Explicit Whiteness

April 23, 2009

Stuff White People Like

A Definitive Guide to the Unique Taste of Millions

Christian Lander

New York: Random House, 2008


Does Christian Lander have our number? For a wide, mostly liberal swath of the white Western world, the answer is “yes.”

His observations about white tastes are so accurate, a goodly number of them apply even to this convert to white advocacy. While reading his book in the family room of my house on a fall Sunday, I was struck by how many of Lander’s items were within eyeshot: I was wearing New Balance shoes and a semi-ironic T-shirt (Items No. 94 and 84, respectively) after having gone for a run (Items No. 9 and 27), with an i-Pod around my neck (Item No. 40). There was a Sunday New York Times and several New Yorkers on the table next to me (Items No. 46 and 114, respectively), Netflix in the drawer below me (Item No. 39), a mug of coffee from earlier in the morning on the coffee table (Item No. 1), a bottle of water in my hand (Item No. 76), and, of course, a book—Stuff White People Like—in the other hand (Item No. 138).

Merely opening the garage door or walking upstairs would have put a dozen more items in range (Item No. 24, Wine; Item No. 31, Snowboarding; Item No. 61, Bicycles; Item No. 53, Dogs), and if I were to add the stuff preferred by just two or three family members or acquaintances, the entire list of “stuff white people like” would be covered, many times over.

Talk about busted. I started to wonder if Lander’s been spying on me, but this would have only branded me yet whiter (Item No. 126, Conspiracies; Item No. 149, Self-Importance).

I was a tad disappointed by my overall whiteness score (a mere 56 percent), but as I say, the “white people” in “Stuff White People Like” are the NPR-listening (Item No. 44), Volvo-driving set (oddly, Volvos are not on the list, but the Toyota Prius, Item No. 60, is) found in Manhattan and Brooklyn (Item No. 26) and small college towns in the Northeast. Lander leaves out working-class whites, many Christians, and political conservatives (excepting perhaps the “crunchy cons” identified by writer Rod Dreher). In other words, none of Jeff Foxworthy’s rednecks (Item No. 8, Barack Obama—White people like Barack Obama because they are afraid that if they don’t they will be considered racist; Item No. 118, the ACLU).

So who is Christian Lander? According to the book cover and interviews, he’s a left-leaning Ph.D. dropout now living in Los Angeles who once taught public speaking at Indiana University. It was his wildly popular blog,, that set the stage for his book.

Mr. Lander is not, at least wittingly, a white advocate. He expressed revulsion at the popularity of his observations among posters at But as with the honest observations about Jewish power in the anti-consumerist magazineAdbusters,[1] sincere and principled gentiles from the hip left occasionally stumble onto the truth.

How can the following be denied?

Item No. 2: Religions Their Parents Don’t Belong To. White people will often say they are “spiritual” but not religious. This usually means they will believe in any religion that doesn’t involve Jesus.

Of course, Christianity is big for much of white America, just not the set Lander has focused his anthropology on. As for “I’m not religious, but I am spiritual,” I can attest that this is something I’ve heard many, many times—using those exact words—from whites in more-educated settings across the country. What these whites are saying is that it would be cool to practice heathen rituals in the forest, but that Bible study is starchy and repressive.

Item No. 7. Diversity. White people love ethnic diversity, but only as it relates to restaurants.[2]


Naturally. Now that a white left-wing hipster has called them on it, how will all the other white left-wing hipsters react? Perhaps by dryly noting, “Oh, those Free Tibet stickers are so Number 7,” cluing other whites into their familiarity with Lander’s book. Being ahead of the curve is indeed very important to whites.

Item No. 11. Asian Girls.


No argument here, although anyone who’s ever laid eyes on Sean Lennon cannot seriously believe that the white/Asian mixture makes for attractive children.

Item No. 20. Being An Expert On Your Culture. White people are pretty conflicted about their culture. On one hand, they are proud of the art, literature, and film produced by white culture. On the other, they are very ashamed of all the bad things about white culture: the KKK, colonialism, slavery, Jim Crow laws, feudalism, and the treatment of Native Americans.


So, they make up for it by attempting to absorb the “authenticity” of any culture but their own. This regrettably goes far enough that whites feel compelled to adopt non-white (though rarely black) children from China and Guatemala, or move to dangerous corners of the globe where they sometimes get themselves killed in an attempt to prove their non-white authenticity. I call this the “Amy Biehl Syndrome,” after the blonde California woman who ventured to South Africa to help blacks and ended up being killed by them.

Not that I’m so immune myself: I’ve volunteered for job placement in the Bronx and ventured to the Palestinian town of Ramallah, where I took a certain pride in being mistaken for an Englishman, because “no Jew or American would ever come here,” as one local observed. As it turns out, my explorer impulse is only another item on the list of stuff white people like.

So is a book like Stuff White People Like good or bad for whites? On balance, my answer is “good.” I am not so concerned about what Lander considers the truly negative traits of whites: they’re anti-conformity hypocrites, they’re shallow, and they hate anyone not like them. The mere fact that he’s discussing whites as a group with generalized characteristics is subversive enough. No doubt some whites will be disappointed to realize that they’re not so unique after all, but might they come to embrace white groupness? Take an ironic pride in being white, which might then stoke an actual pride? Stop and wonder why it’s so taboo for them to even declare their whiteness?

Imagine that whites finally realize that prizing multiculturalism, diversity, and nature, and losing sleep over the fate of non-whites around the world, are specifically white things, and not universal values. The next step would be to point out that if whites, and only whites, practice these values, it puts us at a systematic disadvantage in our dealings with other races. If the other races take care of their own, and we don’t, but instead worry about their interests too, we will trade our birthrights—our wealth, our power, our homelands—for a mess of moral superiority. But these mere feelings will provide little solace to our dwindling, dispossessed progeny who will come to exist at the mercy of groups who will go on blaming us for their failures even after we become extinct.

Lander’s brand of ironic explicit whiteness may, of course, peter out as just another fad, but in a country where too many whites are petrified even to think of themselves as part of a unique human group with a right of self-determination, any ice-breaker is welcome. If you’re not inclined to be ashamed of your New Balances, how far off are the bigger thoughts about the state of your race?


Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist whose writing has appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer and thePhiladelphia Inquirer. He is the media critic for The Occidental Observer(www.theoccidentalobserver.netand doesn’t doubt his whiteness for a second.

Source: TOQOnline 

Jewish legacy inscribed on genes?

April 23, 2009

Ashkenazi Jews have a higher rate of some deadly genetic diseases — and of high IQs. Scientists Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending say that’s no coincidence.

By Karen Kaplan

Gregory Cochran has always been drawn to puzzles. This one had been gnawing at him for several years: Why are European Jews prone to so many deadly genetic diseases?

Tay-Sachs disease. Canavan disease. More than a dozen more.

It offended Cochran’s sense of logic. Natural selection, the self-taught genetics buff knew, should flush dangerous DNA from the gene pool. Perhaps the mutations causing these diseases had some other, beneficial purpose. But what?

At 3:17 one morning, after a long night searching a database of scientific journals from his disheveled home office in Albuquerque, Cochran fired off an e-mail to his collaborator Henry Harpending, a distinguished professor of anthropology at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

“I’ve figured it out, I think,” Cochran typed. “Pardon my crazed excitement.”

The “faulty” genes, Cochran concluded, make Jews smarter.

That provocative — some would say inflammatory — hypothesis has landed Cochran and Harpending in the middle of a charged debate about the link between IQ and DNA.

They have been sneered at by colleagues and excoriated on Internet forums. They have been welcomed to speak at a synagogue and a Jewish medical society. They were asked to write a book; that effort, “The 10,000 Year Explosion,” was published early this year.

Scientists are increasingly finding that propensities for human behaviors — for addiction, aggression, risk-taking and more — are written in our genes. But the idea that some groups of people are inherently smarter is troubling to many. Some scientists say it has such racist implications it’s unworthy of consideration.

“What are their theories about those on the opposite end of the spectrum?” asked Neil Risch, director of the Institute for Human Genetics at UC San Francisco, who finds the matter so offensive he can barely discuss it without raising his voice. “Do they have genetic theories about why Latinos and African Americans perform worse academically?”

The biological basis for intelligence can be a thankless arena of inquiry. The authors of “The Bell Curve” were vilified 15 years ago for suggesting genes played a role in IQ differences among racial groups.

But Cochran, 55, and Harpending, 65, say there’s no question that as a whole, Ashkenazi Jews — those of European descent — have an abundance of brain power. (Neither man is Jewish.)

Psychologists and educational researchers have pegged their average IQ at 107.5 to 115. That’s only modestly higher than the overall European average of 100, but the gap is large enough to produce a huge difference in the proportion of geniuses. When a group’s average IQ is 100, the percentage of people above 140 is 0.4%; when the average is 110, the genius rate is 2.3%.

Though Jews make up less than 3% of the U.S. population, they have won more than 25% of the Nobel Prizes awarded to American scientists since 1950, account for 20% of this country’s chief executives and make up 22% of Ivy League students, the pair write.

“People are perfectly willing to admit that some people are taller or some people are shorter,” Cochran said. “But no one wants to say ‘This group is smarter.’ ”

Once Cochran gets talking, it’s hard to get him to stop. He jumps from idea to idea, beginning new sentences before finishing old ones. In e-mail discussion groups, where he befriended Harpending, he thrives on debating people and proving them wrong.

A PhD physicist, he started out in El Segundo, developing satellite imaging systems and other optics hardware for Hughes Aircraft in the 1980s. As the Cold War ended and defense budgets shrank, Cochran moved his family to Albuquerque and became an optics consultant while indulging his amateur interest in biology.

He worked for a while with evolutionary biologist Paul Ewald on theories that germs cause common disorders like heart disease and Alzheimer’s. The pair courted controversy by postulating that some unidentified pathogen prompts a hormonal imbalance that makes babies more likely to become gay.

Cochran read more than 15 genetics textbooks and became intrigued by the deadly diseases that disproportionately afflict Ashkenazi Jews: Tay-Sachs, a neurological disorder that debilitates children before killing them, usually by age 4. Canavan disease, which turns the brain into spongy tissue and typically claims its victims before they can start kindergarten. Niemann-Pick disease Type A, in which babies accumulate dangerous amounts of fats in various organs and suffer profound brain damage and death before their second birthday.

He was struck by the fact that so many of the diseases involved problems with processing sphingolipids, the fat molecules that transmit nerve signals.

This seemed an unlikely coincidence. Genetically isolated groups often have higher rates of certain diseases. But of the more than 20,000 human genes, only 108 are known to be involved in sphingolipid metabolism. The odds of Ashkenazi Jews having four sphingolipid storage disorders by random chance are less than 1 in 100,000, he calculated.

He talked it over with Harpending, an expert in human population genetics. They came to believe this was an example of heterozygote advantage — where having two copies of a mutated gene can mean disaster but one copy is helpful.

The most famous example of this is sickle cell anemia, which strikes people of African descent who have two defective copies of the hemoglobin B gene. As a result, they make red blood cells that are too curvy to carry oxygen to critical organs.

People who have only one bad copy make useful red blood cells that are deformed just enough to protect them from the malaria parasite, insulating them against the disease.

Instead of sickle cell anemia, Ashkenazi Jews had to contend with Tay-Sachs, Niemann-Pick and other diseases.

Instead of malaria resistance, Cochran and Harpending reasoned, Jews got an IQ boost.

The idea didn’t come out of nowhere. Researchers have been drawn to the question of Jewish intelligence and genetic diseases at least since the 1920s, when some of the disorders were first being studied. Many physicians remarked on the unusual intelligence of their patients.

One of the first to conduct a systematic study was Dr. Roswell Eldridge, a neurogeneticist at the National Institutes of Health. He compared IQs of 14 children with torsion dystonia — a neurological disorder afflicting Ashkenazi Jews that twists the body through uncontrollable muscle contractions — against 10 of their healthy siblings and against unrelated Jewish students matched by age, sex and school.

The patients had an average IQ score of 121, compared with 111 for the control students, he found. Siblings had an average IQ of 119, compared with 112 for their matched controls. The results were published in 1970 in the medical journal Lancet.

Dr. Ari Zimran, director of Shaare Zedek Medical Center’s Gaucher Clinic in Jerusalem, thought he would get similar results by studying the very bright patients he treated for Gaucher disease, another Ashkenazi genetic disorder in which excessive amounts of a fatty substance build up in certain organs, causing pain, fatigue and other symptoms.

His small study in the 1980s found no difference between IQs of patients and unaffected relatives. A larger study might have done so, Zimran said. But he decided not to pursue it.

“There is enough anti-Semitism,” he said.

Cochran and Harpending are the first to make a broad case linking multiple Jewish genetic diseases to intelligence. Their theory draws on history, statistics, neurobiology and population genetics.

Jews first came to Europe in the 8th and 9th centuries, long before they were known for intellectual prowess, Cochran and Harpending say. They worked as traders before taking financial jobs made available by Christians who were forbidden by the Church from charging interest. By 1100, local registries listed most Ashkenazi Jews as lenders.

That set the stage for natural selection to do its work, Cochran and Harpending theorized. Jews didn’t intermarry, keeping their gene pool closed. They were subjected to periodic persecution, which kept the population from outgrowing its professional niche.

According to the theory, the smartest individuals made the most money, and the wealthiest families had the most surviving children. The genes of the most intelligent Jews spread most, slowly raising the average IQ of the entire group.

Over 40 generations — roughly 1,000 years — an increase of just 0.3 points per generation would have added up to a cumulative advantage of 12 points, Cochran and Harpending theorized. Some of their other models projected a benefit of 16 to 20 IQ points.

They wrote up their theory and sent it off to a journal. It was rejected.

Harpending said he gave it to an anthropologist friend, editor of another journal, who asked to publish it there. That plan was called off. The friend, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the topic, said the paper was clearly controversial and its extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence — which was lacking.

The paper found a home in a 2006 issue of the Journal of Biosocial Science, published by Cambridge University, after its release online in 2005.

The theory quickly spread among anthropologists and geneticists.

Within a few months, “every academic I came in contact with knew about this,” said R. Brian Ferguson, an anthropologist at Rutgers University in Newark, N.J. Many found it irresistible. A young colleague told Ferguson that the paper convinced him of the power of using genetics to study behavioral differences among people.

To Ferguson, that was a dangerous idea. There may indeed be versions of genes that are unique to Ashkenazi Jews, but it would be impossible, he said, to prove that those genes are responsible for higher IQs.

“This is not a legitimate area of research,” he said.

Others are more receptive to the theory, despite its thorny implications.

Dr. Melvin Konner, a biological anthropologist at Emory University in Atlanta, said he’s impressed by the theory’s ability to explain why all the Ashkenazi diseases are clustered “on about five pages of a biochemistry textbook.” But, he added, Cochran and Harpending still have to show that the genes play a direct role in brain development.

“There’s evidence that some of them do,” he said. “It’s not a crazy idea. It’s just not nearly a proven idea.”

