ANNOYING PARANOIA                      1 Jan 98

by Robert Frenz

I have noticed an rather disturbing similarity between the blight-wing and their chief opponents, the jews. As the jews see a Nazi in every closet and a "holocaust" in every forecast, so does the blight-wing see a federal agent under every carpet and an "informer" in every group. With restricted mentalities, such as these, we could say that they were made for each other.

Our government – as with all governments – wants to know what's on its citizen's minds. If you don't let them know, one way or the other, then they'll send in spies to find out. Governments do worry about what one does and are only concerned about one's thoughts if they believe that the thoughts may lead to actions of which they would disapprove. And when it comes to the deception and spying business, our very own ZOG is perhaps the best in the world.

If you are on any mailing list, then it is a simple matter to photocopy, or otherwise record, the "to" and "from" in all cases. After all, the postal service is an arm of the federal government. On the Internet, phoney names and "hop-scotch" mail addresses are easier to trace than regular mail. The servers collect all the data, and like the telephone company, it is recorded and therefore available. Computers have ID's and someone is responsible for the telephone connection your modem makes. Someone pays those bills and that person is easily found. One cannot hid if the ZOG really wants to get his knuckles into your nose. If you want to remain relatively obscure, then simply do not communicate. The "unabomber" did himself in by way of his rare correspondence.

I learned much about the way our government agencies worked – and their internal rivalries – through a pleasant association with a very attractive, and amiable, Polish woman who had some capacity within the F.B.I. This woman – like ALL women – had a hard time keeping her mouth closed. This is why so many men, genuinely engaged in counter-activities, end up getting torpedoed through their associations with women. And in this group, I also include the perverts – fags, queers, daisies, or what all – for they are little other than bitches with the wrong sexual apparatus. My father, as much as he loved my mother, confided to his sons, "Never tell any woman anything you'd keep from an enemy." My brother, who did not heed his advice, could not even change his socks without the whole village knowing it within a day or two. Instead of marrying a woman with solid, and honest, character, he chose the "starlet" type – a genuinely beautiful bitch who caused his mind more pain than he received in gonad satisfaction. He, out of "love" shared everything which circled within his mind. She, of course, became "bored" and ran off with a dashing fellow who later proved to be a genuine bastard who beat her face in on a regular basis. Now that's what I call a marriage made in heaven, or wherever.

We could perhaps ask ourselves why the government would wish to monitor our personal utterances and go to the bother of sniffing us out. What most of us say is so relatively unimportant that I doubt if the "a fed under every bed" notion has validity at all. (I'd be complimented if I could be assured that President Clinton read everything I wrote!) As for the Internet "handle" security, it serves little purpose other than to be able to engage in infantile, and warped, shenanigans fit only for societies' rejects. For a fee of $150, one can get the "low-down" on anyone using the Internet. So much for that nonsense.

In the other vein of paranoia, there are huddled the "encryptors" – those little bugs who wish to communicate openly in some "Little Orphan Annie" type of "code pin" network. (For those not old enough to understand this: During the 1930s, a radio show of this name was very popular and was sponsored by the makers of Ovaltine. With the ending of each daily program, a secret coded message was given. The message gave a clue to the events of the next program. Only those who had submitted 25-cents, and two Ovaltine seals, could receive the 'code pin' and thus be privy to the clue.) From my observations of the to-and-fro Internet discussions, I came to realize that most used "quasi-English" – the sentences resembled English but it was obvious that all had different meanings for the same words. Thus, no one could understand what the other was talking about. This, in itself, serves the purpose of any coding, or encryption procedure.

Coding involves block substitutions. Thus, many blight-wingers – forever living in terror of saying "jew" – use "Eskimo" as a substitute for the J-word. When the substitutions involve letters, some use the term encryption. In the encrypted word "zzzz", one might find the four-letter word of his desire by seeing that the first "z" was substituted for an "f" and the second "z" was substituted for a "u", and so on. At first, this might seem odd but what I have done is to "add" (offset) "tweo" to the original word to get "zzzz". One can figure out the original word easily from the addition examples of: a + b = c, d + d = h, and so on. (Hint: each letter has a position within the alphabet.) If the addend "tweo" remained truly a secret, then "zzzz" could stand for anything relative to the uninformed. One should not forget that all codes, and encryptions, which were "broken" in the past, were due so to luck, spies, informants, and traitors. In the main, the weakness of all encryption lies in the weakness of man himself.

