Summer Break

•July 10, 2008 • 9 Comments

Holiday is calling me. I will be AFK for a week or two. May the gods be with you!

Free People Are Happy People

•July 7, 2008 • 3 Comments

Freedom is everything!

Free People Are Happy People
—especially when strong personal morality guides their choices.

The earliest American definition of liberty—stated frequently by the Founding Fathers—is about constraints on personal actions: if I don’t hurt anybody else, I should be free to pursue my own will. As Thomas Jefferson put it in his first inaugural address, “A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” Despite more recent attempts to expand our understanding of freedom to include claims on one another or on government—FDR’s 1941 State of the Union speech, for example, which mentioned “freedom from want”—about two-thirds of Americans still define freedom in terms of doing what they want, being able to make their own choices, or having liberty in speech and religion.

Understanding freedom is a matter of no small importance. The Founders believed that it was one of at least three fundamental rights from God, along with life and the pursuit of happiness. These three rights are interrelated: not only does liberty, of course, depend on life, but the pursuit of happiness depends on liberty. In fact, evidence shows that freedom and happiness are strongly linked.

Continue reading

Surveillance doesn’t prevent criminal activity

•July 7, 2008 • 1 Comment

a new study by University of Southern California researchers, released by the California Bureau of Research, looks into the effect of video cameras in the city of Los Angeles.

The study focuses on cameras in two neighborhoods: at Hollywood and Vine, and at the Jordan Downs housing project in Watts.

The research found no significant correlation between crime rates and the cameras. As an ACLU analysis of the report explains, “In Hollywood, violent crime decreased less in target areas with cameras than in the surrounding areas … . Property crimes in Hollywood decreased slightly more in the camera area (17.8 percent to 16.4 percent), although rates of vandalism and auto theft fared worse than in control areas.” Equally insignificant disparities were found in the Watts housing project.

Continue reading

The real question is, was it ever meant to reduce crime rates? In the times we live in it is all about control, control for the mere sake of control is reason enough for he Orwellian controller to expand their Orwellian surveillance society, till their is no place left not under surveillance.

Immigration: Canada’s Silent Health Threat

•July 6, 2008 • 2 Comments

The benefits of diversity!

Voices on the HolocaustTM

•July 6, 2008 • 4 Comments

A letter send to Register-Guard.Com:

Holocaust critics persecuted

In his rather hysterical June 20 letter, Bob Bussel decries any questioning of Holocaust history as a “profound act of intellectual fraud and moral bankruptcy,” a “loathsome and repugnant monstrosity.”

British writer George Orwell said that “who controls the past, controls the future,” and our perception of past events alsoshapes the way we look at the world around us today. The Zionists understand this, and know that the story of the Holocaust is crucial to their power.

This is why such harsh measures are being exacted against those who ask too many questions. The Holocaust history seems so shaky that governments have to actually imprison people who openly question it.

Today, it’s becoming more like the new state religion and, as in the Inquisition, people are being locked up again for questioning even the smallest detail of dogma — no matter what the evidence, no matter what the conflicting testimony or history. Anyone who breaches this faith will be deemed a “Holocaust denier,” and punished accordingly.

Therefore, as I see it, the “standard” version of the Holocaust history simply cannot be trusted as long as they’re jailing or otherwise punishing those who question it. To make jail sentences be your response to critics is exactly the same as getting up on a rooftop and shouting as loud as you can for all to hear: “I am lying!” Is anyone supposed to believe someone who, in effect, proclaims in this way that he’s lying?



Darwin on Race

•July 5, 2008 • 4 Comments

Charles Darwin

Charles Robert Darwin (1809 –1882)

We see the value set on animals even by the barbarians of Tierra del Fuego, by their killing and devouring their old women, in times of dearth, as of less value than their dogs.

If the country were open on its borders, new forms would certainly immigrate, and this would also seriously disturb the relations of some of the former inhabitants. Let it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or mammal has been shown to be.

He who believes in the struggle for existence and in the principle of natural selection, will acknowledge that every organic being is constantly endeavouring to increase in numbers; and thus if any one being vary ever so little, either in habits or structure, and thus gain an advantage over some other inhabitant of the country, it will seize on the place of that inhabitant, however different it may be from its own place.

The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said.

Nor is the difference slight in moral disposition between a barbarian, such as the man described by the old navigator Byron, who dashed his child on the rocks for dropping a basket of sea urchins, and a Howard or Clarkson; and in intellect, between a savage who uses hardly any abstract terms, and a Newton or Shakspeare. Differences of this kind between the highest men of the highest races and the lowest savages, are connected by the finest graduations.

