“The so-called 'Left-Hand Path' - that of Kaulas, Siddhas and Viras - combines the... Tantric worldview with a doctrine of the Ɯbermensch which would put Nietzsche to shame... The Vira - which is to say: the 'heroic' man of Tantrism - seeks to sever all bonds, to overcome all duality between good and evil, honor and shame, virtue and guilt. Tantrism is the supreme path of the absolute absence of law - of shvecchacarÄ«, a word meaning 'he whose law is his own will'." ― Julius Evola, The Path of Cinnabar.

“It is necessary to have “watchers” at hand who will bear witness to the values of Tradition in ever more uncompromising and firm ways, as the anti-traditional forces grow in strength. Even though these values cannot be achieved, it does not mean that they amount to mere “ideas.” These are measures…. Let people of our time talk about these things with condescension as if they were anachronistic and anti-historical; we know that this is an alibi for their defeat. Let us leave modern men to their “truths” and let us only be concerned about one thing: to keep standing amid a world of ruins.” ― Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World: Politics, Religion, and Social Order in the Kali Yuga.

“We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who died at his post during the eruption of Vesuvius because someone forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one that can not be taken from a man.” ― Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life.

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Because Women Training To Kill With Knives Warms My Heart

Filipino female police commandos, belonging to the elite Philippine National Police Special Action Force (PNP-SAF) demonstrate knife fighting combat techniques during an exercise before President Gloria Arroyo (not in picture) at Camp Bagong Diwa in Manila 30 October 2007. The police force demonstrated their capabilities in anti-terrorism operations.

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Nazi Shrunken Heads?

Marxist Roots of Political Correctness

The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression

Interestingly enough, Marxism is an accepted (more accurately propagated) ideology in American colleges. The outrage that would be provoked if this number of professors were professed "Fascists" or "Nazis" is easy to imagine. These hypocritical scumbags should be exposed and hissed off the stage at every opportunity. This book is an invaluable cache of intellectual ammunition in the form of facts, names, dates, places, etc. for any anti-communist argument and is highly recommended. The review by Claire Wolfe provides a useful summary.

The only good communist is a DEAD communist,


Ps. Claire Wolfe is a Libertarian - I'm not.


The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression
By Stephane Courtois, Mark Kramer (Translator), Jonathan Murphy (Translator), Karel Bartosek, Andrzej Paczkowski, Jean-Louis Panne, Jean-Louis Margolin (Contributors); Introduction to the U.S. edition by Martin Malia
Published by Harvard University Press, 1999
Originally published in France, 1997

Reviewed by Claire Wolfe

Examining the photos and reading their captions in The Black Book of Communism, you might expect the surrounding 700+ pages to contain a wail of outrage. The photos, though few, are as graphic and heart-rending as the worst from Nazi Germany.

But the text is no impassioned partisan cry. It's something more powerful than that; it's the facts. The Black Book has been called a catalog, an indictment, a prosecutorial manual against Communist crimes. It is a simply a dispassionate account - article after article - of the history of Communist power. Beginning with Leninist terror policies and concluding with the starvation produced by Afrocommunism, the historians of The Black Book list the events, tally the numbers, describe the conditions, name the names.

Their conclusion:

USSR: 20 million deaths
China: 65 million deaths
Vietnam: 1 million deaths
North Korea: 2 million deaths
Cambodia: 2 million deaths
Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths
Latin America: 150,000 deaths
Africa: 1.7 million deaths
Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths
Communist movements or parties not in power: about 10,000 deaths

Nearly 100 million deaths. Not casualties of war, but civilian slaughter. Deaths in gulags and concentration camps. Deaths from a bullet to the head. Most of all, deaths by starvation - the result either of planned famines, meted out as punishment to internal foes (as in Stalin's USSR), or unintended consequences of central policy.

American historian R.J. Rummell has tallied similar figures in his book Death by Government. But The Black Book is different in that 1) it focuses on death and terror in Communist regimes only 2) many of its contributors were (or are still) members of the left and 3) this book touched off an international storm when it was first published in France.

The "crime" of revealing Communist crimes

Why would this scholarly book - with its "just the facts, Ma'm" approach and its extensively documented claims - ignite a firestorm?

Partly it is because many crimes of Communism have gone unexamined, due both to bias among the intelligentsia and lack of access to archives of Communist countries. As such, this book is a shock to those who haven't been paying attention.

Partly it is that in Europe, and France especially, it is still chic to identify oneself as a Communist or Socialist. This book is an embarrassment and a shame to those who have practiced "ideological self-deception."

But appallingly, the controversy arose largely because the Black Book's authors - in particular chief editor and contributor Stephane Courtois - dare to compare the horrors of Communism to the horrors of Nazism. (The title itself is reflects the famous Black Book of Nazi crimes compiled after the Nuremberg Trials.) An unbiased scholar might consider this a natural thing to do; some political partisans considered it an offense.

In the introduction, "The Crimes of Communism," (one of just three essays that analyze, rather than merely report, the century's events), Courtois writes:

Time and again the focus of the terror was less on targeted individuals than on groups of people. The purpose of the terror was to exterminate a group that had been designated as the enemy. Even though it might be only a small fraction of society, it had to be stamped out to satisfy this genocidal impulse. Thus, the techniques of segregation and exclusion employed in a "class-based totalitarianism" [Communism] closely resemble the techniques of "race-based totalitarianism." The future Nazi society was to be built upon a "pure race," and the future Communist society was to be built upon a proletarian people purified of the dregs of the bourgeoisie. The restructuring of these two societies was envisioned in the same way, even if the crackdowns were different. Therefore, it would be foolish to pretend that Communism is a form of universalism. Communism may have a worldwide purpose, but like Nazism it deems a part of humanity unworthy of existence.
That Courtois finds no moral distinction between the barbarities of right and left, between mass slaughter of races and mass slaughter of classes (the Russian bourgeoise and the kulaks, for example), led the left-leaning newspaper Le Monde to trot out the familiar charge of anti-Semitism and to damn the entire book by association.

Courtois further irritated France's intellectuals (and indeed some of the book's co-authors) by concluding that Communists actually benefitted by promoting the illusion that the Holocaust was a unique crime - thus diverting suspicion from themselves and ensuring that the "fascist right" always appeared more heinous than its twin on the left.

Spanning time and the globe

You need not agree with Courtois, or even spend time with the book's three analytical essays, to be deeply moved - and informed.

The catalog of horrific deeds encompasses:

Nicholas Werth's 15-article section, "A State against Its People: Violence, Repression, and Terror in the Soviet Union," which details Lenin's deliberate use of terror, forced collectivization, "dekulakization," Stalinist purges, the workings of the secret police and the rise and fall of the gulag system. Werth spares no Russian leader or Marxist intellectual from 1917 to the fall of the USSR.
"World Revolution, Civil War and Terror," which traces the USSR's determined efforts to export its philosophy - and its methods - throughout the world.
"The Other Europe: Victims of Communism," which details crimes in Poland, Central and Southeastern Europe.
"Communism in Asia: Between Reeducation and Massacre," in which Jean-Louis Margolin and Pierre Rigoulot examine China (with emphasis on the catastrophic Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution), North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The authors admit that, with most Asian Communist regimes still in place, access to archives is forbidden and facts remain sketchy. Yet what they report should be enough to dispel any lingering visions of fatherly Mao and grandfatherly Ho.
"The Third World," which reveals the horrors perpetrated by Communist guerrillas or regimes from Afghanistan to Cuba and Peru to Ethiopia, Angola and Mozambique..
In addition, the book is fascinating for its many insights into Communism's roots. You might be surprised to learn who these French authors consider to be the real father of Communism (hint: not Marx). And most readers would certainly be surprised to learn that Soviet leaders so greatly respected one Western saint that they erected a monument to him at the Kremlin.

The Black Book's revelations are so broad and detailed that no mere review could describe them adequately. Anyone who cares about history or truth should read this book. (Fortunately its lucid prose makes it easy to follow even the most arcane or gut-wrenching events).

Why should we care?

But with Communism in collapse nearly everywhere, and even China (so the media tells us) on the road to capitalism, why should anyone other than a historian or a crusader for justice care about any of this? Yes, it was awful, but isn't it just about over? Shouldn't we simply nod in acknowledgment, feel sincere sorrow, an appropriate degree of horror perhaps - and move on?

But of course we should care for many reasons - above all because trust in the Omnipotent State is still with us, still waiting to darken humanity again. For that is the essence of both Nazism and Communism - the belief that the state (whether claiming authority from The Culture, The Ideology, The Class, The Race, The People or some yet-to-be-concocted Authority) is supreme. This leads first to the assumption that individuals and groups who don't fit the collective ideal are irritants, then enemies - then that they should be disposed of "for the good of the whole."

If we are not careful and aware, this pervasive evil may spring in a new form. If we point fingers only at "right" or "left," depending on our own inclinations, we may fail to oppose the same phenomenon when it arises wearing a new face - a face that looks friendly, perhaps even familiar. We must study both the Nazis and the Communists, leaving aside the fundamentally meaningless distinctions of left or right, nationalist or universalist, race-hating or class-hating, and know the shared soul of the beast within.

For anyone who wants to protect the future by knowing the past, this book is a Very Important Read.

