02 December 2002 – Eric Thomson
The Leader used to say that he would imagine himself looking at the world from outer space, whenever the trivia, tedium and crises threatened to overwhelm him. As you wisely observe, politics requires one to have timing as well as perspective. We are fools to put on skis when there is no snow on the ground, but when there is, we should know how to ski! I don't think Noske, the leader of what became the Freikorps, put forth a political platform before people came to him for leadership, but obviously, he knew who the enemies were and what to do about them when he got support. That's the job for the 1 out of 20. Do street demonstrations attract interest and supporters? If so, fine. If not, we might ask ourselves if form follows function, and what function, if any, they perform. I have participated in numerous demonstrations, in various times and places. When numbers of demonstrators are large enough, they may become platforms for launching revolutions, as in 1956 Hungary or 1905 Russia, but when there is no organization, nor follow-up, all that is achieved is a riot or a series of riots, like those led by the jew, Cohn-Bendit, in Paris in 1968. Neither the USA nor the USSR wanted such a revolution, and the USSR collaborated with the USA in France, just as the USA had collaborated with the USSR in Hungary, to squelch the incipient revolutions within their respective spheres of influence.

As you said, early in our correspondence, the ZOG will rely on special ops troops. The AP download you sent mentions their engagement in "deception operations", which were called "counter-dissonance" operations back in the sixties. As I recall, "rebels" machine-gunned patients in a rural hospital, and the 'rumor' was that they were government troops, who did the job to discredit the opposition. "Cui bono?" is my first question when such atrocities occur. The problem which I see in secrecy and special ops is the growing separation of the government from the governed. With secrecy comes "plausible denial", that removes the very necessary accountability of government from the governed. Invisible government is irresponsible government, as with the Mafia in Sicily, New Jersey et al. The creation of multiple military mafias is likely to be very much at the expense of the governed, since these entities are willing to kill large numbers of American civilians on behalf of their objectives, which probably do not bear public scrutiny. It would take a Stalin or a Meyer Lansky to run such groups of bandits, as Suvorov described in "The Aquarium", in which the GRU competed with the KGB, and the Soviet ruler could play one off against the other. Heads rolled on a regular basis. I really don't think Little Bushy knows what he is getting into, and I would not care to sell him a life insurance policy.

As we know, special ops troops require high degrees of teamwork and loyalty, which tends to pertain to their unit, rather than to the denizens of a polyglot, mongrelized empire. The spirit of elitism and identification with the unit effectively separate such personnel from the general population. The Guardia Civil of Spain comes to mind, for it exists like a separate nation, with its own internal loyalties, in which one is a Civil Guard first and a Spaniard second. The Spanish king who founded this paramilitary police force intended for it to obey his orders to kill Spaniards, when he so decreed. As far as I know, they did their job. During the Spanish Civil War, the Guardia was loyal to the government of the moment. Whether they were in Republican or Nationalist territory, they did their job and obeyed orders. These types are not what we could call "citizen soldiers", and it appears that such types of robocops are what the ZOG has ordered. As the government becomes more distant from the governed, the use of such troops may tend to disillusion large numbers of U.S. citizens, similar to the shocking videotapes of the Waco Massacre, which made me furious at the ZOG and its minions, as if I weren't sufficiently annoyed already. In his book on counterinsurgency, the author, "David Galula" mentions the difference between troops and police: the job of troops is to keep their distance from the population, since their weapons are effective, as long as the targets don't get too close. The job of police is to stay close to the population for purposes of law enforcement and intelligence. This role is illustrated in "The Battle of Algiers", in which the insurgent nationalists kill cops on their beats, and the character who plays General Massu of the French paras tells the civilian authorities that they have a police problem, not a military problem. In the U.S.A. the militarization of the police has served to distance cops from civilians, so police must rely on paid informants, who convey information previously gathered from the civilian populace directly. Most people I know distrust and dislike cops, and see them as an army of occupation, rather than protectors. I do not exaggerate, even taking in racial and cultural differences within the population, for Whites tend to distrust and dislike cops, too. I view them as a necessary evil, and I do not see them as allies, but as mercenaries who do their own things at my expense. I know that I will be on my own when the crunch comes, and if cops, do arrive, they will only be concerned with a body-count. We pay our, money and we take our chances, thanks be to ZOG. The police do not protect my society, but theirs, so there is little feeling that we are fellow citizens, I am a citizen and they are cops.

The rense.com download on "The Terminal State of the State" is one of those essays on the evils of a "system", rather than the people who comprise it. If people were all alike, why would some adopt one system, rather than another? Obviously, there is more than one type of system in politics, economics and government, so blaming a system for abuses committed by the users of a system really does not compute in my mind. This goes back to the folly of the Foundering Fathers who believed that a system could be man-proof, since we are "all created equal", and we now have a "government of laws, not of men". What a load of Freemasonic cods wallop!

