12 February 2002
First of all, I agree entirely with your view of Judahvision. It destroys social relationships when people would otherwise be sociable, that is, relate to one another, rather than become zombie-Iike, passive spectators. I believe one sociologist claimed that TV was good for anti-social people, for it allows dysfunctional families to remain physically together, without conflicts which would normally occur without the device which focuses their attention away from one another. Of course, they would likely fight about the choice of programs. I really have no time nor interest in TV, and I neither have one, nor watch much if someone turns it on at my lunchroom. The world of TV is usually composed of lies, disinformation, folly and irrelevancy. That is why I avoid viewing it at home or at my workplace.

The birth statistics you cite are true for the entire country. The more we feed, the more they breed. The inescapable outcome of this folly is chaos and death, in which the demise of the U.S.A. entity will hardly be noticed. It reminds me of historical commentaries about "Eternal Rome": People thought Rome would exist forever, but when it did not, few people cared. We shall be much too busy chasing our next meal and fleeing those who would make a meal out of us. The U.S.A. is a thoroughly Marxist state, which the Soviet Union never was, for we still practice the credo, "from each, according to his ability, to each according to his need." We have rich people, because they do not participate as tax-payers, as wage-earners are forced to do. I remember a book written by two jews, Percival & Paul Goodman. entitled "Communitas – Ways of Life & Means of Living." It was a good little book, for it opened up many windows of thought. Various models of societies were featured in striking contrast, for they were all based upon a distinctive major premise. The Capitalist Society would demand a flexible, mobile labor force, as you are presently experiencing. Hence, workers would own nothing, thus allowing them to move easily from job to job, as required. Workers' apartments would all be alike, including furnishings, right down to washing facilities and eating utensils. Thus, workers could move around the country and always feel at home, without the inconvenience and expense of moving personal belongings from place to place. Then there was the Consumer Society, in which people would live
in shopping mall cities full of stores and merchandise. At least once a year, the people would hold a Roman-style Saturnalia, in which all the 'old' things would be thrown out and replaced by newly-purchased items. Such a deal! The Maximum Freedom Society would minimize production and consumption, to allow creative people time in which to enjoy their creativity and recreations. Dwellings would be comfortable, but minimal, along with food and artifacts such as tools, eating utensils and clothing. These items would be issued, rather than purchased and all people would be required to perform productive work for ten years of their lives, although it may have been only five, since the goods were all designed to be durable. Why make spoons forever? The authors had a useful concept of getting to the meat of a matter. At certain times, New Yorkers drive for hours, get stuck in traffic jams and burn up many tons or fuel, just to go to a beach in New Jersey. The Goodmans pointed out that New York is surrounded by beaches, but they are presently occupied by disused docks, warehouses, railroad yards, factories, &c. They advised spending the gasoline money on reclaiming these eyesores to provide beaches convenient to New Yorkers. Of course, we don't quite live in a society which is governed by such major premises, and this is part of our problem, for the malefactors have both premise and purpose in their depredations, whereas the masses of asses are distracted and unfocused by all the 'diversity' they see around them.

In your mention of the Southern and British aristocracy, you raise a very important issue. The British and Southern aristocrats were, and still are, minions of the ZOG, ever since Cromwell let the jews back into Britain and allowed the incorporation of The Bank or England (sic). The British aristocracy was only in part of the British people whom they governed, with their increasing tendency to interbreed with wealthy jews. In other words, these privileged people worked against the interests or the governed, exactly as would an alien occupation government. Glenn does not appear to have understood this anti-national relationship. The job of a national leadership is the improvement of the nation, rather than the improvement of their personal properties. National Socialism was both populist and elitist, similar to other socialist governments in Scandinavia, which combined social justice in terms or economic well-being for all, with absolute restrictions upon the reproduction of chronic social dependents. In other words, the exact opposite of U.S. policy. Aristocrats should be OF and FOR their own kind in the bio-logical (national) sense; otherwise their privileges are undeserved and they do their nation a disservice, known as treason.

The pattern of internal imperialism, of the rulers versus the ruled, became evident in Britain with the passage of the Corn Laws of 1846, which effectively Romanized British farmers, making them subjects of international agribusiness. An alien 'elite' first attacks the source of national sovereignty by destroying family farms, which are the chief source of the nation's warriors. This process is occurring throughout White countries, with the obvious goal of driving them into Spenglerian decadence and social collapse. The agribusiness assault on American family farms is well known. Southern slavery was merely the pre-industrial version of modern agribusiness, and it was anti-national in the extreme.

In the U.S.A., the rulers' first major act of internal imperialism was the Civil War, with all its nation-destroying ramifications. As a nationalist, I can only conclude that British and American Whites have long been ruled, not by their elites, but by their mortal enemies. Who else would contrive to fill our livingspace with hordes of aliens who rapidly displace and replace us? Clausewitz and Sun Tzu would immediately observe that our rulers are making war upon us, so why do we permit these renegade bandits to rule us? It is a truism that people get the rulers they deserve. When you accuse our legislators of lacking the balls to stop the Marxist handouts to the breeding parasites, I believe that is putting the cart before the horse.  I know several legislators who know what's going on and what it takes to stop it, but they also know that the electorate would turf them out in an instant, were they even to suggest curtailing public assistance to illegal aliens, legal aliens and native-born parasites. In effect, our legislators are as weak and corrupt as those who elect them and our judeo-plutocratic rulers are snatching the money and whatever isn't fastened down, before they pull the old jew-jitsu and skedaddle. Where will they go? Israel, Switzerland, Antarctica, Mars? Stay tuned. In the meantime, the Republicans want aliens for 'cheap labor'; the Democrats want them for votes and the labor unions want them for the dues. All three groups enjoy helping to wreck the country, whose denizens so foolishly gave them the power to do so.

Robert Frenz reports the number of hits on FAEM's website as correlating with major sports events, between which, hits go up, and during which, hits drop appreciably. The denizens of Judeo-America have changed the old typist credo which used to read: Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. The modern Uszogland version is: Now is the time
for all good Goyim to turn on the TV and watch NIGGERBALL! I would not be surprised to learn that the Roman mobs' major objection to 'barbarian invaders' was their interference with scheduled circus-viewing.

In considering the so-called aristocracies of Britain and America, it becomes quite clear why they would view National Socialism as their foremost enemy, for any such nationalist-populist-elitist movement would swiftly rout them out, like the noisome vipers they are. The most obvious sign of ZOG-loving guilt is wealth, so the enemies of the American peoples are easily identified. What the mobs will do to them is another matter. How will Rothschild-agent J.P. Morgan's ilk "hire one half to shoot the other half", when the zogbucks are worthless?

When we consider the specious and even silly motives for which we fought the Civil War, World War I, II, et al. the oncoming conflict over food on this continent and elsewhere, reveals how foolish and insane our forebears and our Zionist rulers have been. I don't know how long hunger may be staved off with bullshit, but I'm sure we are going to find out. A plague on the ZOG and all its minions.

DOWZ & ORION!    Eric Thomson