It would be easy to test the theory, said Steven Pinker, a Harvard cognition researcher: “See if carriers of the Ashkenazi-typical genetic mutations score higher on IQ tests than their noncarrier siblings.”

Cochran and Harpending readily acknowledge the need for such experiments. But they have no plans to do them. They say their role as theorists is to generate hypotheses that others can test.

“One criticism about our paper is ‘It can’t mean anything because they didn’t do any new experiments,’ ” Cochran said. “OK, then I guess Einstein’s papers didn’t mean anything either.”


Tel Aviv Jane Steps in her Own Fewmets

April 23, 2009

by Les Visible

Oh the delicious irony. I keep coming back to the Apocalypse factor and all of the revelations that continue to surface as per the dictionary meaning of Apocalypse;

apocalypse c.1384, “revelation, disclosure,” from Church L.apocalypsis ”revelation,” from Gk. apokalyptein ”uncover,” from apo- ”from” (see apo-) + kalyptein ”to cover, conceal”. Not a day goes by that something doesn’t crawl out from under the rocks, like those strange creatures you see appearing on the beach as the sun goes down in Venice,California.


Jane Harman, the Zio-con Congresswoman who covers the ground from Santa Monica to San Pedro has been caughtoffering to subvert the course of justice or, as they call it in Congress, performing ‘business as usual’. The delicious irony is that Jane was a serious player in all of the illegal shit that the Bushitas got up to and she got nailed by a legal version of all the illegal operations she was such a cheerleader for. You won’t find any mention of her being Jewish anywhere in the MSM because that would connect certain dots in the mind of the public that have been connected so many times before by so many dual national traitors in the last several decades that well… I don’t really know what to say here. I really don’t.


As usual there’s the implication of a lot more going on in the background and if you’ve got the sort of mind that some of us have, who still have a mind, you might speculate about whether it was Israel that levered this whole thing into the public eye because of what gets discussed in this little item right here. You might wonder if what happened to Tel Aviv Jane is a warning to other members of Congress and people in the justice department to mind how they go in relation to the AIPAC spying case. Then you get the usual bedfellows in a little public snog with the usual self-righteous, Joan of Arc grandstanding and indignant outrage about being exposed… of course… she did it (and has probably done worse) and I don’t really know what to say here. I really don’t.  …


Read the rest here:    Tel Aviv Jane Steps in her Own Fewmets.

Edgar Steele’s Nickel Rant: Obummer

April 22, 2009

Topics include:

  • Change? WWIII is Change, After All
  • Ozzie and Harriet: Domestic Terrorists
  • Obama: Chains You Can Believe In
  • The US vs. us
  • Predictions

Also, here is the link to the transcript of the formal rant that will be on line directly following the show:

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 58 min.

Contact Ed: steele

Mark Weber’s Worldwatch – Tue., Apr. 21, 2009

April 21, 2009

Behind the Hunt for `Nazi War Criminals’


Weber reviews the 30-year ordeal of John Demjanjuk, and the outrageous record of fraud and vengeful, one-sided “justice” of the US government’s “Nazi hunting” agency. US officials are now seeking to deport Demjanjuk, a frail 89-year-old, to stand trial in Germany. Weber reviews Washington’s shameful campaign against Kurt Waldheim, Frank Walus, and other “Nazis.” This entire campaign, says Weber, is an expression of the privileged status in the US for Jewish concerns and interests, and of the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s cultural and social-political life.

7 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 31 min.

Contact Mark:

Ahmadinejad Calls Israel Racist at Meeting in Geneva

April 21, 2009

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran on Monday used the platform of a United Nations conference in Geneva on combating racism to disparage Israel as a “cruel and repressive racist regime,” prompting delegates from European nations to desert the hall and earning a rare harsh rebuke from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

As Mr. Ahmadinejad began to speak, two protesters wearing rainbow-hued clown wigs — their statement on the tenor of the proceedings — pelted him with red foam noses. Hustled out the door by security agents, they were soon followed by lines of stony-faced diplomats from the 23 European nations attending the conference. They walked out to the sound of some other delegates applauding Mr. Ahmadinejad.

The United States and more than a half-dozen other nations had already boycotted the gathering out of concern that it would focus on maligning Israel rather than on the global problems of discrimination, replaying the disputes that marked the first United Nations conference on combating racism in Durban, South Africa, in 2001.

Years of negotiations intended to avoid just such a scenario failed, underscoring the uneasy gap that exists between the rest of the world and the West when it comes to certain issues, like whether Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians under occupation belongs at a forum on discrimination and xenophobia.

The speech and the reaction are also likely to complicate but not necessarily derail recent attempts between the West and Iran to forge new negotiations over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear development program.

Member states, who wrangled for months over the draft document for the Geneva conference, had ultimately removed controversial statements about Israel; about what constitutes defamation of religion, a position pushed by Muslim states; and about compensation for slavery.

But a reference in the draft document that endorsed the communiqué that emerged from the contentious Durban meeting — where the United States and Israel walked out — set off the boycott. Besides the United States, the countries staying away included Germany, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Australia. Canada and Israel announced months ago that they would not attend.

Mr. Ahmadinejad, who seems to take visible delight in his diatribes against Israel and denying events like the Holocaust because it so irks Iran’s opponents, brought the contention roaring back to the fore. He was the only head of state to attend.

“Following World War II they resorted to military aggressions to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said, grinning as he spoke, his remarks coincidentally falling on the day that Jewish communities mark the Holocaust. “And they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine.”

Portraying Israel as a regional boogeyman has been a cornerstone of Iran’s 1979 revolution, although Mr. Ahmadinejad, facing a presidential election in June, is often criticized at home for spending too much time on Palestinian issues and not enough fixing the economic woes of Iranians.

The speech prompted the normally mild-mannered Mr. Ban and other top United Nations officials to voice uncommon criticism of the leader of a member state. “I have not experienced this kind of destructive proceedings in an assembly, in a conference, by any one member state,” Mr. Ban said.

“I deplore the use of this platform by the Iranian president to accuse, divide and even incite,” he said, urging members to “turn away from such a message in both form and substance.”

Mr. Ban also criticized members of nongovernmental organizations for heckling Mr. Ahmadinejad.

Navi Pillay, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, criticized Mr. Ahmadinejad for “grandstanding” from a United Nations dais and said his performance should not be an excuse to derail the important topic of the conference.

She also made a not-so-subtle dig at Iran’s treatment of its own minorities, after noting that the president’s remarks were outside the scope of the conference. “This is what I would have expected the president of Iran to come and tell us: how he is addressing racial discrimination and intolerance in his country,” Ms. Pillay said.

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s speech prompted a chorus of condemnation. Israel recalled its ambassador to Switzerland to protest both the conference and meeting Sunday between the Swiss president, Hans-Rudolf Merz, and Mr. Ahmadinejad.

At the United Nations, Ambassador Alejandro D. Wolff, the deputy permanent representative for the United States, said the Iranians deserved better.

“It shows disregard for the organization to which he is speaking — the United Nations — and does a grave injustice to the Iranian nation and the Iranian people,” he said, suggesting that Iranian leaders show “much more measured, moderate, honest and constructive rhetoric when dealing with issues in the region.”

Not everyone at the conference was critical of the speech, which also wandered through topics like the economic collapse and Iraq and Afghanistan.

“If we actually believe in freedom of expression, then he has the right to say what he wants to say,” the Pakistani ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Zamir Akram, told The Associated Press. “There were things in there that a lot of people in the Muslim world would be in agreement with, for example the situation in Palestine, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, even if they don’t agree with the way he said it.”

Those who supported the Obama administration’s attending the conference said their attitude was not altered by Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks. “It is unfortunate that the inappropriate and out-of-line remarks of Ahmadinejad would obscure the only international forum to address racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia,” Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California, said in a statement by the Congressional Black Caucus.


2009: A Year of Crisis

April 21, 2009

“Prepare to fight to the finish, or your kind will vanish.”

by Michael O’Meara

In the last year, one crisis has followed another. First there was a housing mortgage crisis, then a liquidity crisis that led to a banking crisis, then a dollar crisis, then a credit crisis, then a geopolitical crisis, then an energy crisis, then a crisis of consumer confidence, and finally a political crisis at the highest level of the state, involving a crisis of meaning that brought a negro to power—a negro symbolizing everything against which the American once defined himself, and thus symbolizing a transvaluation of the very basis of the American’s original being.

The burning question today is: are these cascading crises “conjunctural” (i.e., due to a combination of circumstances) or are they “structural” (inherent to the system’s nature)? If the latter, then the “American System,” which has governed the world since 1945 and which has programmed the end of European man, faces a potentially systemic rupture whose implications are catastrophic. If only conjunctural, the news is still good, for it cannot but highlight the system’s anti-white nature, of which most white Americans are still clueless.

A crisis, it needs stressing, is always a turning point, “a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, especially for better or worse, is determined.” Though most commentators tend to emphasize the economic origins of the crisis, almost all of them recognize its system-disrupting potential. Hence the current obsession with the Great Depression of 1933 and, in more radical quarters, the Soviet crisis of 1985 that brought Gorbachev to power. But whatever its exact nature—and time alone will tell—the crisis is likely to put increased demands on the welfare and security of the white middle class and thus advance the cause of the ethnostate favored by white nationalists. Lacking an organizational structure and a popular following in the real world, the white nationalist project is, in fact, predicated on just such a crisis.

As we enter the new year, the one clear thing is that the crisis is going to get worse. Since the mortgage meltdown of December 2006, the crisis has mainly affected Wall Street, commercial and investment banks, insurance companies, and several government-sponsored enterprises (like Fannie May and Freddie Mac). The new year is likely to take the crisis to Main Street, in the form of retail bankruptcies and unemployment. Auto and related industries will also be hit hard. At the same time, many local and some state governments (like California or Michigan) may collapse because of insolvency. It’s “the worse economic crisis in 70 years” most agree, but no one quite knows exactly what it forebodes. Indeed, the pervasive uncertainty surrounding the crisis, threatening as it does the capitalist system, the prevailing model of globalization, and America’s standing in the world order, lends it a certain apocalyptic quality.

1. The Crisis

Americans like to think that their country is “number one,” though they know almost nothing about “the rest of the world.” Compared to the black and brown nations that comprise the Third World, America may indeed be a paradise (even if most white Americans are lonely, isolated, and lacking any sense of who they are as a people). But compared to Western and Central Europe, or to Japan, Hong Kong, and certain of the other Asian Tigers, it shapes up badly.

The great industries that once made America the world’s foremost economic power and provided working people a decent standard of living have been shipped overseas, along with the technologies and know-how that made them such powerhouses. Trade imbalances have correspondingly grown, just as the US has shifted from being a creditor nation to a debtor nation. At the same time, the national infrastructure has been neglected, household debt has become as unmanageable as the national debt, and American-pioneered technologies are being applied more often abroad than at home.

In 2005, James Fallow, one of the few to predict the current crisis, wrote that: “A year in a private college now costs $83,000, a day in a hospital $1,350, a year in a nursing home $150,000. . . . Eighty percent of the public [has been] priced out of a chance for future opportunity”—that is, they have been priced out of participating in what our ideologues call the “American Dream.” Other mainstream observers are claiming that the US “no longer controls its economic fundamentals” and that “compared with the rest of the world, it’s on the way down.”

Even Thomas Friedman, the oily globalist cheerleader at the New York Times, has, after a recent trip to the Far East, begun to complain that America is becoming “decrepit”—somewhat in the way the Stalinist achievements of the old Soviet Union were becoming decrepit in the 1980s. Friedman nevertheless continues to celebrate the openness and creativity of the American people, though he fails to note that unrestricted Third-World immigration has changed not simply the population’s composition, but its character, and that discriminatory practices against white males, based on disproportional taxation, affirmative action in education, hiring, and contracting, and anti-free speech laws and denial of due process, are hardly sign of America’s alleged openness and creativity.

The dominant mantra, which endeavors to portray the above as signs of progress, remains, accordingly, to “consume,” not “produce.” It seems hardly coincidental that America’s principal export is now the junk culture fabricated in Hollywood, a “culture” which celebrates behaviors and values historically-considered pathological.

De-industrialization and “financialization” (i.e., the hegemony of financial economics over equity and industrial economics), which were to make the United States the leading edge of the new postmodern global market, are obviously implicated in the current crisis, but few establishment commentators have cared to explore these implications. At the most basic level, it might be noted that the new interdependence of a world market based on financial exchanges means that problems in one sector inevitably become problems in another, that disturbances in one country are likely to set off corresponding disturbances in other countries, and that local crises have the potential of becoming system-wide crises. Added to the inherent instability of this compromising dependence on exterior forces is the “Ponzi” dynamics of the U.S. financial sector, which is based on speculative confidence, not wealth creation.

Just to pay the interest on its limitless credit card debt, the country in the last decade has been obliged to borrow two to three billion dollars a day from foreigners, mainly Chinese and Japanese, who are acquiring in the process ownership of large swaths of the economy, while American speculators accumulated vast (and, as it turns out, largely meaningless) ciphers of wealth in the virtual world of cyber space.

America’s human capital is also in decline. Literacy rates are among the lowest in the industrial world, its once prestigious graduate schools of science and engineering are now filled mainly with foreigners, and its public schools are less and less concerned with mastering the rudiments of reading and writing than with dispensing contraceptives to fourteen-year-olds and preventing the use of hand guns on its premises.

Geopolitically, the situation is even worse, as other countries begin lecturing the formerly self-righteous schoolmarm on how to conduct her bungled affairs and as regions traditionally subservient to the US (like Latin America) defiantly assert their autonomy.

But most consequential, the dollar is losing its status as the world’s reserved currency—which means no more credit cards and no more free rides.

Relatedly, both American and foreign academics, some with very distinguished credentials, have begun predicting “an economic and moral collapse [which] will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the United States.”

There have also been warnings from several former high-ranking Bush officials of a “secret coup,” as the higher reaches of the state fall increasing under military control. What began in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the Army became a colonial administrator, is apparently “coming home.” In violation of the Constitution, the Army is now planning to deploy 20,000 troops within the US to respond to any possible “civil unrest.”

Though the military’s “mission creep” began under Bush, Obama has already appointed three high-ranking officers to his Cabinet, promised not to cut the Pentagon’s astronomical budget, and plans to augment US ground troops by another 100,000.

The Pentagon has also, according to a recent US Army War College publication, prepared its own “transition” in case the crisis provokes social struggles that will need to be quelled at home. What’s most significant here is the expectation, among numerous establishment authorities, that the crisis could lead to violent class struggle, military dictatorship, or even social revolution.