But could such horrors ever really come to our own doorsteps? At first blush, it seems not. Reading this book I was often struck by how foreign the recounted events are. It's impossible to imagine a Pol Pot-style agrarian "utopia" imposed upon a modern U.S. or Britain. Clearly, the savageries of Peru's Shining Path guerrilla's are uniquely Peruvian. Clearly Afrocommunism arises in part from tribal roots, so unlike ours. Clearly, the ACLU would prevent the development here of conditions described by Black Book contributor Pascal Fontaine - Nicaraguan prisons so crowded that inmates had to sleep standing up, with so little water that prisoners drank their own urine to survive, with such non-existent sanitation that cells and even hallways ran thick with excrement.

No, we can assure ourselves, such third-world horrors couldn't happen here. And there's a certain amount of truth in that. Even at its height, Communism gained power almost exclusively in nations with entrenched, institutionalized class divisions or nations in extreme stress (like Cambodia caught between U.S. bombardment and threats from Vietnam).

But similar tyrannies, we already know, have risen even from the "civilized" West. At times, you read the dispassionate words of The Black Book and you feel a chill of familiarity.

Controlling the language

Above all, there are the passages about the Communist's skillful manipulation of language for political purposes.

This manipulation took two forms, both of which are in use in American and Europe today: The first is a demonization and dehumanization of everyone unpopular with the regime. It was not people the Communists killed. It was "capitalists," "running dogs," "enemies of the people," "saboteurs," "the bourgeoise," or "wreckers." Just as Nazis didn't exterminate Jewish human beings but "maggots," "menaces to society," "parasites" "corrosive influences on Aryan culture" and "masters of the lie." Just as today government and the media do not merely disagree with, but demonize and marginalize "militia nuts," "right-wing extremists," "haters" and "religious fanatics." (And just as it might be "fags," "knee-jerk liberals" or "godless humanists" shoved to the fringes if politicians of a different viewpoint got into power.)

Of course no sane person would declare that the political manipulation of words in first world countries has reached Stalinist danger levels. Nevertheless, as Richard W. Stevens has pointed out, official or quasi-official margnialization of groups is an early stage in a deadly process. As the Black Book says:

Terror involves a double mutation. The adversary is first labeled an enemy, and then declared a criminal, which leads to his exclusion from society. Exclusion very quickly turns into extermination. [The] idea [of a purified humanity] is used to prop up a forcible unification - of the Party, of society, of the entire empire - and to weed out anyone who fails to fit into the new world. After a relatively short period, society passes from the logic of political struggle to the process of exclusion, then to the ideology of elimination, and finally to the extermination of impure elements. At the end of the line there are crimes against humanity.
The other form of language manipulation noted in the Black Book is a simple denial - putting a prettier face on ugly realities. Concentration camps become "reeducation" centers. Millions were forced from their farms and livelihoods in a process of "voluntary collectivization" (language reminiscent of the compulsory "volunteerism" forced upon many American students as a graduation requirement). Political opponents receive "therapy" for their "mental illness." (Do you suppose they take Prozac or Ritalin?) Even today, in China political inmates are called "students" in token of the fact that their punishment is designed to force them to accept the ideology of those they oppose.

Related to these forms of manipulation is the institutionalized use of terms that simply by being spoken or written perpetuate political assumptions. For instance, the word "kulak" in the USSR began as an insult; it quickly became the only acceptable word to describe the independent farmers who were fighting for their land and livelihood; thus every time they were spoken of they were implicitly damned. In our own culture we have near-universal (media-inspired) use of the term "gun violence." Simply by speaking the phrase, one perpetuates a set of suppositions: that guns, not people are responsible for crime, that guns are inherently more violent than objects such as hammers or knives; that they are in a special class that must be rigidly controlled. We talk of "hate speech," and thereby convey that the speaker has no legitimacy; he is simply motivated by incomprehensible loathsomeness; everything he believes, says or does should be disregarded or condemned. If you are a "redneck" you are no doubt the epitome of both "gun violence" and "hate speech" and nothing more needs to be said of you. Those whose "self-esteem" is so damaged by your "insensitivity" that they can't function may have to collect their "entitlements" (which is quite unlike the shame of going on welfare, accepting a handout or collecting a dole).

With such loaded terms, no debate is possible. The assumptions have been imposed in the very words.

Another aspect of language control is simply imposing certain terminology upon everyone through social or political pressure - even if the terminology itself is value neutral. One day, you may say "crippled." The next, you're insensitive: the proper term is "handicapped." The next, you're out of the intellectual loop: Everyone knows the politically correct word is "disabled" (then "differently abled," then "physically challenged"). One day your neighbors are "Negro." But the next you're a bigoted rube if you fail to say "Black." Then you can't be sure: Is it "Black" or "Afro-American" or "African-American" and what if your neighbor is from Jamaica, not Rhodesia, is she still "Afro-hyphen"? One day, even Dan Rather says "Red China." The next, suddenly everyone makes an abrupt switch to praise our friend "The People's Republic," as if the term "Red China" had never existed. I'm not speaking of the natural flow and change of language - which in English is rich, abundant and one of our great cultural treasures. I'm not speaking of the clubby, ever-changing jargon of various social groups. I am speaking of imposed language which ensures that only those "in the know" (as defined by an elite group) can ever feel confident discussing, or even thinking about, politically sensitive topics. Common people lose power over political issues because they fear they can't speak safely or astutely about them. They fear they will be ridiculed, that their views won't be taken seriously. Since they aren't sure of the acceptable terminology, they often assume they must also be lacking salient facts. They shut up. They become submissive to the intellectual dictates of interest groups - which is often exactly the intent. Note that such language is nearly always imposed when government is in the process of taking more control in a given area. It does not just happen.

In this latter case, the terms themselves are less important than the fundamental question: Who shapes the language? As Orwell observed so powerfully in more than one of his works, when you control people's language, you control how they think - and ultimately how they behave.

Denial of responsibility

Another curious echo between Communism and our world arises in the concept of absolute power without even minimal responsibility. One example from The Black Book: "On March 2, 1930 all Soviet newspapers carried Stalin's famous article 'Dizzy with Success,' which condemned 'the numerous abuses of the principle of voluntary collectivization' and blamed the excesses of collectivization and dekulakization on local bosses who were 'drunk on success.'"

Of course we now know - as The Black Book explains so well - that the "abuses" of agricultural collectivization - including the millions of deaths by famine that followed - were deliberate, and were planned by Stalin himself.

Yet as Vasily Grossman details in his poignant novel, Forever Flowing, the public continued to believe Stalin's claims of innocence. If only someone could tell the great, caring leader what was really happening, they believed, he would put a stop to the horror. Thus, they put their utmost trust in the very agent of the catastrophe.

Stalin's denial of responsibility was no isolated case. Later, in his 1956 "Secret Speech" openly discussing Stalin's evils for the first time, Nikita Kruschev very carefully failed to mention that he himself, as head of the Communist Party in the Ukraine (the focus of the famine), played a role in implementing Stalin's policies of collectivization and deliberate starvation.

Today, in U.S. politics, we have "leaders" who demand ever greater power, while at the same time taking less and less responsibility for the consequences of their actions. This is true on both a policy level and a personal one.

They are not accountable for bombings of Sudanese pharmaceutical factories or Balkan hospitals. Likewise, they cannot even consider that their intervention could be a cause, not the cure, of "crises" in health care, education or poverty. Every act of official violence or overkill is dismissed as the doing of some low-level functionary on the scene - and even that person usually escapes punishment (ala Lon Horiuchi) due to his status as a government employee. Even when an authority figure "takes full responsibility" - as Janet Reno did for the Waco debacle - she can do so safely, knowing there are no consequences.

On the personal level, when caught in wrongdoing, politicians at most admit they "made mistakes," "gave the appearance of wrongdoing," or were helpless to know right from wrong in the absence of "controlling legal authority." But actually accept moral or legal responsibility and act accordingly? Not they. You may go to prison for committing similar acts. They are exempt.

Again, nothing that has occurred in modern America even begins to approach the devastation or the sheer cruelty described in The Black Book. But we must question the intentions of politicians who demand ever more power with less accountability. Down that road - the road of complacency or downright State Worship - lies ruthlessness for leaders and helplessness for ordinary people.

Perpetual war

To justify their harshest measures, Lenin and Trotsky early on developed the concept of perpetual war. That is, anyone who opposed them was not merely an opponent, but an enemy - of the state, of the proletariat, of Communism, therefore of all that was good and progressive and desirable. Thus it was necessary not only to argue against opponents, but to crush them utterly. Trotsky wrote:

The question about who will rule the country - that is, about the life or death of the bourgeoisie - will be decided on either side not by reference to the paragraphs of the constitution, but by the employment of all forms of violence.
As writer and critic Tzvetan Todorov elaborated:

The enemy is the great justification for terror, and the totalitarian state needs enemies to survive. If it lacks them, it invents them. Once they have been identified, they are treated without mercy. Belonging to the [enemy] class is enough; there is no need actually to have done anything at all.
It is important to read The Black Book to get the full impact of what it means to wage perpetual war against one's own fellow citizens. But we're already seeing the beginnings of it in America today.

Is it any coincidence that we now not only have such things as Wars on Poverty, Wars on Illegal Immigration, Wars on Crime and a perpetual War on Drugs but - irony of ironies - that we set up "czars" to conduct them?

