16 June 2001
I am amazed at the email I receive regarding blue eyes. Some people appear bent out of shape and others offer ACADEMIC arguments which are quotes from people who are deemed "experts". Read all of the experts' works from Coon, Baker, Keith, Boaz, Grant, encyclopedias, and on and on, and there is ONE INESCAPABLE conclusion: few of these authors agree!! If the experts cannot agree, then what is hell is their opinion worth other than having something to argue about?  Find me a set of mathematicians who disagree over the Pythagorean theorem. Where are the chemists who don't agree that mixing potassium chlorate and sulfur will produce a substance which will go "Bang", big time, if smacked by a hammer. Where are the hunters who disagree that a bullet fired into the head of a rabbit causes that rabbit to stop hopping. All of this "race" categorization is a semantic operation attempting to calalog all of life – labeling things nicely. Recently, one zoologist mentioned that the manatee was the nearest relative to the elephant. The last expert said that the hyrax was. The manatee has flippers and a wide flat tail. The hyrax is a sort of African woodchuck. To a biologist ALL animal life is RELATED and that relation is based upon a THEORY – a BELIEF. We are not dealing with fact here and that should be understood. The ONLY thing we really have in all of this is our ability to think.

Let's, for a moment, pretend that there are no yellow, black, brown, or any other people whom we could not attach the label 'white' to. Most will agree that we might have a collection of blondes, blue eyes, brown hair, brown eyes, etc. Yet, if you think about it, you are categorizing according to a single attribute – skin color. Is one single attribute sufficient to call "white' a group unto itself? I think not. Is the presence of electrons, protons and neutrons sufficient to call all atoms equal and therefore belongng to a single group?

If we assume that 'white' is only a matter of skin color then what of the other attributes such as hair and eye color? Are the varieties just a matter of "mutation"? If so, then why didn't the blacks and yellows have such an equal opportunity at mutation? Why is oriental hair black and straight? Why are their eyes dark brown to black? Are we somehow expected to believe that blue eyes "evolved" from brown? Or that blond hair "evolved" from brown? Were brown eyes the original color belonging to white people and the blue, a mutation?

Inherited characteristics occur in pairs – one dominant and the other recessive, to one degree or the other.

Mutations are sudden changes in genetic structure. Blue eye color is recessive. There are millions of blue-eyed people on this planet. Recessive characteristics are quickly submerged and most recessives are undesirable attributes. (That's why out-breeding is so popular. Out-breeding never gets rid of the fault. It just covers it up and spreads it far and wide waiting to pop up in some unfortunate individual.) (Six fingers is one of the very few undesirable characteristics which is dominant. The reason it hasn't spread widely is because most people do not find six fingers attractive. Six fingered people also do not have the manual dexterity of normal people.) The predominance of blue eyes can only be accounted for by the mutation argument if we assume that a very large batch of brown eyed whites must have been hit with this "sudden change". Or do brown eyes simply mutate all of the time? (If so, then what happened to the Asians?) This mutation business reminds me of all the 'miracles' the religious peddle. If we assume that brown "evolved" from, or "mutated" from blue, then the scenario becomes ridiculous to the point of asininity.

If you can get by the "he just happened to have blue eyes" hokum, you'll discover that you will have a very hard time accounting for both blue and brown eyes in the white "race" without agreeing that this fundamental inherited aspect, whether blue or brown, MUST HAVE come from somewhere else. If blue was injected into the 'brown eye' white race, then where did the blue come from? If the brown was injected into the 'blue eye' white race, then where did it come from? The last question does have an answer. One that apparently sends many people into orbit.

Perhaps some of the reluctance to agree, and the propensity to disagree, comes from an internal judgment. Most people simply do not want to hear that their mother is a whore even if it's true – a not uncommon  position. We are born with what we have. What we do with it is up to us and circumstance. I have brown eyes and I have no problem believing that somewhere in the distant past, perhaps thousands of years ago, one of my blood predecessors dipped his wick in a tar pot. I wouldn't mind if someone proved that my eye color came from a Jersey cow. We have no control over what we were born with, but many find it very easy to trash even that. That's usually the drug and promiscuity scene.

