et281 – 17 November 2002 — Eric Thomson
Many thanks for sending me the book, "Michael New: Mercenary or American soldier?" I applaud your courage in standing up for your principles. I am also a former member of the U.S. Army, and, like you, I took the oath to "defend The U.S. Constitution". The joker in the deck is that The U.S. Constitution can be abolished or altered constitutionally, because Article VI, paragraph 2 puts The Constitution on par with Treaties as the supreme Law of the Land. As I understand, NATO, The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, lists the U.S.A. as a signatory member. As long as the U.S.A. remains party to the NATO treaty, it goes where NATO goes in terms of its membership. If NATO agrees to submit to U.N. control and command, the U.S.A. becomes similar to a National Guard unit which has been federalized, and no longer adheres to its state of origin for its primary commands and mission. Please correct me if I am wrong in this assessment.

It appears that you have no constitutional remedy, outside the 13t Amendment which forbids involuntary servitude, to wit: you believed you were serving in the U.S. Army; under U.S. command, on behalf of the U.S. An argument could be made that you were party to a contract with one entity, which was suddenly, and without your consent, switched to another entity. You believed that your employer was Dr. Jekyll, who turned out to be Mr. Hyde, to make a comparison.

The Allied Kangaroo Court at Nuremberg set forth a binding precedent on defeated opponents that orders were a matter of individual conscience and accountability. If you perceived your order to don the blue U.N. beanie as immoral and unconscionable, then you behaved correctly, as demanded by the U.S. tribunal members at the war crimes show trials. I caution you, in the words of the great U.S. imperialist, Theodore Roosevelt, that "might makes right." There is one other constitutional argument in your favor which comes to mind: if you assess the U.N. as representing The Synagogue of Satan, then your protest could be based on the First Amendment, in terms of your religious freedom.

If you use a First Amendment argument, you had better do it soon, for The Genocide Convention effectively nullifies that part of The Constitution. In Soviet Canuckistan, alias Canada, where The Genocide Convention has been implemented, "truth is no defence". If The Synagogue of Satan hates for you to say something, you are guilty of "disseminating hate", in terms of The Genocide Convention. I have Canadian experience, so I know whereof I speak.

As time permits, I shall give the book a more thorough reading, and if I think of any possible legal ammo in your defence, I shall let you know immediately. I am not a lawyer, but I have attended trials pertaining to war crimes and thought crimes under Anglo-Saxon rules of jurisprudence, so I have a practical knowledge of what our oppressors wish to apply against U.S. citizens, if we are willing to permit them. We see the insinuation of "hate" as a factor in offences and in the severity of sentencing, so The Genocide Convention is being gradually implemented in the U.S.A., but not yet as tyrannically as in Canada.

Beware! Tyranny imposed by treaty is constitutional!

I wish you success in your pursuit of justice.


Many thanks for the great book review, which I will copy. The jews put the Goyim up to the Vietnam dirty work, then blew the whistle on them. That's why they use Ostensible White frontmen who must take the blame, as well as the orders. Bush will have his day in which he is 'paid' for his service to sheenie interests. I would not like to be in his shoes. Well, an old Sioux neighbor of mine used to say, "Never judge a man until you've worn his scalp for a month."

Thank you for your ongoing analysis of the U.S. Civil War. You have put the Union strategy together for me, which is the first time anyone ever did that. I read Bruce Catton's series, "The Army of the Potomac", but I don't recall that he put Sherman's campaign into context as you have. My impression of Civil War battles was largely of "two armed mobs" whose sole objective was to batter one another. By battering the Confederacy only on its periphery, the North could have kept the war going indefinitely, until the South conceivably ran out of troops and supplies to send to the front, but the decision to penetrate the South and sever its lines of supply and communications was brutal, but brilliant. Few writers have ever pointed out that both sides had strategies, in addition to targets of opportunity. We moderns tend to believe that the primitive technology of former times also equated with ignorance and stupidity. This is erroneous, as our experience in 'primitive' Afghanistan will teach us, if we aren't too stupid to learn.

The Civil War was a great tragedy, and the failure of European military observers to make correct assessments of the battles, or the failure of their commanders to heed their observations, led to disasters in The Boer War and World War I. The Civil War showed the value of marksmanship, which the British learned about the hard way in South Africa. The Civil War showed the value of trenchworks and the liability of charging across open ground against musketry whose range had increased from 50 yards to 500 yards, along with rapidity of fire. Bruce Catton observed that artillery was not very effective against troops in trenches, but it was very lethal against troops charging across open ground, as in World War I. The Europeans tended to mistake parade ground discipline for military prowess. German World War II vets have told me how they joked about the Hitler Youth, whose marching was rudimentary, but whose military competence and courage were marvelous. On the other side, the British riflemen marveled at the World War I Germans' marching order and discipline, as they mowed them down, by rank, so effectively that the Germans thought they were up against machineguns.

I saw some cleaned-up, properly-timed World War I film footage taken of Germans and French troops marching toward the first battles. The men on both sides smiled and waved at the camera, as if they were heading for a picnic. Poor, happy lemmings! We sacrificed our best on behalf of our worst in both world wars. When will we ever learn?

