It is perhaps axiomatic to state that each individual desires to do damned well as he pleases without responsibility or retribution. An attitude encompassing such as desire is an anathema to all social order and indeed, cannot be achieved in practice since my desire to possess your Honda conflicts with your desire to keep it. This conflict led many writers to assault the idea of private property thus opening the door for the "property in common" palaver of Marxism.

People who reject the idea of political government sometimes call themselves "anarchists". Like little boys, they dislike towing the line for any purpose save fulfillment of their own petty whims. This is, of course, the basis for most of what I see in American anarchism today.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a Frenchman, was probably the first man to actually proclaim that he was an Anarchist. In 1840, he wrote a study which he called Qu'est ce que la propriété? (What Is Property?) He went on to explain that the real laws of society have nothing to do with authority but stem from the nature of society itself. He envisioned a society, without a central authority, where everyone willingly cooperated for the common good. As the reader should guess, this is the camel's nose-under-the-tent relative to communism. Experiments with this sort of social order have occurred throughout the ages and all have failed -- which should tell us something about trying to get penguins to fly.

Anarchism, in all its forms, consists of (1) a fundamental, and sometimes violent, criticism of the existing power-based order of society, (2) a vision of a libertarian society based on cooperation as opposed to coercion, and (3) a method of proceeding from one order to the other.

Considering the above, no so-called batch of addle-pated American anarchists ever got past the first plank. One bunch, who clearly demonstrated their complete ignorance of what they were advocating, formed an Anarchist political party! Anarchy, to them, remains little other than unbridled temper tantrums and a "you can't tell me what to do" adolescent yammering. People such as this cannot even run their own lives successfully much less forming any kind of useful instrument for White survival. Sooner or later, they end up behind bars where, I am sure, they will claim political persecution.

As Eric recently mentioned to me, "I was ignorant. That's why I went to school in the first place." He sought the advice, and counsel, of older people because he recognized that wisdom is not an attribute of the young. In today's hedonistic society, all assume that total knowledge is in their possession. This is why their ignorant rebellion will surely fail as it has for all of those foolish souls of the past.

White survival begins with the individual. It does not begin with some blow-hard, with a diseased ego, shouting that he is the "leader". Substantial individuals coalesce into a cohesive group within a framework of cooperation. The natural flow of events allows those with the capacity to lead, lead. Unlike the destructive efforts of Ernst Zündel, who always managed to neutralize anyone who surfaced with talent, people truly dedicated to a purpose other than self gratification, will gladly allow the best helmsman to guide the ship. This is the principle of merit and as we all recognize, our ZOG will go to all lengths to counter it.

Our young people clearly know that something is amiss in our affluent cesspool. Most of them were brought up on the bitter milk of Zionist propaganda and in a home where the meaning of family was reduced to TV gawking, stomach-stuffing, lack of respect for nearly everything plus a plethora of targets to blame for one's own failures. Women became little other than convenient cock-wipes, or disgruntled feminist hags, and male "sex symbols" were boys such as Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise. The White American man was being put to rest.

Boys, no matter how violent or well intentioned, will never conquer anything. The Internet had the promise of communication and "networking" among those wide awake enough to see what is happening to their country. Alas, it remains little other than an amusement center where people play the part of a dilettante and deceive themselves into believing they are "doing something."

"Never send a boy to do a man's work", was the old saying. Now, we are sending women, perverts and the criminal. Perhaps it's time to let the gophers have a go at it. At least, they'd be more interesting to watch.

Robert Frenz

2 July 1999