6 July 1999
My greatest nightmare: Waking up to find myself in bed between Albright and Reno.
Another "Federal entrapment" scam? Today I received a plea to send money for the defense of a National Alliance supporter named "Chris". He was apparently coaxed by a "Federal snitch" into buying some replicas of hand grenades. So where's the crime? Are toys now illegal to buy or is someone just yanking on your joint? It's the blight-wing and one guess is as good as another.
Sometime during the spring of 1966, I had a chance to talk to some armed supporters of George Lincoln Rockwell. I asked them why they joined the American Nazi Party. Almost to a man, they said they wanted to be "where the action was." Nothing to do with idealism, nor program, but much to do with street brawls. This, I am afraid, is where the so-called non-movement "movement" is today. Racism, and White whatever, is only the arena, and excuse, for "kicking ass".

There is no White political "movement" of any kind -- only a Barnum and Bailey freak show filled with many physically dangerous misfits. I have suggested that all should step back a pace and examine the "leaders" whom you think will save your pork and beans. Do you really believe that these people could lead a duck to water, much less spearhead a revolution? Do you believe that endless gassing, Internet lurking and book reading, will stop the rain from falling?

Revisionists are only people who spend their time arguing about history. That's all. In fact, it's their means of income. The actuality that many jews and liberals oppose them indicates little. Jews would also get irritated if you tossed stink bombs into their synagogues. There is always a way to piss people off and often battles result but this in no way indicates that the resulting fight accomplishes anything other than to reveal people who dislike each other.

Many White people, like myself, do not like seeing their Western ways being corrupted and dismantled. I have asked myself how revisionism could possibly reverse this trend. Not even God has supplied me with an answer. Even so, if one is convinced that it is a viable approach then its authors should be examined as to their trustworthiness. 

A chain saw is perhaps the best way to fell a tree but if that is not available, then an ax will do. In such a case, don't try to convince anyone that you are using the best method. That also goes for parenting and don't you forget it. There is NO substitute for a man and a woman working together.
Didja ever notice that those nitwits who claim that man is not animal, are also those who love to enhance the knowledge of  human medicine by experimenting with animals? 
In the Clint Eastwood movie, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Fletcher (John Vernon) tells the corrupt Senator, "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's rain." (Labels are not facts - never forget that!)
I get mail from a wide variety of people. I assume this but perhaps it is only one person using his giant collection of  'handles', as the truckers like to say. One fellow wrote a few messages telling me I was a "f---ing idiot". I got the message the first time and the fact that he continued to write told more about him than it did about me. If I am as labeled, then any reasonable person would stay clear of me.

There is an alarming misconception about many things and it's amazing to learn of the lengths people go to in order to defend their tenuous positions. Take marriage and family, for example. One told me that marriage was "only a piece of paper" while another believed that child rearing had little to do with man and wife. Another mentioned the high divorce rate thus using it as a reason not to get married at all.

Any observant soul recognizes, from an early age, that man and woman are complements, and sometimes compliments. What one does not possess the other does. As with other arrangements in this non-expanding Universe, the combined effect is as the square of the components. Man and woman are a universe. One without the other is only 1/4 of the whole and this should be remembered by all of those lost, so-called, one parent "families" -- a misnomer if I ever heard one. The jewess Dr. Laura has been trying to alter the definition of "father" by calling him a "sperm donor" -- the father title belonging to whatever humping companion the woman chooses to have feed and play with her children. It's the attitude of a commune.

Marriage is a mutual oath-sharing episode given in front of witnesses and recorded on a piece of paper. The paper is not the marriage anymore than the Heinz label is food.

Marriages do come apart and each readily points to the other as the cause. In any event, an oath was broken and this should never be forgotten for it tells us much about the personal integrity of that party.