The American System that must be held responsible for this situation has, against all traditional precept, made “the rapacious business-dominated state the embodiment of every cherished human value.” Unlike the 19th and early 20th-century European nation-state, the American System is not, and never has been, a national-state system committed to the defense and well-being of the nation; instead, its principal function has always been to defend those liberal democratic practices that facilitate market transactions. Uncommitted, thus, to the embryonic white nation that made up the American people before 1965, governmental elites have been free to pursue policies that foster their specific institutional interests or those of the dominant economic interests, while policies favoring the interests of the country’s white majority have only rarely been adopted and then usually only under threat of electoral retaliation. More scandalously still, this system, in true liberal form, has “privatized profit and socialized loss,” so that now middle-class tax payers will be expected to pick up the tab for the reckless policies of billionaire CEOs.

The distant lineage of this American System can be traced back to the liberal modern principles born in 1789. More immediately, its foundations were laid by the architects who designed the National Security State and its phony Cold War. When, in the course of the 1970s, this postwar system went into crisis, its social democratic components, which favored a social security net and regulation of important industries and utilities, were jettisoned by the free-market fundamentalism of the neo-liberal Reagan Administration and then given a new armature with the “globalist revolution” carried out by the Clinton Administration.

As globalists proceeded to remove those national barriers preventing the free movement of capital, goods, and labor (which meant, among other things, eliminating borders and “old-fashioned” obstacles representative of any lingering sense of national interest and national identity), they sought a complete deregulation of financial practices, based on the capitalist fiction that markets are self-correcting. At the same time, the globalization of American capital severed whatever remaining ties it may have had to the American nation and its culture.

The folly and stupidity of this system, whose ramifications are now going to be paid for with a good deal of popular misery, assumed fantastic—and, as it turns out, unbearable—proportions under the present outbound Bush Administration. Thus it was that the neo-liberal, globalist tenets that ideologically undergird the American System and reduce every question to a matter of individual economic interest gave way under Bush’s neocon cabal to the boundless vanity identified with its Judeo-Evangelical “faith-based community”—which held that anything the American state does is right, that the US always triumphs in the end, and, contrary to traditional Christian stricture, that the US is identified with God’s purpose in the world. As a result, Washington for the last eight years has been unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy.

A four-hundred-billion-dollar-a-year war, with no strategic goal, except perhaps to support Israeli interests, was launched simply on the basis of a neocon hallucination (non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction). Then, as the government entered this theater of illusion, its vast military machine bogged down before a few lightly armed insurgents (who were eventually bought off with great dollar sums during the so-called “surge”); lies and deception then became the basis of US policy; incompetents and schemers willing to kowtow to the reigning illusions were put in control of policy-making; billions and billions of US loans and aid somehow went missing; those who questioned the Administration’s aims and practices were deemed un-American, as historic liberties were compromised or destroyed; and, all the while, aliens, at the top and at the bottom of the American polity, were allowed the full run of things—from dictating foreign policy to allowing Mexicans to challenge American sovereignty on American streets.

When George W. was asked recently who should be held accountable for the present economic crisis, he answered that no one person or group was actually responsible. “The whole system,” he explained, “became inebriated.” To the degree that the crisis is indeed systemic, he, better than most commentators, has designated the real culprit. But what he didn’t mention is that the system wasn’t just temporarily inebriated: It was plastered from the start. And like the mind-numbing incoherence of any serious drunk, the destabilizing, destructuring, and disordering power of the American System of the last sixty years—despite the wealth and prosperity it created for some—is about to provoke the most massive civilizational hangover in history.

2. The Man of Destiny

There has been no better example of the bankruptcy of the American System, based as it is on liberal ideological abstractions and certain well-meaning but illusory tenets, than the presidency of George W. Bush. That this third-rate individual, lacking an understanding of the most basic things, including English syntax, was put at the helm of the most powerful state in history testifies better than anything else to the system’s unfathomable corruption. Though different from his predecessor, “a self-indulgent bubba with the morals of an alley cat,” he too was another example of the system’s want of character. Bush’s mediocrity, his lack of vision, his small stature as a man—have all consequently taken a terrible toll on both the nation and the state. His presidency, as even many Republican commentators acknowledge, bears responsibility for squandering the vast power and legitimacy that was bequeathed to the United States in the wake of the Soviet collapse.

Obama’s programmed election was specifically designed to restore something of the power lost by Bush’s neocon administration. In the highest reaches of the American establishment (and this is evident less in written documents than in the innuendos and asides of its representatives), it became apparent in the last two or three years that a restoration of American power and prestige in the world would require a make-over of unprecedented proportions. Hillary, who was previously the leading establishment candidate, was thus abandoned, for she was simply too closely associated with the establishment to create the impression of a major turn-around in American politics.

Hence, the entrance of the black knight, who was provided the money, the advisers, and the media frenzy to make his candidacy not only a shoo-in, but a god-send. Obama has not disappointed his handlers, for he was an ideal candidate: he was inexperienced, undistinguished, and possessed the seemingly “populist” credentials to appeal to an electorate fed up with the neocon mania of the Bush Administration; he naturally took to the tiresome rhetoric of stirring but vacuous campaign promises; and, above all, he knew how to appeal to MTV-educated white youth and feminist-influenced white women who saw his campaign as some sort of rehash of the Great Awakening (with “racism” replacing the older Calvinist notion of sin), which had entranced earlier generations of Americans. He was also, of course, guaranteed the vote of the hundred million non-whites who now occupy our lands. The prominent British historian, Niall Ferguson (who has been dubbed “the Leni Riefensthal of Bush’s new imperial order”), could thus trumpet, once the formality of the vote was over, that “American world leadership is [now] back in business.”

Obama may, however, turn out to be the last president of the United States. For those who care to look, scandal and fraud seem to lurk everywhere behind his media-constructed image. His past has thus been carefully erased from the public record; he may not even be a native-born American and thus not constitutionally eligible to be president. But this cover-up won’t last forever. The strident anti-white racism of his wife and many of his close negro associates, as well as his numerous dubious connections to the corrupt Daly machine of Chicago and the scandal-ridden governor of Illinois (Blagojevich) will also eventually surface. Finally, given the nature of the economy, he probably won’t even be able to deliver the goods to the black masses, who see him as some sort of cargo-cult Messiah, and this will undoubtedly become a source of further unrest. But most of all, Obama is thick with the Jews, whose wealth and power controls the Democratic party (even more than the neocon-led Republican party) and whose interests, as already evident, will be foremost among his Administration’s concerns. The gap between the governing elites and a white middle class wary of further social experimentation may thus widen and become more unbridgeable, as blacks, Jews, and raceless whites join the crusade to “change” America.

Obama’s failure, though, will not come through an exposure of the smoke and mirrors surrounding his fabricated persona. There is a deeper, structural problem that confronts this first post-American US government. As William Lind points out, “the heart of our inability to reform is the crisis of the state itself. Reform endangers the money and power of the New Class, which controls the state and feeds off it.” Though there will be a qualitative expansion of the state under the new regime, as money is thrown at the crisis and new projects are undertaken to root out the “racism” of white Americans, the anti-national impetus of the American System, which wars on the forces of history, culture, and nature, is almost certainly to remain untouched, just as the parasitic economic system, so crucial to the elites who support him, will go unreformed. If the crisis is conjunctural and short-lived, this, of course, may not matter; but if it is structural, it will mean the collapse of order and authority, and ultimately of the state’s legitimacy.

Against this backdrop of impending “change” and uncertainty, the controlled media (to the obvious delight of the immodest African) has endeavored to portray Obama as a man of destiny, another FDR or Lincoln, who will lead us through the valley of shadows to the Promised Land. This may, perhaps, occur, for anything today is possible. But I tend to agree with Philippe Grasset at that our postmodern global age, which destablizes and disorders everything that has meaning for us, is being shaped not by our putative leaders, but by the accelerating force of events, whose “maistrian” effects simply sweep up and carry along all who try to control them.

The man of destiny may turn out, then, to be the man manipulated by destiny. Given that he represents the refutation of America’s European being, it would be ever so fitting if he should preside over the demise of the failed experiment known as “the United States,” opening thus the way to the founding of another, more organic expression of European America.

3. The Knife

As we enter the new year, white Americans once again face a despotic threat to their way of life, as they did in 1776. They have fallen under a regime that cannot control the dysgenic economic forces it has unleashed; a regime ruled by incompetents, thieves, and cosmopolitans; one that never considers the interests of those it rules; that is contemptuous of the history, culture, and tradition of the majority; that refuses to uphold laws and defend the border; that is influenced by foreign lobbies; that relentlessly attacks Christianity; that establishes “hate” laws and restrains free speech to muzzle whites opposing its anti-national policies.

This regime is not, however, some modern variant of old George III’s venal monarchy, but the American System founded on the same liberal modern principles that inspired the Communist system. Native to both systems is the primacy of “reason,” understood mainly in quantitative economic terms. Liberal reason consequently believes in nothing, for belief (which stems from religion, culture, tradition, and tribe) is the opposite of reason. Such economically-anchored systems of “consummate meaninglessness” may therefore function smoothly as long as they deliver the goods, but once things begin to break down and become dysfunctional, they lose all legitimacy.

A half dozen years ago, “Yggdrasil,” one of the pioneers of American white-nationalist thought, argued that the United States would likely go the way of the former Soviet Union if its system of financial rewards and punishments should ever cease to benefit the white majority. For though US elites have not the slightest interest in the welfare and security of the white majority, the majority was willing to be bought off as longs as the elites provided the material benefits to ensure its allegiance. Today, we are entering an era when that ability to deliver the goods may be rapidly diminishing.

For this reason, I believe catastrophe alone will cause white Americans to abandon their allegiance to the existing system and to see the elites controlling it as their real enemies. Such a transfer of loyalties away from the state is thus likely to entail less a racial awakening than an understanding how to live in a hostile reality, once the virtual realities that are at the heart of the American System have collapsed. Nevertheless, at that point when whites abandon the status quo, the possibility of an emerging white national movement will quicken.

Our role as nationalists ought thus to be subversive and revolutionary, not conservative. For there is nothing worth conserving in the existing anti-white system. Instead, we need to forge a spirit that opposes it at its root, that defines America as a nativist variant of European civilization, and that prepares a new Declaration of Independence.

“But our numbers are too small!” it will be argued. This, however, is always the case. For “history is made not by majorities who vote but by minorities who fight.” The great Belgium revolutionary, Jean Thiriat, once pointed out that a man skilled with a butcher knife can reduce a five ton whale to steak slices. The knife is the revolutionary sect and the whale the completely flabby society preoccupied with economic matters and devoted to the pursuit of pleasure. Such a society is extremely vulnerable to the action of a determined and organized political minority, especially in times of crisis.

Where, today, are such minorities to be found?

Every generation of Europeans has produced men ready for the heroic life. When the opportunity arises, they will appear.

The important thing to remember, as we enter this year of crisis, is that the future belongs to us—if we will it!

Source: TOQ Online

New Resource: Occidental Quarterly Online

April 21, 2009

Many of you know of the scholarly journal of western ideas and culture called The Occidental Quarterly (TOQ).  Their new redesigned website now features daily articles by OUR intellectual vanguard, writers who are heavy-hitters in the arena of western cultural identity and meta-political theory. 

This is “must” bookmark for Voice of Reason people who want the story behind the story behind the story.

The Occidental Quarterly Online

The Five Stages of Collapse

April 21, 2009

by Dmitry Orlov

Elizabeth Kübler-Ross defined the five stages of coming to terms with grief and tragedy as denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance, and applied it quite successfully to various forms of catastrophic personal loss, such as death of a loved one, sudden end to one’s career, and so forth. Several thinkers, notably James Howard Kunstler and, more recently John Michael Greer, have pointed out that the Kübler-Ross model is also quite terrifyingly accurate in reflecting the process by which society as a whole (or at least the informed and thinking parts of it) is reconciling itself to the inevitability of a discontinuous future, with our institutions and life support systems undermined by a combination of resource depletion, catastrophic climate change, and political impotence. But so far, little has been said specifically about the finer structure of these discontinuities. Instead, there is to be found a continuum of subjective judgments, ranging from “a severe and prolonged recession” (the prediction we most often read in the financial press), to Kunstler’s “Long Emergency,” to the ever-popular “Collapse of Western Civilization,” painted with an ever-wider brush-stroke.


For those of us who have already gone through all of the emotional stages of reconciling ourselves to the prospect of social and economic upheaval, it might be helpful to have a more precise terminology that goes beyond such emotionally charged phrases. Defining a taxonomy of collapses might prove to be more than just an intellectual exercise: based on our abilities and circumstances, some of us may be able to specifically plan for a certain stage of collapse as a temporary, or even permanent, stopping point. Even if society at the current stage of socioeconomic complexity will no longer be possible, and even if, as Tainter points in his “Collapse of Complex Societies,” there are circumstances in which collapse happens to be the correct adaptive response, it need not automatically cause a population crash, with the survivors disbanding into solitary, feral humans dispersed in the wilderness and subsisting miserably. Collapse can be conceived of as an orderly, organized retreat rather than a rout.

For instance, the collapse of the Soviet Union – our most recent and my personal favorite example of an imperial collapse – did not reach the point of political disintegration of the republics that made it up, although some of them (Georgia, Moldova) did lose some territory to separatist movements. And although most of the economy shut down for a time, many institutions, including the military, public utilities, and public transportation, continued to function throughout. And although there was much social dislocation and suffering, society as a whole did not collapse, because most of the population did not lose access to food, housing, medicine, or any of the other survival necessities. The command-and-control structure of the Soviet economy largely decoupled the necessities of daily life from any element of market psychology, associating them instead with physical flows of energy and physical access to resources. This situation, as I argue in my forthcoming book, Reinventing Collapse, allowed the Soviet population to inadvertently achieve a greater level of collapse-preparedness than is currently possible in the United States.

Having given a lot of thought to both the differences and the similarities between the two superpowers – the one that has collapsed already, and the one that is collapsing as I write this – I feel ready to attempt a bold conjecture, and define five stages of collapse, to serve as mental milestones as we gauge our own collapse-preparedness and see what can be done to improve it. Rather than tying each phase to a particular emotion, as in the Kübler-Ross model, the proposed taxonomy ties each of the five collapse stages to the breaching of a specific level of trust, or faith, in the status quo. Although each stage causes physical, observable changes in the environment, these can be gradual, while the mental flip is generally quite swift. It is something of a cultural universal that nobody (but a real fool) wants to be the last fool to believe in a lie.

Stages of Collapse

Stage 1: Financial collapse. Faith in “business as usual” is lost. The future is no longer assumed resemble the past in any way that allows risk to be assessed and financial assets to be guaranteed. Financial institutions become insolvent; savings are wiped out, and access to capital is lost.

Stage 2: Commercial collapse. Faith that “the market shall provide” is lost. Money is devalued and/or becomes scarce, commodities are hoarded, import and retail chains break down, and widespread shortages of survival necessities become the norm.

Stage 3: Political collapse. Faith that “the government will take care of you” is lost. As official attempts to mitigate widespread loss of access to commercial sources of survival necessities fail to make a difference, the political establishment loses legitimacy and relevance.