And no one should imagine that "war" is merely a catchy metaphor. In this case, when politicians use a word, they mean it. Because our nation is at "war" with drugs, we see increasing use of military equipment and militaristic tactics in law enforcement. Instead of two uniformed officers knocking at a door to present a non-violent suspect with a warrant, we now send a 20-strong, ninja-clad SWAT team armed with German MP5s to kick down his door in the middle of the night, screaming, hurling flash-bang grenades, and shooting his children, his parents or himself if, in the confusion, they either move when ordered to halt or fail to move fast enough when ordered to move. We have roadblocks with random, warrantless searches of automobiles. We have courts that send people accused of drug trafficking to prison on the word of criminal informants - without even requiring hard evidence of drugs or drug transactions. We have Supreme Court decisions that discard the Constitution in favor of "overriding government considerations." Increasingly, we are approaching conditions like the one The Black Book describes prevailing in Cuba:

In 1978 a law was adopted to prevent criminality before it actually happened. What this meant in practice was that any Cuban could be arrested on any pretext if the authorities believed that he presented a danger to state security even if he had not committed any illegal act. In effect the law criminalized any thought that did not accord with the ideas of the regime, turning every Cuban into a potential suspect.
Even in America, we have nearly reached a point where certain suspects - usually in drug, weapon or political crimes - are simply enemies to be expunged, not citizens with rights.

Other rings of familiarity

In other areas we can also see echoes of Communist-style mega-state power. U.S. officials today:

Encourage children to inform on their parents; encourage teachers, neighbors and friends to inform on others based on barest suspicions of wrongdoing
Promulgate laws criminalizing everyday activities, and even discussion of certain outlawed activities
Decree ever-harsher punishments for non-violent crimes (and harsher punishments yet when those laws fail to end the problem)
Allow secret trials in some cases (involving non-citizens suspected of political crimes)
Encourage widespread dependence on the state, with concomitant disconnection from family and community
Belong to a professional political class rather than a citizen government
Extend control over the basics of life (such as education, the food supply and health care),
Increase their control over industry (in our case, via regulation and subsidy, rather than outright ownership)
Promote constant "crises" as an excuse for seizing more power
Foster a belief (now almost universally held) that no problem can be solved without federal intervention
Imposition of Utopia

The Black Book of Communism begins to show us that totalitarianism is totalitarianism, whether we call it fascist, Communist or some other name. Totalitarianism's central feature is a state that desires total control and assumes the right to impose that control at any cost. If you already know the nature of tyranny, read this book to vindicate your wisdom and provide yourself with intellectual ammo against those who believe that a little statism is a harmless thing. If you don't already know, read and be glad that these authors speak so dispassionately; otherwise your heart would break.

We should never forget that we, too, are vulnerable to this danger - and are perhaps most vulnerable when we believe "it can't happen here." in the end, Courtois reminds us, terror can (and does) grow out of even the most heartfelt idealism:

Why should maintaining power have been so important that it justified all means and led to the abandonment of the most elementary moral principles? The answer must be that it was the only way for Lenin to put his ideas into practice and "build socialism." The real motivation for the terror thus becomes apparent: it stemmed from Leninist ideology and the utopian will to apply to society a doctrine totally out of step with reality. ... In a desperate attempt to hold onto power, the Bolsheviks made terror an everyday part of their policies, seeking to remodel society in the image of their theory, and to silence those who, either through their actions or by their very social, economic, or intellectual existence, pointed to the gaping holes in the theory. Once in power, the Bolsheviks made Utopia an extremely bloody business.

The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity by Carlo M. Cipolla

This is definately a must-read!

The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity
by Carlo M. Cipolla, Professor of Economics, UC Berkeley
in Whole Earth Review, Spring 1987

THE FIRST BASIC LAW: Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

  1. people whom one had once judged rational and intelligent turn out to be unashamedly stupid.
  2. day after day, with unceasing monotony, one is harassed in one’s activities by stupid individuals who appear suddenly and unexpectedly in the most inconvenient places and at the most improbable moments.

THE SECOND BASIC LAW: The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.

THE THIRD (AND GOLDEN) BASIC LAW: A stupid person is a person who caused losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

THE FOURTH BASIC LAW: Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be costly mistake.

THE FIFTH BASIC LAW: A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

In a country which is moving downhill, the fraction of stupid people is still equal tos; however in the remaining population one notices among those in power an alarming proliferation of the bandits with overtones of stupidity (sub-are B2 of quadrant B in figure 3) and among those not in power an equally alarming growth in the number of helpless individuals (are H in basic graph, fig. 1). Such change in the composition of the non-stupid population inevitably strengthens the destructive power of the s fraction and makes decline a certainty. And the country goes to Hell.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE: http://www.extremistvector.com/content/stupid.html

JDS: The High Cost of Morons and Degenerates

The story below is from my local newspaper.

Summary: This woman is of questionable mental ability, on welfare, with children, the state places the kids in state-subsidized foster care where they are molested, she gets repossession of the kids, still on welfare, sues the state, then the kids are placed back into state-subsidized foster care. I'm sure there will be a settlement, and she will probably be given some state subsidized training before the kids are returned to her, to be on welfare. And I'm sure the future holds many other cheery possibilities for her, her kids, and the taxpayers.

Be sure not to miss this part:

State officials would not confirm why the children were removed and court
records are closed. But a November case plan Lisa provided shows concerns about
her developmental disability, lack of steady employment and 19 hot-line calls
over the past 10 years alleging abuse or neglect
, which Lisa and her attorneys
dispute. She also has a 20-year-old son who was in foster care as a child and a
15-year-old son who lives with his father..... A court-ordered evaluation showed
Lisa's IQ was 62
, which she disputes. While she dropped out of school in the
eighth grade, she says she reads, cooks, cleans and pays her bills. An IQ of 50
to 70 is considered mild mental retardation, national reports show
. Zychowski,
with Community Partnership for Children, said he wants a different type of
evaluation done to see if her parenting is a factor and wants to find state
services that may help the mother with employment and other assistance

I would love to see how much this fiasco cost, aside from the overall human disaster aspects of the case.

Today's letter is "E" for "Eugenics."

Eugenics used to be a bad word.

But then maybe I'm just being a Grinch. I'm sure one of the kids will grow up to discover a cure for cancer, or be president of the United States.