A parental death, of course, renders asunder any family. It is tragic but life goes on, as in the case of my father who lost the companionship of my beloved mother when I was a small boy. It is this sort of event which tests the character of those so effected. Family oriented people -- those interested more in the welfare of their children than of bed exercises and a high standard of living -- follow one course. Allowing nearly 1 year for the emotional trauma to diminish, he then went looking for a woman suitable for the mother position. Being a very handsome man, he never had any difficulty in attracting women but his interests lay beyond his personal desires. My grandfather once remarked at how similar all women were once they were under the sheets. "Turn them upside down and they all look alike," was a common expression which works for both sexes. Dad, as could be expected, found an admirable woman with whom he increased our family size to nine. At no time was he ever under the impression that he could raise his children without help. (Feeding children and watching them grow is not what "raising" is all about. One parent "families" actually cheat the children out of 50 percent of the man/woman relationship. On does not learn about men by living with women.)

Children have more RADAR antennas than we often like to admit. They sense what the situation really is and the presence of a marriage "paper" indicates that vows were taken and recognized. Shack-ups are never hidden even if accompanied by a battalion of lies. An absentee parent is no parent at all. "Father figures" and "mother figures" are only notions and noises excreted by fetid brains and mouths.

There is no such thing as a single parent family. (A family is more than a batch of people sharing the same toilet. Without children, it's only a married couple.) There is no such thing as family unless man and woman have taken oaths to that effect. Without marriage, there is no family. No child emotionally survives the absence of family and only the self-deluded, and arrogantly stupid, would believe otherwise. (Most criminality, drug use, promiscuity, perversion, and so forth are nourished by the absence of family.) We mourn the demise of our White nation but a blood nation is composed of clans and tribes. A tribe is a group of families and without family, there can be no nation. We have lost family because we have lost our identity and hence, our sense of purpose. We have reduced ourselves to little more than hedonistic "sex partners" and consumers, and by this, have taught our offspring to behave in a fashion which would embarrass any wayward skunk. We break our marriage vows because our word is worthless and the focus of the marriage was never upon family, much less the emotional and psychological welfare of our children. A family is no better than its parts and that is where we are today -- mostly useless and unreliable parts. All stands upon individual integrity.

When one finds himself wearing a thorny shirt which causes him discomfort, he need not necessarily look for another shirt. There is the option of simply shedding the irritating shirt. So it is with Christianity. It is sufficient to cast it off. One need not seek an Odin, Buddha or even conjure up a Creator of his own.

The degenerate aspects of Christianity include the sacrificing of the beautiful for the sake of the botched. "The last shall be first" (Matt.20.16), we are told. These anti-Nature notions did not originate with Christianity. Race destroying ideas were first popularized by a man of low origin. He was the most repulsive man of his Age. His name was Socrates.

In a beautiful city of beauty-worshippers, he, therefore found himself at a terrible disadvantage. Judged by the healthiest values of his Age, he was bound to stand at the very bottom of the scale.

Unfortunately for mankind, he had a very shrewd mind. He would have made a first-class journalist, an ideal writer of bestsellers. And he determined to get himself across, i.e. to create values by which he himself and his type could be regarded as desirable.

How could he do this? - Only by transvaluing existing values, by assuring the Greeks that there was no essential connection between a man's visible and invisible aspects.

And this he proceeded to do. It was the old hoax of the fox that had lost its tail. But he got away with it. True, he succeeded only with a dolt like Xenophon, and a middle-class Liberal like Plato; but he did succeed. And although the best of his contemporaries condemned him to death for it, his two apprentices most unfortunately survived him, and constituted the channel through which we became contaminated by this monster's unscrupulous bluff to save his self-esteem.