I hope people will not give my latest ghostwritten 'resume' any credence. If I had held the positions alleged by the writer, I would not advertise it, so his source would have to be from someone with a higher security clearance than mine. Also, as I pointed out to my correspondent, were these allegations true, I would expect to receive sufficient salary and benefits so as to preclude my present coolie existence on part-time, minimum-wage jobs. Imagine James Bond as dishwasher. Although I do not wash dishes, my present job description includes unplugging toilets, and I am quite good at it, for "practice makes perfect." I have a dozen "Hillaries" (minimum-flush toilets imposed by ZOG) at one  location which require my frequent attention. I joke that I should carry the toilet plunger like a sword, for I am as skilled in its use as the 3 Musketeers, and, I use it so often. The secret is in the thrust, rather than the parry. On guard! I mentioned to one low-rank zogling that Congress should be taught the reason for flushable toilets: sanitation on behalf of public health, rather than water economy. In the Turd World, where toilets are scarce, they tend to clog when toilet paper is used, so the shitty paper is put in a bucket and goes wherever the turdies choose to put it. This is hardly more sanitary than letting people shit in the street or on the veldt, where dung-borne infections were "a-blowin' in the wind". The ZOG is waging biowarfare on the U.S. population, on all fronts: immigration, sanitation, and the creation and/or importation of new diseases. For this service, ZOG takes our money. Such a deal!


In regard to social life, I never socialize with non-Whites, for they make me uncomfortable. I love music, but I would not go to a concert featuring acid-rock or rap. My customers and co-workers drain my energy, for I must always be on guard in their presence. I must hold my tongue and hide my feelings. The only time I can relax is when I am alone, or in the virtual company of my correspondents. I am particularly uneasy in the presence of 'intelligent' Blacks and 'nice' jews, for they are the dangerous ones. Such companionship would be an ordeal for me.

In regard to intelligent companions, we cannot know their character until we experience some sort of adversity. I recall the words of the Officer Candidate School instructor in the German Army film "Die Fahnenjunker" (Literally, the nobility of the flag): "We know you are intelligent, fit and competent, but we do not know your character, and that is why you are here." The Germans were on the lookout for "lack of character" in those given leadership candidacy, and the British watched out for "lack of moral fibre". I know two fellows who washed out for those reasons, one German, the other British. They subsequently proved their lack of character and moral fiber during the remainder of their lives. Do people ever change in this regard? Do dishonest men become honest? Churchill noted that otherwise craven and cowardly men would become brave in battle, he assumed, to live up to their men's expectations that all White officers were brave. Churchill also noted that retreat usually meant death, when your back was to the enemy. The White officers knew that if they turned and ran, their men would also, and all would die, so that bit of intelligence may have provided the courage they would otherwise lack. In Rhodesia, we were told, "Don't let the side down, chaps." And we all knew what that meant, for we were not only officers, but ambassadors of Our Race. The Blacks knew that White men could be worthless rascals, bums and louts, but they also knew there was an inner core of steel which commanded their awe and respect. As usual, the Blacks were correct. Only our Prime Minister let the side down, and since the jews were never on our side, they don't count.

When I reread these lines, I think of Kipling and Conrad, whose views were entirely appropriate to my situation in the last colonial war in 20th century Africa. Having weathered another Balkan Crisis, we find ourselves back in another Afghan Campaign. We seem to be reliving the 19th century in many respects, in theme and variations. Now, we send a Predator, rather than a gunboat, but the imperial interests remain unchanged. Eric Margolis pointed out our continuation of British imperial policy in Iraq, and he opines that the U.S.A. is taking on the role of the British Empire, and carrying on its mistakes. Bearing Cornwallis' prophecy in mind, I agree. We never escaped the British Empire and its jew-bankster masters.

In regard to attacking ZOG logistics, I foresee attacks on ZOG staging areas and supply dumps, likely with the collaboration of ZOG-mercs. The little-reported incident of parachute sabotage in the U.S. Marine Corps indicates how dangerous a disaffected zogling can be, and we can imagine the damage a 'true-believer' might do if he infiltrated ZOG-merc forces and gained access to a fuel or ammo dump. Then there is 'equal opportunity' aircraft repair and maintenance, motorpool and mess hall mischief. The ZOG is most vulnerable in its personnel. As a ZOG-merc, I would feel somewhat insecure, but since I know the score, I would not become a ZOG-merc in the first place. Even one such incident would have a demoralizing effect on ZOG forces. Even more likely are disasters due to incompetence, stupidity and carelessness. It's a matter of when, not if.

As for Dutch intelligence, I wonder why they think it's so smart to give away their tiny country and their women to mud invaders, and wallow in all sorts of anti-social degeneracy. If that is intelligence, then I say "it pays to be dumb and ignorant, just like me", as the old radio theme song went.

Zinsser's "Rats, Lice and History" is a must read, as our sanitary system breaks down. Zinsser noted that the first war in which more troops died of combat than disease was World War I. He also points out the epidemics which break out when people suffer hardships and dislocation, as lousy, infected refugees carry their diseases into healthy areas, just like our present immigration invaders. Thanks be to ZOG, we can experience this aspect of war without fighting.

We were told in Rhodesia about "power-sharing", and I responded by saying that political power is like electricity: it does not exist if the circuit is broken, and it is either on or off. When power is 'shared' by opponents, nothing gets done, so you either have power or you don't. "Sharing" is another name for surrender, just as we saw in Rhodesia. As you note, any reduction of Whitey's tribute to the simians will start "a whole lot of shakin' goin' on".

DOWZ!