05 August 2002 – by Eric Thomson
If you define 'politics' as 'people-power', then all our acts of omission or commission are political. The decision to kill or not to kill is indeed political, but I am disgusted at the zoglings of occupied Palestine and Judeo-America when they accuse one or the other of being "heavy-handed" in inflicting 'collateral damage' on innocent civilians. I don't know who they are attempting to fool with such blatant hypocrisy, but then, Goyim are probably as dumb as they appear to be, so they should worry. After all, the innocent victims of the ZOG are "just Goyim".

I think you have captured a bit of Whitey's penchant for identifying with non-Whites in your observations. It reminds me of European nobles who played at being shepherds and shepherdesses; of the well-to-do bourgeois who would go 'slumming'; of the rich Reds who pretend to be 'workers'. I was entertained by the sight of Berkeley, CA, kikes who called themselves IWW wobblies and who wore 19th century-style workclothes, including bib overalls and strange-looking cloth caps which must have cost plenty, copied from old engravings. Since the kikes had never done any useful work, the overalls were spanking new and spotless; much too pretty to get dirty I observed. Whether Whitey wants to drop his identity pretenses or not, as you point out, he'll be forced to do so. You may recall the "Mummers" of one eastern U.S. city, the name of which escapes me. For at least a century, the Whites used to parade in blackface and play 'minstrel'. The real Blacks put a stop to that tradition, around the time Amos 'n' Andy were purged from talmudvision. I predict that the Moslems will put paid to the idiotic Shriners with their pseudo-Moslem names and caricatures of Middle Eastern garb. As I mentioned some time ago, a Mexican 'wondered' where all these old Turks came from, when he videoed Shriners in a parade here. I burst out laughing at the time. As you may have read, all the 'Indian' names and mascots of sports teams are on the chopping block, because some of our 'noble savages' are offended.' I really think they are just flexing their political muscle. The term, "Indian" is no more offensive to me than "American". Since Whites won't mind, "Indian" could be replaced with "Honkey", wherever it appears. "Squaw" is also marked for obliteration, for some P.C. commissars deem it "insulting". If their interpretation of the word is correct, although there is disagreement, "squaw" could be replaced by "vagina", without reference to any tribe of female. The women's libbers might like it. Now we can fetch "vagina wood" for our campfire and catch "vagina fish". Talk about a new outlook on life! As you observe, being White and being hunted, will be the most likely outcome of of surrender to mud invaders under kike rule. It happened very quickly in Zimbabwe, when Whites lacked the good sense to leave before Black Misrule.

I would like to know more about Celine, for I received one of his observations, that the Germans failed because they would not bring their National Socialist Revolution with them, as Napoleon's troops did. Dr. Goebbels kept insisting that "National Socialism is not for export." Was this a missed opportunity, or would it have fomented more anti-German resistance? Maybe the Germans should have let the French hold a referendum or plebiscite on their form of government, but I don't believe Petain would have wanted that. If we knew then what we know now, such things may have been possible, but there is no point in wondering if people could have behaved with present 20-20 hindsight. Politics is the art of the possible, and Hitler had a pretty clear concept of what people would accept and how far they would follow his leadership. You may recall that he rescinded the euthanasia order for the incurable in time of war because the Christians were outraged. The dying must be preserved at all costs, even if a young, wounded soldier needs the space and care to recover and return to the defence of his people! The
French never had a problem with such decisions. They called it "triage": those who were dying and beyond recovery were allowed to die; those seriously wounded but curable were treated first; those slightly wounded and not in serious danger were treated last. I don't know if Christians objected to that. All societies should be run in this order of priority, when there are insufficient resources to go around. Knowing Christians and Marxists, they would probably lavish resources on those who were most likely to die and have none left for those with a better chance of recovery, just as a truly Christian farmer would feed & breed his scrubs and let his best livestock and plants die of neglect.