In the many trials I have attended, it is obvious that the jury system is only as good as the people who are jurors. The system, as such, provides no justice, nor any guarantee thereof. People protect. Procedures do not. If people are inferior, so is due process. I state the obvious, because we are lied to incessantly about things which are obviously not as the liars state. No, we are not a nation, nor are we a democracy.

People who confuse "state" with a territory know little of the function of states, just as people who confuse "nation" with territory have no valid concept of nation in its original biological sense. The abuse of language continues with the new perversion of the word, "family" to mean the denizens of an apartment or dwelling, rather than people related by blood and/or marriage.

Thank you for the biographical reviews on Mencken and Ellsberg. No, Mencken was not Mark Twain, and neither was Ellsberg, for that matter. Such a deal! Ellsberg exhibits all the identity problems which hebes complained to me about in university. As half-jew Peter Sellers said, of his ability to throw himself into any role: he did not know who he was. This is why jews can be good actors and spies, for to them, one identity is as valid as another. Apparently, Ellsberg's identity, activities and politics changed with his females. As I have said, I do not pick my politics to suit my friends. I pick my friends to suit my politics. Maybe it has something to do with me being a Goy, who never doubted who he is.

Like you, I am suspicious of those who protest their politics too much, and who adopt extreme political postures, as if to convince themselves: I wear a Swastika, therefore I must be a Nazi. Extreme positions are unlikely to be held for long. Just try standing on one leg or on tiptoes for any length of time. Politics is the art of the possible, and extremely untimely political postures serve to isolate the extremist and alienate potential supporters. I do not deem my views to be extreme, but future-oriented, and I do not attempt to lead, when others are so far unwilling to follow. Since I have good reason to believe I am correct, my eventual followers will seek me, rather than I, them. By that time, of course, they may come to visit my grave, wherever that may be, but, 'better late than never'.

Let us enjoy these doldrums while we can, here on the USS TITANIC, because they will not last. Then, we'd all better know how to swim.


P.S.: The download on Holland really makes me wonder about Dutch intelligence. Let us suppose that every inch of our land was wrested with great ingenuity and effort from the sea, and is maintained only by dint of constant work and vigilance. Would you or I give up our precious land to all comers, and pay them to breed and occupy more of it, as the silly Dutch do? I don't think so, because we're not Dutch. Ha!


I chuckled at your description of the liberals now whirling about their 'let-down' and 'betrayal' by the ZOG which they so thoughtlessly supported, thinking it was "theirs". I think Joseph Sobran put it succinctly: The jews betrayed liberalism. They used it until the founding of Israel, then they became fascists. I am sure liberals would cry even louder if they knew they were patsies and dupes all along, like Shakespeare's moor, who had done his evil and now could depart. It didn't take me more than two minutes to realize that liberals are commies without the courage of their convictions. They are liberal with others' money and love anything, if it's compulsory.

The kosher cowboys (orthodox jews) dub the nationalist jews (secular jews) as "donkeys" upon whom the kosher kikes will ride to their supposed destination: jewish world rule. If I were a nationalist jew, I would not like to be deemed a "donkey". That's what they call the American asses who they use to ride to their supposed destiny of "Greater Israel", from the Nile to the Tigris-Euphrates rivers. Americans don't mind being called "donkeys" or "asses", especially by non Whites. Were I an Israeli denizen, I would object to the fact that the orthodox sheenies are not subject to the draft, but they carry the swing vote in the Knesset, and impose policies which thrust the secular jews into war. Such a deal! It reminds me of the U.S.A.

Thank you for sharing your experiences with the Dutch in Holland. It is too bad that their willful suicide on behalf of 'diversity' will bring Holland down to the level of the U.S.A. in which Gentiles, especially White ones, must exist on the basis of "every man for himself". As I observe, if we do not fight the ZOG, wogs, kikes and nignogs collectively, we shall suffer individually.

If a White man can survive until age 55, he qualifies for a number of geezer benefits, like working as a "volunteer" for AARP for 25 hours per week at minimum wage, while he looks for a better job. He gets his salary while job-hunting, and the meager wage qualifies him for food stamps, but the cash-crunch comes for rent. In the Judeo-America of "I Love Lucy" and "Leave It to Beaver", it is very easy to get thrown out on the street. Hebrewood fantasy meets kosher reality, one might say. A White man's first duty to himself is to stay out of debt. I know people who are officially and legally bankrupt, and they continue to receive 'complimentary' credit cards and loan shark solicitations despite, or because of their bad credit rating. "I default, therefore I am!" is the debtor's dictum. I do not borrow money, so I do not exist: zero credit; zero default, and best of all, zero interest payments! If I were a typical Goy, I would have gone from zero to minus, and my period of unemployment would have lost my credit card purchases to the Great God Repo. That's why I try to live below my means, for jobs are not guaranteed to last.

Don't let the bastards grind you down.