I want you to think about this blue eye thing and offer me an explanation – NOT THE WORDS of a gaggle of academic jackasses (I've read most of their books.) – which can explain why brown eyes are a white characteristic. Cell division implies the number 2. A chromosome of one sort and it's partner. Properties thus have 2 faces. In the case of eye color, 2 dark (brown + brown = brown), 1 light and 1 dark (blue + brown = brown), 2 light (blue + blue = blue). I'll grant that eye color is not this clean cut but if one cannot explain the general condition, then an attempt at detail is laughable.

So there we have it folks. You can't have it both ways. Do some thinking and halt whenever your mind has flashes of some book opinion which you just recalled. The argument itself is of small importance but your thinking about it is. The topic should be now closed leaving the bigots still clinging to their original beliefs.

North America is entering a Weimar-style economic period of recession and inflation. Historically, only a Hitler will be able to restore economic stability and prosperity. The ZOG is creating the need for the leader they fear: the jewish dilemma repeats, and there is no escape from it. Eric.
Aryan characteristics include openness and honesty, so when a dishonest, and secretive, person claims to be fighting on our side, what make you of that? Dishonesty is more than a selfish tool, it reveals the nature of that person. I shun all such people even and include those who agree with me politically.
Jew-approved, new talmudvision super star, Bill O'Reilly, was on a Japan-bashing bandwagon recently. He dragged in a survivor of the Second War to Kill White People Bataan "death" march who seemed to have a hard time understanding why Japanese civilians got upset when we bombed their cities. As a prisoner in Japan, he complained that whenever one of their cities was being bombed, the civilians would beat on them. A childhood friend of mine, who was shot down over Germany, told me he felt fortunate that the German military got to him before the civilians did. "I guess," he said," when we burn their cities and kill their kids, they can hardly want to thank us." Irv was the son of a blue-collar worker, as I was, and therefore a little more real world intelligent than those hiding on their snob hills.

The Japanese never gave military awards for bravery since bravery was part of a soldier's duty. They also despised people who surrendered, as did many American Indians. Brave people do not surrender. Fighting to the last man has always been a badge of honor amongst many peoples over the centuries. Thus, when the Japanese rounded up the bunch from Corregidor, those men were held in contempt. I am not being apologetic because war is not a nice business and emotions always govern how prisoners are treated. No matter how brutal the Germans and Japanese were, our men were not exactly choir boys, as any honest G.I. can well relate.

What's the most interesting aspect is why is the Japan-bashing menu being served up at this time? The stuff is old hat. Moreover, the Holocaust Channel is going to run a new dogmadrama called Hitler's Holocaust. How many permutaions of the same sob stories are there? Enough to run to 2666 A.D., I guess. 

The New World Order is out of order.

(Maguire)  What Does The Enemy Fear?

"The mounting worries of pro-Israeli groups were stressed in the speech delivered by the director of the ADL's Israel office,
David Rosen. Rosen warned of what he called Islamic propaganda, which he described as one upholding Christian Anti-Semitic
themes. "The lone wolf of the past is no longer such and can link up to become a pack," he said."


(Maguire)  The Assassination of President William McKinley


On September 6, 1901, President William F. McKinley died of gunshot wounds, thus opening the Presidency to one Theodore R. Roosevelt.  This link provides a fairly detailed account of the actual shooting of President William F. McKinley at the Pan-American Exhibition in Buffalo, New York.  Of particular interest is this statement by Secret Service Agent Ireland:

"It has been my custom to stand back of the President and just to his left, so that I could see every person approaching, but
yesterday Secretary Cortelyourequested that I stand opposite the President, so that Mr. Milburn could stand to his left and
introduce the people who approached. In that way, I was unable to get a good look at everyone's hand.

"A few moments before Czolgosz approached, a man had come along with three fingers of his right hand tied in a bandage and he had shaken hands with his left. When Czolgosz came up I noticed that he was a boyish-looking fellow with an innocent face,
perfectly calm, and I also noticed that his right hand was wrapped in what appeared to be a bandage. I watched him closely, but was interrupted by the man in front of him, who held onto the President's hand an unusually long time. This man, who appeared to be an Italian, and who had a short cropped, heavy black moustache, was persistent and it was necessary for me to push him along so that the others could reach the President."

