A few weeks ago, 17 men were charged with stealing over $42 million from the Claims Conference, a New York organization that pays “reparations” to supposed Holocaust survivors. It is financed with German tax dollars, and almost all of the proceeds and payouts go to Jews who claim to have lived under German occupation. Six of those charged in the scam worked for the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, and helped recruit fake Nazi victims to file at least 5,500 bogus applications over the course of 16 years, and one of the men charged is the former director of the Claims Conference. Prosecutors charge that the scammers falsified documents and made up fake histories and stories of torture and persecution under the Nazis in order to receive compensation from the fund. Many of the fake Holocaust survivors were born after WWII, and one was not even Jewish (apparently they only intended to pay out to Jewish Holohoax survivors, not the non-Jews who were in the same camps and supposedly subject to the same atrocities).

Although the Holocaust still remains a sacred cow to many, and questioning its veracity is punishable by fines and imprisonment in several countries, the revelation of over 5,000 more fake survivors shouldn’t come as  a surprise. there were less than 6 million Jews living in Europe outside the Soviet Union prior to 1940, then millions were supposedly killed off in death camps (most historians claim fewer than the  “6 million” that was the popular estimate for years, but claims are still in the millions), so where did they all come from? Going by the statistics for healthy (non-starved and non imprisoned) adults of the time period, the Jewish populations would have had to have tripled during the Holocaust to have produced the number of supposed survivors today, and this at a time where they were supposedly being exterminated in massive numbers.

Also, why are the survivors mainly Jews? If the Jews suffered the most, and were most likely to be killed, then why did allied soldiers find the work camps full of Russians, Gypsies, Communists, homosexuals, radical trade unionists, anti-Fascists? What of these survivors? Many of them were in bad condition, and most who did survive died soon after the war because of the affects disease and starvation due to allied bombing of food and supply trains into the camps, and yet they are silenced. Are we supposed to believe that more Jews survived the death camps than non-Jews survived the work camps. They must have been pretty pitiful “death camps”, then, when it seems like they produced some of the most prolific and long-lived people to have emerged from the war!

It is claimed that as many as 90% of people who claim to be Holocaust survivors and, with the numbers of supposed survivors increasing each year, I believe this is true. As those who did live through WWII are aging and dying off, the Holocaust still remains a huge money-maker, and I imagine more and more people will be found out to be frauds, making a living by leeching off “reparations funds”, writing false memoirs, and speaking to schools, churches, and other groups about their imaginary persecutions.

For quick reference, here are just a few more “Holocaust survivors” who have been proved to be liars & fakes:

  • Herman Rosenblat (& wife, Roma)- false memoir, Angel at the Fence, made into a novel, movie & children’s book as well, the novel published even after the Rosenblats admitted to making up the story
  • Misha Defonesca – false memoir, Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Years
  • Binjamin Wilkomirski – false memoir, Fragments: Memories of a Wartime Childhood
  • Rosemarie Pence – supposed Dauchau survivor & Olympian, book written about her, defrauded neighbors
  • Peter Loth – paid speaker, “minister”, ghostwritten memoir, Peace by Peace with false claims he was experimented on by Dr. Mengele (he was born at Stuttgart, would not have even met Mengele)
  • Laura Grabowski – author & “Christian” speaker, first cashed in as a “Satanic cult survivor”, reinvented herself under this name as a Jewish holocaust survivor, collected thousands in donations under these pretenses
  • Elie Wiesel – false memoir, Night, edited after 3 editions and 20 years to include new references to gas chambers
  • Otto Frank – published supposed diary of his daughter, parts were written in written in ballpoint pen (invented after WWII), presumably by Jewish author Meyer Levin, who was paid $50,000 by Otto Frank for the work

On this Veteran’s Day, I would like to offer my thanks and sincere appreciation to all of the white men and women who have served in the military, to protect their nation, and to learn and hone skills which can be used in service of our race. For those who scoff at the idea that military service can be beneficial under our recent government, I would like to quote a bumper sticker I recently saw- “Support Our Troops – We’ll Need Them To Overthrow Our Government“.