THE ARTICLE: May 20, 2008
Mom says state using her IQ, lawsuit to keep kids in foster care
DAYTONA BEACH -- Brightly colored shirts and lacy dresses hang still in a packed closet, where they've remained untouched for six months.
New Dora the Explorer and Batman bedding wait with stuffed animals in two neatly organized children's rooms.
A 38-year-old Daytona Beach mother's apartment has all the signs three children live there. But all is quiet.
The mother has fought since November to get her children out of foster care and back to their own beds. Since they were initially removed from her home in 2006, one of the children was molested and exploited while in the state's care.
The latest battle in trying to bring her children home, according to her attorneys, is child welfare officials questioning her parenting skills because of a low IQ test -- an issue nationally with a high percentage of developmentally disabled parents losing their children temporarily or permanently.
The mother believes the timing of the second removal of her children is not a coincidence. She filed a notice in October to sue the state after one of her daughters was sexually abused in a Deltona foster home. Her children were returned to her after the abuse and almost a year in care, but a month after she made it known she intended to sue the state, her two daughters and son were again removed.
The abusive foster father, Robert R. Clinton, is serving a life prison sentence. The actual lawsuit, on behalf of the child, will be filed this month, attorneys say.
The case has raised red flags with other officials. Community Partnership for Children, the local foster care agency contracted by the state, last week took the case away from Neighbor To Family, which it subcontracts with for sibling foster care. The children will remain in Neighbor To Family foster homes, but will have a new case manager and supervisor from Community Partnership for Children.
Ron Zychowski, president and CEO of Community Partnership, said he's concerned about the length of time the 2-, 4- and 7-year-olds have been in foster care. He wants to make sure there's no perception of a conflict because of the sexual abuse by the former foster parent and pending suit by the mother. He also wants to get the mother any help or services available so her children can be returned. He said the move and review, prompted after questions from The Daytona Beach News-Journal, is probably something his agency should have done long ago.
"(I want) to make sure everybody is getting a fair shake," Zychowski said. "I don't know that the management has been wrong. What I want to do is put a fresh set of eyes on this."
The single mother, Lisa, whose last name is not being used to protect the identity of the daughter who was sexually abused, said she loves her children and wants them home.
"They don't need to keep putting me through this and my kids through this," she said. "It's not fair to me or my kids."
Lisa's three children were removed by the state Department of Children & Families in June 2006 after one of her daughters, who was 2 1/2 at the time, went to the emergency room unresponsive with swollen eyes and lips after her mother said her daughter got into a friend's hair product. The three were placed for 15 days in the foster home of Clinton, who police later found molested Lisa's daughter, now 4, and posted sexually explicit photos of himself with the child on the Internet. He was sent to prison in September 2007.
The children remained in other foster homes for almost a year before returning to Lisa last June. But they were removed again in November after the mother said day-care officials reported her daughters were taking off their clothes and sexually acting out. The mother and her attorneys attribute the behavior to the foster home abuse. There was also concern whether she provided enough diapers and clothing and was taking her children to counseling.
State officials would not confirm why the children were removed and court records are closed. But a November case plan Lisa provided shows concerns about her developmental disability, lack of steady employment and 19 hot-line calls over the past 10 years alleging abuse or neglect, which Lisa and her attorneys dispute. She also has a 20-year-old son who was in foster care as a child and a 15-year-old son who lives with his father.
Regarding her current case, Gordon Johnson, CEO of Neighbor To Family, said the nonprofit organization has been trying to find services for the mother.
"We always have been supportive and have not treated her any different," Johnson said.
But Lisa's court-appointed dependency attorneys, Ronald Kowalski, and his wife, B.R. Ferfel, said Neighbor To Family case managers have consistently stalled the case and are using the mother's low IQ as an excuse. An April court hearing was postponed for no reason until September, they said. The mother, who does housekeeping work, has finished two parenting classes, a budgeting class and anger management.
But Neighbor To Family staff asked that Lisa take a special parenting class for people with developmental disabilities that now both DCF and Zychowski agree doesn't exist. She's on a wait list for other services.
"I've seen her with her kids and she's a great mother," Kowalski said. "She's not a nuclear scientist. But she's perfectly capable of taking care of her kids."
A court-ordered evaluation showed Lisa's IQ was 62, which she disputes. While she dropped out of school in the eighth grade, she says she reads, cooks, cleans and pays her bills. An IQ of 50 to 70 is considered mild mental retardation, national reports show. Zychowski, with Community Partnership for Children, said he wants a different type of evaluation done to see if her parenting is a factor and wants to find state services that may help the mother with employment and other assistance.
"I take care of my kids. I don't understand why they keep messing with me," she said.
National studies show 40 to 60 percent of parents with mental disabilities have their children removed, mainly for neglect.
"It's just tragic. We need to provide the supports to help people be successful parents," said Deborah Linton, executive director of The ARC of Florida, which represents developmental disability agencies.
Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, who lobbies against removal of children from their homes, said the state should take the money it's paying for foster parents and put services in the mother's home. He said the children have already been traumatized enough by the state by being placed in an abusive foster home.
"The question right now is who has done a worse job of being a parent for these children -- their mother with the low IQ or the geniuses with (the state) who placed these children with a child molester," Wexler said.
Back at Lisa's house, she showed off photos of her children, along with her parenting class certificate.
She said it's hard not knowing what to tell her 7-year-old son when she visits.
"He always says, 'Mommy, when am I going to come home?' " she said. "I just want them to leave me alone and let me have my life with my kids."
What's Happened in the Case
Local child welfare officials are reviewing the case of a single Daytona Beach mother whose children are in foster care. Her attorneys question why the children -- one of whom was molested while in state care -- have not been returned. Here's what's happened:
JUNE 2006: State officials remove Lisa's three children after her then-2 1/2 -year-old daughter was hospitalized after she got into a friend's hair product. The children were temporarily placed in the Neighbor To Family foster home of Robert R. Clinton of Deltona.
NOVEMBER 2006: Internet portal Yahoo files a complaint with National Center for Missing and Exploited Children after discovering Clinton was posting pornographic pictures of children.
FEBRUARY 2007: Clinton is arrested and charged with possession of pornographic images involving children, including images of himself molesting Lisa's daughter.
JUNE 2007: Children are returned to the mother after she finishes parenting and other classes.
SEPTEMBER 2007: Clinton sentenced to life in prison.
OCTOBER 2007: Attorneys make official the mother's intent to sue state Department of Children & Families and Neighbor To Family for emotional damage to the child.
NOVEMBER 2007: The three children are again removed after day-care officials report two of her daughters are sexually acting out, Lisa said.
APRIL 28: A dependency hearing in the case is delayed by child welfare officials until September
LAST WEEK: Community Partnership for Children, the lead foster care agency for the state, takes the management of the case away from Neighbor To Family.

THE U.S. IS TERMINAL by Kurt Saxon

By Kurt Saxon

Our species has become a plague on the land. Worldwide, we have out-bred the carrying capacities of our environments and our socioeconomic systems. Our country is swamped with morons and degenerates. The Mexican border has become a huge anus through which Mexico excretes its waste matter. There are at least eight million Muslims here, all too many of which, feel commanded to destroy us.

Around 1850 our species reached one billion. By 1930 it doubled to two billion and by 1975, four billion. Today it is six and a half billion and climbing.

U.S. population was just under 100 million in1900. Today it is 300 million, 100 million non-white.

The insane middle-east war against Islam is further ruining our economy.

Overpopulation and down-breeding has reduced the level of reasoning of the average human to that of a baboon. A terrible culling is due, or overdue, of more than 50% of our population who will die of starvation, disease and/or violence.

I will illustrate: A man feels poorly and goes to his doctor. The doctor tells him he has a spreading cancer and is overweight and getting fatter. He asks the doctor, "Can't you cut out the cancer and help me lose weight?" The doctor answers, "Of course not. Your cancer cells and your fat cells have as much right to live as do your normal cells."

You would consider that doctor to be insane. But isn't that the same attitude as our politicians, and, unfortunately, most of our politically correct fellow citizens express? People who were born to no purpose and are a social liability, at best, will be culled as a matter course. Those who accept them as simply a part of the scheme of things, will be a part of an indiscriminate culling which will carry off both worthwhile and worthless.

Our elected officials are corrupt and incompetent. No improvement is possible, short of the massive culling. The culling will remove the parasites, predators, perverts and also the Liberals, who not only allowed, but encouraged society's dregs to survive and multiply.

Your only hope lies in the knowledge of our past, in preparing to save yourself and your loved ones. Only the self-sufficiency of our ancestors will help you to create a life-support system and also enable you to defend your own against all comers.

The Dictatorship Of The Intelligentsia by Kurt Saxon

The Dictatorship Of The Intelligentsia
Or How To Prevent Another Dark Age
by Kurt Saxon

Throughout history the Power Elites have usually been the rulers, the merchant class and the clergy. The rulers want subjects, taxpayers and soldiers. The merchant class wants customers and laborers, preferably cheap labor. The clergy wants worshipers and contributors.

So the rulers want power, the merchant class wants wealth and the clergy wants reverence. Power, wealth and reverence are all basic survival mechanisms. From the Prime Minister to the village Mayor, rulers are guaranteed the best that their level of the system has to offer. The same goes for the industrialist down to the owner of the country store and from the Pope down to the preacher in the country church.

Civilizations are built by hardy, intelligent people. If only hardy and intelligent people were allowed to reproduce, a civilization would never die. It would only grow, through science, technology and wisdom.

Unfortunately, there has always been an underclass to prevent real progress. As a civilization grows, an easier environment provides the means to survive where the underclass could not have survived before. Having more children, on average, than the hardy and intelligent, the underclass outbreeds their betters, swamps the system and the civilization collapses.

But why didn't the Power Elite limit the population of the underclass? In the beginning of the civilization, the rulers were strong; they wanted power to build and grow. They were creative. Those of the merchant class were creative, also in a social sense. They wanted to produce the best so that their culture would be superior to other cultures. The clergy wanted a strong people led by a strong god. The religion was based on strength and purpose for the culture as a whole.

After the civilization was well-established, the Power Elite, usually hereditary, at least by class, was less hardy and intelligent than the Power Elite of previous generations. This is because less aggressiveness is needed to control a more accepting populace.

But as the civilization grew with an accumulation of knowledge and skills, so did the underclass grow in numbers. Whereas the women in the Power Elite always had knowledge of birth control and abortion, women of the underclass were discouraged by the Power Elite from limiting their births.

The Power Elite has always had a vested interest in more citizens. As already stated, the rulers wanted subjects, taxpayers and soldiers. The merchant class wanted customers and laborers and the clergy wanted worshipers and contributors.

As the quality of the Power Elite degenerated, so did the quality of the underclass. The underclass had as many children as biology allowed. Since less intelligence was needed to survive, sexual selection was seldom made on the basis of the ability of the male to provide or the female to nurture.

So, in time, the civilization was headed by self-serving incompetents and not only overpopulated, but swamped by the simple-minded. Ur of the Chaldees, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Constantinople, etc.---. Overpopulation and down-breeding.

The Soviet Union is a good example for our time. Most of the Third World countries, propped up in their hopelessness by the industrial nations over the last several decades are hardly worth fitting into the pattern. The U.S. and Western Europe do fit the pattern and their fall will put a finish to world civilization as we know it.

The collapse of world civilization is a mathematical certainty. Around 1850, for the first time in history, world population reached one billion. Only 80 years later, in 1930, it doubled to two billion. Then by 1975, only 45 years, it doubled again to four billion. Now, in 1999, it is over 6 billion.

Our species has become a plague on the land. It threatens nearly every other species. Worse still, the lack of selection has caused down-breeding which has overrun the Earth with mediocrities at best and idiots at worst. Nearly 50 million Americans are functional illiterates. Also, 30% of American births are illegitimate. In 1960 it was only 5%.

America has 36 million Welfare recipients and 44 million on Social Security. There are about 20 million Federal retirees. Counting prisons, mental institutions, etc., the U.S. has about 100 million social dependents, called "Entitlements" out of a population of 270 million. The rest of the developed countries are worse off. The Third World systems are hopelessly dependent on us, doomed after our fall.