We were sufficiently intrigued by this statement to investigate Presidential Secretary Cortelyou's later career.  This US
Department of the Treasury link provides a fairly good synopsis of the positions to which the subsequent President Roosevelt later advanced Secretary Cortelou http://www.ustreas.gov/curator/cortelyou.htm  Intermediate and advanced students will be utterly unsurprised to see Cortelyou intimately involved in setting up the Federal Reserve System.

Luckily, a brave negro immediately started the beating of Leon Czolgosz.

We'll recap the known facts surrounding McKinley's assassination:

1.  It took place in Buffalo, New York on September 6, 1901.

2.  As a result of this crime, Theodore R. Roosevelt advanced from Vice-President to President.  Roosevelt had only become Vice-President on March 4, 1901, having been elected on November 6, 1900.

3.  From Dec 31, 1898 to December 31, 1901 T.R. Roosevelt was previously Governor of the State of New York.

4.  The assassination was greatly facilitated by the intervention of Presidential Secretary Cortelyou in moving Secret Service Agent Ireland out of his normal position.

5.  The assassin himself was nearly killed by the same protective force that failed to protect McKinley from him.  "Having suffered a terrible beating at the hands of President McKinley's military escort and the secret service, it was questioned as to whether or not he would survive to go to trial."   http://intotem.buffnet.net/bhw/panamex/assassination/executon.htm

6.  "Members of the press were denied interviews and were not permitted to witness the execution."  These same authorities who were holding Czolgosz incommunicado do assure us that Czolgosz blurted out an admission of guilt immediately before being electrocuted.

7.  Every bit of evidence relating to the convicted assassin, Leon Czolgosz, was later destroyed by the authorities, ostensibly because of "popular demand"  http://www.slavicvillagehistory.org/czolgosz.htm .  Has such an outcry ever been documented surrounding any of the other Presidential assassinations?  We do agree that the 'authorities' routinely destroy evidence connected with such events very quickly.  We are not familiar with concurrent public demands for them to do this, though.

The sole surviving document alleged to written by Czolgosz, his "confession" is thus impossible to authenticate because of the lack of any other writings by him for comparison.

8.  Early on authorities were also hunting for a "John Doe #2" in the form of a man  "who appeared to be an Italian, and who had a short cropped, heavy black moustache".  This man also had his right hand bandaged in a manner similar to Leon Czolgosz.  But, as with Timothy McVeigh, Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan B. Sirhan and every other political assassin in 20th Century America, historians tell us Czolgosz turned out to be an insane lone nut who acted alone.  His connections with Jewish revolutionary Emma Goldman were irrelevant.  Secretary Cortelyou's intervention in moving Agent Ireland was just bad luck.

9.  As a result of this assassination and the performance of the Secret Service on this occasion, the Secret Service was designated to attend the President around the clock.  Thus men with guns and supervised by bankers (the Secret Service is part of the Treasury Department) are now always near the President of the United States of America.

    Those who wish to research this affair further will do well to adopt the old Roman criminal investigation principle of "cui bono?", which means "who benefits?"

    The sequence in this procession of the "persistent" man "who appeared to be an Italian, and who had a short cropped,
heavy black moustache" and bandaged hand, Czolgosz himself with another bandaged hand concealing a gun, and followed up by a "brave negro" who immediately attempts to kill Czolgosz, reminds me of a very fitting concluding quote.

    "This photograph (of three hoboes arrested after the JFK assassination)  is a ritual accompaniment of the Black Mass
that was the ceremonial immolation of a king, the unmistakable calling card of masonic murder, the appearance of
Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum, the three "unworthy craftsmen' of Temple burlesque, "that will not be blamed for nothing.""
    —  Michael A. Hoffman II, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare, p93.

    Theodore R. Roosevelt was a Freemason.

                                     O microchip, O microchip, Mark of the beasty Beast.
    Having been a soldier and having studied these subjects most of my life, here's my two cents on  reasons for  the declining performance of US infantry through the 20th Century.

    1.  No motivation.  This is inevitable when troops are constantly used not only in imperialist wars but imperialist wars for the benefit of alien ruling elites.  In the Second War To Kill White People it became necessary to fabricate the most fantastic fairy tales about a non-existent 'German threat' to the Western Hemisphere to motivate American troops at all.  This was interleaved with appeals to 'ideals'.  To no surprise these were completely unrealized after the 'War' ended.  In contrast the Germans in both wars were fighting for goals directly related to national, local, family and even personal survival.  Needless to say, they were far more motivated.