A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection.

Many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species.

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world… The break between men and his nearest allies will then be wider.

We must not judge of the tastes of distinct species by a uniform standard; nor must we judge by the standard of man’s taste. Even with man, we should remember what discordant noises, the beating of tom-toms and the shrill notes of reeds, please the ears of savages.

[Man] has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the Negro and the European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered as good and true species.

For my part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs – as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.


Arminius Poem

•July 5, 2008 • 2 Comments


I, Arminius

In Rome I fell before the eagle’s feet,
and by my sword commander I became,
to lead thy Enemy to war and ravage
thy home, did my people I disclaim.

But when the battle swell to the banks of the Rhine,
My heart returned to the tribes beyond,
And I found reason to rally my brothers,
to arms against the eagle’s swine.

They call me Arminius in Rome,
And in Germania, Hermann the Great.

Over came Varus with three legions for war,
to the stretches near the Teutoburg Vald.
But the Cherusci, Sicambri and Bructeri did they meet,
and the Legions’ souls we sent below, to Pluto he is called.

Varus upon his own sword did he thrust, and died.

In the days to follow Germanicus pursued the tribes,
but as I, Hermann, would have it, he would be repelled.
And his Legions dealt death in the woods, and grass,
their blood like river torrents. Germania did we save,
And the Romans headed home in solemn mass.

In my days of last spent in this world did traitors within
my ranks sent me passage beyond the earth,
to Valhalla up high did I go, the brave mens’ domain.

And by Wotan’s side until the end of time, forever, I remain.

But my spirit lives on in the folk of Germania still.
Above the Teutoburg Vald in stone a monument they
did raise.

My sword held high in triumph, to the South I set my
warrior gaze.

Reflexions on Democracy

•July 4, 2008 • Leave a Comment


Reflexions on Democracy

by David Preussen

Over the ages a lot of written about democracy, some in favor of it, some against it. Praised in the name of liberty, and rejected in the same name. The idea of democracy has caused a lot controversy through all ages. The most commonly repeated criticism of democracy is that it amounts to mob rule, rule of the stupid, the uneducated, the ignorant. The problem with democracy like we know it today, democracy based on universal suffrage, is that the greatest number is of necessity the least enlightened, and consequently the least capable. On of the antinomies, contradictions, of the principle of universal suffrage is that, even thought meant to secure the rights and interests of the majority, in practice it more often than not comes down the opposite, the violation of the rights and interests of those it is meant to serve. The political capacity found in the greatest number is of necessity the least developed, and a lack of capacity and understanding the road to wrong decisions. Without the ability and the background knowledge to analyze facts and to reflect on them, the intention to do the right thing sometimes easily leads to the opposite of what was intended. For this very reason parents do not let young children make decisions all by themselves, but guide them and look over them so that they may not cause harm for themselves and others by their lack of experience and understanding.

The principle of universal suffrage as it is understood today, the right of each individual to vote independently of his capacity, has added another contradiction to democracy and rendered it even less practical than is was in the time of the old Greeks. Universal suffrage has robbed the children of the protection of their parents to use an analogy. If that was done deliberately to undermine the very thing it claimed to serve, namely the interest of the majority, I do not know, but what I do know, and what is obvious for those able to reflect on facts and history, is that it did precisely that. Universal suffrage has undermined democracy and brought us into the mess we have today, the rule of the media over the weak minded and defenseless masses that are unable to use reason and to reflect on the situation and are thus moving to the beat of the drums like slaves on a galere. What was sold to the masses as an universal blessing and source of liberty, has become an universal curse and source of tyranny. The masses were unable to render what was given to them. The French philosopher P.J. Proudhon understood the political limitations found in the average voter and the resulting implications quite well. Shortly before his death he wrote a whole volume on the subject; “De la capacité politique des classes ouvrières” (The Political Capacity of the Working-Classes), a work of which I sadly haven’t managed to get hold of in a translated version yet. The fallowing quotation is from his first major work, “What is Property?”, written in 1840. “The people, incapable as yet of sound judgment as to what is best for them, applaud indiscriminately the most opposite ideas, provided that in them they get a taste of flattery: to them the laws of thought are like the confines of the possible; to-day they can no more distinguish between a savant and a sophist, than formerly they could tell a physician from a sorcerer. Inconsiderately accepting, gathering together, and accumulating everything that is new, regarding all reports as true and indubitable, at the breath or ring of novelty they assemble like bees at the sound of a basin.” [1] To the human lemmings the logic behind an opinion doesn’t count as much as the power and popularity behind it, and the reason for this is simple, the popularity behind an opinion they usually notice, while its logic, or the lack thereof, in most cases remains hidden from them. “For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.” [2] The Italian philosopher Machiavelli wrote a long time ago and I could not put it better. The average voter is like a child making its first steps in the world of the adults, a world to complex for him and full of things he does not understand, a world full of predators that want to deceive and harm him for their own benefit. Like a child, the average citizen, as long has he hasn’t reached the required level of mental development and understanding yet, needs protection and guidance, protection from the predators, protection from making the wrong decisions, and consequently protection from himself. He is in need of guardians that watch out and guide him just as children are in need of their parents. For without protection, without a guardian, a small child is easy prey for predators and parasites.