Many who have a vested interest in our system deny the consequences of overpopulation and down-breeding and some even deny overpopulation and down-breeding, as such. They cite technological, economic and scientific progress as proof that all the world's problems can be solved with the proper application of existing knowledge.

The main theme of Rush Limbaugh, for instance, is that our system is sound. It just needs reprogramming to bring it back to the health of the "Leave It To Beaver", "Father Knows Best" era of the 1950's. But in the 1950's the population of the U.S. was around 140 million and the average I.Q. was ten points higher than today. There were few social dependents and, as stated earlier, the illegitimacy rate was only 5% as opposed to nearly 30% today.

Elmer Pendell, in his book, "Why Civilizations Self-Destruct", wrote, "In our own civilization we see a lessening of the struggle for survival. Welfare does away with
natural selection.

"Being, in part, an accumulation of skills and know-how, of buildings and tools, of transportation and communication, civilization must necessarily lag behind the concentration of brain power on which it depends. And since the visible forms and structures of a civilization are an accumulation, they may endure for decades after average intelligence has declined far below the level required to create the civilization." And, I might add, "Maintain the civilization".

In a sense, we are living in a kind of Disneyland for dummies. Most people see only the progress and deny the regress. Blaming that on a natural phase, soon solved by revamping our political and economic structures.

This is wishful thinking by those locked into a doomed system. Rather than face up to the coming collapse and loss of their present way of life, they ignore the warnings and will continue to do so until it is too late for them.

It is natural to ask for signs of the coming collapse and especially for a time frame. Predictions are troublesome since unforeseen developments can delay or hasten breakdown. But overall, debt is the best indicator.

When a person is in debt and can't pay, he can lose all he has and may face starvation, unless he has a backup system such as Welfare or relatives. Nations are much the same. When a national debt grows beyond a people's ability to pay, the country goes into default. Without backup by other nations, the country sinks into civil war, revolution, famine, etc.

For decades, the U.S. has been propping up bankrupt nations. What happens when it becomes our turn? It is a certainty, then, that the propping up of other nations will stop. Then world civilization will end.

Interest on the National Debt is likely to become the largest item in the Federal budget, topping the enormous Pentagon and Social Security budgets. The government will have to spend more to make its interest payments than it will collect in taxes, and America will enter an age of financial disaster that will dwarf the Great Depression and hail the end of the United States as we know it.

Of course, as stated before, unforeseen developments can delay or hasten the coming catastrophe. But consider the growth of the National Debt and it's interest, which has to be paid.

The National Debt keeps going up because of the steadily increasing numbers of social dependents (Entitlements). One might ask, if politicians and economists were able to combat the effects of overpopulation and down-breeding, reflected by the National Debt, why does it keep going up? Why, in the last fifteen years, has no political group or economic experts been able to even slow the rise of the National Debt, much less decrease it?

If the interest can't be paid by taxing or other means, the funds for the Entitlements will be cut back. The hundreds of billions of dollars the social dependents spend for goods and services will not be spent. Businesses, factories, institutions will close. Most Americans will be unemployed. Most of the elderly will simply die. The Welfare recipients will riot. The cities will burn. Chaos will spread to every town as the moronic, the criminal elements and the desperate fight for another day of survival.

When the U.S. goes, the rest of the world will follow. Riots, wars, starvation, plagues, will take up to 80% of the world's population.

But let's say the powers that be come up with the interest this year without stripping the Entitlements. What of next year, or the next? Consider, the projected interest due in the year 2000 is one trillion, five hundred and twenty billion; probably much more. The overall population will have grown, as well as the population of ungovernable dimwits and criminals. So the total and irreversible collapse of our system is, indeed, a mathematical certainty.

Our species will probably survive. But how long will it take to recover from the ruin brought on by the most widespread collapse in history?

When a power collapses it leaves a power vacuum. That power vacuum is often filled by a numerous but incompetent body of want-to-be's. When Rome degenerated, weakened and collapsed the power vacuum was filled by the early, primitive Christians. This led to a period marked by ignorance and terror known as the Dark Ages.

When a civilization loses it's vigor, even if it doesn't actually collapse, it becomes weak and ripe for revolution. Revolution, even a seemingly peaceful one, can produce changes just as radical as the Dark Ages were to the formerly ordered and disciplined Rome.

The French Monarchy, weak and corrupt, was taken over by a mob of ignorant rabble. Czarist Russia, degenerate, corrupt and weak, fell first to the Socialists then to the Communists. Germany's Weimar regime, weakened mainly by America's Great Depression, fell to Hitler's National Socialists. Neither Russia nor Germany have recovered from their respective revolutions.

From 1346 to 1350, the Black Plague ravaged Europe. It killed over half of Britain's population and a third on the Continent. Due to the less sanitary conditions among the underclass, they were nearly exterminated. This also lessened the power of the Church.

Without the underclass to do the labor, the intelligent of the upper class set about inventing labor-saving devices. Freed from the repression of the Church, the European mind flourished. Science, art, mechanics, literature, philosophy, music, all came alive. This was the Renaissance. Then came the Industrial Revolution.

This was creativity by the men of intellect. They had the real power. But they were dominated by their inferiors, men who wanted power for power's sake and reverence for the sake of a life of ease without effort.

Imagine the kind of world we might have if the intelligentsia, beginning during the Renaissance, had joined forces. They had no way to do this, of course. But had they had a way of pooling their knowledge and consolidating their power, the tyrannical, the avaricious and the pious frauds, could not have brought our present world civilization to the verge of ruin.

Today there would be space cities orbiting Earth, colonies on the moon and Mars. There would be no surplus population, no threats to the environment, little crime, no wars and very little poverty. On a planet ruled by reason, the prime law would be that anyone could do as he pleased as long as he didn't do it to the disadvantage of others. No child would be born without a reasonable guarantee that it would be well-born, well-reared, well-educated and well-occupied.

In case there is doubt as to what an intellectual is, here is a working definition. An intellectual is one who has an active, searching, reasoning mind. He is secure in the confidence that he can function through his own ability. He doesn't seek security in having a lot of uniformed robots marching at his bidding. He may be wealthy but through his own abilities and not through the deprivation or exploitation of others. Nor does he need the worship and support of fearful suckers.

The intellectual is the brain of every stable system where intelligence is appreciated. But he becomes an endangered species after the collapse of his system and its takeover by political or religious tyrants. Unfortunately, a system's collapse is usually followed by a takeover by political or religious fanatics who feel most secure in an atmosphere of ignorance.

So the collapse of our system will be a real danger to the surviving intellectuals. If the growing lunatic fringe should gain power, the True Believers will liquidate anyone who can read without moving his lips.

Intelligent people have three basic reasons for preparing to survive. The first, of course, is survival itself. The second is to prevent domination by the kind of religious and political fanatics even now preparing their own kind to take over. The third, and most important, is to rebuild on the ruins and to establish the Dictatorship of the Intelligentsia.

The term may have some offensive connotations. However wouldn't dictatorship by scholars and scientists be preferable to dictatorship by fools and another Dark Age?

One might ask what kind of system would be established. But that would be the wrong question. It really wouldn't"t matter. The idea is to upgrade our species by eliminating the parasites and predators. Without them, with only well-motivated, intelligent citizens, a system of order and liberty will evolve naturally.

Nor should anyone imagine rounding up millions of defectives and doing away with them. The great majority of the underclass will die in the chaos. Then it will only be a matter of sterilizing those parasites and killing those predators left, as they show themselves for what they are, thereby eventually ridding our species of it's underclass.

Now is the time to prepare for the greatest social breakthrough in history. Now is your chance to help inaugurate the next step in the evolution of human civilization.

There has never before been such an opportunity. But if the usual kind of Power Elite gains a foothold after the collapse, the chance may never come again. This is the first time in history the machinery has been in place for intelligent people worldwide to be in contact. With the Internet, CompuServe, computer bulletin boards, etc., the people of intellect can organize, prepare and consolidate.

But first comes individual security. A voice out of the crowd is simply a voice. The individual must start with a means of providing for himself and his loved ones and, hopefully, a way to be an asset to his community. Also, the security of his person, his possessions and his community must be a consideration.

Atlan Formularies, in anticipation of these needs, has been producing works on self-sufficiency and personal security since 1976. These works include The Survivor series, 19th and early 20th century science and technology, thousands of formulas and processes, trades, crafts, cottage industries, etc. These will enable anyone to maintain a pleasant, productive lifestyle during the coming troubles and beyond.

This instructs lay people in starting a home business. Working out of one's home is the most secure setup an intelligent person can arrange. There is something for anyone, regardless of experience or finances.

Then there is the four volume encyclopedia of improvised weaponry, The Poor Man's James Bond series. This infamous collection of instructions for do-it-yourself mayhem was not compiled for civil disruption. It was compiled to enable the individual to eliminate any threat to his security as the system and it's law-enforcement agencies fail.

"Ship Of Fools" by Dr. Theodore Kaczynski

Once upon a time, the captain and the mates of a ship grew so vain of their seamanship, so full of hubris and so impressed with themselves, that they went mad. They turned the ship north and sailed until they met with icebergs and dangerous floes, and they kept sailing north into more and more perilous waters, solely in order to give themselves opportunities to perform ever-more-brilliant feats of seamanship.

As the ship reached higher and higher latitudes, the passengers and crew became increasingly uncomfortable. They began quarreling among themselves and complaining of the conditions under which they lived.