Whatever a person thinks about the military, there are skills, leadership development, a warrior mindset, and a type of comradeship and brotherhood that only comes from having served in the armed forces. Some have tried to replicate various parts of it through survival and militia training, civilian training courses, reading, and even watching movies and/or playing video game simulations, but it is not the same. Even the closest, most cohesive group or “crew” is not the same as those who have bonded over combat, or even just under the shared experience of basic training or AIT.

I don’t know how to explain it myself, but I have been involved in gatherings of all sorts of people – militia, survivalists, white nationalist, assorted “patriot groups”, and various mixes of the two. I have also been involved in gatherings where all or most of the people there were current and former military personal. I don’t know how to explain it, but you can literally feel the difference – there is a certain unspoken bond and a level of both connection and seriousness when talking about training, the future, and the important things in life that I have found among no other group of people, and one that makes me damn proud to be included.

To all of those who are serving in the military, and to those who have served. To those who’ve made it home, in memory of those who never made it home, and with a tear for those who made it home in body but not in mind or spirit, thank you.


I am aware that there is some conflict over military service in our movement, but I want to but that aside right now. Comments criticizing “our” soldiers or nit-picking the issues surrounding the current wars will not be posted here.


Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism by Bill Lind.

Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Where does it come from? What is it?

We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts simply become grist for the mill, which proves that “all history is about which groups have power over which other groups.” So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness.

But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.

Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.

Marxists knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working, but it stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were made to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didn’t support them.

So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?” He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.

Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the “latest thing.”

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, which creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.

And he says, “What we need is a think-tank.” Washington is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, “I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism.” Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.

The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very much Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless this.”

Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, “If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – “in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory.”

The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What

Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphous perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.” Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. “Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature.” That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. “The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, ” was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.” “Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his “protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist; they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.


These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, “Hell no we won’t go,” they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert

Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do you own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, “Do your own thing,” “If it feels good do it,” and “You never have to go to work.” By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, “Make love, not war.” Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.

In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

My apologies for my extremely long post but I think it is important we all know exactly what we are fighting against.

(This was received as a comment, but I thought it deserved its own post. Thank you very much.)

Bruce Pierce, Rest in Peace

Posted: August 17, 2010 in White Heroes

Bruce Carroll Pierce, a member of the Order, died Monday, August 16th, 2010, of natural causes, at the Allenwood Federal Correctional Complex in Pennsylvania. He was 56 years old, and was serving a 252 year prison sentence for the 1984 shooting death of Jewish Denver talk radio host Alan Berg.

Bruce often signed his letters, “for God, Race, and Truth”, and remained true to the end, living in accordance with his statement to the judge at his trial, “I’m not going to waste your time or mine and beg for mercy. Whatever happens, I’d like to bring honor to myself, glory to my brother kinsmen and glory to God.”

Rest well, my brother. You served your God and kinsmen well, and are now in a place beyond the reach of the Zionist destroyers, with those who have gone before.


For those unfamiliar with Bruce Pierce, his own words say it best:

My name is Bruce Carroll Pierce. I was born in the early 1950s and raised in central Kentucky.

During the early 1980s, I took an unpopular stand for God and Race with the other good men listed on this website—and though we were worsted in the end, our Cause did not suffer with our losses, and it is no less just.

I am a disciple of the Anointed Jesus and I stand by and strive to live uncompromisingly in accordance with the principles of God as found and demonstrated in His original autographs. This includes, but is not limited to, the preservation of my Race and all that God created and called “good,” and the establishment of God’s government in the hearts and minds of my Adamic-Israelite kinsmen.

To those ends I have devoted my life.

Bruce Pierce

(from the freetheorder.org website – http://www.freetheorder.org/pierceintro.html)

The media has been up in arms lately about a supposed white serial killer targeting black men around Flint Michigan, but has been predictably silent now that the killer has turned out to be a Jew. Elias Abuelezam, an Israeli citizen, was picked up at the Atlanta airport on his way to Tel Aviv. Had he been allowed on the flight, he could have taken advantage of an Israeli law prevents Israeli citizens from being extradited for crimes in other countries.  This law even extends to Jews who are not Israeli citizens and have never been to Israel, so long as the express a desire to settle there, and has been used by several Jewish criminals such as Samuel Sheinbein to escape prosecution in the United States and other countries. (one Jewish magazine’s coverage of this law) Of course, as soon as the news of the Israeli connection broke, the Jews and their lackeys were doing damage control, suggesting in the comments sections on various news sites that the suspect had to be an Arab or an “anti-semite out to make the Jews look bad” and, within a few hours, the Israeli references at many sites either disappeared or were amended to mention that Abuelezam as of Arab descent.

