13 JUN 2000

by Eric Thomson

Wayne Tansill's book reviews are worthy efforts in regard to informing the 'blight wing' about Jewish machinations from Jewish sources. I am presently trying to educate certain Christian-Armageddonist Birchers in this regard, for they insist that "communism is Russian". For them, anyone who calls himself a Jew is a godlike being. I try to tell them that Jews do not consider themselves a religion, but a nationality; otherwise there could not be atheist Jews, any more than there could be 'atheist Catholics'. I mention that Jews can denote someone as being ½ jewish yet no one calls anyone ½ Catholic or ½ Presbyterian, for Jew is a nationality and not a religion. I am, for example, ½ Scottish and ½ Norwegian, but I could not be ½ Odinist. Ha!

Professor Kevin MacDonald's statement is of current interest. I wonder how long he will retain his academic career, for Zionist censors are aggressive in their campaign to oust anyone who has 'legitimate' academic credentials. As I warned Fred Leuchter, they will not attack your findings, they will attack your own professional bona fides and qualifications. Fred dismissed my warning as "Nazi paranoia" and was subsequently clobbered by a Jewish canard which accused him of being a 'fake' engineer. Then they exerted pressure on the minions of the ZOG-GULAG to ban him from performing his execution services. Not once did they find his forensic evidence to be invalid or false. In fact, the Polish government substantiated his findings in their own report an the alleged homicidal gas chambers at the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex.

I know David Irving personally and I wish him all the best, but it appears to me that he failed to learn who won World War II. Hint: it wasn't the British! My best wishes, nevertheless, to Messrs. Irving and MacDonald!

I have just read a review of "The Seven Madmen". As a student of revolutions, I think that Roberto Arlt has an important insight in the post-World War I nihilist psyche. The nihilists believed that the ideal of anarchy could be achieved through destruction of all social institutions, from the family, to the post office. Politics is always 'people-power'. When two or more are in agreement and when they combine their efforts, anarchy ceases to exist. Real 'revolutionaries' desire to seize power to destroy it; others wish to destroy power by eradicating all human relationships which result in combined effort. Obviously, neither of these 'revolutionary' schools have ever come close to success!

Are criminals a 'revolutionary class?' Hardly, for they want the rewards which the established system offers. The Sicilian Mafia is not revolutionary, but parasitic. It does not wish to govern, but to live off the government and the governed. A revolutionary would like the ZOG's money to become worthless. A criminal would prefer his stolen zogbucks to increase in value! A revolution creates changes which affect the entire population. A bank bandit or pimp produces changes which go no further than enhancing his own personal share of wealth. White Nationalists who do not wish to overthrow the ZOG's multi-racial empire are not revolutionaries, but separatists. It may be necessary to overthrow the ZOG in order to achieve national separation, but revolution per se, is not the goal of White Nationalists. We have no wish to conquer nor to rule over non-Whites, any more than we wish to be ruled by then.

Most so-called revolutions in Latin America are merely contests between the 'ins' and the 'outs' in regard to who shall achieve power and wealth within the old system. Those conflicts are not 'revolutions', no matter how often they occur. The Jews' seizure of power in Russia, Hungary and other Soviet Bloc countries was not revolutionary, but state-capitalist, imperialist exploitation of the governed. The enslavement and/or extermination of a population is not revolution, but conquest. National Socialism was, indeed, a revolution, without the utopian trappings. It was a social and economic program which changed the lives of the majority, for the better.

The Seven Madmen thought of themselves as revolutionaries, but no minority can impose a revolution upon the majority without its consent. Since they had given up on populist appeals to the masses, they could never be revolutionary, but only anti-social parasites who lived off the established system, finding their station on the social pecking order. That in quite different from overthrowing the system! It is like anti-militarists who join the army and become corporals in order to harass the privates.

Communism has been accurately described as "the politics of envy". A communist wants to bring others down to his level, rather than bring himself up to their level. Roberto Arlt's madmen do not want to end humiliation, but wish to inflict it upon others who are lower on the social ladder. That is hardly revolutionary!