“Shiver me timbers,” said an able seaman, “if this ain’t the worst voyage I’ve ever been on. The deck is slick with ice; when I’m on lookout the wind cuts through me jacket like a knife; every time I reef the foresail I blamed-near freeze me fingers; and all I get for it is a miserable five shillings a month!”

“You think you have it bad!” said a lady passenger. “I can’t sleep at night for the cold. Ladies on this ship don’t get as many blankets as the men. It isn’t fair!”

A Mexican sailor chimed in: “¡Chingado! I’m only getting half the wages of the Anglo seamen. We need plenty of food to keep us warm in this climate, and I’m not getting my share; the Anglos get more. And the worst of it is that the mates always give me orders in English instead of Spanish.”

“I have more reason to complain than anybody,” said an American Indian sailor. “If the palefaces hadn’t robbed me of my ancestral lands, I wouldn’t even be on this ship, here among the icebergs and arctic winds. I would just be paddling a canoe on a nice, placid lake. I deserve compensation. At the very least, the captain should let me run a crap game so that I can make some money.”

The bosun spoke up: “Yesterday the first mate called me a ‘fruit’ just because I suck cocks. I have a right to suck cocks without being called names for it!”

It’s not only humans who are mistreated on this ship,” interjected an animal-lover among the passengers, her voice quivering with indignation. “Why, last week I saw the second mate kick the ship’s dog twice!”

One of the passengers was a college professor. Wringing his hands he exclaimed, “All this is just awful! It’s immoral! It’s racism, sexism, speciesism, homophobia, and exploitation of the working class! It’s discrimination! We must have social justice: Equal wages for the Mexican sailor, higher wages for all sailors, compensation for the Indian, equal blankets for the ladies, a guaranteed right to suck cocks, and no more kicking the dog!”

“Yes, yes!” shouted the passengers. “Aye-aye!” shouted the crew. “It’s discrimination! We have to demand our rights!” The cabin boy cleared his throat.

“Ahem. You all have good reasons to complain. But it seems to me that what we really have to do is get this ship turned around and headed back south, because if we keep going north we’re sure to be wrecked sooner or later, and then your wages, your blankets, and your right to suck cocks won’t do you any good, because we’ll all drown.”

But no one paid any attention to him, because he was only the cabin boy.

The captain and the mates, from their station on the poop deck, had been watching and listening.

Now they smiled and winked at one another, and at a gesture from the captain the third mate came down from the poop deck, sauntered over to where the passengers and crew were gathered, and shouldered his way in amongst them. He put a very serious expression on his face and spoke thusly:

“We officers have to admit that some really inexcusable things have been happening on this ship. We hadn’t realized how bad the situation was until we heard your complaints. We are men of good will and want to do right by you. But – well – the captain is rather conservative and set in his ways, and may have to be prodded a bit before he’ll make any substantial changes. My personal opinion is that if you protest vigorously – but always peacefully and without violating any of the ship’s rules – you would shake the captain out of his inertia and force him to address the problems of which you so justly complain.”

Having said this, the third mate headed back toward the poop deck. As he went, the passengers and crew called after him, “Moderate! Reformer! Goody-liberal! Captain’s stooge!” But they nevertheless did as he said. They gathered in a body before the poop deck, shouted insults at the officers, and demanded their rights: “I want higher wages and better working conditions,” cried the able seaman.

“Equal blankets for women,” cried the lady passenger. “I want to receive my orders in Spanish,” cried the Mexican sailor. “I want the right to run a crap game,” cried the Indian sailor. “I don’t want to be called a fruit,” cried the bosun. “No more kicking the dog,” cried the animal lover. “Revolution now,” cried the professor.

The captain and the mates huddled together and conferred for several minutes, winking, nodding and smiling at one another all the while. Then the captain stepped to the front of the poop deck and, with a great show of benevolence, announced that the able seaman’s wages would be raised to six shillings a month; the Mexican sailor’s wages would be raised to two-thirds the wages of an Anglo seaman, and the order to reef the foresail would be given in Spanish; lady passengers would receive one more blanket; the Indian sailor would be allowed to run a crap game on Saturday nights; the bosun wouldn’t be called a fruit as long as he kept his cocksucking strictly private; and the dog wouldn’t be kicked unless he did something really naughty, such as stealing food from the galley.

The passengers and crew celebrated these concessions as a great victory, but the next morning, they were again feeling dissatisfied.

“Six shillings a month is a pittance, and I still freeze me fingers when I reef the foresail,” grumbled the able seaman. “I’m still not getting the same wages as the Anglos, or enough food for this climate,” said the Mexican sailor. “We women still don’t have enough blankets to keep us warm,” said the lady passenger. The other crewmen and passengers voiced similar complaints, and the professor egged them on.

When they were done, the cabin boy spoke up – louder this time so that the others could not easily ignore him: “It’s really terrible that the dog gets kicked for stealing a bit of bread from the galley, and that women don’t have equal blankets, and that the able seaman gets his fingers frozen; and I don’t see why the bosun shouldn’t suck cocks if he wants to. But look how thick the icebergs are now, and how the wind blows harder and harder! We’ve got to turn this ship back toward the south, because if we keep going north we’ll be wrecked and drowned.”

“Oh yes,” said the bosun, “It’s just so awful that we keep heading north. But why should I have to keep cocksucking in the closet? Why should I be called a fruit? Ain’t I as good as everyone else?”

“Sailing north is terrible,” said the lady passenger. “But don’t you see? That’s exactly why women need more blankets to keep them warm. I demand equal blankets for women now!”

“It’s quite true,” said the professor, “that sailing to the north imposes great hardships on all of us. But changing course toward the south would be unrealistic. You can’t turn back the clock. We must find a mature way of dealing with the situation.”

“Look,” said the cabin boy, “If we let those four madmen up on the poop deck have their way, we’ll all be drowned. If we ever get the ship out of danger, then we can worry about working conditions, blankets for women, and the right to suck cocks. But first we’ve got to get this vessel turned around. If a few of us get together, make a plan, and show some courage, we can save ourselves. It wouldn’t take many of us – six or eight would do. We could charge the poop, chuck those lunatics overboard, and turn the ship to the south.”

The professor elevated his nose and said sternly, “I don’t believe in violence. It’s immoral.”

“It’s unethical ever to use violence,” said the bosun.

“I’m terrified of violence,” said the lady passenger.

The captain and the mates had been watching and listening all the while. At a signal from the captain, the third mate stepped down to the main deck. He went about among the passengers and crew, telling them that there were still many problems on the ship.

“We have made much progress,” he said, “But much remains to be done. Working conditions for the able seaman are still hard, the Mexican still isn’t getting the same wages as the Anglos, the women still don’t have quite as many blankets as the men, the Indian’s Saturday-night crap game is a paltry compensation for his lost lands, it’s unfair to the bosun that he has to keep his cocksucking in the closet, and the dog still gets kicked at times.

“I think the captain needs to be prodded again. It would help if you all would put on another protest – as long as it remains nonviolent.”

As the third mate walked back toward the stern, the passengers and the crew shouted insults after him, but they nevertheless did what he said and gathered in front of the poop deck for another protest. They ranted and raved and brandished their fists, and they even threw a rotten egg at the captain (which he skillfully dodged).

After hearing their complaints, the captain and the mates huddled for a conference, during which they winked and grinned broadly at one another. Then the captain stepped to the front of the poop deck and announced that the able seaman would be given gloves to keep his fingers warm, the Mexican sailor would receive wages equal to three-fourths the wages of an Anglo seaman, the women would receive yet another blanket, the Indian sailor could run a crap game on Saturday and Sunday nights, the bosun would be allowed to suck cocks publicly after dark, and no one could kick the dog without special permission from the captain.

The passengers and crew were ecstatic over this great revolutionary victory, but by the next morning they were again feeling dissatisfied and began grumbling about the same old hardships.

The cabin boy this time was getting angry.

“You damn fools!” he shouted. “Don’t you see what the captain and the mates are doing? They’re keeping you occupied with your trivial grievances about blankets and wages and the dog being kicked so that you won’t think about what is really wrong with this ship —- that it’s getting farther and farther to the north and we’re all going to be drowned. If just a few of you would come to your senses, get together, and charge the poop deck, we could turn this ship around and save ourselves.

But all you do is whine about petty little issues like working conditions and crap games and the right to suck cocks.”

The passengers and the crew were incensed.

“Petty!!” cried the Mexican, “Do you think it’s reasonable that I get only three-fourths the wages of an Anglo sailor? Is that petty?

“How can you call my grievance trivial? shouted the bosun. “Don’t you know how humiliating it is to be called a fruit?”

“Kicking the dog is not a ‘petty little issue!’” screamed the animal-lover.

“It’s heartless, cruel, and brutal!”

“Alright then,” answered the cabin boy. “These issues are not petty and trivial. Kicking the dog is cruel and brutal and it is humiliating to be called a fruit. But in comparison to our real problem – in comparison to the fact that the ship is still heading north – your grievances are petty and trivial, because if we don’t get this ship turned around soon, we’re all going to drown.”

“Fascist!” said the professor.

“Counterrevolutionary!” said the lady passenger. And all of the passengers and crew chimed in one after another, calling the cabin boy a fascist and a counterrevolutionary.

