It has been pointed out that the Americans and the Brits use the same language but they really do not understand one another. Heck, Americans use the same language and most still do not understand each other. It all has to do with the same parcel of sound waves being interpreted in different ways. "Love," when spoken, is such a parcel of mechanical energy. "I love xyz," can take on several received meanings depending both upon the listener and what 'xyz' actually stands for. If by 'xyz' I mean apple pie then most interpret this statement correctly. I'll not elaborate further on the word love since its expansive umbrella reaches into nearly every domain of emotion, as does the word 'hate'. By the way, trying to legislate matters in such a fashion as to make illegal the emotion of hate will be about as successful as an attempt at outlawing love. Moreover, one man's hate is another man's love.

One meets with less difficulty when he interprets things on a literal basis. A stop sign means one and only one thing. It should not be a subject for discussion or debate or historical revisionism. The undisciplined, which in America includes nearly everyone, demand the latitude of being figurative about everything which transpires. The Bible is one well-known book which means all things to most people. In a literal fashion for example, the Bible tells exactly the position concerning faggots and how they should be handled. A commandment mentioning adultery refers to the rendering of a blood line impure by race-mixing. Adulteration – you follow? We are told that it really means to sleep with someone other than your spouse. One does not correctly interpret anything by redefining the words to fit some purpose.

I am not surprised that 'National Socialism' is not immune to word-bending exercises or subjective views. To some, NS means wearing a swastika, mutilating your body with tatoos and piercing, and being as much of a pain-in-the-ass social problem as you possibly can. To others, it means 'gassing' so-called jews and wearing a monocle with attendant jackboots. NS means collective madness to some and a cure for degeneracy to others. Whatever it means, the adolescents of the internet invent new definitions on a weekly basis.

"National" is from nation which means of one blood. Bill Cosby does not belong to my nation and neither does Connie Chung. The ancient Greeks were of one nation but modern Greeks no more resemble them than they do Eskimos. Territories once enclosed a nation. Today, they do not. America is not a nation. It is an ugly agglomerate of peoples all seeking to exploit each other.

"Socialism" is from the Latin socialis, socius – a comrade. A comrade is a friend or companion who shares your interests and who is more apt to do this than one of your own blood? In addition, the term was first used when geographical territory was synonymous with race. Being European meant being White. Comradeship is at base, community. Thus, socialism is a doctrine of a community.

When 'national' became perverted to include every humanoid parked upon some demarcated region, the idea of community then became little other than a notion concerning a batch of people occupying a given territory where individual interests were as varied as was the biology of those diverse parties.

As we have seen, socialism is a doctrine concerning community interests. What those attributes are depends upon which community is being discussed. During Hitler's time, those interests were truly national in that they enclosed all things perceived to be German, including character. Retaining the German character and giving a true meaning to nation, logically led to the exclusion of all that was non-German by blood, which of course, meant mainly the jews and sundry gypsy tribes.

Today, the Marxist influence is noticeably evident. Present day America is far more Marxist in form than the Soviet Union ever was. If one looks in a dictionary which was 'upgraded', he will find that the definition of socialism is now a unique economic one – Marxism. Marxism is assumed to be a precursor of communism which any person whose brain is still capable of thought, rightly equates with Judaism. In any case, the word socialism is about as welcome to the average American as is the mention of AIDS or cancer. Nationalism is still somewhat favorably accepted but means little other than waving the flag, playing old Kate Smith records and then driving a horde of mongrel brats to the nearest niggerball game.

The NS types of the internet not only cannot agree upon what National Socialism is, they cannot even agree on who is White and who is jew although jews and non-Whites seem to have no difficulty in this regard. Since it appears that the only people who are yammering about NS are ostensible Whites, we could assume that we are dealing with a White community wishing to pursue White interests. Such is not the case. There are no delimited White interests left in America.

German National socialism was not concerned with jews, per se. If there were Matabele living there, rather than jews, NS would be concerned with shipping them all back to Africa. In such an event, the Third Reich would have been labeled "anti-Black" and WW II would never have come about since "Black Power" was virtually nonexistent in the United States of the time, but there was a whole lot of "Jew Power".