The PGP encryption, if I understand it correctly, is an open means whereby the "how" is available for all to see. The problem is that in order to "crack" a message, one is hampered by the time it would take (hundreds of years!?) when one has no access to the other piece of the originator's "signature." Unlike the "tweo", known to two people, the hidden portion of the PGP key is known only to one. This allows all sorts of people to secretly communicate in plain view with you, but not with each other, unless they also become originators. By the time some codes are cracked, the message is no longer of any value.

In the past – in order to solve a problem – we used a set of rules with certain procedures. We remember, from high school math, how to "complete the square" and thus find the solution to a quadratic equation. Today, with the advent of computers, a solution is found essentially by trial-and-error – a method far too slow and wasteful for pencil and pad. This has generated an inflated sense of worth in our myriad of computer keyboard-peckers. They are all geniuses – just ask any of them. Using a bulldozer does not make anyone a Jon Paul Sigmarsson or an Arnold "I'll be back" and no computer ever made anyone a genius anymore than the invention of the typewriter turned everyone into a Shakespeare. The computer never will be a source of food and it shall never protect anyone when the electricity goes off – as it surely will some day.

As we might conclude, encryption is secure providing all letters are offset by a sequence of random numbers. This eliminates all patterns and meaningful frequency distributions. The message cannot be broken. The drawback is that the sender is in possession of the random number sequence and he must reveal this to any anticipated receiver.

Several people have suggested algorithms which can generate a set of pseudo-random numbers from a given "seed" value. Dr. Lehmer proposed: Ax+1 = x' (modulo m), where one "x" is used to generate the next "x". A problem here is that the whole sequence repeats itself every "m" count. In fact, and depending upon the relationship between "A" and "M" (whether A-1 divides m-1), the cycle may even be shorter. If one chooses "A" and "m" as very large numbers, then it is only necessary to make them the "secret" instead of the whole sequence. If "A" and "m" were both "million" numbers, then the secret "seed" would be 14 characters in length. I have a secret, heh, heh, heh.

It's all a lot of fun for certain types of people but if one really has something important to say to the world, then hiding it is not the way to proceed.

The blight-wing paranoia also extends to so-called informers – those "dirty rats" of the James Cagney movies.

When I was street urchin, during the Great Depression, we had a gang of about seven budding miscreants. We snitched grapes from the neighbor's vines and once even went swimming "bare-assed" in a public pool. When someone bothered our mothers, or sisters, we "rehabilitated" them in any available alley – a rehabilitation which lasted a very long time and imposed no tax burden upon the population. Predatory perverts hid in closets for fear of their lives – literally! Waving your "dick" in public was a sure-fire way to lose it. "Snitches" – those whose lips flapped in order to protect themselves – were treated even more harshly although camaraderie was a massive, and strong influence. No one would lower himself to "rat" on his comrades. Today, this sense of comradeship is not longer in evidence. Who needs government spies when each one of your associates will gladly "blow the whistle" for his personal gain?

Far too many parents treat their TV set with more respect than they do their children. We all know of women who use drugs to dry up the milk of their breasts and stuff inferior fluids down the throats of their hungry offspring thus depriving them of the very best of natural nutrition. How many men are there who insist that their wives dump the kids into a day-care commune so that she can work thus affording the next payment on an ego-stroking Corvette? Isn't the whole society geared towards a "I am the only worthwhile person in the whole world" mentality? Name the one who'd die to protect his family? Or his friend? When we have a society filled to overflow with such immature hedonists, then our government needs no paid informers. It is in this respect that I worry little about "spies" for most everyone I see today is a potential "rat." "Love" remains little more than unbridled copulation as in the manner of dogs in a kennel. When this subtle, and deep, human emotion has thus degraded, then what can one really expect of "camaraderie" or faithfulness of any kind? Paul Norris said it best: "Americans have a dog's view of life. If you can't eat it, or screw it, then piss on it."

Degenerate societies are the product of degenerate people. The source of our problems is visible in any mirror.