They pushed him away and went back to grumbling about wages, and about blankets for women, and about the right to suck cocks, and about how the dog was treated. The ship kept sailing north, and after a while it was crushed between two icebergs and everyone drowned.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Will Durant on the Decay of Civilization

From The Story of Civilization by Will Durant.

The two greatest problems in history are how to account for the rise of Rome, and how to account for her fall. We may come nearer to understanding them if we remember that the fall of Rome, like her rise, had not one cause but many, and was not an event but a process spread over 300 years. Some nations have not lasted as long as Rome fell.

A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within. The essential causes of Rome's decline lay in her people, her morals, her class struggle, her failing trade, her bureaucratic despotism, her stifling taxes, her consuming wars.

Christian writers were keenly appreciative of this decay. Tertullian, about 200, heralded with pleasure the end of an era - as probably a prelude to the destruction of the pagan world. Cyprian, towards 250, answering the charge that Christians were the source of the Empire's misfortunes, attributed them to natural causes: "You must know that the world has grown old, and does not remain in its former vigor. It bears witness to its own decline. The rainfall and the sun's warmth are both diminishing; the metals nearly exhausted; the husbandman is failing in the fields."

Barbarian inroads, and centuries of mining the richer veins, had doubtless lowered Rome's supply of the precious metals. In central and southern Italy deforestation, erosion, and the neglect of irrigation canals by a diminishing peasantry and a disordered government had left Italy poorer than before. The cause, however, was no inherent exhaustion of the soil, no change in climate, but the negligence and sterility of harassed and discouraged men.

Biological factors were more fundamental. A serious decline of population appears in the west after Hadrian. It has been questioned, but the mass importation of barbarians into the Empire by Aurelius, Valentinian, Aurelian, Probus, and Constantine leaves little room for doubt. Aurelius, to replenish his army, enrolled slaves, gladiators, policemen, criminals; either the crisis was greater, or the free population less, than before; and the slave population had certainly fallen. So many farms had been abandoned, above all in Italy, that Pertinax offered them gratis to anyone who would till them. A law of Septimus Severus speaks of a shortage of men. In Greece the depopulation had been going on for centuries. In Alexandria, which had boasted of its numbers, Bishop Dionysius calculated that the population had in his time (250) been halved. He mourned to "see the human race diminishing and constantly wasting away." Only the barbarians and the Orientals were increasing, outside the Empire and within.

What had caused this fall in population? Above all, family limitation. Practiced first by the educated classes, it had now seeped down to a proletariat named for its fertility; by A.D. 100 it had reached the agricultural classes, by the third century it had overrun the western provinces, and was lowering manpower in Gaul. Though branded a crime, infanticide flourished as poverty grew. Sexual excess may have reduced human fertility; the avoidance or deferment of marriage had a like effect, and the making of eunuchs increased as Oriental customs flowed into the West.

Second only to family limitation as a cause of lessened population, were the slaughters of pestilence, revolution, and war. Epidemics of major proportions decimated the population under Aurelius, Gallienus, and Constantine. In the plague of 260-265 almost every family in the Empire was attacked; in Rome, we are told, there were 5000 deaths every day for many weeks. The holocausts of war and revolution, and perhaps the operation of contraception, abortion, and infanticide, had a dysgenic as well as a numerical effect: the ablest men married latest, bred least, and died soonest. The dole weakened the poor, luxury weakened the rich; and a long peace deprived all classes in the peninsula of the martial qualities and arts. The Germans who were now peopling north Italy and filling the army were physically and morally superior to the surviving native stock; if time had allowed a leisurely assimilation they might have absorbed the classic culture and reinvigorated the Italian blood. But time was not so generous. The rapidly breeding Germans could not understand the classic culture, did not accept it, did not transmit it; the rapidly breeding Orientals were mostly of a mind to destroy that culture; the Romans possessing it, sacrificed it to the comforts of sterility. Rome was conquered not by barbarian invasion from without, but by barbarian multiplication within.

Moral decay contributed to the dissolution. The virile character that had been formed by arduous simplicities and a supporting faith relaxed in the sunshine of wealth and the freedom of unbelief; men had now, in the middle and upper classes, the means to yield to temptation, and only expediency to restrain them. Urban congestion multiplied contacts and frustrated surveillance; immigration brought together a hundred cultures whose differences rubbed themselves out into indifference. Moral and esthetic standards were lowered by the magnetism of the mass; and sex ran riot in freedom while political liberty decayed.

The greatest of historians (Edward Gibbon) held that Christianity was the chief cause of Rome's fall. For this religion had destroyed the old faith that had given moral character to the Roman soul and stability to the Roman state. It had declared war upon the classic culture - upon science, philosophy, literature, and art. It had brought an enfeebling Oriental mysticism into the realistic stoicism of Roman life; it had turned men's thoughts from the tasks of this world to an enervating preparation for some cosmic catastrophe, and had lured them into seeking individual salvation through asceticism and prayer, rather than collective salvation through devotion to the state. It had disrupted the unity of the Empire while soldier emperors were struggling to preserve it; it had discouraged its adherents from holding office, or rendering military service; it had preached an ethic of nonresistance and peace when the survival of the Empire had demanded a will to war. Christ's victory had been Rome's death.

There is some truth in this hard indictment. Christianity unwillingly shared in the chaos of creeds that helped produce that medley of mores which moderately contributed to Rome's collapse. But the growth of Christianity was more an effect than a cause of Rome's decay. The breakup of the old religion had begun long before Christ; there were more vigorous attacks upon it in Ennius and Lucretius than in any author after them. Moral disintegration had begun with the Roman conquest of Greece, and had culminated under Nero; thereafter Roman morals improved, and the ethical influence of Christianity upon Roman life was largely a wholesome one. It was because Rome was already dying that Christianity grew so rapidly. Men lost faith in the state not because Christianity held them aloof, but because the state defended wealth against poverty, fought to capture slaves, taxed toil to support luxury, and failed to protect its people from famine, pestilence, invasion, and destruction; forgivably they turned from Caesar preaching war to Christ teaching peace, from incredible brutality to unprecedented charity, from a life without hope or dignity to a faith that consoled their poverty and honored their humanity. Rome was not destroyed by Christianity, any more than be barbarian invasion; it was an empty shell when Christianity rose to influence and invasion came.

The political causes of decay were rooted in one fact - that increasing despotism destroyed the citizen's civic sense and dried up statesmanship at its source. Powerless to express his political will except by violence, the Roman lost interest in government and became absorbed in his business, his amusements, his legion, or his individual salvation. Patriotism and the pagan religion had been bound together, and now together decayed.

How to Fight Like a Skinhead

Not 100% sure, but I think this originally came from Torontoskinheads.com. It should go without saying that I am not a "skinhead" by any stretch of the imagination. All controversial opinions and "terminology" aside, this is basically a ROCK SOLID hand to hand combat syllabus, certainly better and more realistic than anything you will find in your local "martial arts" school, or even in the military for that matter..... this is good survival information about REAL violence.


Have we, as a subculture, forgotten what it means to be a skinhead? Sure, it's about good music, loyal friends, and good times, however, more importantly, its about racial preservation and homogeny. I have been a skinhead for a LONG time, and have seen a lot of bullshit come and go, trying to pass itself off as skinhead values and traditions. Why do we shave our heads, and dress like murders? It's simple. Being a skinhead is a final lifestyle change that essentially claims "I am white, I am sick of this Jewish and Mud bullshit around me, I am not going to take any shit, I will beat your ass, I will die for my race." That is what being a skinhead is about.

Fuck this spirit of '69 bullshit. In my opinion, you can only be a "traditional" skin, or a "racist" skin. This S.H.A.R.P. and A.R.A. bullshit which is manifesting itself on today's streets is completely Jewish bullshit. I have never met a "traditional" skin, which would not drink, or hang out with my friends and myself. 'Traditional" skinheads are trapped in the closet. I have met over a hundred, and everyone said something to the effect "Yeah I am racist..but..." Fine, its ok in my book to remain non-political, however should one of these so called "traditional" skins be anti-racist, they are full of shit, and must be beat to the ground. Never have one of these sharp of ara pieces of shit taken a stand for their beliefs. Every one of these drug addict pieces of shit I have encountered have easily been beaten to the ground. Fuck them. They are a joke, and should never upset a real skinhead, as they will easily fall before you.

Lets now talk about the essence of a skinhead; tenacity and violence. How many of you reading this have been in a fight in the last five years? How many have ever been in a fight outside of high school. You need to ask yourself these questions, and ask yourself if you really have what it takes to call yourself a skinhead. As a skinhead, you should not take shit from anyone. I do not care if there are multiple people, you simply do not take shit from them. So what if you get your ass kicked? So what if you get killed? If you have the aggressive spirit I, and numerous others have, neither of the above will happen to you. How violent are you? How much do you believe in our cause? If some asshole at the grocery store makes a comment such as "Seek Help", do you immediately beat him to the ground? Do you have the animal inside you? Can you do anything it takes?