Yes, if I must say it incessantly: the parasites at the top must go, or they will be the death of Our Race and our civilization, which will be devoured by the parasites at the bottom of our society. As you are aware, one may have to live at the bottom, but that does not mean he must adopt the values and behavior of the lowlifes. Hitler was a classic example of one who was at the economic bottom, but not of it. Unlike Orwell, who slummed amid the proles, Hitler had no choice in eking a bare living from his proletarian circumstances. The fact that he survived and learned greatly from his experience at the bottom reveals his outstanding qualities. General J.F.C. Fuller wrote that Hitler was one political leader who had worked at hard jobs, and had gained a very practical mind thereby, unlike Lenin and FDR.

Terror without organization and popular support is like guerrillas who fight set piece battles with conventional forces: the guerrillas get wiped out. Local actions which cause the loss of the precious few, on behalf of the worthless many, are counter-productive. The best tactic is to stay out of jail. We lack the whip of authority, so it must be the enemy who whips the White sheeple into action. None of the targets described in "The Turner Diaries" was designed to achieve the necessary objective conditions for relevant White response to mud marauders. I have been pretty casual in regard to my own safety, for I have ventured into regions and situations in which I have been jailed and shot at. I would do so again, if I thought the results would be worth it, but I see no point in sacrificing myself to defend people who actively do not want to be defended. My attitude is: "So you like niggers. Well, you can have as many as you want. If you change your mind in time, let me know, and we'll see what remains of you to be saved, if anything."

From my observations, White people are getting the poor leaders they deserve. Rockwell was far too good for them. Since most Whites are willing to send minimal funds to those who they believe are "doing something", they get about what they pay for: faux leaders who sell publications and shadow-box with strawmen, rather than real enemies. What more can we expect from supporters who are unwilling to take active parts in the struggle themselves? Real leaders will appear when supporters get real, in terms of their active participation and not before. There was a play entitled, "Start the Revolution without Me." That title applies to the mass of consumerist sheeple, for the present, but things will change all that, since the enemy is not idle even if we are!

Life in the woods may become necessary, but, as you mention, what sort of denizens are out there? My experience so far has been that they are largely misfits, dropouts and anarchists who cannot defend themselves or their turf from ZOG incursions. Ruby Ridge was a missed opportunity to put the zogthugs to flight, as was Waco. The hillfolk in the Carolinas seem to be a different breed, who look out for one another. The ZOG has been searching for their #1 Fugitive for now many years, with their fink-reward still uncollected. That indicates high-quality ZOG-busters, quite unlike 'patriots' who sell their buddies out for a few zogbucks. Zoglings will really know fear when they are unable to bribe people to turn traitor and/or informer. This will also come to pass.

The ZOG is already implementing triage in regard to those groups least able to defend their interests with violence and trouble. The geezers will be out in the cold, as things are developing. Of course, rich geezers will not have those problems: they will be targets for the muds on the make. It is obvious that an aging White population will not be living high off the taxes of the feverishly-multiplying muds who are already living off the ZOG. When Whitey goes, Blackie will be next for the garbage compactor, as Confucius say.

I see no use for nukes in Arabia, unless I wanted to blow up all the kikes and ragheads. Even with precision-guidance, Israel's dropping of a small nuclear device in a West Bank town or the Gaza Strip would be crazy, like the Bronx nuking the Empire State Building. As you say, "the enemy is in the wire" and the kikes are too close to the Arabs for the use of stand off weapons of mass destruction. I don't think U.S. forces would have the toughness to do to the Palestinians what the kikes have been doing, year after year. I don't think the U.S. will dare nuke Iraq, for the Chinese would not like that. The Jew Ass oy Veh looks as if it's in a tail-spin to oblivion.

In regard to Israel's sheenie population, a jewspaper report from your area claims that Sharon is using the noise and smoke of the suicide bombings to cover his frantic expansion of jew settlements in previously Palestinian territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Naturally, such displacement of Palestinians will increase the bombings, which most of the jewsmedia are crediting merely to the foul mood of the Palestinians, rather than more concrete grievances. I would be 'out of sorts' if I were kicked off my bit of land, at very little notice by brutal armed gangsters. As the old song goes, "somethin's gotta give."