    2.  Changing technological nature of war.  The cause of this I won't argue here (i.e. ZOG's substitution of machines for unmotivated men vs absolute technological change).  The net result of this is to divert squad level leadership capable manpower into other tasks.  US infantry in WWII certainly had the lowest personnel priority for top flight manpower.  This showed up in performance of individual troops and in their squad level leaders.

    3.  ZOGist generals.  ZOG, operating as always to its imperative of choosing Shabbez Goy hirelings, always picks second best generals.  Thus we saw as supreme commanders men like George C. Marshall and Dwight D. Eisenhower who had never led troops in battle.

    4.  Increased lethality of modern weaponry and front line combat.

    5.  Downbreeding.  The mental and physical stature of what's available to the infantry units has been declining all century.  How much of this one wishes to ascribe to genetics and how much social environmental factors introduced by ZOG is up to each individual.  But it's a real phenomenon which is compounded by the preceding four factors.

    In the ETO in 44-45 the above mix led to US infantry regiments cycling an average of 100% casualties every three months.  By December 1944 small US infantry units were at just 50% strength.  It becomes impossible to maintain cohesion under such conditions.   This was compounded by the limited numbers of units mobilized because of resource diversions to other arms in #2.  Of the 89 divisions activated, ALL had to be sent to operational theatres.  As a result combat units had to be left in the line permanently once committed.  It should be obvious that to be assigned as an infantryman in such conditions is simply a quick or slow sentence to mutilation or death.  Survival of the fittest was replaced by survival by lottery.

    The additional introductions of race mixing and feminism after the Second War To Kill White People (SWATKWIP) merely accelerated processes already well under way by 1943.  The subsequent 'hate whitey' and multicultural distortion campaigns beginning in the late 1960s were merely the cherries on top of the sundae.  This has all led to ZOG infantry units that are now unusable.  This includes ZOG's famous Special Operations Forces for active campaigns lasting longer than a month or so.

     My own cognizance of the above factors in the decline of the late great US Army is what makes me optimistic about a revival of a white North American Army once the prerequisite political conditions for it are established. In my outline of 'Arcadia' in the Maguire Folder, I'm sure many scoffed when I set the size of the standing Army at 250,000, or 50% of the current active US Army.  That 250,000 would be composed of approximately eight times as many combatants as the US Army currently possesses on 500,000 troops.  It would also be backed by a 'militia' organized on the Swiss model.

    This is achievable because this force won't be fighting outside the western hemisphere.  Once we dispense with the hordes of coolie logisticians that are necessary for trans-oceanic ventures much higher tooth-to-tail ratios are possible.  Then one can start adding back in the various qualitative factors that disappeared in the 20th Century as the US Army increasingly merely became ZOG's mercenary on call.


I hereby, and unequivocally, nominate Timothy McVeigh for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Menachem Wolfovich Begin, an outstanding and upright member of the Israeli tribe, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978. He blew up the King David Hotel killing hundreds of people. He bombed a few other places killing many more. The British had a reward on his head of about $45,000. Cheap Brits!

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, an outstanding and upright member of the Tempu tribe, won the the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. His specialty was blowing up crowded railway stations which killed hundreds and hundreds of women and children. He also was the inventor of the "necklacing" technique, probably using Firestone tires and Exxon gasoline.

I will agree that Tim didn't kill as many people with his bombing, but that should not prevent him from winning the Nobel Peace Prize, should it? It would be a shame if he missed it by only a few bodies.

How to have the last word OR How to intimidate the poor slob OR How to prove you know everything.
.....on the The Art of being an Expert.

Appearance: Make sure you are taller than your victim. Wear elevator shoes or stand on a box, if necessary. Wear an expensive suit. Carry an attaché case. If military make sure your bars are polished and your chest covered with battle ribbons and medals. Always look down at your subject wearing a slightly sneering smile. Wear a name tag with appropriate reference such as C.E.O Polystyrene Condom Reclamation Enterprises. or, Herr Doctor Professor or, 'I slept with Hillary before she did with Janet'. It must be distinctive and not just a rehashed "me too".

If properly executed, you allow the sucker to gawk for a few moment while you look over his head. This usually leaves him seeking the next hole he can crawl into. He'll then tell his friends that he MET YOU!! Often, handing out an autograph will terminate the association with the least effort or your part.