Stage 4: Social collapse. Faith that “your people will take care of you” is lost, as local social institutions, be they charities or other groups that rush in to fill the power vacuum run out of resources or fail through internal conflict.

Stage 5: Cultural collapse. Faith in the goodness of humanity is lost. People lose their capacity for “kindness, generosity, consideration, affection, honesty, hospitality, compassion, charity” (Turnbull, The Mountain People). Families disband and compete as individuals for scarce resources. The new motto becomes “May you die today so that I die tomorrow” (Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago). There may even be some cannibalism.

Although many people imagine collapse to be a sort of elevator that goes to the sub-basement (our Stage 5) no matter which button you push, no such automatic mechanism can be discerned. Rather, driving us all to Stage 5 will require that a concerted effort be made at each of the intervening stages. That all the players seem poised to make just such an effort may give this collapse the form a classical tragedy – a conscious but inexorable march to perdition – rather than a farce (“Oops! Ah, here we are, Stage 5.” – “So, whom do we eat first?” – “Me! I am delicious!”) Let us sketch out this process.

Financial collapse, as we are are currently observing it, consists of two parts. One is that a part of the general population is forced to move, no longer able to afford the house they bought based on inflated assessments, forged income numbers, and foolish expectations of endless asset inflation. Since, technically, they should never have been allowed to buy these houses, and were only able to do so because of financial and political malfeasance, this is actually a healthy development. The second part consists of men in expensive suits tossing bundles of suddenly worthless paper up in the air, ripping out their remaining hair, and (some of us might uncharitably hope) setting themselves on fire on the steps of the Federal Reserve. They, to express it in their own vernacular, “fucked up,” and so this is also just as it should be.

The government response to this could be to offer some helpful homilies about “the wages of sin” and to open a few soup kitchens and flop houses in a variety of locations including Wall Street. The message would be: “You former debt addicts and gamblers, as you say, ‘fucked up,’ and so this will really hurt for a long time. We will never let you anywhere near big money again. Get yourselves over to the soup kitchen, and bring your own bowl, because we don’t do dishes.” This would result in a stable Stage 1 collapse – the Second Great Depression.

However, this is unlikely, because in the US the government happens to be debt addict and gambler number one. As individuals, we may have been as virtuous as we wished, but the government will have still run up exorbitant debts on our behalf. Every level of government, from local municipalities and authorities, which need the financial markets to finance their public works and public services, to the federal government, which relies on foreign investment to finance its endless wars, is addicted to public debt. They know they cannot stop borrowing, and so they will do anything they can to keep the game going for as long as possible.

About the only thing the government currently seems it fit to do is extend further credit to those in trouble, by setting interest rates at far below inflation, by accepting worthless bits of paper as collateral and by pumping money into insolvent financial institutions. This has the effect of diluting the dollar, further undermining its value, and will, in due course, lead to hyperinflation, which is bad enough in any economy, but is especially serious for one dominated by imports. As imports dry up and the associated parts of the economy shut down, we pass Stage 2: Commercial Collapse.

As businesses shut down, storefronts are boarded up and the population is left largely penniless and dependent on FEMA and charity for survival, the government may consider what to do next. It could, for example, repatriate all foreign troops and set them to work on public works projects designed to directly help the population. It could promote local economic self-sufficiency, by establishing community-supported agriculture programs, erecting renewable energy systems, and organizing and training local self-defence forces to maintain law and order. The Army Corps of Engineers could be ordered to bulldoze buildings erected on former farmland around city centers, return the land to cultivation, and to construct high-density solar-heated housing in urban centers to resettle those who are displaced. In the interim, it could reduce homelessness by imposing a steep tax on vacant residential properties and funneling the proceeds into rent subsidies for the indigent. With plenty of luck, such measures may be able to reverse the trend, eventually providing for a restoration of pre-Stage 2 conditions.

This may or may not be a good plan, but in any case it is rather unrealistic, because the United States, being so deeply in debt, will be forced to accede to the wishes of its foreign creditors, who own a lot of national assets (land, buildings, and businesses) and who would rather see a dependent American population slaving away working off their debt than a self-sufficient one, conveniently forgetting that they have mortgaged their children’s futures to pay for military fiascos, big houses, big cars, and flat-screen television sets. Thus, a much more likely scenario is that the federal government (knowing who butters their bread) will remain subservient to foreign financial interests. It will impose austerity conditions, maintain law and order through draconian means, and aide in the construction of foreign-owned factory towns and plantations. As people start to think that having a government may not be such a good idea, conditions become ripe for Stage 3.

If Stage 1 collapse can be observed by watching television, observing Stage 2 might require a hike or a bicycle ride to the nearest population center, while Stage 3 collapse is more than likely to be visible directly through one’s own living-room window, which may or may not still have glass in it. After a significant amount of bloodletting, much of the country becomes a no-go zone for the remaining authorities. Foreign creditors decide that their debts might not be repaid after all, cut their losses and depart in haste. The rest of the world decides to act as if there is no such place as The United States – because “nobody goes there any more.” So as not to lose out on the entertainment value, the foreign press still prints sporadic fables about Americans who eat their young, much as they did about Russia following the Soviet collapse. A few brave American expatriates who still come back to visit bring back amazing stories of a different kind, but everyone considers them eccentric and perhaps a little bit crazy.

Stage 3 collapse can sometimes be avoided by the timely introduction of international peacekeepers and through the efforts of international humanitarian NGOs. In the aftermath of a Stage 2 collapse, domestic authorities are highly unlikely to have either the resources or the legitimacy, or even the will, to arrest the collapse dynamic and reconstitute themselves in a way that the population would accept.

As stage 3 collapse runs its course, the power vacuum left by the now defunct fedral, state and local government is filled by a variety of new power structures. Remnants of former law enforcement and military, urban gangs, ethnic mafias, religious cults and wealthy property owners all attempt to build their little empires on the ruins of the big one, fighting each other over territory and access to resources. This is the age of Big Men: charismatic leaders, rabble-rousers, ruthless Macchiavelian princes and war lords. In the luckier places, they find it to their common advantage to pool their resources and amalgamate into some sort of legitimate local government, while in the rest their jostling for power leads to a spiral of conflict and open war.

Stage 4 collapse occurs when society becomes so disordered and impoverished that it can no longer support the Big Men, who become smaller and smaller, and eventually fade from view. Society fragments into extended families and small tribes of a dozen or so families, who find it advantageous to band together for mutual support and defense. This is the form of society that has existed over some 98.5% of humanity’s existence as a biological species, and can be said to be the bedrock of human existence. Humans can exist at this level of organization for thousands, perhaps millions of years. Most mammalian species go extinct after just a few million years, but, for all we know, Homo Sapiens still have a million or two left.

If pre-collapse society is too atomized, alienated and individualistic to form cohesive extended families and tribes, or if its physical environment becomes so disordered and impoverished that hunger and starvation become widespread, then Stage 5 collapse becomes likely. At this stage, a simpler biological imperative takes over, to preserve the life of the breeding couples. Families disband, the old are abandoned to their own devices, and children are only cared for up to age 3. All social unity is destroyed, and even the couples may disband for a time, preferring to forage on their own and refusing to share food. This is the state of society described by the anthropologist Colin Turnbull in his book The Mountain People. If society prior to Stage 5 collapse can be said to be the historical norm for humans, Stage 5 collapse brings humanity to the verge of physical extinction.

As we can easily imagine, the default is cascaded failure: each stage of collapse can easily lead to the next, perhaps even overlapping it. In Russia, the process was arrested just past Stage 3: there was considerable trouble with ethnic mafias and even some warlordism, but government authority won out in the end. In my other writings, I go into a lot of detail in describing the exact conditions that inadvertently made Russian society relatively collapse-proof. Here, I will simply say that these ingredients are not currently present in the United States.

While attempting to arrest collapse at Stage 1 and Stage 2 would probably be a dangerous waste of energy, it is probably worth everyone’s while to dig in their heels at Stage 3, definitely at Stage 4, and it is quite simply a matter of physical survival to avoid Stage 5. In certain localities – those with high population densities, as well as those that contain dangerous nuclear and industrial installations – avoiding Stage 3 collapse is rather important, to the point of inviting foreign troops and governments in to maintain order and avoid disasters. Other localities may be able to prosper indefinitely at Stage 3, and even the most impoverished environments may be able to support a sparse population subsisting indefinitely at Stage 4.

Although it is possible to prepare directly for surviving Stage 5, this seems like an altogether demoralizing thing to attempt. Preparing to survive Stages 3 and 4 may seem somewhat more reasonable, while explicitly aiming for Stage 3 may be reasonable if you plan to become one of the Big Men. Be that as it may, I must leave such preparations as an exercise for the reader. My hope is that these definitions of specific stages of collapse will enable a more specific and fruitful discussion than the one currently dominated by such vague and ultimately nonsensical terms as “the collapse of Western civilization.”

Source & comments:  ClubOrlov

Trend forecaster: Violent Revolution will Start Soon

April 19, 2009

In this two-part video, Gerald Celente explains his prediction…

Violent Revolution will Start Soon (part 1 of 2)

Violent Revolution will Start Soon (part 2 of 2)

How They Control the World

April 19, 2009

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

To understand current events, we need a new paradigm.

The paradigm fostered by the mass media of a ‘balanced’ world consisting of competing interests, nations, ideologies and religions only gives us false confidence and traps us in a false matrix of “good guys vs. bad guys.”

As my readers know, I suspect that most “competing” groups/ideologies actually have been created or subverted by a single force: a satanic cult, the Illuminati (Sabbatean-Frankist Jews and cabalistic Freemasons.) This clique is empowered by a cartel of cartels, beginning with world central banking, based in London. It uses MI-6, the CIA, the Mossad and other “Intelligence” agencies as instruments and controls the media and most politicians.

The Sabbatean-Frankists were a Jewish heresy that captured half the Jewish world in the 17th and 18th Century. They eschewed all morality preaching that good is evil and vice- versa. They believe that chaos and devastation will hasten the return of the Messiah. They went underground and prospered by intermarrying with non-Jews and assuming conventional Jewish or non-Jewish identities. The “Catholic” half-Jewish John Kerry or Madelaine Albright are examples.

My working hypothesis is that most wars/conflicts are orchestrated by this satanic cult. The same people secretly manipulate events on both sides to undermine “all collective forces except our own” (“The Protocols of Zion”) and establish world government tyranny (a.k.a. “globalization.”) In other words, an Occult Elite is waging war on humanity and we don’t even know it.

In the Protocols, the author, who I suspect was the Sabbatean Lionel Rothschild, writes that their goal is: “To wear everyone out by dissension, animosities, feuds, famine, inoculation of diseases, want, until the Gentiles sees no other way of escape except by appeal to our money and our power.” (Protocol 10) [And] “… enable us to absorb without disturbance all the governmental forces of the world and thus form a super-government.” (Protocol 5)


Creating conflict makes fiendish sense. If they were to declare their true intention, they would meet opposition from all sides. Instead they create and hide behind competing forces and manipulate the outcome ensuring that “true believers” (the uncorrupted) die in the process. Everyone is so busy fighting, they can’t see the real foe and the real agenda. The conspirators recognize each other through hand-signs.

I’ll start by mentioning some random conflicts that fit this paradigm. (Research them and see if I am right.) Then I’ll cite some more references to show that this strategy is deliberate.


I suspect the Labor, Women’s and US Gay and Negro Civil Rights Movement all fit this pattern. They were all sponsored by the bankers,and run by Masonic Jews or their dupes. While they addressed some legitimate injustices, their real purpose was to sow division.

Harold Rosenthal is credible when he says: “Through our national bank, the Federal Reserve, we extend book credit which we create from nothing to all local banks …[Thus] we bring industry, management and labour into our debt…and pit management against labor so they will never unite and attack us and usher in a debt-free industrial utopia.” (my emphasis)

Through control of the mass media, Rosenthal says we “have put issue upon issue to the American people. Then we promote both sides of the issue as confusion reigns. With their eyes fixed on the issues, they fail to see who is behind every scene. ”

Alan Stang deals with the true origins of Civil Rights in his book “It’s Very Simple.” I touch on it in my article “Red Rosa Parks: Fabricating an American Icon.”

Kevin MacDonald does a masterful analysis of how the bankers used Masonic Jews to take over the Conservative end of the political spectrum. “Is Neo Conservatism a Jewish Movement?”

Global Warming is yet another created conflict. The Club of Rome talked about using it as a fabricated “enemy” 20 years ago. (See “The Vacuum” in “The First Global Revolution” 1991 by Alexander King.) On one side you have Al Gore, Illuminati in good standing. On the other side, you have films made by debunkers that are featured on the BBC, an Illuminati mouthpiece. Obviously this debate is certified “Masonic Kosher.”

Remember how Stalin exterminated much of the Soviet officer core in the late 1930′s on “faked evidence” from Reinhard Heydrich? I suspect Stalin knew the evidence was fake and was doing away with nationalists and cult outsiders. Similarly Stalin exterminated the cream of the Polish officer core at Katyn forest.I suspect Illuminati Nazis collaborated with Illuminati Communists.

I have no evidence but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Taliban was supported by the bankers through the Pakistani ISI, and the Iraqi insurgency through Saudi Arabia. The Sunnis are now on the US payroll. How does that work?

Vladimir Putin has a lot of fans. I’d love it if he were for real. Unfortunately, I suspect he’s been dealt the good guy role in a potential future world war. I suspect the US/British-Russian feud is for show only. The “tell” is the amount of Western investment in Russia and UK/EU dependence on Russian natural resources.

(See “Kissinger & Putin Hold Secret Meeting”)

These folks are eminently capable of creating the illusion of friction. They faked the Cold War, World War One and World War Two. They are behind 9-11 and the War on Terror. See my articles: “Did Bormann Run Hitler for the Illuminati?’ “The Matrix of Manufactured War” and “The Coming Shakedown of the US and Iran.”

In “Elite Sets the Stage for WW3″ I show how many Rockefeller elder statesmen-for-hire lined up against the Iraq War.


It appears that the Illuminati bankers sponsored the liberal and socialist (revolutionary) movements of the last 300 years in order to wrest power from the nobility and church, and to control society through the guise of “liberal democracy.”

In 1794 the Duke of Brunswick, issued a Manifesto based on confiscated Illuminati documents. He said, “The ferment that reigns among the people is their work….They began by casting odium on religion..They invented the rights of man …and urged the people to wrest from their princes the recognition of these supposed rights. The plan they formed for breaking all social ties and destroying all order was revealed in their speeches and acts. They deluged the world with a multitude of publications; they recruited apprenticeships of every rank and every position; they deluded the most perspicacious men by falsely alleging different intentions.” (Light-bearers of Darkness, p.10)

This is confirmed by the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which is a Sabbatean document. The author scorns ideas of equality and liberty:

“Far back in ancient times we were the first to cry among the masses of the people the words “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” words many times repeated since these days by stupid poll-parrots…(26) In all corners of the earth the words “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents,[i.e. dupes] whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were canker-worms at work boring into the well-being of the goyim, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the goy States.