Remember, the reason niggers are so violent is that they still have the ability to tap into animal instinct, and somewhat lack the ability to turn it off. This is a product of natural selection, and results because niggers are so far behind whites, and every other race for that matter, in an evolutionary sense. Whites can turn on the inner animal, although it takes a bit of practice. It's essentially what the military does to all of its infantry and spec ops. They simply train the soldier until the beast can be turned on. This is the same reason that many of you have never met a "normal" marine, and why most of them act like murders. You, as a skinhead, must turn on the inner animal in order to do what other may deem as impossible, sickening, depraved, and insane.

It takes only minimal training to turn on the inner animal, it is only a matter of breaking the psychological barrier. Have you ever had dreams where you were punching in slow motion, regardless of what your dream opponent could do? This is a psychological manifestation of the constraints of the inner animal. We are generally unable to access the inner animal because of environmental conditioning, and natural selection, in that we have not needed our inner animal for thousands of years. Only a minimum of training is necessary before it can be accessed.

What the hell is the inner animal? I have invented this silly name for it because it does not have a name. Some call it instinct, others call it animal instinct. This allows you to do what is unspeakable in today's culture. What can the it do for you? Accessing the inner animal results in the following:

Lack of fear
Ability to inflict depraved actions onto another
Ability to kill without reflection or remorse.
If you can turn on the inner animal, you will be able to, unarmed, beat much stronger, more aggressive opponents. If you are willing to do what it takes to win a fight, you will not loose, although you have to break through the psychological barrier to achieve these goals. The ability to tap into the inner animal will keep you alive in the streets, in prison, and in revolutionary times.

What do I mean by "the ability to inflict depraved actions onto another?" I'll tell you by asking you the following questions.

Could you claw out an opponents eyes and scrape the pink muscle of the eye socket while optical fluid pours over your hands. Could you stand the "underwater popping sound" as the eye is torn from the optic cord?
Could you bash, stab, kick an opponent until their head caves in, their brains varnishing the floor, as their eyes are displaced from their sockets?
Could you kill thousands of people with an explosive device?
Essentially, I am asking, have you ever seen a body? Can you stand to see the mutilation of the human body without going into shock? Can you inflict the above damage on another's body without going into shock, freezing, or being hindered because of psychological preconditioning? If the answer is no, you can not yet tap into the inner animal, nor will you survive long in what the future will surely bring. If the answer is yes, you will most likely never loose another fight, and you will indeed be an asset to our cause.

Here are some fighting tactics you could (and should) use:

What to do in a knife fight
Using brass knuckles
Baseball Bats
Unarmed Combat


Fighting With a Knife

First of all, get yourself a good knife: Benchmade, Ka-Bar (Marine Issue), Spyder Co (Police or Military model - What I carry). Benchmade makes some great automatics, however if you live in a gay state, stick to Spyder co, the police model is great. Go for the serrated edge, as it will almost cut an arm off. I cut a 22" shark in half with one swing of a Spyder co police model! They are not to be fucked with. The police model also comes with a synthetic handle, which is easier to hold then the steel one I have.

When fighting, slash at the insides of the arms, as all the veins and arteries are there. For the lower body, slash at the insides of the crotch, or the back of the knee. You can also stab the groin for added measure. For the upper body slash at the sides of the neck, or drive the knife into the base of the neck, under the adam's apple. Stab or slash at the eyes if you can. If behind the opponent, cut his throat, or stab him in the kidneys. Every other spot is a waste of time.

However DO stab at these "wastes" if that is all you can get, remember, the purpose of a knife is to bleed your opponent to death, so open a vein and save some time. Expect to get cut during a knife fight. If you are wearing a jacket, take it off and wrap it around your off arm, and use it as a shield. Constantly kick at your opponent's knees to get him off balance, then move in for the kill.

If using a knife against a person wielding a club, bat, etc, take off your flight, and whip your jacket at his weapon, especially when he/she swings it at you. This will slow it down a lot. Take a slowed hit if you must, sure, it will hurt, but you have a knife, so open a vein! It will all be over soon.

Very few people can take a major cut without freaking out or going into shock. It will take a few seconds though. Remember, even if you destroy a victim's heart with a shotgun, they can still move for 10-15 seconds and kill you!

If you are injured, remember. The nigger must die, you are doing good for your city and your future children. This is usually enough to give you a "second wind". Or yell "WHITE POWER", "DIE NIGGER!!", anything to get your adrenaline flowing.

Brass Knuckles

These can either be lethal or non lethal depending on where you punch your victim. It is silly that they are illegal in so many states, but in the same states they are illegal in, you can often carry a firearm!? If you opponent is armed with a melee weapon, use a jacket warpped around your arm as described in the knife fighting section, then lay your wilson out! Punch diagonally in the mouth, this usually ends a fight. To kill, punch in the temple, or place your thumb on the knuckles as if hitch-hiking, and beat the opponent in the back of the neck and head. If the torso is all you can get, hit in them in the solar plexus, this is FAR more effective then an empty fist.

Practice on a punching bag with your knuckles, do not use a solid object, as your hand will hurt for several weeks.

Knuckles are great for teaching people lessons. I hardly EVER fight without using them; the results are simply too satisfying. Knuckles are just "right in there" for use of force, where a knife is overkill, but you REALLY want to fuck your opponent up. I NEVER leave home without them and a knife.


Baseball Bats

I do not use them. It is too easy for your opponent to take them away, and too hard to hide. If you like the idea of a nigger bat, then carry a telescoping baton. Get the longest one you can find, as short ones are useless. Strike the knees, elbows, and head, nothing else works.

The downside is that telescoping batons are usually useless after a fight as they bend and are hard to fix (Remember: take your fingerprints off them before you throw them out). However they do give you an advantage, even if your opponent has his jacket wrapped around his arm, the weight of the bar, compared to the size puts more force per square inch than a baseball bat and will hurt more.


Unarmed Combat

This is happy fun. This is what most people ask me about. If you have the "inner animal" you can be a great fighter. I will go into several places to attack and how to go about it.

Attack first! Do not defend yourself, if you are attacking at full force, you will not need to, your opponent will be defending himself.
Use the highest amount of force in the weakest point of your opponent.
Keep attacking until your opponent is out cold or dead.
You have to ask yourself one question before a fight takes place: Can I take this bastard?

If the answer is yes, then fight as you always have, if the answer is no, or you are really pissed, then unleash the inner animal!


My favorite targets are the knee, throat, and eyes.

Kick the knee and shins, when you are wearing steel toes as you should (Hey we wear them for a reason dipshit), then you will break bone. If you can do a side kick or a sharp front kick to the knee, the fight is over, REGARDLESS of how fat or big your opponent is. There is not much of a fight after you rip the ligaments and tendons from his knee. You will at the most be fighting a hopping mark!

Chop at the throat, or squeeze if wrestling. A hard chop will kill. You can also hit the back of the neck, but unless you are really strong you will not kill.

The eyes. It takes the inner animal to tear out eyes. I do not care if you are fighting Thor, tear out an eye and its over. Use your thumbs or index and middle finger. Press until you feel bone, then "scoop" the eye out. The thumb is not as effective as the index and middle finger however, but you can still roll a nigger by using it. The eye will probably leak, and slightly bulge. This is usually enough to stop the fight and put your opponent into shock. Using the fingers you can actually tear an eye completely out of the socket. Any eye attack is hard to do because of psychological barriers. Try finding a dead cat, bird, etc, and tearing its eyes out. Its fucking hard! If you can tap the inner animal it becomes a breeze.

An eye that was really gouged, but not torn out. Can you do this to someone?

If someone is grabbing you, break their finger, and rip it off. Once a finger breaks you need only fight the tendon/ligaments, and the skin.

Bite. Bite anything vital you can, usually fingers, nose, and throat. A GOOD bite will kill on the wrist or side of the neck. A nose bitten off will result in shock if the opponent is not drunk.
As I said, the eyes are the best place to go, but you have to be mentally prepared to do it. When striking, avoid a closed fist, instead use your palm on the nose.

Post fight:

There are several fun things to do when you beat someone to the ground.

Piss on their face
Shit on their face (Not recommended if you have to walk home!)
Curby or Curbie depending on where you are from. I am AMAZED that Norton did one to the nigger in American History X! It is odd that the movie was so cool and accurate, yet at the same time sucked and was inaccurate. A Curby is simply placing an opponent's open mouth on a curb, then kicking his head in a downward kick to knock out all of his teeth. Kicking can break the neck though, especially in the heat of the moment. Instead, I prefer to jump up and use both hands to press the head down, right where a jew wears his yahmaka. This will do the job without landing you in jail for murder should you get caught.
I have covered the major items I, and most other people use. Everything listed works, and you will never lose a fight using the above methods unless you are a complete cripple. Remember, go for the eyes, and wear steel caps. If you end up in a county jail you still have weapons on your feet, as they take away everything else. Boots are essential. Depending on where you are, there will be a lot of mud in the county jail. Rip their asses apart and kick until they are out. Any questions or suggestions are welcome. The above is based on military and personal research, and actually works. Nothing else does, and although I have taken years of martial arts, I now consider it bullshit and ineffective. Stick to the above and you will never loose.

Additional Rules:

Always fucking run after a beat down, regardless if anyone is around or not.
Never call or talk to the police for ANY reason. Simply be silent, or say "I have nothing to say to you" over and over.
Don't kill unless your life was threatened first, or you can get away with it.
Never let a cop in your home without a warrant. They are like vampires, and can't come in unless you invite them.
If you are going to go out and roll some muds, do it alone, people talk.