meditation between Steven Green and his "buddies."

Green and his unit were stationed at a permanent checkpoint on a certain street in the suburb of Mahmoudiya. They saw a 15 year-old Iraqi girl going back and forth, they tried to put the moves on her but were rejected, and they began to have conversations fantasizing about having sex with her. One of the things which has been leaked into the media from the subsequent super hush-hush investigation is that the girl was afraid for her safety after the soldiers had made threats to rape her, and she was planning on moving to a relative's home, but she was unable to get the required permits from the U. S.-puppet Iraqi government.

One night in March of this year, Green and from between two to five others (the Army is playing the whole thing super-close to the vest, of course) were drinking and decided to go out and have a little "fun." They went to the Iraqi family's home with their weapons, broke into the house, and murdered the rest of the family including the girl's parents and a five year-old child. Then after repeatedly raping the teenaged girl they doused her with gasoline and set her on fire.

The Army at first blamed the killings on Iraqi insurgents, of course, but some other soldiers in the rapists' unit told on them and raised such a stink that eventually even kicking Green out of the Army wasn't enough. The Army was apparently afraid that the word of this crime would leak to the news media as did the story of the Marine massacre in the Iraqi farming town of Haditha on the Euphrates River back in November.

MSNBC reports that "The suspects belong to the same unit as two soldiers kidnapped and killed south of Baghdad last month, a military official said on condition of anonymity because the case is still open. The military has said that one and possibly both of the slain soldiers were tortured and beheaded. The official said the mutilation of the slain soldiers stirred feelings of guilt and led at least one member of the platoon to reveal the rape-slaying on June 22."

In other words, the capture and mutilation of the American soldiers was direct retaliation by outraged Iraqis for an act of tape and murder by members of the same unit. Boy, ain't that little fact gonna drop off the radar in double quick time?

The simple fact is that in order to meet their recruiting quotas, the Army is now taking in any warm body with two arms, two legs, and a head that can approximate human speech. Criminals who are given the choice between the army and prison, drug addicts, mentally subnormal Third Worlders who can't pass the required entrance exams without extensive coaching, emotionally disturbed and downright insane recruits--all of these are signing up to be all they can be and the United States military is welcoming them with open arms, anything to keep the ranks filled for the neo-cons' deranged war of world conquest.