28. The abstraction of freedom has enabled us to persuade the mob in all countries that their government is nothing but the steward of the people who are the owners of the country, and that the steward may be replaced like a worn-out glove. 29. It is this possibility of replacing the representatives of the people which has placed at our disposal, and, as it were, given us the power of appointment.” (Protocol 1, emphasis mine)


Our political life is essentially an illusion. As early as 1823, Hoene Wronski wrote: “Secret societies are detached into groups distinct and apparently opposed, professing respectively and in turn the most contrary opinions of the day, so as to direct, apart and with confidence, all parties, political, religious, economic, and literary. They, in order to receive common direction, are again united to an unknown centre…an Unknown Supreme Committee who governs the world.” (Light-bearers of Darkness, p.2)

The lesson is not to avoid political activity, but to be very selective. The world is in the thrall of a satanic cult. The correct paradigm is humanity versus this cult, its agents and dupes. Unfortunately these are often people society considers a “success.”

Source, with good outlinks: SaveTheMales

Tea Parties? Are you kidding me?

April 19, 2009

by Don Cooper

I watched closely all the tea parties all over the country Wednesday. What a showing of national pride and solidarity. What a showing of subservient compliance and casual indifference. What a joke.

In Lafayette Park, Washington D.C., of all places to protest, the plan was to dump one million tea bags in the park, but the brave dissidents never did it because they forgot to get the proper permits. Are you kidding me? What is civil disobedience without civil disobedience? They even went so far as to say that they were willing to put down plastic tarps and clean up after themselves.

That’s like saying we don’t agree with your oppressive, unconstitutional despotism of our nation and to show our ire in no uncertain terms we’re going to break public law and disrupt the peace so take that, nah- nah-ne-boo-boo. But don’t worry because we’ll put everything back when we’re done as if nothing happened cuz we don’t want any trouble!

Videos on the Internet of Lafayette Park show people standing around in their trendy turtlenecks and Tommy Hilfiger and North Face jackets, chatting, socializing, drinking coffee and talking on their cell phones. Some dressed in colonial garb (how cute) and waving flags. Others even break into a rendition of the Star Spangled Banner followed by a chant of “USA, USA, USA.” What a terrific show of meaningless symbolism.

Who are they chanting to? The buildings in front of them? The birds in the trees? Themselves? What was this supposed to do, because it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to surmise that it did NOTHING! All the politicians were inside, smugly and comfortably seated in their expensive leather chairs that we paid for. They were discussing their next round of special interest pandering and deficit spending at our expense while we mingled as if at a, well, tea party. But not the sort of 1773 but rather more like the sort at 4 p.m. in England that is served with crumpets.

The politicians could have cared less about the goings on outside and NO ONE took it to them. Shame on us. No one made sure they took notice. No one was put out one bit. No economic loss to the government whatsoever, as was the purpose of the original tea party, so why should they notice?

Is this like giving to a charity? You write a check to feed a starving child for 10 cents a day in some far off, nameless, faceless country and you feel better about yourself?

I attended a “tea party” in the Midwest on Wednesday and there were only about 200 people there. And it was literally a tea party: people came with their coffee mugs and sandwiches, holding signs and standing around and chatting and socializing and then everyone went home. No passion. No signs of real frustration or discontent. No real commitment to changing anything. You know why? Because nobody wants to fire the first shot! Everybody wants change, but only if they don’t have to pay for it. Only if their comfortable lives don’t have to be disrupted for their freedom. What a bunch of crap.

Then I see all these political pundits ( idiots ) on CNN talking about how the tea party movement is nothing more than a partisan, Republican, conservative movement against the Obama administration and how the majority of Americans agree with the taxing and borrowing and spending. Some numb-nuts CNN political (anal)yst named Jeff Toobin says that the Texas state legislative resolution to reaffirm their state’s sovereignty is a fantasy. Are you kidding me? State’s sovereignty is a fantasy? Well I guess that says it all. Come on everyone, down the rabbit hole.

[Background music] One pill makes you larger and one pill makes you small…

Welcome to the other side of the looking glass everybody. My name’s Alice and I’ll be your host for the mad tea party today. Let me introduce some other guests: the Hatter, March Hare, Dormouse, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Rod Blagojevich, Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton all the AIG executives and many, many more. Don’t worry you’ll have time to get to know them all since you can’t leave no matter what you do so might as well just get used to it. Resistance is futile.

No doubt the majority of Americans didn’t want to go to war against the British in 1776. But would anyone say now that it was the wrong thing to do? No doubt the majority of Americans didn’t want a civil war. Both those wars were, at their core, about state’s rights. About oppressive governments trying to overreach their authority and impose unlawful mandates on the states. It was about their freedom to do what they wish with their lives.

I think we have met the enemy and it is us. We’re a bunch of fast food nourished, MTV anesthetized, shopping mall, plug-in-drug (aka television) addicts who will do anything to preserve that way of life at least until we die. After that who cares?

We’re a clinically obese, socially disconnected, politically inept and intellectually bankrupt nation of douche bags who deserve everything they get.

The movement has no leader. When I listen to anyone other than Ron Paul, Peter Schiff or Lew Rockwell speak about the issues we discuss on LRC I might as well be listening to any other political party spokesperson. They sound just the same. They dress just the same. They say the same old tired things. Ron Paul has even mentioned at times that the Libertarian party has become just another political party interested more in their political posturing rather than liberty. They have all the same sorts of infighting and power struggles that are symptomatic of the fact that they have lost their way.

Rallying the troops to vote more like-minded individuals into office won’t work. That’s an old, failing strategy. When will someone step forward with the courage, character, wisdom and intelligence to lead our nation into the 21st century the way our forefathers led it into the 19th century?

Will it be Texas governor Rick Perry? Perry is using rhetoric about seceding from the union. That is EXACTLY the kind of thing we need. I believe, given the other states with similar resolutions in their legislatures, that it would begin a domino effect. It would give people a chance to actually have a clear reason to fight: their state’s rights of sovereignty and they would know that they have the state’s resources behind them. Unfortunately, even though it’s clear what a boost Texas seceding would be in uniting us, I have no doubt that Perry is not up to the task and is using the issue as nothing more than a rallying point for reelection.

Where have all the heroes gone? Where are all the pioneers? Where are the visionaries? Where are the true statesmen? Where are the defenders of freedom? What has happened to the American Spirit of life and liberty? I guess they’re all at the mall or Starbucks and are too fat to get up out of their chair and fight. Or they’re looking forward to retirement and the “good life” after spending their life being a good soldier and playing by the rules and saving for the “golden years” while their real golden years of youth were passing them by. Certainly they can’t be asked to risk all that for something as silly as their children’s futures. How selfish of me.

Or maybe we don’t want to risk our children’s well-being now, so we defer it until they’re adults and let them deal with the fact that they can’t afford college or health care or a home without going into enormous debt and we never teach them the importance of things like: character, honor, integrity, truth and freedom but rather teach them how to live in fear and how important it is to get a “good job” and play by the rules and to go along to get along and that will be safe.

We’re pathetic.

April 18, 2009

Source: Lew Rockwell

Israel stands ready to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites

April 19, 2009

by Sheera Frenkel

The Israeli military is preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government.

Among the steps taken to ready Israeli forces for what would be a risky raid requiring pinpoint aerial strikes are the acquisition of three Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft and regional missions to simulate the attack.

Two nationwide civil defence drills will help to prepare the public for the retaliation that Israel could face.

“Israel wants to know that if its forces were given the green light they could strike at Iran in a matter of days, even hours. They are making preparations on every level for this eventuality. The message to Iran is that the threat is not just words,” one senior defence official told The Times.

The distance from Israel to at least one of the sites is more than 870 miles, a distance that the Israeli force practised covering in a training exercise last year that involved F15 and F16 jets, helicopters and refuelling tankers.

The possible Israeli strike on Iran has drawn comparisons to its attack on the Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad in 1981. That strike, which destroyed the facility in under 100 seconds, was completed without Israeli losses and checked Iraqi ambitions for a nuclear weapons programme.

“We would not make the threat [against Iran] without the force to back it. There has been a recent move, a number of on-the-ground preparations, that indicate Israel’s willingness to act,” said another official from Israel’s intelligence community.

He added that it was unlikely that Israel would carry out the attack without receiving at least tacit approval from America, which has struck a more reconciliatory tone in dealing with Iran under its new administration.

An Israeli attack on Iran would entail flying over Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, where US forces have a strong presence.

Ephraim Kam, the deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies, said it was unlikely that the Americans would approve an attack.

“The American defence establishment is unsure that the operation will be successful. And the results of the operation would only delay Iran’s programme by two to four years,” he said.

A visit by President Obama to Israel in June is expected to coincide with the national elections in Iran — timing that would allow the US Administration to re-evaluate diplomatic resolutions with Iran before hearing the Israeli position.

“Many of the leaks or statements made by Israeli leaders and military commanders are meant for deterrence. The message is that if [the international community] is unable to solve the problem they need to take into account that we will solve it our way,” Mr Kam said.

Among recent preparations by the airforce was the Israeli attack of a weapons convoy in Sudan bound for militants in the Gaza Strip.

“Sudan was practice for the Israeli forces on a long-range attack,” Ronen Bergman, the author of The Secret War with Iran, said. “They wanted to see how they handled the transfer of information, hitting a moving target … In that sense it was a rehearsal.”

Israel has made public its intention to hold the largest-ever nationwide drill next month.

Colonel Hilik Sofer told Haaretz, a daily Israeli newspaper, that the drill would “train for a reality in which during war missiles can fall on any part of the country without warning … We want the citizens to understand that war can happen tomorrow morning”.

Israel will conduct an exercise with US forces to test the ability of Arrow, its US-funded missile defence system. The exercise would test whether the system could intercept missiles launched at Israel.

“Israel has made it clear that it will not tolerate the threat of a nuclear Iran. According to Israeli Intelligence they will have the bomb within two years … Once they have a bomb it will be too late, and Israel will have no choice to strike — with or without America,” an official from the Israeli Defence Ministry said.

Source: Times Online

Napolitano and Homeland INsecurity

April 19, 2009

Welcome to Western Voices, I’m John Young of European Americans United. 

While we have long advocated various governmental reforms, I have never seriously considered the possibility that the federal government of the United States might be slated for extinction. After all, an entity with its own armies, stockpiles of nerve gas and who knows what sort of nightmarish weaponry is unlikely to go anywhere. It’s a 500 pound gorilla who gets to sit wherever it wants. Let’s face it, any maniac who believes the federal government could ever be removed through force has no practical conception of either reality or the depths of depravity to which an embattled system will reach in pursuit of self-preservation. 

And I still have no question about whether or not this heavily-armed corporate entity known as the federal government will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. It’s pretty entrenched, has unlimited resources, and is sufficiently morally bankrupt that it really wouldn’t think twice about killing innocent people to secure its existence as long as the cost-benefit analysis of such an activity looked favorable. 

When I speak of the extinction of the federal government, I don’t speak of its physical extinction. Rather, I am speaking of its extinction as an entity seen by most of the people in this country as having a right to rule that is truly sanctioned by the people. Rather than being a defender of our liberties, as originally envisioned; it will come to see the people who are most supportive of its founding ideals as an enemy. The federal government is quickly entering a phase where the people of the United States will regard it in the same way as the people of the U.S.S.R. once viewed their government: as a despotic usurper that must be tolerated because of a practical monopoly on the use of force. In other words, the federal government of the United States is quickly losing its legitimacy in the minds of the Americans who matter. 

On April 15th, 250,000 Americans who matter — Americans who work hard, speak English, obey the law and are net taxpayers — peacefully demonstrated in various capitols all across the country in protest against corporate give-aways, budget deficits that threaten our very civilization and taxes that are spiralling out of control. One of these Americans, who was interviewed among a 1,500-strong demonstration in Boston, declined to identify himself stating that he feared government retribution in the form of an IRS audit. 

This is where we stand. Law-abiding citizens of this country are afraid to be identified as protesting government policies for fear of retribution. This, dear friends, is most assuredly NOT the sort of future that our forefathers spilled their precious blood in order to secure for their posterity.

Today is April 19th. Back in 1775, 234 years ago today; the “shot heard round the world” was fired at the Battle of Lexington Green; inaugurating what would become the Revolutionary War and the founding of the most innovative, successful, prosperous and free nation the world had ever seen. 

Quite a number of events led up to the Battle of Lexington Green — matters had been simmering for a long time. The British government had seen fit to grant monopolies to certain corporations in dealing with the colonists, and to use those corporations as an avenue of tax collection. The British government had likewise seen fit to engage in all manner of tyranny painstakingly enumerated in Thomas Jefferson’s famous Declaration of Independence. But the proximate cause of that battle was that a force of troops had been sent to deprive the colonists of their means of self defense: their guns, gunpowder, and musketballs. 

Our forefathers understood, even though they had not yet decided upon a break with Great Britain, that once their firearms had been confiscated, they would be powerless to secure even the most basic of liberties; and that the right to keep in bear arms is, as the NRA so eloquently states, America’s First Freedom from which all others flow. Our founding fathers knew that only a tyrant or a criminal ever had reason to fear an armed citizen. 

So on that fateful day of April 19, 1775; somewhere between fifty and seventy-five men stood in formation at Lexington Green, awaiting the soldiers of the most advanced army of the world in the pre-dawn light. These men were farmers, lawyers, shopkeepers and other ordinary men who mustered extraordinary courage. Statements of events are somewhat contradictory, but it is well established that many gave their lives that day, and on many days thereafter, so that their children and children’s children would have a chance to know freedom. 

And it is with this in mind that I’d like to share with you several statements from a report produced by our Department of Homeland Security and some of the so-called “Fusion Centers” created by the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. These Fusion Centers, which number in the dozens, are regional intelligence-gathering units comprised of local and federal law-enforcement agencies, select non-governmental agencies, and others. Their original purpose was to coordinate and share intelligence information in order to prevent another 9/11. However, by admitting non-governmental organizations into their mix, they were quickly corrupted by leftist organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. In this way, valuable law enforcement concern and effort become misdirected into the pet projects of special interests and thereby leave us vulnerable to further attacks. 

The way such organizations work their corruption is fairly simple. Public servants in various law enforcement agencies suffer from two problems. The first is that the bright, hard-working and conscientious among them are over-worked, given inadequate resources, and stopped by bureacratic nonsense at every turn. The second is that almost all agencies of that sort are disproportionately staffed by administrative support personnel who are affirmative action hires, stupid, entitled, or lazy. In dealing with both extremes, these non-governmental special interest groups step up to the plate with pre-made so-called “research” and so-called “intelligence” pre-formatted into ready-made reports, model legislation and so forth that can be lifted in their entirety; thus making the government types look good and reducing their workload. Thankful for the welcome relief provided by these special interest groups, the government employees don’t look their gift horse in the mouth. 