The majority of links in the chain of individuals a society is composed of are what we may call “weak links”. And as a rule, a chain is only as strong as the weakest link it is composed of. A chain made of a huge number of links of which the multitude are weak links that provide no or not much support, is by necessity weaker than a chain composed of less but stronger links providing more support. Quality here clearly wins over quantity! The old Greeks were aware of this and did not provide voting rights to all, just to those holding citizen rights, and in some cases, a certain amount of property also. Women, slaves, guest worker, and the like, were commonly excluded from voting and participation in political matters. This practice, even thought questionable in many aspects, never the less managed to reduce the number of weak links in the political chain and made the Greek democracy, like it existed in city states like Athens, somewhat more resistant against predators than are those shameful excuses for real democracy we see today. The democracy of ancient Athens also included various other forms of political participation apart from mere elections and the citizens were truly involved in the political process. Of course, even the forms of democracy seen in ancient Greece were still far from perfect and that in various aspects, the fact that only certain classes were able to participate in elections and other political matters for example was a possible source of social unrest and eventually revolts, and just because someone had citizen rights did not necessarily imply that he had the capacity for meaningful participation in political matters also. Citizen rights a son gained by birth right from his father, while his abilities, knowledge, and understanding, the raw capacity to gain them at some point, was not always transmitted. Never the less, the reduction of participants in the political process had overall a positive impact on the Greek city states because it made their form of democracy more feasible, functional, and meaningful than that what is today commonly sold as “democracy”. Today everyone is free to vote, the thing is that it does not seem to matter what people vote for or think anyway. Elections after elections we get the same empty rhetoric, lies, and propaganda, and in the end they do the opposite of what the people want them to do anyway. And why is this undemocratic behavior possible to continue year after year? It is possible because the majority are morons, human lemmings, so to speak, which are so easy manipulated that it is easy for the media to make them believe what they want them to believe and than to vote accordingly. By reading about the history of propaganda, or public relation like it is often called today, the reader is lead to believe that around the end of the 19. century the people discovered from one day of the next that empty rhetoric and lies are more successful in guiding the voter than are reason and arguments, which is a lie, or rather a half-truth. Vital information to understand the cause of this change are usually left out because they have become political incorrect and highly unpopular in our time. Namely that this change in tactics was the direct result of the introduction of universal suffrage and the inclusion of women and morons, “weak links”, into the chain of political participants in elections. The citizens of ancient Athens, not obstructed in the political process by unreasonable women and so many morons, would have chased a leadership as corrupt and rotten as what we see today here in the west out a long time ago. Including those not able to meaningful participate has crippled democracy and made possible a dictatorship of the few under the guise of majority rule. Proudhon noted that “the history of universal suffrage, among all nations, is the history of the restrictions of liberty by and in the name of the multitude.”[3]

Even thought up to this point it may appears this way, this essay is not meant as an ode to aristocracy, quite the opposite, I’m writing in the defense of democracy and the pursuit of what is the most precious to a free man; liberty. My faith, my love, and my hope, lie in liberty. Summa lex summa libertas; the fullness of liberty lies in the fullness of reason, and so what I’m advocating here is a return to the principles of reason in the hope to reestablish and eventually increse liberty in our sacred lands. My proposal is a modification of the principle of universal suffrage, what I have in mind is to limit the participation in political issues to those able to demonstrate the required political capacity for meaningful and responsible participation. I thought of a kind of “voter license” which, similar to a driver license, every citizen may acquires in case that he fulfills the necessary requirements and wishes to participate in elections and the political process. I believe it is a equally fair and effective method, and that much more so than it was the case in ancient Greece, for the removal of weak links from the political process in order to restore a functional democracy with a healthy defense capacity against those I call predators. We do not let anyone drive a car, let alone fly an air plane, but participation in elections is open to any moron without any qualification or understanding when it comes to political issues whatsoever. A practice which by the way made George W. Bush “the leader of the free west”! The system is obviously broken and that not just since yesterday. As I see things, the only way to safe democracy lies in limiting participation in the political process to those able to participate in it in a responsible and thoughtful manner. And to those who believe that this would be “undemocratic”, let me remind you that we already have a system based on representation of the many by a few, at least that is what those in power were originally meant to do, even thought they seem to have forgotten that. Letting the more educated and capable citizen represent the rest by elections and other forms of political participations, is no different than letting a few rule in the name of the majority, representation is representation!