When the Germans embarked upon expansion – Lebensraum – and were opposed by non-Germans, that was a bad thing. Mexicans and Asians are doing the very same thing here, but with one difference: they are not opposed. That is good. In the sick world of the anti-Nature crowd, assisting your dispossessor is considered a virtue. It's a lot like a gazelle merrily strolling into the middle of a lion pride singing "We are all in this together." In our present state of hypocrisy, expanding German-occupied territory was bad and to oppose them was considered good. The Mexicans expand their territory and it's good and to oppose them is considered bad. The only consistent thing to note is that anything which benefits White people is to be considered 'bad'. If it is to the benefit of non-Whites, then it is good. Remember Eric Thomson's verbal encounter with a jewess? She was in favor of majority rule in South Africa but opposed to it in the United States. Both positions were anti-White of course.

Let's say we as White people, finally get to agree and stop selling books to each other, and embark upon a National Socialist program. Who are those adverse to us? Certainly those with non-White blood since they add nothing to the meaning of "White". Consider Asiatic blood; who has it? (1) Amerasians from 'Indians' to the mestizos of Central and South America, (2) all "refugees" from Asia, (3) the recent boatloads of jew criminals we like to call "Russians", (4) the earlier boatloads of jews which fled NS Germany plus the indigenous relatives of 'survivors'. When one calculates beyond the disinformation espoused by the Dr. Pierce's of this world, we could safely say that about 60 percent of our population has some Asiatic blood gurgling through their veins. (All "We are the true Jews" groups are included!) Consider Black blood: who has it? Daily we observe the massive numbers of quasi-Blacks covering all shades from black to light tan and this includes most jews. If you subtract the intersection of these two sets, the estimate of true White numbers is approximately 30 percent. That, my friend, presents a formidable task which dwarfs Herr Hitler's effort by an extraordinary degree.

No god is going to "save" man nor is any man-manufactured program sans effort and sacrifice. God is interested in men who DO and pays little attention to the beggars, wimps and their wretched prayers.

We as White people have no community so what community is it that you wish saved, or preserved? No group is any better than its poorest member and a man who cannot form a strong, stable family is certainly not a man who would be of benefit to the larger family of tribe and nation. Perhaps it is time that we take a look at the common-place male who females are pairing with, at least for one-nighters.

A high percentage of the young men I have encountered, and some of them love to 'kick ass' and do other sorts of inane macho things, are failures of the first order. They look not to the continuing of their blood line, but to finding any available orifice and filling it. Thus, we observe the plethora of "shack-ups" which indicate an unwillingness to accept responsibility by the male. This is augmented by their insistence that birth control is the woman's responsibility. In any event, splitting the task of supporting any family by the acquiescence of women in the workplace, is further admission that America's males are becoming women with balls instead of tits. Oh yes, I've heard the argument about how a single income is not enough. It's hollow and it comes about from the fact that the young today do not fit a life-style to their income. They pick a life-style and then try to find income which would support it. In nearly all cases, the chosen life-style is about double what it realistically should be. This is a topic unto itself but the point I am making is that if a man cannot from a successful family with a MATE, as opposed to a Hugh Hefner 'hot' screwing companion, then he is totally worthless to the larger community. Generally, this family responsibility is a main indicator but there remain those singular individuals who prove worthiness by avenues other than marriage. Do not misunderstand me. It's the responsibility factor which is paramount. A man of the shack-up type, or the one who dumps male responsibility upon the female, has demonstrated his caliber. This sort of person is anti-community and sadly enough, they form a heavy part of the so-called blight-wing. It is this retreating from manhood which has opened the doors to female discontent revealing itself as the phenomenon we know as feminism whereby are generated a myriad of man-haters, lesbians, career twats, sluts, and witches and bitches of all descriptions. In effect, this places the real men in a quandary since WOMEN are becoming quite rare and lesser men try to content themselves with what's available – to their eternal woe – or simply choose not to marry at all.

Our present state: we have no leaders and we have no followers. A wish to lead does not make one a leader anymore than a wish to flap one's arms and fly, makes him a bird. If all want to lead, then there are none to follow and without followers there can be no leaders. This is our blight-wing.

Robert Frenz

22 August 1999