Another interesting point in this case is that Abuelazam was picked up by law enforcement at least twice in the past few weeks and then let go, even after police had found a knife and a hammer, both weapons described in the attacks, in his car. Police are claiming he slipped through the cracks because they had not yet connected the crimes in different states, but another may be that Abuelazam did not fit the profile they were looking for, with his dark complexion and Israeli citizenship, since news coverage has already mjade it clear they were looking for a “racist white male”. Comparing his actual photo to the police sketch of the suspect, one can see how the drawing makes him appear more like a white man:

Elias Abuelazam

As in the case of the DC Beltway sniper, where the media was promoting the idea of another white serial killer (the killer was black Muslim John Allen Muhammad, and a young black protege of his), the media seemed reluctant to release names and details once it turned out to be just more characteristic non-white violence.  Even now, the media is trying to present a sympathetic portrait of the killer, portraying him as a “gentle giant”, albeit one with a history of abusing his wife and daughter, and assaulting other family members, before going on the killing and stabbing spree. Of course, whites are portrayed as racist monsters if they so much as insult a person of another race but, now that we know this guy is not white, it’s time to start building sympathy for him and talking about what a nice guy he was. It’s also telling that the description changed from a “serial killer” to a “serial stabber” once it was revealed he was not white, and was an Israeli.

The Will To Fight

Posted: July 24, 2010 in The "Movement"

One of the saddest things about the white race today is that we apparently have lost our will to fight. White men and women are being murdered, raped, robbed, and insulted daily, and allowed to get away with it. Even when anti-racist scum attacks White Nationalists, they know there will most likely be no retribution. Even a few generations ago, white people would not stand for insults like this, and non-whites who attacked white women would meet justice either from the law or outside of it. Today, when criminals are arrested, the victims’ families, who should be the first to demand justice and protect their honor, are often seen in the media apologizing to murderers and rapists and clamoring for forgiveness and light sentences. White people no longer have any sense of defending the honor of themselves or their family, or of Lex Talionis, the law of retribution.

Part of the problem is that our people are removed from nature, and no longer acknowledge that struggle and even violence are natural parts of life. Most of us have been raised in a socialist-designed public school system where children are herded like sheep from one room to another and the highest praise is reserved for those who obey what they’re told, remain quiet, and get along with everyone. Those who don’t are punished or labeled ADHD and drugged into complacency. We go from this into jobs or even military units where teamwork and cooperation are valued above everything else, including ability and morality. By making “getting along” the new virtue in everything, we’ve allowed ourselves to be pushed into a collectivist society where most people don’t see anything “worth fighting for” anymore.

With white men, the media pushes the image of the “team player” at work and the “sensitive guy” in relationships, and the impression is that it’s better to go along with everyone else and be a success than to go against the grain and fight for what’s right. First, they tried to channel all “male aggression” into sports, then they integrated sports and kept putting black athletes up on pedestals, trying to give the impression that they were automatically better than whites. Now, nonwhites are encouraged to “fight” through sports, gangss, “street culture”, etc, while whites are portrayed as a joke when they try to do the same. A man who wants to fight in the traditional sense, as a warrior, or to uphold what is right, is told that he is evil or cruel, or is an idealist fighting for a cause that he will never win or, conversely, is sucked into a war as a government soldier fighting against his own racial interest in the service of his enemies. The problem is that most men buy into this because a trophy wife, a 6-figure income, and a few sports cars and other “toys” does seem more attractive than fighting a losing battle or going to war for a country which does not appreciate its own people. To regain a will to fight, people need to have a clear sense of something worth fighting for.