The road to liberty is called reason, ignorance is the name of the road that leads to tyranny and misery, and it is on us to decide which we gonna take. Letting everybody independently of his capacity vote comes down to leaving the elections to the least educated, the least capable, the most ignorant, for they constitute the majority. It in not in the interest of society that the ignorant dominate elections, and it is not even in their own interest. I propose a return to the reign of reason, let reason become the light to guide us out of the darkness!

1. P.J. Proudhon in a letter to the Members of the Academy of Besançon. PARIS, June 30, 1840
2. Nicolo Machiavelli , “The Discourses” (1531) Book I. Chapter XXV.
3. P.J. Proudhon’s “What is Property?” (1840) p. 446

The Deafening Silence…

•July 3, 2008 • 1 Comment

rupert murdoch

The Deafening Silence…

By Phaedrus

Considering the ever-increasing surge of seriously disturbing accusations being leveled at our old friends, the Jews, it is rather curious indeed that their direct responses have been so remarkably distant and detached. Now please don’t misunderstand Phaedrus here. We are all well aware that they’re screaming “anti-Semitism!” at the top of their shrill little voices at those of us who seek to expose the truth about them and their very curious history. Nothing too surprising about that, of course. And not only that, but they’re lobbying their pet governments in the West to introduce ever more ingeniously-contrived ‘Hate Crime’ laws to prevent legitimate researchers into the Jewish Problem from communicating their shocking findings to a wider audience. Speaking the truth is becoming increasingly criminalized. Anyone and everyone who speaks in negative terms about the Jews must be trussed-up and gagged by any means possible. Now this situation will strike a lot of people as downright unfair, not least for the reasons I set out below.

It’s not odd at all, however, that the Jews would like to see all opposition to them crushed; that’s only to be expected. But the really curious thing that is awakening suspicions among even some Liberals, is that these extremely broad, blanket responses are their SOLE weapon of choice against us. This limited technique of theirs works fine when the opposition against them is patchy, insufficiently motivated and improperly informed. They can push for censorship on the grounds that ignorant bigots are spreading lies about them just because they’re a minority race of people who are simply misunderstood. And for a long, long time now, that’s worked well for them. But lately, things are beginning to change. In the face of a absolute firestorm of lurid accusations swirling around about them on the internet, one thing is increasingly obvious by its total absence: any effort to directly engage their accusers face-to-face.

The Jews simply WILL NOT discuss specific allegations. Curiously, they choose not to defend themselves in the way you or I would INSIST upon, were it we that were on the receiving end of such endless diatribes. Now at first, this could be explained away (and it was) by simply claiming that the Jews didn`t want to ‘provide a platform for racists.’ In the early days (pre-internet) that excuse was widely accepted among the sheeple, who dutifully nodded their heads in unison with this noble sentiment. After all, back then it did seem a perfectly plausible reason. But as time has worn on and the accusations only grow louder and more insistent, to continue to remain silent increasingly seems to imply that they are unable to discuss these matters for the simple reason that they CANNOT counter them; the accusations (crazy sounding that they may be to the uninformed) are NOT baseless. They are grounded in vast stacks of high quality documentary evidence which when put before a Jew would leave him stultified with no answers and nowhere to run. Hence they resort to blanket denials which are not open to cross-examination, and increasing efforts to gag us through the courts.

Continue reading

P.J. Proudhon’s Reflexions on the Jews

•July 3, 2008 • 5 Comments


Pierre-Joseph Proudhon 1809-1865

Reflexions on the Jews

“Jews; make laws against this race, which poisons everything, by mingling into in all affairs without seeking unity with any people. Demand their expulsion from France, except those married to Frenchman, abolish synagogues, reject them at any workplace, eventually demanding the abolishment of this cult. It is not by accident that the Christians considered them to be godless. The Jew is the enemy of the human race. One must send this race back to Asia or exterminate it. By fire or fusion or by expulsion, the Jew must disappear. What the people of the middle ages hated by instinct, I hate upon reflexion and irrecoverably. The hatred of the Jew, as that of the English, must be an article of our political faith.” (Carnets, 26 décembre 1847 – Translation by David Preussen)