This technique, by the way, is one of the ways that AIPAC-affiliated think tanks and Big Business get whatever they want from Congressmen who all-too-often vote for legislation they never even read, much less composed. And these Congressmen are rewarded later with multi-million dollar no-show jobs, chauffered limousines and other perks. 

Because the Fusion Centers and the Department of Homeland Security are refusing to reveal the authorship of their reports, the Thomas More Law Center has filed a lawsuit demanding the revelation of that information. This is very worthwhile as evil requires the cloak of darkness, and the Thomas More Law Center is poised to bring their arc-light to bear. 

On February 20th of this year, the Missouri Fusion Center (MIAC) that is busily tracking peaceful citizens while ignoring the thousands of actually likely terrorists in our midst, saw fit to issue a report profiling likely “militia” members. This report characterized people who oppose our current Federal Reserve System as “rightwing extremists” who pose a risk of violence. They applied similar labels to those who oppose illegal immigration, the North American Union as proposed by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Universal Service Program, excessive taxation, or further restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms. Most eggregiously, the report indicated that supporters of Republican Congressman Ron Paul or Third-Party candidates such as Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin were more likely than most to be involved in militia activity that was likely to turn violent. 

The only source explicitly cited in the MIAC report is the notoriously inaccurate Southern Poverty Law Center, whose left-wing agenda has long included complete civilian disarmament; and every few years they trot out the militia bogeyman, with a few old pictures, as “proof” that the militias in this country constitute a credible threat of violence against law enforcement and that they are dominated by so-called “racists,”"white supremacists” and “anti-Semites.” These latter terms amount to nothing more than name calling and are the last refuge of a scoundrel with no factual argument to present. The race card, being played in this fashion is getting pretty old and most people are starting to yawn rather than become alarmed when they hear it. 

Another great example of this came just this past week from failed comediene Janine Garofalo, a trust fund baby who can afford to be a leftist pinko commie because she has never had to earn an honest dollar in her life. Commenting on last week’s Tea Parties on television, Ms. Garofolo demonstrated her towering intellect by describing the participants in these grass-roots protests as “tea-bagging rednecks” and as “racists.” She further commented that the Republican-conservative movement had now “crystalized into the white power movement.” She is trying, quite unsuccessfully, to convince people that anyone who protests massive deficits and looming tax hikes is somehow a racist. Well, I can guarantee you that if a decent African-American who wasn’t a communist — someone like Walter Williams — had been elected; you wouldn’t have seen those Tea Parties; and most Americans know that. The race card, for all but a few people that she doesn’t need to convince anyway, is falling on deaf ears. 

Anyway, a few years back I attended a public militia event just so I could see with my own eyes what the SPLC was talking about. I had never been involved with a militia, so inquiring minds wanted to know. I wanted to see if I could find a racist. 

Well, the first speaker was a gentleman named Leroy Crenshaw; a very eloquent and decent African-American who has testified before Congress and whose message of support for the U.S. Constitution was well received by a crowd of about 150 people in the small church where the meeting was held. The next speaker was Aaron Zelman, representing an organization called “Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership” or the JPFO. He performed a stirring reading of Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution. I can name these two gentlemen because they are public figures, and because they can both verify that they have spoken at meetings of militia organizations. 

The nature of these speakers should tell you that the Southern Poverty Law Center is nothing but a gang of opportunistic liars. I can absolutely guarantee you that a bunch of so-called “white supremacists” would never invite an African American to address them, any more than a bunch of so-called “anti-Semites” or “neo-Nazis” would invite a Rabbi to their meetings. I saw it with my own eyes, spoke with these men personally, and these gentlemen can certainly verify their presence. 

To top it all off, the flag adopted by that particular militia included not just the Christian Cross, but the six-pointed star of David as well. It certainly wasn’t what one would expect from the SPLC’s breathless reports. 

So — what’s going on here? What is going on is the SPLC is a bunch of totalitarian nutjobs who will never rest until this nation is reduced to utter despotism. Patriotic Americans — especially those who would consider picking up a rifle in defense of liberty in the gravest extreme — scare them to death. The SPLC is aware that the Federal Reserve stands against liberty, and needs to be abolished. The SPLC knows that illegal immigration is bankrupting this country and subjecting our people to a textbook case of genocide through territorial expulsion. The SPLC knows that 99% of all militia activity poses no risk to either government employees or the general public. But their role is to exaggerate, obfuscate and take facts out of context in order to present reports that make it sound like there are 850 militia groups in this country, all of them armed with tanks and preparing to re-enact the Third Reich. New to this current report, they stated that militias would be specifically targetting law enforcement officers when there is absolutely no truth to that allegation. But they needed to fit that in, so that they could impress upon law enforcement officers a mindset that would compromise their sense of justice. 

Let me tell you how the SPLC does this so you aren’t caught unaware. 

The SPLC employs a variety of scumbags whose job it is to infiltrate various groups and provide intelligence. If the group they are investigating isn’t giving them anything juicy, then they figure out how to invent it. After all, if they don’t come up with anything juicy all those reports that they provide to the FBI aren’t worth much. 

Here’s how it happens. 

You are attending an anti-illegal alien rally when a guy says to you: “do you support the second amendment?” and maybe you say “Certainly!” He’ll say: “Well, you know they are gonna take our guns away.” And maybe you give back the popular cliche’ “They can have it when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.” Well – guess what? For purposes of an SPLC intelligence report, that’s sufficient for them to state that anti-illegal-immigration groups plan violence against law enforcement personnel. Really! I certainly hope someone with half a clue and more than three brain cells over at the FBI is listening to this podcast; because they aren’t getting their money’s worth out of the SPLC, that’s for sure. Worse, the SPLC’s political agenda is diverting law enforcement resources into chasing innocent people while plenty of very dangerous people escape scrutiny. This puts our nation at risk. 

When the MIAC report on militias was released; it raised a furor among the millions of people who had supported Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin — and it was eventually retracted in its entirety. But that //does not change the fact// that the Missouri state police and the Missouri governor are letting Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center do their thinking for them. Retracting a flawed statement that was a transparent attempt to direct the forces of an armed government against ordinary citizens who were supporting mainstream political candidates for political reasons is not enough. The Missouri governor needs to fire up his brain and do a little bit of thinking for himself, and realize that letting a hate-filled maniac like Morris Dees do his thinking for him can ultimately be very hazardous to his political career and the well-being of the citizens he serves. 

You know, when I first encountered the MIAC report, I referred it to some friends of mine in various branches of law enforcement. They pretty much told me that real police ignore this stuff already, that it doesn’t represent official policy — so I shouldn’t be worried. Maybe, maybe not. But when the next shoe dropped in the form of a report issued by the Department of Homeland Security, I knew not only that I had reason to be worried; but that the very legitimacy of the U.S. Federal Government was on the brink. 

In fact, looking at the Department of Homeland security report, I was reminded of something that Aaron Zelman told me at that militia meeting. You see, at the time, the message of the JPFO was new to me; and I had never considered the linkage between gun control and genocide. Mr. Zelman told me that I should devote some thought to the fact that the greatest carnage of the twentieth century was always enacted by an organized government — and never by armed individuals or even paramilitary groups. He ran off a list that included Mao, Stalin, Hitler and many others. In every case of genocide in the past century, it had been preceded by widespread disarmament of the civilian population. 

I DID devote some thought to Aaron Zelman’s message, and while I may disagree with him on a few historical points; I believe his overall thesis is correct. Widespread civilian disarmament is always a prelude to genocide or widespread murder of civilians by direct or indirect means. And the entity that has always done this is not some paramilitary group or an armed civilian — but government. It is //governments// who have been the purveyors of carnage; and NEVER has that carnage EVER been exercised against an armed citizenry. 

So, just what does this infamous DHS report have to say, anyway? 

Fox News summarized it well in stating: 

“The government considers you a terrorist threat if you oppose abortion, own a gun or are a returning war veteran.” The Fox News report quotes Representative Lamar Smith, as saying the report on “right-wing extremism” amounts to “political profiling,” and that DHS is “using people’s political views to assess an individual’s susceptibility to terror recruitment.” 

The fundamental premise of the report is that the current economic and political environment are increasing radicalization and assisting the recruiting efforts of organizations that they broadly define as being “right-wing extremists.” — Whatever THAT is supposed to mean. 

In essence, because people are out of work, their homes are being foreclosed at record rates and prices and taxes are escalating; people are understandably becoming more willing to take a hard look at their government and its priorities. This is common sense, and I certainly hope the government didn’t pay anyone more than minimum wage for this great pearl of wisdom; as they could have gotten that for free right from our Western Voices World News website. Moreover, anyone with even a basic familiarity with high school history could predict it. 

They become rather disingenuous, though, in referring to the “political environment” because in the DHS report they use this as a euphemism for the fact we have an African-American (or, at least African) President. They are turning a blind eye to the true political environment: our economy is in shambles, income differentials are skyrocketing, people are suffocating under mountains of debt, our government is giving away trillions of dollars to well-connected entities who serve as advisors and even cabinet members, our foreign policy puts everyone else first, our trade policies are dislocating our own people, the true unemployment rate is around 14%, special interests are running the show and taxes are increasing at a time when we can least afford it at every level of government. 

In all fairness, practically none of this got underway under Barack Obama’s watch. These problems have been creeping up on us since before the War for Southern Independence, and have only become more entrenched and problematic with every passing year thereafter. And most intelligent people are observant enough to know this. BUT, Barack Obama is President NOW. He wasn’t drafted for the job — he actively sought the job. We worked very hard to obtain the job, and now he HAS the job. And because he has the job, all of these problems now fall upon his lap to solve. Even if he were the most perfect possible President, I wouldn’t envy him. Trouble is, not only is he not a very perfect President, but rather than tackling these systemic problems to try to bring REAL and BENEFICIAL change, he has launched an ambitious communist agenda that brings new outrage upon new outrage every day, and promises to not only make these problems worse, but destroy our economy and freedom as well. 

Moreover, opposing the non-replacement birth rates of white Americans, the high velocity of non-white births, open ended immigration from the Third World, and government sanctioned monies given freely to non-white stress groups who lobby bought and paid for politicians is also frowned upon by the hypocrites over in the mis-named Department of Homeland Security. Indeed, anyone who dares to breathe a single syllable on behalf of European American longevity and survival is immediately branded a Nazi with a fully functioning gas chamber in his or her basement. Therefore, opposing the loss of constitutional liberties by the federal government AND opposing the demographic loss of our people, made manifest by the federal government’s hypocrisy, exposes a degree of insolence that literally takes one’s breath away. 

THIS is the true political environment that the dopes in our Department of Homeland Security are refusing to look in the mirror and observe. The problem, you see, is THEM. And they will never ever acknowledge that they are the real problem. So, instead, they put out reams of paper claiming that the problem people have with Barack Obama is NOT his communist politics and arrogance, or that he is failing to address the failed policies of the past as he promised he would — but rather the fact that he is half-African. I certainly hope that our government didn’t pay anyone even a DIME for THAT ridiculous analysis. 

And then the report talks about so-called “radicalization” and so-called “right-wing extremism” whatever THAT is supposed to be. The whole report is filled with sheer idiocy. As but one example, they identify neo-Nazis with the so-called “right-wing.” The trouble is that Nazism is a shortened way of saying National Socialism. That is, National SOCIALISM as in SOCIALIST. For the benefit of any rocket scientists over at the Department of Homeland Security who happen to be listening, SOCIALISM (whether national or international) is a left wing philosophy. 

So, what sort of political views make the list in the DHS report? What sort of political views does the United States government now OFFICIALLY list as making someone likely to become a terrorist? 

1. Returning war veterans. The report presents the followings scenario: “… the return of 
military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks. … Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience …” 

Yep. There are millions of still-living military veterans in this country, of which I am one. These are people who have given their oaths and put their blood and beating hearts behind those oaths. They are underpayed while in the military, and when they leave they are often screwed by the military when it comes to treatment of their injuries. Yet, they have seldom complained, put their nose to the grindstone and built this country. If our Department of Homeland Security had even the slightest hint of intellectual honesty, they wouldn’t even list this category because they know that, per-capita, trust-fund babies in left wing movements are far more likely on a per-capita basis to engage in violence against persons or property than military veterans. I have to say, this is a real slap in the face and an outrage. Trouble is, the folks at DHS are so immersed in their own fantasy world that they can’t even see why, having written this, they should hide their heads in shame. 

2. Anti-immigration activists. The report claims that: “Rightwing extremists were concerned … with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that 
these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico. … Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.” 

So here we see the official attitude of the U.S. Government. While they grudgingly admit that you have a 1st Amendment right to oppose illegal immigration or NAFTA; they do NOT admit that any of your concerns are valid, instead saying that these are just matters of “perception.” And while you may have a right to express your views, they are cause for suspicion that you are part of a militia or a so-called “white supremacist” who needs to be watched lest you become violent. 

You know, illegal aliens kill 12 Americans every day.(1) That means that over the past 8 years, more Americans — both African and European — have died at the hands of illegal invaders than have died in an active shooting war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The dingbats over at the Department of Homeland security took great pains to print every possible incident of anti-illegal-immigrant violence over the past decade; and added all together those incidence don’t even add up to the number of Americans who die from illegal aliens in a single day. 

The lady — and I use that term advisedly — who runs the Department of Homeland Security is Janet Napolitano. She was the governor of Arizona prior to her current appointment. And under her watch as governor of Arizona, she allowed 5,000 illegal aliens DAILY to cross into this country. These illegal aliens have literally BEHEADED Americans, brought in military armament acquired from China, and in sum total have killed more Americans in just the past two years than the sum total of all domestic right and left wing political violence combined since the founding of this country. Yet, she thinks it is imperative to label YOU, who may object to this violence, as the risky person. Her mis-, mal- and nonfeasance in office is a greater risk to human life than any anti-illegal-immigration group will EVER be. 

3. Firearms collectors and self-defense advocates: The report states that: “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms …could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups …” and gives us a hint of gun laws that are waiting to be passed: “On the current front, legislation has been proposed this year requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging and registration of ammunition. It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists.” 

Gee, do ya think? 

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. If our government put HALF as much effort into the Second Amendment as they do into abortion; every thirteen year old child in America would have a machine gun with unlimited ammunition at public expense and without parental notification or consent. Instead, our government is attempting to restrict that fundamental right of self-defense, and has deep concerns about those who oppose their efforts. 

The report also states: “Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and 
parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool.” 

You know, they can solve this problem the easy way. Instead of trying to abridge our rights, they can leave us alone and unmolested. But they aren’t satisfied with that. Instead, they wish to assault our most fundamental rights as Americans, and then become concerned when we become a bit bristly about the subject. 

People like Janet Napolitano who have 24×7 armed guards and live behind gates and barbed wire don’t need firearms. But those of us out here in the real world where the predators that Napolitano released upon us are murdering at least 12 of us a day, need firearms. This shouldn’t even be a debate. The only reason it is a debate is the same reason 250,000 right-thinking Americans showed up for TEA Parties on Tax Day: because our government is going against all of its own founding principles. Every time our government goes after our fundamental rights, it compromises its legitimacy in the eyes of people who matter more and more. 