They’ve also tried to steal this same spirit from women. While I doubt most of us grew up playing with guns and soldiers, women used to know that there was something worth fighting for. We were prepared to stand up for what was right in our own homes and, if not fight ourselves, to support our husbands and sons as they went to fight. This was shown in WWII, both in America and Germany, where women supported the war effort and kept the country running while the men were fighting and taught their children that it was an honor to be a soldier for a noble cause, and in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars and the Indian Wars, where women also prepared to defend their own homes and children in case of attack while their husbands were away. Beginning in the 1950s, this started changing; women were taught to “smile pretty and act nice”, and not to hold very strong opinions. This led to submissiveness, pacifism, political correctness, and general weakness and willingness to compromise becoming identified as “feminine” traits. While those attitudes might have been charming to a future spouse, it brought about a future where children were not taught strong values or independence and where men could not rely on their wives support in times of struggle.

To get back our will to fight, we need to start there, and take back our families. If our children are raised by strong fathers who show then that it’s ok to fight for a good cause, and teach them to shoot and to defend themselves, and by strong mothers who teach them the values that are worth fighting for and have pride in those who will fight, then we don’t have to worry so much about them being raised and brainwashed by the media or public “education”. This won’t happen if the media can keep getting men to blame “feminism” for their own weaknesses or getting women to blame “the patriarchy” for theirs, but if both will come together it will work. We just need to rebuild our race so that it is strong enough to withstand “pop culture” and media brainwashing, and the only way that I see to do this is to start by building strong white families, since family is the backbone of all other social and cultural institutions.

Just a friendly reminder from the folks at Google:

Google Holocaust - racialrealities.com

Introduction & Some Biography

Posted: July 19, 2010 in Biographical

I feel like I should start things off with an introduction and statement of purpose for this blog, so that my readers will know I little about me and about my intents for this site.

I am a white woman in my late 20s. I am married and a stay at home mother at this time, and I have been a White Nationalist since I was a teenager. I have a college education and have worked in the sales, real estate, and corrections (prison) industries before choosing to stay at home with my son. I feel like my life and education are best used now to raise my child and any future children we may have, and to homeschool and teach racial and cultural awareness rather than relying on multicultural daycare centers and public schools full of government propaganda.

I grew up in a town and school system surrounded by blacks, and with a mestizo population that was already growing in the early 90s, but was taught to stick to my own kind and not to date or form close friendships with other races. What I saw from being forced to live and go to school among them made me agree with this. I began learning about the Jewish influence on society in my early teens, through a combination of research on the internet, reading and research, and simply observing the world around me and those in control of the media, banking, and shaping of public opinion.

Seeing the racial problems with the world around me, I have spent most of my life trying to wake other white people up and to change our situation. I became a skinhead at the age of 14, and was active in a few “crews” but frustrated with the lack of direction among even most racially aware white teenagers, and at the fact that my age kept me from joining most broader white nationalist groups and the major skinhead groups that seemed to be making an impact at that time. I spent a lot of time on WN websites and forums, and traveled to events when I could, once I got my driver’s license. I joined the National Alliance as soon as I turned 18, and remained a member until 2003, by which time factionalism had made the group less than a shell of its former self. For a time, I was a member of a local Klan group, because they were doing positive things locally and my husband and father had both been members, but that too was torn apart by infighting and greed. I have been involved in a few other minor groups, but seen the same patterns repeat so often that I am cautious of joining anything anymore.

I am, first and foremost, a white racialist. I believe that even nature itself shows that the white race is the most creative and civilized of the races, and that western civilization, western philosophy, and even historic Christianity are the legacy of the white race. I am also a Christian and, while I don’t think it’s proper for a woman to teach or preach doctrine, I do believe that Christianity is a white religion, spread by the white man and one of the underpinnings of white civilization until the modern corruptions of dispensation, Zionism, and universalism were allowed to spread throughout the church. Whether you believe that the white race are the physical descendants of Israel, or the spiritual Israel of the New Covenant, it is abundantly clear that the marks of Israel and election of God are evident in our people’s culture and history, and not in that of the “Jews” or the modern day middle eastern state of “Israel”.  All of my other views and beliefs can be best explained as “filtered” through these first two.