Conversation: Feel him out for his level of vocabulary comprehension while engaged in light talk about the weather and the price of eggs. If he's just plain Bill, make sure you use words such as synergy and syzygy, and toss in 'instauration' for flavor. "S" words are great, due to the hissing sound that can accompany them. Tell a joke about the poor man you dealt with the other day who didn't know a 'compliment' from a 'complement'. If you use enough polysyllabic words, you'll have won half the battle since he won't know what you are talking about and you don't have to either. If he starts to bite his lips, you'll know you've nailed him and you can excuse yourself confident that he knows you to be an expert.

Sooner or later, he might ask a question or present a point of view. This is the sparring stage.

Topic: Always cite references! This is cardinal. Never cite a reference which might possible be used against you, i.e., checked. Therefore, make them up. If your opponent questions your sources because he never heard of them, take the opportunity to explain the expanse of your personal library of rare classical books, some of them being housed in glass cases. Don't forget to mention that one of your books used to be owned by King Dioptra of Gerbert. Create and memorize exotic, or foreign,  names such as Bonaventura Cavalieri, Brahmagupta and Pierre Chuquet. Never hesitate. Practice making all of your statements as cool and authoritative as "One plus one equals two." Always give a hesitating, and slight, approval of your opponents point but counter with something such as, "Yes, he was correct in some minor details, but Alcuin d'Bede, in the year 1889, demonstrated beyond question that ... ... ... This was verified in modern times – 1993 I believe – by the study completed at the University of Hypatia, which is about 13 kilometers from Athens. Terrible climate there, wouldn't you say?" It is well to show some doubt concerning trivia but never cease to be firm in your conviction that you are smarter than the idiot you are addressing. After all, he probably never has had an original thought in his life and therefore what he thinks he knows, is merely the thoughts of another anyway. Therefore do not fall into the trap of believing that you are lying for your antagonist probably doesn't remember what he thought he learned and thus will be speaking rubbish also. Watch for errors in grammar and pronunciation and point them out. This usually assures that his line of thought will be broken. If it isn't, then clear your throat in a most forceful manner. If the fellow appears somewhat doubtful, shuffle the papers in your attaché case – "I have it right here." – but end the search with, "This reminds me ..... ", and change the topic.

Conclusion: The object of confrontational discourse in not one of learning since most rarely change their minds about anything. The object here is to establish your intellectual superiority – which you secretly believe to be true anyway. Always part with a gentle smile complimenting him upon his potential, Perhaps this, "Our exchange was quite rewarding. You show great promise and most of your points were well taken. I fear that if you really applied yourself, I would be confronted with able competition."

Caution: Be wary as there are many quiet but potentially volatile people in this world. If you befuddle them too much, they just might rap you in the mouth with a fistful of knuckles causing you to lose a mouthful of teeth amd spend a walletful of dollars.

The essence of all debate is not a contest between you and the other fellow. It is a battle between his references and your references. The most interesting combat occurs when both of you are manufacturing your own references and quoting statistics from studies which never took place and from people who never existed. Do not overdue it, but always include numbers. The power of, "The study shows that 82.547% of those tested ......" is certainly greater than, "The study shows that most of those tested ......" Better exercise judgment here for often numbers will work to your disadvantage. "We know that the majority of people accept the fact ...." and opposed to "We know that 50.0002% of the people accept the fact....."

Since outcomes are often unpredictable preliminary intimidation is primary. If circumstances permit, it might do well to have a machete hanging from your belt, or introduce an Arnold Schwarzenegger look alike as your brother.

We've heard it played over and over again that "G.I. Joe" was a superior solder relative to "Heinie Hans" because of his "individual initiative" which allowed him to outperform his German counterpart who "could do nothing without an order from his superior." Allied High Command knew FULL WELL that the German soldier was equivalent to at least 2 Allied soldiers. If the goal was to win, then the 2:1 ratio was exceeded greatly. We never, based upon encyclopedia statistics, assaulted any Japanese held island unless we had at least a 6:1 numerical advantage. Gen. Patton once announced to this effect, "A poor infantry always needs lots of artillery support and our boys certainly need a hell of a lot of it."