And these three groups are just the beginning. Named in the report are pro-life activists, pro-self-defense activists, anyone who opposes globalism, anti-immigration activists, anyone who opposes NAFTA or GATT, the Federal Reserve, our unsustainable national debt, outsourcing to China and India and so forth. In other words, practically anyone who is unwilling to “go gently into that dark night” of the socialist living death is seen to be a potential terrorist. 

I have no idea what Janet Napolitano and her crowd at the various Fusion Centers are smoking; but whatever it is was provided by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, and it ought to be illegal; because it is clearly impairing their judgment. People this far out of touch with reality shouldn’t even be driving acar, much less a country. 

And every step of the way, they are contributing to the delegitimization of the federal government. When they dishonor our veterans, they lose credibility. When they target patriotic Americans who want our borders secured, they lose credibility. When they abridge our fundamental rights, they lose credibility. Anytime an American fears identifying himself because of government reprisals, they lose credibility. So far, they have lost so much credibility that the 28 secessionist groups I reported last fall have now grown to 42.(2) When a government has lost so much credibility that people have even given up on the possibility of reform and have cast their lots with secession instead, the damage is pretty deep. 

If there is going to be any chance of preserving this country in the face of the economic and credibility crisis that we face; it lies with moderate, sensible, intelligent and patriotic groups like us at European Americans United. 

So rather than let the SPLC, the ADL, Janet Napolitano and Barack Obama turn this country into six countries; we are putting forward our own agenda of issues over the upcoming year. We are going to hit this issues hard and continuously, and demand a lot of citizen participation in government. By putting pressure on our government to do the right things, we can avert disaster. 

While we certainly have big picture goals, over the next year we are looking at goals that are close to home and easily acted upon. These goals are: 

1. Hold the line on immigration, while denying amnesty to illegals. This will prevent thousands of murders. Advocate more vigorous employer and other enforcement as well as a reduction in H1-B and L1 visas. 

2. Call so-called “affirmative action” and other anti-European-American discrimination into question. This will help improve our economy and reduce the economic factors that figure into radicalization. 

3. Fight to retain our rights to freedom of speech, and especially against so-called “hate crime” or “hate speech” laws which are always enforced against European-Americans but very rarely against others. People seldom resort to violence as long as they have access to true free speech without retribution. Securing our 1st Amendment rights will reduce the odds of people resorting to violence. 

4. Continue to work to strengthen the two-parent European-American family. The children of two-parent families are substantially less likely to find themselves on the wrong side of the law; and strong families also increase economic resiliency of their members. 

5. Focus on fighting further gun control legislation. As the reports point out, preliminary steps to disarm law-abiding American citizens breed distrust of government and leaves them vulnerable to predation. Only totalitarians need to disarm their citizens, so we’ll be working to help prevent totalitarianism. 

And with all of these five areas of focus, we will continue to emphasize the inherent rightness and legitimacy of European-American identity while always putting the best interests of European-Americans first in our advocacy. 

We have a very packed and important agenda in front of us; and we’re going to need your help to get it done. We need people in practically every element of our advocacy — so don’t just sit around expecting “someone else” to do whatever needs done. You ARE that someone else. It is YOUR job, MY job — ALL of our job — to make sure that the blood our forefathers shed 234 years ago today, was not shed in vain. 

This has been John Young with European Americans United. Thank you for joining me again today.

Source: Western Voices World News

Political Correctness in the Court of Byzantium

April 18, 2009

by Les Visible

Despite its seeming veneer of civilization, its appearance of uniformity and routine, this world is a jungle where predators roam by day and by night. The ordinary focus is upon those at the ground level who break the usual laws which we all agree we need to maintain order. Even beforeHammurabi there must have been some system. When we think of crime, we think about things like robbery, rape and murder along with all the white collar variants of the ancient shell games and cards tricks. Then there are the Badger and Murphy games and whatever else they’ve come up with since. Some laws are reasonable and some are not and… most often…

the unreasonable ones come about without any connection to the well being of the public.


There’s a whole lot of hypocrisy combined with those who have the gold making the rules and we see it in things like alcohol and tobacco being legal while marijuana is not. Marijuana is illegal because of the alcohol and tobacco lobbies. Alcohol and tobacco kill more people in one year than all the illegal drugs in the world across a century or more and… when it comes to manufacturing violence and guilt; alcohol has no equal. If we could package and sell violence we could make a fortune, come to think of it… we do. I’m not just talking about movies and videogames and sporting events, I’m talking arms and the money for the causes for the wars from which the bankers rake in the profit from both sides of the conflict. Meanwhile, hemp production could revolutionize the world and that is also something that someone… doesn’

t want to happen.


Now we are talking about bigger crimes and bigger criminals. I’ve a new blog called Profiles in Evil and in coming months I’m going to feature some of these people, the same way that Hustler used to profile their ‘asshole of the month’, complete with a list of their crimes. I’m thinking it should look like a baseball card with all the stats. We might even make them like the playing cards that circulated with pictures of the Iraqi leaders so…

stay tuned.


Ordinary crime is something most of us want controlled and contained. However… these days there are so many things that have become criminal that most of us are lawbreakers without even knowing what we’ve done. Somewhere there’

s a great big book of laws about crimes we may not have even heard about. The book is written in lawyer speak and authored by anyone in a position to do so for the purpose of control and financial profit which benefits all of the industries that feed off of their enforcement. The crimes in this book are not the real crimes. The real crimes are the laws that have been created to enforce them. These crimes are all associated with the regulation of social behavior for the purpose of behavior modification and the primary kingpin, mob boss of the whole shebang is Political Correctness.


If you want to see Political Correctness, when it becomes the ruling entity in the lives of the people, you have only to study the Khmer Rouge and you can trace that back through China in the 60’s and then back to its Marxist origins in Lenin land and then back into the brains of those who fashioned the template that preceded the presence. Here’

a conservative take on PC.


Its right about here that I start to get in trouble with the people who don’t want to know because…

I tend to look under the bed and in the attic; behind the shoes on the floor of the closet and even in the slaughterhouses where the parts destined for sausage are stored. Because I am looking around, I find things like this. You have to scroll all the way down to see the list and it becomes apparent that a certain group of people have a vested interest in this particular industry. Then you see the parallel to this industry. Then you swerve around through historical realities and bend time a little to wind up behind the thing you are talking about and you see things like this. You can snake back over the course of time and find so many parallels that maybe you really start to wonder. Then you can come into the present day and you see Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza at the end of last year.


No one can dispute the massive carnage that was Gaza and no one can dispute 60 years of land theft and genocide. No one can dispute the apartheid status of the Palestinians but that isn’t the point of this piece. We are talking about Political Correctness and we want to tie all of these links into what happened when George Galloway wanted to speak in Canada and the ruthless suppression of free speech, including imprisonment whenever anyone criticizes the behavior of Zionist entities, due to politically correct laws that are designed to prohibit one’s ability to reveal the truth or to draw attention to bad behavior which… would have been against the law in Hammurabi’s time as it ‘should be’

against the law now.


So what we are getting is things like this and things like this. You have to trace that back to this peculiar period in historywhen Theodor Herzl founded Zionism and declared the uses of Anti-Semitism. The uncanny sensation that I am getting is that a certain group of people created Political Correctness in order to use it as a system of control against anyone who speaks out against the industry of control. It’

s a powerful system.


It appears that one of the main targets of Zionist endeavor is to destroy Christianity and you can see how that is being accomplished by simply studying what is being shown in the links previously given. It’s not just Christianity that is the target. It is Islam too, which was the point of 9/11. It all connects. What we have is a not so Holy War against competing religious groups for control of the human mind. I’m not a fan of religion but religions, like the family unit, cultures and governments, are the glue that holds society together. I wouldn’t want them all done away with because, first of all it isn’t possible; something else will always replace what went missing but…

what? That is the question you need to ask.


Now, of course, those who criticize what I say here will question the mindset behind the links given but… that’s not the important point. The important point is…

is it true? Are the points being made true? Are the names given as being on various boards and representing certain industries true? Are those said to be responsible for the deaths of tens of millions true? Did these people occupy these offices and did they carry out the executions that history shows them to be responsible for?


In the game of Political Correctness, telling the truth is a hate crime. In the game of Political Correctness, what is is shaped into what is not and what is not… is shaped into what is. This is being worked in the sub-basements of the educational system. Very strange things are going on at every level. Football game schedules are conflicting with God’s time slots? The level of ridiculous has rendered the word obsolete. Now… what do you get when you sift all of the components presented here? Furthermore… what do you get when you look at the players involved in the financial crash and then look at those who are empowered to fix it? Which banks were unaffected by the financial crash or… are actually reaping enormous profits? Here is a bonus question… how does the present state of epidemic foreclosures relate to the drama detailed in the book, “The Grapes of Wrath”



So… what are we to make of political correctness and how correct is it? Is it about what it says it is about or is it about something else entirely? Did I pull all of this information out of a particular part of my anatomy or… is it true? Is it true? Show me how it is not true. Please take the time to show me that these things are lies and fabrications. Furthermore please reflect on what seems to be the point of it all; use your imagination to connect the dots and look at the image. Now tell me if the picture you see is a credible portrait of a calculated effort by a certain movement over the last however many decades or… is it just coincidence? Since this is all affecting you in real time or… it’s all a product of a deluded imagination well…

you probably should analyze it to see if what is affecting you is real or not. Does that make any sense?


Somebody has too much power and that power is being used to the detriment of us all. Where does this lead and… do you want to go there? The thing is… you are going there. You are flowing with the current. You are not swimming against the tide. If one and one adds up to two then… where does that leave you? I realize that some people are telling you that one and one do not add up to two but…

you might want to think about that.

Source: Smoking Mirrors

Hard to talk when teabagging?

April 18, 2009

From the definitive mouths of Dave “bohemian cabin boy” Gergen and proud tea-bagging “victim” Anderson Cooper, “It’s hard to talk when you’re teabagging.”

It’s good to know that there is one issue on which the homosexual talking heads at CNN can speak with authority and experience.  Pay no attention to the fact that over a quarter of a million Americans–many of whom reject the Democrat-Republican two-party dialectic that has kept this false consensus from ripping apart at the seams for a generation–gathered in the streets under the banner of an act that touched off a bloody war against an oppressive empire. 

They hate you because they fear you.  They know that if Americans ever took back control of America that their kind would be relegated once again to the closet, and that serious minded journalists would have their jobs.  By the way, now would be a great time to cancel cable TV.  They obviously hate your guts–isn’t ignoring them the least you should do?

Anderson Cooper 360 – It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging

A comment on Paul Gottfried’s review of Cultural Insurrections

April 18, 2009

Kevin MacDonald

April 18, 2009

Paul Gottfried is outside the mainstream of Jewish intellectuals in being associated with paleoconservatives rather than either the left or the neoconservative right. In my eyes, therefore, he is a force for relative good in a world where paleocons like Pat Buchanan have been relegated to the fringes of intellectual debate in the US and have long rap sheets at powerful, well-endowed organizations like the $PLC and the ADL.

Another reason I am predisposed to be positive about Gottfried is that he reviewed Cultural Insurrections respectfully, noting pointedly that there are completely different standards in discussing the activities and influence of other ethnic groups or religions. And he agrees with much of my analysis that Jews have in fact been deeply involved in erecting the culture of critique that now pervades the West.

Inevitably, however, despite a great many good things in Gottfried’s review, my reply must necessarily discuss points of disagreement. As Gottfried notes, he has previously reviewed Culture of Critique in Chronicles, and we went back and forth on it in print, with a final rejoinder by me on my website. (The entire thread is here.) He makes some of the same points in his recent review, but it’s worth discussing them again because we have both refined our arguments a bit in last decade.

Jewish IQ

The area of Jewish IQ has attracted quite a bit of research since my review in 1994. My estimate of an IQ of 115 for Ashkenazi Jews is higher than estimates based on more recent data. Richard Lynn’s work is exemplary: Lynn finds that Ashkenazi Jews in Britain and the US have average IQ’s of 110.7 and 110.4 respectively, and I am happy to accept those figures.

Assuming those averages, then one would expect there would be 4 times the proportion of Jews with >130 IQ and 6 times the proportion of Jews with >145 IQ. As Lynn notes, this goes some way to explaining Jewish overrepresentation among academic elites in the US and Britain (by factors of 7.0 and 7.6 respectively) and among winners of Nobel prizes (by factors of 8.0 and 12.3 respectively).

But none of these data show that, as Gottfried phrases it, “Jews have a right to treat Euro-Americans as natural inferiors or as people probably unfit to sustain their civilization (or what remains of it) without a Jewish master class.”

In fact, even assuming those proportions, because Jews are such a small percentage of the population, there are far more European-Americans and native Brits with IQ’s above either 130 or 145. And, also consistent with my 1994 analysis, there are far more non-Jews among Nobel prize winners than Jews.

In fact, if we take an IQ of 145 as a cutoff for genius and assume that Jews are around 2.5% of the US population, there are nearly 7 times more non-Jewish White geniuses in the US than Jewish geniuses. If we use 130 as a benchmark for at least vastly easing the path to upward mobility, there are around 10 times more non-Jewish whites in this category than Jews. And there would be a much greater disparity in England where Jews are less than 1% of the population.

Europeans certainly do not need Jews to develop or maintain their civilization. The successful erection of the culture of critique is much more about ethnic networking and dominating key points in the cultural food chain — especially the media — than it is about IQ.

A similar point can be made about admissions to Ivy League universities, where Jews represent around 25–33% of undergraduates. On the basis of IQ, their representation should be around 10% (IQ >130) to15% (IQ > 145) or even less, because it’s hard to believe that all Ivy League students have at least an IQ of 130.

And what, then, to make of Jewish representation of 60% in studies of the American media elite? (See here.) Pretty clearly, IQ has very little to do with it. This is entirely compatible with Merlin Miller’s recent TOO article on Hollywood where he notes that Jewish graduates of USC’s film production program were able to achieve much more with the same credentials than their non-Jewish counterparts.

Indeed, the larger point is that the rise of the West happened without any significant Jewish contribution. The age of Spanish conquest and exploration began in the same year that the Jews were expelled from Spain and not long after the Inquisition was launched in 1481. During this period, Spain became the wealthiest and most powerful country in Europe. Eventually, the main competitors with Spain were Western European countries — especially England — that had expelled Jews in the Middle Ages.

The “rise of the Jews” — Albert Lindemann’s term — resulted ultimately from a Jewish population explosion among Hasidic and other fundamentalist Jews in Eastern Europe. But Eastern Europe remained a relative backwater compared to Western Europe and America despite the fact that, as Yuri Slezkine has shown, Jews completely dominated the economic and cultural life in those areas, at least until World War II.