My husband and I put on cookouts for several years as an attempt to unify and help promote networking between the various pro-white groups in our state. There were varying levels of success with this. Some went great and we had over 100 people at a few but, over time, certain groups seemed to think they could control who was and was not welcome, and the same factionalism that afflicts other parts of our movement began to cause problems. After 10 years, attendance has dwindled down to only around 30 people per event, and my husband and I have had to cut back from quarterly events to yearly or biannually because we were not financially able to do them as often as before on only one income and with attendance and voluntary donations no longer even covering the facility rental, much less the cost of food and supplies.

I am still doing what I can to support other white activists and to attend those events that I can, but am somewhat limited by the logistics of travel now (my husband works a lot of overtime on weekends, and we are not comfortable with me attending public events and protest alone now that I will have our child with me, plus the expenses of gas and motel rooms are more of an impact with a family of three on one income). Since the internet was a part of my awakening, and an invaluable tool in educating myself, it makes sense for me to use it as a tool to network and to educate others. There are not very many white nationalist blogs that I know of, and even fewer written by women, so I hope to add my voice to help reach other whites, and especially white women who may not see much of a female presence among WNs because so many of us are either less outspoken or simply too busy with the demands of family and/or career to spend much time online.

(I will be uploading a few posts from a previous blog of mine as well, these will have dates spanning from 2005-2007, when they were originally written).

Quality or Quantity?

Posted: July 16, 2007 in The "Movement"

There seems to be a trend to “soften up” both politics and racialism in order to win over more people. This is most obvious in things like Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” and the replacement of the old right “paleoconservatives” with the neo-Cons of today [what would’ve been called liberals, or worse, only a generation ago]. I guess some “leaders” still think that if they make the message warm and fuzzy enough, that they will win the hearts and minds of the majority. This will not work, because the majority has been brainwashed into having an almost pathological reaction against anything seen as racist, anti-Semitic, or intolerant. We may be able to reach the more intelligent of these people with logical and rational arguments, but we cannot hope to succeed through emotionalism, and any attempt to do so will only weaken and dilute our own position and make us more susceptible to infiltration by those who would destroy us.

The so-called values, beliefs, and morals of the American people are nothing more than what the media tells them and what they think the popular or socially accepted belief is. Unless we can somehow gain control of all the major media within the next 10 or so years, no amount of softening our image or kissing up to either the Jews, the neo-Cons, or the lemmings and their touchy-feely sensibilities is going to do any good. History is not made by compromise and surrender, but by those willing to fight for what is right and hold fast to their principles. The only way to get the majority of Americans to support us is for things to get bad enough for them to be forced out of their comfort zones. Then, and only then, they may realize that the current government and it’s multicultural policies will not take care of them. It won’t be a matter of hearts and minds, for the most part, if they do follow us, it will only occur if we appear to have the strength and resources to support them (ie, to take control) once the current system falls. This situation will probably not arise without a physical struggle.

I do not want to see my friends and family fighting, and probably dying, in any sort of war, but I realize that one is probably coming. I do not know if it will be in terms of race, class, or simply freedom-loving Americans who have had enough fighting back against their oppressors, but the current system cannot sustain itself for long, and the only “peaceful” solution I see is for us to lie down and die off quietly. If that is it the case, I’d rather be prepared to fight back, and I want to know that my “comrades” are also prepared to fight, not to compromise and surrender because they have been prepared to find “common ground” with our enemies. Let them try to wipe out the pure whites if they will, but I’ll be damned if I’ll help promote it among those who are supposed to be saving our race.

I would love to see a huge White Nationalist movement in this country, and worldwide, but we must not sacrifice quality for quantity. The people I see getting involved with the movement, and actually sticking around and being productive, see the threat from nonwhites and want to join a group that is willing to resist it, not one that will compromise and try to get along with our racial enemies. The mainstream conservative-type groups have destroyed themselves by softening their positions, and we racialists cannot afford to do the same. The Jews, mestizos, and blacks cannot be trusted in any offer of peace or friendship, because nothing is ever good enough. At best, they will use it to gain our trust and then attack from within, as they are already doing through those who sympathize with them and yet claim to support the interests of the white race.