He admitted at his trial that he had spent his whole life teaching men to prize the soul above the body. True, in Plato's Symposium he first speaks of beauty more or less in the orthodox Greek style, and refers to it as "accordant with the divine", whilst ugliness "is discordant with whatever is divine." But this is a mere concession to his listeners; for, in a later passage, he produces his own pet doctrine and argues persuasively that the beauty of the body is but a slight affair, and that man's highest achievement is to set a higher value on the beauty of the soul. His bosom friend, Alcibiades, at the same banquet, declared that Socrates despised a man's beauty more than anything, and to this same friend Socrates declared that the only true lover is he who loves the soul; to love a person's soul is to love him for his own sake, and not for his bodily beauty which is not himself.

The logical consequence of this attitude was, of course, to make Socrates no longer despicable. But it had other consequences, which Socrates himself did not fail to see. It made bodily defects respectable. It made disease almost a distinction. And, indeed, Socrates said as much. He declared to Glaucon: "If there be any merely bodily defect in another, we will be patient of it and will love the same."

These notes were later taken up by Christianity and sustained in all octaves, until the whole of Europe rang with them. And it is more or less true to say that Christianity is merely Platonism for the mob.

Today, Clinton's America is drowning in the worship of everything degenerate and ugly. The  healthy and productive are being taxed to support the diseased and useless. I do not agree with one critic's proclamation that the stupid have just as much right to live as do the intelligent. Perhaps it is time to re-examine what we mean by "rights".

How often, in that panorama of the criminal countenance, do we find handsome people? From Meyer Lansky and Louis (Lepke) Buchalter to Al(phonse) "Scarface" Capone and Charles (Lucky) Luciano, they were ugly, very ugly and repulsive to an extreme. What god were they in the image of?

The ancients held that a beautiful soul was contained within a beautiful body and so was a sound mind. Then came the acceptance that the beauty of a soul had nothing to do with the appearance of its container, as we have seen. Today, the reversal is in place where ugliness, such as found in the hunchback Quasimodo, the "elephant man", ET and the super cheese Jedi of Star Wars, is coupled with virtue and intelligence. The highly advertised and over-rated hideous Albert Einstein is the stuff nightmares are made of. It boggles the mind to contemplate why God is supposed to prefer the botched and repulsive. I do understand why the botched and repulsive like to believe that they possess heavenly attributes. Beliefs are not necessarily facts.

(Adapted from Anthony Ludovici's, The Choice of a Mate, Bowering Press 1935, pages 22-25.)


Pat Buchanan is a "nationalist" who objects not to race-mixing and states that some of his "best friends" are jews. (If the jews didn't approve of him, he'd never appear on national TV.) Narcissistic David Duke is a womanizing "nationalist" of  low character. Phyllis Schlafly is a "nationalist" with feminist overtones who offers no objection to the mixing of races, as long as everyone salutes the flag. (Do you 'men' really need a mommy to lead and/or advise you?)

Beware! Anyone can adopt any program and call it what they may. Check the singer before you start singing their song.

Advice for the revolutionary:
If a racist, you'd better know the bloodline of your leader and of those with whom you associate.
If an anti-Semite, you'd better be able to recognize a Semite when you meet one.
If a Nazi, then remember that Hitler never had a book list or other merchandise for sale.
Make sure you know the definitions of the words you use.
Remember that no man is any better than his word.
Religion, economy, and so on, flow from the Nation -- not the other way around.
A Nation is no stronger than those who comprise it.
Strive to become a valuable man; a man with integrity and honorable character.
If your crotch does your thinking, then you are useless for any substantial purpose.
The educational standards were raised and a greater percentage of kiddies ended up failing. Ain't that odd? It must be the ozone hole at work again.
When you find soiled diapers lying in a public drinking fountain, you'll know the beaners have arrived.
A spaced-out space-gawking astronomer recently announced that they have discovered particles older than the universe. Dawh? These are the Carl Sagan types who babble about "twin universes" and other such jewish nonsense such as an "expanding universe." If universe means all, or whole, then what in hell is it expanding into? Expanding means to get larger so how can something get larger than itself?

Our class of people to launch into a black hole has now expanded. No longer is it restricted to lawyers, politicians, real estate agents and car salesmen.