Jewish Hostility toward the Peoples and Culture of the West

Gottfried writes, “I am also skeptical about the possibility of extrapolating from the way a particular Jewish subculture has behaved in the U.S., Canada, and parts of Europe in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries to how Jews have conducted themselves everywhere at all times.”

But I am not making any such claim. Each country must be analyzed separately, and one can never make generalizations across time and place without examining the data.

Nevertheless, an important aspect of traditional Jewish attitudes has been animosity toward the wider, non-Jewish culture. In reviewing Cultural Insurrections, Gottfried presumably noticed Chapter 2 — my review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century, subtitled “Jews as a hostile elite in the USSR.” That essay reviews Jewish hostility toward non-Jewish national cultures throughout Eastern and Central Europe beginning in the latter 19th century and extending into the mass murders of cultural non-conformists of the Soviet period. Cultural subversion was also an important theme of the essays on Henry Ford and The International Jew which also appear in Cultural Insurrections.

The first chapter of Culture of Critique also traces a long history of Jewish hostility toward the people and culture of surrounding societies — Muslim, Christian and pagan — beginning in the ancient world. For the most part this hostility remained within the confines of the Jewish community — especially in Jewish religious writing. But this was due solely to the undeveloped state of the media and the self-segregation or exclusion of Jews from the wider society.

However, when Jews did enter the wider society, as in 15th-century Spain, the radical critiques of Jewish intellectuals appeared in the most prestigious academic and popular media. This has been the pattern in the contemporary history of the West, at least since the mid-19th century.

The point is that we should not minimize the tendency for Jews to create movements that are highly critical of the people and culture of non-Jews. One shouldn’t over-generalize this to all Jews. Paul Gottfried is certainly an exception, and he is doubtless correct that this tendency was at least muted in the contingent of German Jews who came to America in the mid-19th century. (In Germany, however, the association of Jews with cultural criticism was an important ingredient in anti-Jewish attitudes from the late 19th century up until the rise of National Socialism.)

Nevertheless, despite their relative lack of hostility, it should be noted that wealthy German Jews like Jacob Schiff, Louis Marshall, and Louis Brandeis were effective activists on behalf of Jewish causes that were at least arguably not in the interests of the United States or its non-Jewish citizens. For example, Jewish activists led by the American Jewish Committee influenced US immigration policy so that Eastern European Jews were allowed to immigrate two decades after the American public opposed further immigration. This group also successfully influenced US foreign policy to oppose Russia until the triumph of the Bolsheviks, and Brandeis was an influential Zionist. In these cases, their motivation was not so much hostility toward the US as simply their perception of Jewish interests.

But in any case, there has been a clear tendency for at least some groups of strongly identified Jews to create influential intellectual movements that subject non-Jewish society to radical critique, and Gottfried seems to agree with this.

As reviewed in The Culture of Critique, the psychological basis for this is straightforward: Members of strongly identified ingroups tend to have negative views of outgroups, especially outgroups seen as historical enemies. And for many activist Jews — the ones who end up having so much influence on culture, Western history begins with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans, fast forwards to marauding Crusaders, the Spanish Inquisition, and expulsions from Western Europe, and culminates in Czarist persecutions, Henry Ford, and the Holocaust.

In saying that, I am agreeing with Gottfried that the animosity of Jewish intellectual movements is firmly rooted in their perception of history. (Ironically perhaps, this makes Gottfried much more on board with the general thrust of my writing than the review by “Garnet James Wolseley” that appeared in The Occidental Quarterly. See my reply.) I do not use the phrase “resource competition” to describe conflicts between Jews and non-Jews in Culture of Critique. The use of this phrase stems from my earlier books on historical patterns of Jewish behavior (e.g., the tendency of Jews to make alliances with oppressive elites) and historical anti-Semitism (e.g., hatred toward Jews competing for similar economic niches).

Culture of Critique formulates the conflict quite differently. The main framework is the psychology of ingroup/outgroup conflict, and there is little question that historical grudges have played a major role in that. Indeed, the theme of Jewish historical grudges is prominent in Chapter 1 of Cultural Insurrections: “Background Traits for Jewish Activism.”

Incidentally, others who have thought long and hard about Jews have come to a similar conclusion about the role of Jewish hatred as a motivating force. Consider Pat Buchanan’s pointed analogy between the hatred that is driving the persecution of John Demjanjuk and the hatred that drove the crucifixion of Christ: “The spirit behind this un-American persecution has never been that of justice tempered by mercy. It is the same satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago.”

This is clearly a barely veiled reference to the “blood libel” of classic Catholic theology. But the point here is that the persecution of Demjanjuk is motivated by hatred and revenge for historical grievances— exactly the motives that Gottfried and I are ascribing to the creators of the culture of critique.

But having said that, there is little question that besides hatred and revenge, another very important part of the equation is displacement and domination. As I noted in my recent article on the Jewish left, it is more than the hostility of former ghetto dwellers suddenly released into the modern Western world — the phenomenon that was described so well by John Murray Cuddihy. It is about displacement and domination:

The displacement of the genteel white Protestant culture at Columbia that [Mark] Rudd hated is part of the general displacement of non-Jewish whites. … Even though the New Left rejected Stalinism, there is no doubt it was bent on a similar displacement of white elites. All of its policies led inexorably in that direction. To a considerable extent, the current malaise of whites in the US can be directly traced to the triumph of the attitudes of the New Left—especially non-white immigration, the rise of multiculturalism, and the steady erosion of whites as a percentage of the electorate.

Ultimately, it is about resources — political, economic, and cultural. When Whites become a minority in the US as a result of the mass immigration unleashed by Jewish activism and the culture of critique, they will come to realize how devastatingly true this is.

I also agree with Gottfried that other historically aggrieved groups have been hostile toward societies seen as oppressing them. The only difference is that, as Gottfried, notes, Jews are so much better at this game than other groups — much better at becoming an influential component of elite and popular culture.

There is no question that African Americans have legitimate historical grudges against the American past. However, there can be little doubt that, by themselves, they would not have had much of an influence in erecting a culture of critique. The culture of critique was successful because it emanated from Harvard, Hollywood, well-connected law firms, and the New York Times — the most prestigious academic and media institutions.

But of course this is exactly why we have to concentrate on Jewish influence, not Black influence or Latino influence, much less Huguenot influence.

Biological Reductionism?

In commenting on this general ethnic tendency, Gottfried states that “although friend-enemy distinctions are evident here, it is doubtful that these dividing lines operate strictly according to biological conditioning.” And again: “What MacDonald highlights looks like unfriendly behavior; and one may certainly question the biological reductionism used to explain it.”

My theory is that the tendency for hostility toward outgroups is indeed a psychological universal stemming from our evolutionary past, although it is doubtless true that Jews are far more motivated by ingroup/outgroup distinctions than typical Westerners — what I term Jewish “hyper-ethnocentrism.” But even so, invoking the evolutionary psychology of group competition certainly does not make me a biological reductionist.

I wish that Gottfried had read and commented on “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism” — another chapter in Cultural Insurrections and one that I think is perhaps the most important in the book. (This is the academic version of that chapter.)

Viewed as a whole, my work is much more about culture than it is about biology — else why write a book titled The Culture of Critique? Hostility toward outgroups is indeed a biological universal, but the result is that Jewish intellectual movements then create a culture that is hostile to White people, their culture and their history. This culture of critique then has important consequences because culture is able to have a strong influence on human behavior for the reasons described in “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism”:

The culture of critique has become the explicit culture of the West, endlessly repeated in media messages but packaged differently for people of different levels of intelligence and education, and for people with different interests and from different subcultures. The message of this paper is that by programming the higher areas of the brain, this explicit culture is able to control the implicit ethnocentric tendencies of white people. … It’s the explicit culture, stupid!

Whatever else one might call me, ‘biological reductionist’ is not one of them. (Nor is it likely that anyone who has seen me would call me “small-boned.” And, for the record, I am not a clinical psychologist: Evolutionary/developmental/personality psychologist would be more or less accurate. But I suppose I have to agree with Gottfried that I am “soft-spoken.” In that regard, I am a follower of Teddy Roosevelt.)

What’s Wrong with White People?

Finally, we come to perhaps the most important and difficult point — that fact that, as Gottfried says, “the majority group, including those who describe themselves as “conservatives,” have lost their cotton-picking minds.” I completely agree with this, and it is certainly something that I have thought a lot about.

For starters, this is why I have always phrased my claims about Jewish influence as a necessary condition rather than a sufficient condition.

Secondly, I have emphasized how the reward and punishment structure of multi-cultural America provides a great many opportunities for self-interested Whites who have no concern for their own people. Gottfried does a good job in recounting my emphasis on goyish careerists who flock to neocon think tanks, with the result that American conservatism is pretty much non-existent. (The “conservative” Heritage Foundation recently advocated a massive increase in H1B visas in the middle of a recession. Sometimes it seems as if “conservatives” and liberals are competing see which group can speed up the displacement of Whites the fastest.)

But it’s not just about careerism in a world where Jews are a very substantial component of the American elite. As Gottfried notes, it’s also about White guilt. But here Gottfried ignores the chapters of Cultural Insurrections where I develop my ideas on the psychological tendencies of Whites that make them predisposed to support the culture of critique, particularly “What Makes Western Culture Unique?” and “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism.” This builds on earlier work, particularly the Preface to the Paperback Edition of Culture of Critique.

In general, my view is that these cultural transformations are the result of a complex interaction between preexisting deep-rooted tendencies of Europeans (individualism, moral universalism, and science) and the rise of a Jewish elite hostile to the traditional peoples and culture of Europe. At the psychological level, I have proposed that because Whites evolved in small groups where individual reputation rather than kinship relatedness was of the upmost importance, Whites are more prone to guilt for transgressing social norms. One’s reputation rather than one’s place in a kinship structure became of exaggerated importance for Europeans.

Recently, I have expanded on these ideas in my essay on how the Puritans erected a home-grown culture of critique in 19th-century America. There I discuss the psychology of moralistic self-punishment exemplified at the extreme by the Puritans and their intellectual descendants, but also apparent in a great many other whites.

Gottfried is correct that the culture of critique could have developed without Jews in 20th-century America. But it didn’t. The Puritan culture of moralistic aggression that rationalized the Civil War and the utopian idealism of the 19th century lost out to Darwinism by the early 20th century. At that time it was common for intellectual elites to believe in the reality of racial differences and the reality of competition between races and ethnic groups. Bluebloods like Henry Cabot Lodge and Madison Grant who descended from the Puritans were extolling the virtues of Northern Europeans and funding the movement to end immigration.

I think that my research shows that the destruction of this world was the result of the Jewish intellectual and political movements I describe in The Culture of Critique and Cultural Insurrections.

For example, over a decade after I originally showed that Jewish activism was by far the most important force behind the changes in US immigration law that has resulted in dramatically altering the politics and ethnic composition of the US, no one has even attempted to show that I am wrong. Yet this is by far the most important conclusion of The Culture of Critique because, quite simply, immigration is at the absolute center of the rise of multi-culturalism and the displacement of Whites.

And my conclusion has been reinforced by Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Davis Graham:

Most important for the content of immigration reform [i.e., anti-restrictionism], the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s…. Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration. (Hugh Davis Graham, Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America (New York, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 56–57).

To be sure, the destruction of the Darwinian world of early 20th-century America would not have been possible with a group less prone to guilt and moralistic aggression against their own people. But without the establishment of a hostile elite dominated by strongly identified Jews, it simply would not have happened.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.

Source: The Occidental Observer

Mishko and Dietrich, 4/17/2009

April 18, 2009

This Week in Disorganized America:

Veterans a Focus of FBI Extremist Probe

April 17, 2009


WASHINGTON — The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this year launched a nationwide operation targeting white supremacists and “militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups,” including a focus on veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to memos sent from bureau headquarters to field offices.

The initiative, dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle, was outlined in February, two months before a memo giving a similar warning was issued on April 7 by the Department of Homeland Security.

Disclosure of the DHS memo this week has sparked controversy among some conservatives and veterans groups. Appearing on television talk shows Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the assessment, but apologized to veterans who saw it as an accusation.

“This is an assessment of things just to be wary of, not to infringe on constitutional rights, certainly not to malign our veterans,” she said on NBC’s Today Show.

The documents outlining Operation Vigilant Eagle cite a surge in activity by such groups. The memos say the FBI’s focus on veterans began as far back as December, during the final weeks of the Bush administration, when the bureau’s domestic counterterrorism division formed a special joint working group with the Defense Department.

Associated Press
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, pictured this month in Mexico, defended the assessment Thursday but apologized to veterans.
A Feb. 23 draft memo from FBI domestic counterterrorism leaders, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, cited an “increase in recruitment, threatening communications and weapons procurement by white supremacy extremist and militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups.”

The FBI said in the memo that its conclusion about a surge in such activities was based on confidential sources, undercover operations, reporting from other law-enforcement agencies and publicly available information. The memo said the main goal of the multipronged operation was to get a better handle on “the scope of this emerging threat.” The operation also seeks to identify gaps in intelligence efforts surrounding these groups and their leaders.

The aim of the FBI’s effort with the Defense Department, which was rolled into the Vigilant Eagle program, is to “share information regarding Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans whose involvement in white supremacy and/or militia sovereign citizen extremist groups poses a domestic terrorism threat,” according to the Feb. 23 FBI memo.

Michael Ward, FBI deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said in an interview Thursday that the portion of the operation focusing on the military related only to veterans who draw the attention of Defense Department officials for joining white-supremacist or other extremist groups.

“We’re not doing an investigation into the military, we’re not looking at former military members,” he said. “It would have to be something they were concerned about, or someone they’re concerned is involved” with extremist groups.

Mr. Ward said that the FBI’s general counsel reviewed the operation before it began, “to make sure any tripwires we set do not violate any civil liberties.”

Some Republican lawmakers, talk-show hosts and veterans groups complained this week after the internal DHS assessment cited the potential for the same extremists groups to target returning combat veterans for recruitment. The Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, also echoed the concerns.

The separate DHS assessment, leaked this week after being sent to law-enforcement agencies, said the “willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.” Veterans could draw special attention, the report said, because of their advanced training.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, said Wednesday he was offended that veterans were characterized as potential domestic terrorists.

Amy Kudwa, a DHS spokeswoman, said Thursday the report was issued before an objection about one part of the document raised by the agency’s civil-rights division was resolved. She called it a “breakdown of an internal process” that would be fixed.

The FBI documents show the bureau was working with investigators inside the nation’s uniformed services “in an effort to identify those current or former soldiers who pose a domestic terrorism threat.” The other agencies working with the FBI are the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Division, the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

Documents detailing the operation are unclassified, but were meant for internal distribution only.

Source: Online Wall Street Journal

“Look at all the White Folk Singing and Dancing!”

April 17, 2009

Check out the amazing half-time show linked below. What? “White Folk” can dance and have a good time? Betcha there weren’t fights or stabbings before or after this game.

Video Link