OK. Corporal Block stands at attention, bullets flying by his ears, waiting for Sgt. Stifel to give him orders. Stifel is, in turn, is waiting for his superior Rudolff to give him orders. Rudolff waits for Scheubel who is waiting for Müller who is waiting for orders from Wessel. Wessel waits on Weizsäcker who expects to hear from Rommel. Rommel waits for an order from Hitler and Hilter, with his head turned toward the heavens, waits for God. In  the interim, God is busy creating one of those extra universes our cosmophysicists keep telling us are "out there .... somewhere".

Without numerical superiority and the never-ending supply of matériel, we would never have won a military victory. In fact, German weapon design was so sophisticated that a delay of only a few months would have assured THEM of victory – and OUR GENERAL STAFF KNEW THIS!!! The pervasive Marxist mob mentality hinders any objective appreciation of the ASTOUNDING accomplishments of the relatively Judenfrei Third Reich. It is this extraordinary excellence, achieved by a WHITE RACIAL STATE, which engenders the almost unbelievable HATRED spewed forth ad nauseam by those in control of the mass media. Lest anyone get the wrong notion, I am an AMERICAN first, last and always, whose entire family was opposed to our entry in both of the Wars to Kill White People which enriched the special interests of the termites in our woodwork. The gods work in peculiar ways and the destruction of ZOGland will proceed on their schedule and by their clock. their time. It is up to we white people to band together and salvage what we can for as long as one white man and one white woman lives and fights, there is always hope.

There are 3 human groups (species), black, yellow and white. Each group has unique partial characteristics generally identifiable whether bone structure, blood type, hair structure, and so on. Any such sample is enough to identify the group to which any individual belongs. If the identification is questionable, then that individual has a mixed characteristic. Oval, yellow hair with cortex sans pigmentation, is a white characteristic. Flat, kinky hair without cortex is a black characteristic. Blond kinky hair might thus represent a mixed characteristic. Brown iris is generally a black and yellow characteristic.

Geographic terms, such a Mediterranean, Alpine, European, Caucasian, etc.., belong to the bailiwick of academia where nothing much is done other than writing books and reading books. They write. They argue. They write some more. They argue some more. Never once once changing reality.

Most humans today are products of mixing to one degree or the other, and for classification to mean anything practical, a level of gene mixing must be admitted and tolerated. Not all need a 100% exam grade in order to pass that exam. One need not be 100% white in order to be accepted, and classified, as white.

6% carbon dioxide renders air unfit for breathing. 6% salt renders water unfit for drinking. This is why urine cannot be used to sustain life even if otherwise suitable. One cannot live inhaling 6% carbon dioxide regardless of the oxygen content. This 6% constitutes the level at which the products of expiration and urination are bounded. 6% yellow or black contamination renders that person unsuitable for any decent white society, since his behavior will be marginal.

There's not much more to say. Let the academia denizens shoot it out. Maybe they'll all kill each other and end the folderol.

LABELS PROVE NOTHING! They are only names used for the purposes of simplification and order.

Whether red, blue, yellow or red, blue, green or yellow, cyan, magenta, all colors are mixtures of three basic colors. We use the terms mestizo, sambo, mulatto is an sense analogous to the secondary colors purple, green, orange. As mixtures become more skewed we often hear terms such as yellow-orange and red-violet. As the confusion increases we hear of fuchsiafuschia, cranberry, linen yellow and aqua colors. But what in hell is ecru or celadon? As one glances at any home decorating book, names for oddball colors become as plentiful as drunks at a niggerball game. The same thing is true when the "experts" get into the :"race" naming business. Alpine, Mongoloid, Caucasian, Caucasoid, Hominid, Homo upperassimus, and on ad infinitum. It's pure babel and none of it detracts from the fundamental that most are composed of some combination of the three basic races, species, Homo crotchnas, or whatever. As with colors, names simply do not make it as an end all for descriptive association.

When it comes to the biology of race, we must not forget that NO MAN, or group of men, have a handle on the whole truth. Whomever the "expert", he offers opinion – theory. I cannot but emphasize that YOUR opinion, more than likely, has as much merit as anyone else's. There is a positive advantage in the learning of what preceded, but blindly accepting it as the final word is not the mark of any freedom loving thinking man. Although trained in the scientific disciplines I have long since become very wary of pronouncements from "on high" and I feel anyone who so does, is belittling his own ability.