We’re losing numbers too quickly to worry about doing things slowly and easily or bringing people in gradually. These will come to us when the situation gets bad enough that they need protection, or when they think we have the upper hand. For now, we need the people who are serious and willing to fight, and these will not be scared away by labels of “racist” and “anti-Semite” or by accusations of “hate” or “extremism”. We worry so much about being portrayed as a bunch of fanatics that we are alienating the people we need the most. If your website or group wants to run off the “name the Jew freaks” or the “militant fringe”, feel free to send them my way. I’d much rather stand with 10 “fanatics” than 100 fence sitters who who are terrified to say the word “Jew” and have to whisper and look around the room before whispering anything about their “dark-skinned neighbors”.

Another year, another birthday. For the first time, I’m starting to feel old. I know that 25 is young, but part of me feels like I’m still a teenager, and I’m not sure that adulthood is all it’s cracked up to be. There are a few perks, but really, my life’s about the same now as it was at 19, just with more expectations of “normalcy”, and less leeway for breaking society’s arbitrary rules. Looking back, the world has changed a lot since I’ve been alive, but the way those changes affected me can only be views in retrospect.

I was born in 1982, under the influence of MTV, Ronald Reagan, and the AIDS scare. This explains my love for 80s hair metal, and hate for rap music [as rap videos replaced the music I liked on TV], and why I swung towards conservatism at a very young age, when there were still a few things in society worth “conserving”. I was a member of the first generation to grow up under the shadow of HIV, maybe because I was also in the first generation where interracial dating was seen as “normal” by most of my peer group. I remember the fall of the Berlin Wall and South African Apartheid, and how both were celebrated on television [nobody knew the atrocities that would be committed later by the newly “liberated” blacks in Africa, or the condition the former USSR would be left in after years of Judeo-Communist domination]. More relevant was the PTL club scandal and the fall of TV evangelism – I remember thinking they seemed so fake, even as a child, and I couldn’t figure out why my grandma loved the TV preachers enough to send them money [these same types are en vogue once again, combining their prosperity gospel with rampant Zionism and multiculturalism, still using religious brainwashing to play on the heart-strings and purse-strings of the American sheeple].

The invasion of Panama and the first Gulf War mattered to me, because they meant my dad went overseas, and I spent a lot of time home alone or bouncing between relatives. I had the walls of my room plastered with information about Iraq, the Army, and military weapons, and I thought it’d be so cool to grow up and work in military intelligence or the FBI. I wonder how many other people felt that way, took the jobs, and now have to live with the things their respective agencies are doing.

I remember hearing about the LA riots, and how everyone felt it was bad and unfair, and then the OJ Simpson trial, where the black kids cheered and the white kids mostly said it was bullshit when the verdict was announced [so long as they were where no blacks could hear them]. I remember Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the OKC bombing, and all of a sudden I no longer wanted to work for the federal government, or in law enforcement. I remember the big media panic over the militia groups, and finding that I agreed with most of what they said. Turning in research papers on militias, white supremacy, and neo-pagan spirituality, all with a positive slant, does not endear a child to most teachers, but that in itself taught me a valuable lesson about the world – beliefs have consequences, and I learned to face them at an early age.

I remember Columbine, only because I knew my taste in music, clothing, and friends, had just made me a target of discrimination by overzealous watchdogs and my media-influenced peers. Nobody ever mentioned how many kids in gang attire and “wigger” or “ghetto” style killed people on the streets after school, but suddenly white kids wearing black were the violent ones. I remember the Brady Bill and Proposition 187, and the huge debates over both. I remember the debates over sex and violence in the media. I don’t think any of us knew at the time how far-reaching the effects of any of these things would be, and how far in the future these same questions and debates would be in the headlines.

More recently, we’ve had 9/11, the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War, the immigration debate, and the fiasco that has been the Bush presidency. I don’t even know where to begin with any of the above, or what the effects will be in 5 or 10 years, but it’ll be interesting. I just know that Americans are living in more fear now than at any time I can remember, and are voluntarily giving up freedoms that should never have been taken for granted. Maybe that’s what life I remember it has all been leading up to – random world events setting the state for some sort of totalitarian multiculturalist state. If so, I hope enough people have learned from this same history that if we don’t fight it, things will only get worse, and we may be past the point in another generation or two where anyone will even remember what kind of world there was to fight for.