by Robert Frenz

10 May 2000

One often hears the most vocal among us yammer on about morals. Morals, in this sense, being pronouncements dropped out of the welkin upon our undeserving, and sinful, heads by some invisible omnipotent being who handles answers to prayers as if they were prizes in some sort of lottery. Morals, at best, are nothing more than a set of rules which supposedly are to be used to regulate, and judge, our conduct. If one chooses to disobey, or ignore, those rules, he is said to be immoral. An amoral person, on the other hand, dribbles through life "doing his own thing" usually with the firm conviction that his special carcass lies outside the bounds of rules of which he dislikes. Sometimes his behavior passes without notice and at others, serves to get him into hot water.

Why should people have rules? Anarchists don't think they should but all of them would certainly perish in the world they fantasize about and many of them do, at times, work towards that goal which is merely a hateful desire to bring havoc upon what they despise. Communism had the same mother as did anarchy.

The 'lower' animals -- a questionable premiss at best -- exhibit a code of conduct which includes the feeding and protection of their young and adhering to a power hierarchy -- for the lack of a better word. Animals often steal from each other as anyone can readily notice as I do when watching the two squirrels, Bill and Hill, operate in the small park adjacent to this apartment building. This act can be said to have no morality attached to it.

Let me interject at this point that many people like to have morality confined only to the illusionary, and fanciful world of the gods when, in fact, the gods have never indicated so in spite of certain 'prophets' -- more than likely zonked out on hashish -- claiming that THEY were so special, that gods CHOSE THEM to receive those wonderful and profound words. Gods are indeed powerful and they need no middle men to interpret what they have to say. If middle men were indeed a NECESSITY, then the gods aren't that god-like after all.

Morals do not come from "on high" and anyone who tells you that is someone who wants YOU to be one of the SHEEP whom THEY can control. Morals flow from the collective will of a people and are shaped by whatever enhances, and benefits that community. When those rules become traditional, then it is the human mind which proclaims them to be something miraculously special as one does a rabbit's foot because it was worn when purchasing a winning lottery ticket.

Animals are relatively stagnant in their societies. They continually "reinvent the wheel." Humans, on the other hand, pass information on and the receivers have FAITH in the truth of what they receive. Thus, once the wheel was invented there was no need to do it again, unless of course, you have no trust in the community of which you are a part and have descended from. A lack of social trust -- something which IS ALWAYS present in any racially mixed agglomerate -- is always the harbinger, and designer of that society's collapse.

Animals cooperate only to a limited extent and they really have no realistic means of passing on the knowledge of collected experience. Each crow, for example, has to learn for itself that a man carrying anything resembling a stick, is something which needs the command "wings -- do your thing" in order to increase the chances of living longer. If crows had a means to pass this information on, we'd probably witness an increasing tide of them. It is a sad comment, that far too many people never get any further along this line than does a crow. They never learn from the experiences of others. In fact, when a hard lesson is taught -- AIDS, drug damage, race-mixing, the 'O.J. experience' etc. -- they fail to learn anything. Any cow is smarter than that and the only reason I can present is that the innate intelligence of most people is negated by their fits of fancy -- their trips into the land of wishful thinking.

Stealing is destructive of cooperation between individuals and it far outweighs any "Do unto others..." bit of goody two-shoes blather. Playing bed games with a friend's spouse destroys trust and ultimately any previous cooperation. This sometimes leads to outright hostility and often with murderous intent. Even graffiti, no matter how minor, manages to disrupt individual relations for it places a burden upon the receiver in order to correct.

Comrades are those whom you cooperate with and hence, form your community. Not all communities -- nations of blood-related people, kin, folk, etc. -- have the same goals and manner of achieving what appears to be similar ends. Their behavior is different and so is their set of morals. One might be interested in obtaining an apple. Others who also have this same objective can be called competitors -- they want to beat you to the apple. If someone poisons the apple or engages in any act which would prevent you from obtaining that apple, other than an above board race, can be properly labeled as an enemy. Enemies never want to compete. They want to eliminate their competitors; place severe obstacles in their path; or simply destroy the target of the competition. They're old stories: We lost the game but won the fight afterward. I couldn't have it, so I destroyed it.

A half-century ago, value systems and morals became an issue so intense that the world suffered dearly for it. The Germans wanted a country exclusively for Germans. The jews living in that region, didn't agree. One said yes and the other said no. The jews were the minority and they should have left for that reason -- a reason NOW given to encourage Whites to leave Africa and other areas where they are in small number. As muds flock to these shores, it is evident that a White majority has no rights and if a majority has no rights, then what is all of this "democracy" palaver all about anyway?

Morals, in condensation, represent tested rules which maximize the harmony within a group and work to benefit it in several ways. Morals always revolve about "Is it good for the community?" Certainly the jews operate on this principle -- Is it good for jews? No one can condemn that.

Believing that morals are created for an "equal" ALL, in some domain not of this earth, has allowed the jews to use the tunnel of perverted christianity in order to get people not of their kind, to submit to rules which benefit the jews. Hardly an hour passes, when I am not exposed to something which relies upon a 'yes' answer to "Is it good for jews?" One hair of deviation will get one tarred abruptly with the label of 'anti-Semite'. This all-embracing term reaches from as little as a scowl to outright physical assault. It even includes subjective things such as what THEY THINK you are thinking. Talk about nut cases!

Working class people have their ears closer to the sounds of reality than do the professional classes. As one does mental gymnastics successfully, his undisciplined ego elevates his notions into realms untouched by Nature's hardness. It is a kind of internally applied 'snort'-- a short circuit of the faculty of reason. Once you have surrendered your mind to the tooth fairies, then you will sing the praises of equality, justice, togetherness, tolerance, democracy and that sort of thing, while turning off your eyes, nose and ears to anything which might interrupt your mental siesta.

We, as White people, have no need for a morality which works against our interests for that is to pervert the whole meaning of morality. We, as White people, have no need of direction from others not of our kind for OUR interests are NOT THEIR interests which a few dazed Americans are now beginning to discover. Once we return to behaving as White people, the gods will smile. They WILL decidedly smile.