Baker, often parroting the earlier works of Grant and Stoddard, runs off into the wide blue yonder with the race, sub race, sub sub race, foolishness which leads more to confusion than it does to understanding. Why not take this to the ultimate? Instead of stopping at the Mediterranean sub race, Nordic sub race, Alpine sub race, and so on, let's do the sub sub sub thing until everyone on the planet becomes a true individual sub-sub-sub... race of his very own – a one member race? This would take about 32 "subs". Look at the evidence to support such a wonderful idea. We all recognize each other as being different, don't we? I am a "race" unto my self! What an ego-stuffer that is. And 7,000,000,000 "races" prove that their is no such thing as race. Right?

We, if our brains are not scrambled by drugs, sex, and Marxist propaganda, are always more conformable with our own kind. But what is "our kind"? Kind, kin, kindred, – our blood. Mankind has been truant in the gonad department probably since time began. There are only small pockets of people on this earth who have relatively unblemished blood lines. Somewhere in most people's family tree – especially the white kind since they were the world explorers and conquerors par excellence – is a residue of that which was not of their kind. These elements are contaminants – adulterants in the Biblical sense when adultery is mentioned. The problem then distills down to what level of non-kind blood can we tolerate for the practical purpose of community. Biology drives behavior and that drive obviously can be partially thwarted by the exercise of will and conditioning but, in the end, blood always tells. It's interesting that our Marxist teachers have full faith in the conditioning of people to believe that we are all equal under the skin. If we all force ourselves to "love" and cooperate, then a fine an dandy piece of peace will prevail. Those who believe in this mind over matter thing always seem to be the most promiscuous when it comes to dallying around with the opposite sex.

Any animal trained to behave in an unnatural manner, is a disturbed animal. Bears have been conditioned to "dance" by housing them in a metal drum and building a fire underneath and at the same time ringing a bell. House cats, when separated from human influence, soon become exactly what they are – nasty little killers. No matter how civilized our blacks might appear, pull out the white influence and you have Africa being born again.

I think there is no disagreement that 25% non-white blood renders that individual non-white and no matter how kindly his behavior, the non-white part is always there ready to pop out when conditions are ripe. 50/50 mixtures, the kind now being produced by our wayward young white sluts, are pathetic disasters and I have compassion for those so unfortunate as to have parents who cared not about the products of their lust. An old friend Clyde, whose grandmother was "injun", was quite normal acting until he tasted the 'firewater'. Then he'd do the yahoo tribal dance thing and, if a gun was handy, starting shooting in all directions. I once observed him peppering the dash board of his car with deer slugs simply because the car refused to start.

The bottom line is that racial impurity becomes significant when IT STARTS TO AFFECT BEHAVIOR. I believe this is somewhere around the 5% mark as I have pointed out before, and this figure fits well with other biological phenomena and the practices of other successful peoples. When I point out that so and so shows evidence of black blood in his countenance, it does not necessarily follow that the person cannot be considered white or should be barred from a white racial community. Of all the racial characteristics which could be mentioned – including bone composition – eye and hair color seem to cause the greatest ruckus. I repeat myself – fair hair and blue eyes are white attributes. No! I don't mean Nordic. No! I don't mean Caucasian. No! I don't mean Aryan. I mean WHITE. I'll leave the academic name doodling, and bickering,  to others.

Every once in a while, old Bob gets a letter which makes him feel 20 years younger. Here's one –

Mr. Frenz: You're a vet.  Subscribe and donate a $ or two. http://www.SFTT.org  I don't advocate this because Zimmerman 'has it right', at least publicly.  I advocate it because in my entire life THE WHITE OFFICERS AND SERGEANTS HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE OPEN TO WHITE RACIALIST IDEAS THAN NOW! Eight years of Clinton radicalized them politically but in ways opposite of Hillary's desires.  These guys are slowly deprogramming themselves.  By will of God I preceded  Z-Mann by 10 years.   I'm in regular contact with the president of SFTT.  As his civilian experience post-retirement increases, he's realizing what  s*hole the Late Great USA turned into while he was 'gone'.

Also, this is why I agree with you in by-passing the current blightwing.  I thought we could just ignore them and go our way but these people are only noisy detractions which must be removed! There's a crop of better, more competent and more loyal leaders waiting who've been hardened by very bitter experience.  These guys (and gals) are military veterans like the old NSDAP Alte Kampers were.  But they will not follow such as Kevin Strom, William Pierce, David Duke or any of the Paytriot$ for Profit, and revisionists they pay no attention to.  They will follow one of their 'own'.

 Second Factor:  Our young people reject ZOG's shit too!  My middle daughter (a high schooler) mentioned to me the other day two slang expressions her generation uses for things they don't like. (1) "That's Gay."  (2)."That's Jewish."  I kid you not about any of this.

In the matter of Kevin Strom, I don't consider that the current discussion is directly related to specific questions of political policy.  This discussion is related to real goals and mindset.  In that context the StromSites have not only not improved, but have gotten worse.  Some months ago some of us were treated to a tear jerking appeal for $ from these individuals.    That email circular centered entirely around the three Strom children mothered by one Mrs. Kirstin Strom.  Kirstin has since become a tool of Moe Dees and the SPLC.   At that time we were aware of this little bit of intel.

I am a father myself.  In my case ALL of my kids still live under my roof.  I do however well understand the situation in family courts at this time.  Precisely because of that I have watched and listened for the tiniest indicator of sustained continuing interest by either of the current Stroms in family law, fathers' rights or anything affecting the true welfare of white children, white fathers, white mothers and white families.  I haven't seen or heard it.  All I see on the StromSites are two high IQ guinea pigs busy humping, with some down time devoted to 'white racial causes'.

Mr. Strom, you let your family situation get so out of control that your children and ex-wife are now internet poster pawns for Mo' Dees.  Apparently not to be outdone by that, you then used them yourself for the same purposes with us.  Personally I couldn't imagine further publicizing my own children that way but that's just me.  Well, you then wrote around asking for $ donations because of the court situation involving your kids.  Then you and the latest 20-Something Beautiful Mrs. Strom fill the usenet with juvenile rants.  On this topic I have a related question.  Since we're not F***ING IDIOTS,  what happened to the 'Trip to Ireland' photos featuring you and Elisha?  And how was it such a journey fit into your time and money budget in the middle of such tremendous court struggles over the fates of your daughters?

No Sir, I think it is you who are beneath contempt.

Now lest anyone think I'm a blue eyed blond hair purist, I'll restate my own view of what we need to do NOW and what attitude we need to take to make any headway at all.  Personally I look forward to the discussion of "behavior", which was 50% of the definition of "German" and ought to be 50% of the definition of "white" here and now.  Your behaviors, Mr. Strom, don't measure up in my book.  That's because of demonstrated behaviors AFTER you were an activist in the non-movement movement.  In the below I substituted "Non-European" for "Jewish" in this adaptation of the Nuremberg Laws of 1935:


ARTICLE 1. (1)  A citizen of the North American People's State may be only one who is of European descent, and who, through his behavior, shows that he is both desirous and personally fit to serve loyally the North American people and their State.

  (2)  The right to citizenship is obtained by the grant of State citizenship papers.

  (3)  Only the citizen of the North American People's State may enjoy full political rights in consonance with the provisions of the laws.

  ARTICLE 2. (1)  The provisions of Article I shall apply also to subjects who are of mixed European and non-European blood.

  (2)  An individual of mixed non-European descent is one who is descended from one or two grandparents who, racially, were full non-Europeans, insofar that he is not a non-European according to Section 2 of Article 5.

  ARTICLE 5  (1)  A non-European is an individual who is descended from at least three grandparents who were, racially, Asiatics or Negroes.

(2)  A non-European is also an individual who is descended from two full non-European grandparents if:

  (a)  he was a citizen of another country when this law was issued, became a citizen of such state later, or was eligible for such citizenship and did not foreswear such dual loyalties;

  (b)  when the law was issued, he was married to a person who was a non-European, or was subsequently married to a non-European;

  (c)  he is the issue from a marriage with a non-European, in the sense of Section I, which was contracted after the coming into effect of the Law for the Protection of the Unity of the North American People;

  (d)  he is the issue of an extramarital relationship with a non-European, in the sense of Section I, and was born out of wedlock one year after this law came into effect.

P.S. You are right about Elisha's non-white male studs. She previously had negroid Mandingos listed who have since vanished from her pictorial gallery of sexual delights. MM