What is 'Western Civilization'?
By John "Birdman" Bryant
A major political desideratum for an increasing number of whites in America, Europe, Australia and other white-majority areas of the world is to preserve Western civilization against the encroachment of Third-World immigration. But what precisely are we trying to preserve -- or more precisely, what are the essential elements of Western civilization? Religion? Technology? Art? Literature? Language? Schools? Physical structures? Institutions? Political boundaries? Commerce? Cultural ambience? While all of these things are either important contributors to Western culture or important products of it, I think the basic answer must be that each of the named items is either not strictly essential to Western culture (eg, art, literature, language), or else is not distinctly Western (eg, technology, schools, physical structures). Some might argue that Christianity is distinctly Western and has served as a beacon to guide our civilization, but while this may be true to a significant degree, I am loath to include Christianity as an essential element because its theological doctrines are literally false, tho they have been used to support behavioral norms which are generally wise and useful. Even the latter point could be questioned, however, at least in the sense of wondering whether the many religious wars and disputes spawned by variants of Christian doctrine were not demonstrations of a basic pathology, and that Western civilization has blossomed in spite of, rather than because of, Christian doctrine.
There are, however, at least two things which in my view are at the core of Western civilization. The first is the white race which built that civilization -- a civilization which has never been equalled by other races, tho it has been copied by the Japanese and, to a lesser extent, other races. Yes, there are other races which have achieved a high degree of civilization on their own -- the Incas, the Chinese, the Indians (of India) and the Arabs come to mind, tho it may be that the latter two should be classed as white or part white -- and there seem to have been historical periods in which the achievements of these races exceeded those of whites of the same period -- but while these civilizations lasted for long periods, they were not able at their perigee to reach a level anywhere near the level which the white has reached, and their history during the flowering of white civilization has been to stall or retreat rather than advance, suggesting not only their inability to learn, but their culture's basic incompatibility with advancing civilization generally. Beyond this, white civilization shows a robustness or tendency to recur over widely-differing white populations, including ancient Greeks, Romans, and modern Europeans, to name the most obvious examples, thus strengthening the case for race rather than environment as the primary wellspring of civilization. This conclusion is reinforced by civilizational failures : Blacks have never had a civilization (the ancient Egyptians were not black -- check the bust of Queen Nefertiti, for example), and have never been able to sustain one, even when handed to them on a silver platter, as happened during the recent European colonial period in Africa. All this of course does not mean that other races are incapable of building or sustaining a Western-like civilization; but it does suggest that the civilization-building potential of Asians may be more limited than that of whites, and that the potential of the darker races, which have rarely if ever built civilizations or even sustained those built for them by whites, may well be severely limited.
The second thing which I consider to be at the core of Western civilization is the unique nature of Western governments: First, a commitment to the rule of law rather than of men (this was a characteristic of the Roman empire which, tho ruled by kings and emperors, had an extensive system of laws which even today influence our own); second, a commitment to the security of property rights; and third, the development and sustenance of individual liberty , which may alternatively be thought of as limited government in the sense that the more 'liberty' the government has, the less its citizens do (Note: representative government and similar democratic institutions -- first developed to a high degree in ancient Greece -- constituted a limitation on rulers and hence supported individual liberty). I group these together as a single point because they are all interrelated and self-reinforcing: Each reduces the potential for caprice and whim among the ruling class, and hence reduces the uncertainty concerning the relationships of people with one another and their government, with the result that social stability is significantly increased. When people are secure, they are willing to make large investments of time and capital in long-term goals -- businesses, buildings, marriages, institutions, and the like -- and it is commitment to the long term rather than the short which creates and sustains a high level of civilization. In particular, social stability generated by property rights, the rule of law and limited government have allowed the free market and human creativity to flourish because people have been given the real possibility of a return on their investment of capital and time; and the result has been a flowering of commerce, technology, education, art, literature and all the rest of the things which we now think of as included in what we call Western civilization.
In the matter of individual liberty, there is one very special feature of Western civilization which has acted to preserve it -- possession of weapons by the people. America's Founders were very explicit on the point: The people must be armed in order to resist governmental tyranny, as well as for personal self-defense. But the connection between liberty and an armed populace actually has much deeper historical roots. As Machiavelli stated in his Art of War , "It is certain that no subjects or citizens, when legally armed and kept in due order by their masters, ever did the least mischief to any State ... Rome remained free for 400 years and Sparta for 800, altho their citizens were armed all that time; but many other States that have been disarmed have lost their liberties in less than 40 years." While Machiavelli seems here to be speaking of the liberty of state rather than the individual, in the sense of the state's avoiding domination by other states by virtue of having a populace which is ready to come to its armed defense, the lesson remains the same for states as for individuals: He who is unarmed is vulnerable, and he who is vulnerable will be taken advantage of. But the very fact that the populations of the West have had a tradition of being armed -- no matter for what purpose -- may be responsible for the development of individual liberty in the sense that an armed man is one likely to fight back, whether against foreign invaders or domestic ones, and thus is much more likely to be left alone, and hence to be free.
But if the above observations are true, then it constitutes an important clarification of what we should focus upon in our attempt to preserve our civilization. In particular, we see that most of the political systems offered up to us by society, and especially liberalism and conservatism, are the antithesis of Western civilization, because they are programs to impose a particular set of values by means of restricting liberty. Furthermore, we can see that totalitarian efforts to preserve the white race such as those of Hitler are equally misdirected -- at least in the long term -- because such efforts involve significant restriction on human liberty and thus foredoom the effort to save what is so good about that race, namely, what it produces when free.
Libertarians have been unceasing in their contention that the only way to solve the poverty and social malaise of the Third World is the introduction of liberty, but they have not addressed the possibility that races other than the white may be incapable of sustaining a system which makes possible the prosperity and happiness of free white men. That is, whites are clearly 'liberty-capable', and so most probably are Asians; but whether the darker races can sustain liberty and obtain its benefits is very much a question. Children require a dictatorship of the parents which withers away as the children become independent; and other races may require a dictatorship of an elite wiser than themselves; but whether such dictatorship can ever lead to liberty and its usufructs is a question which only future history can answer.
Has Christianity Been of Value to Western Civilization?
By John "Birdman" Bryant
An important question about Christianity is whether it has been a useful influence in support of Western civilization. On the positive side, I believe that Christianity represented an important philosophical advance of a sort, which I have explained in my book, The Most Powerful Idea Ever Discovered, tho I am uncertain what the importance of this is to Western civilization. Again, I will acknowledge that Christianity has inspired great music and art, tho I would have to wonder whether the artists' inspirations might not have found other sources had Christianity not been around. Christianity has also inspired a lot of missionaries, and while this may have been good for the missionaries' personal fulfillment, we have to wonder whether it is really so wonderful to have missionaries trying to upend other cultures, particularly on the basis of crazy theology. Beyond this, Christianity was evidently not necessary for 'The glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome', since Christianity didn't exist till long after these civilizations were established, and became the official religion of Rome only as the Empire was collapsing. Furthermore, Christianity inspired a lot of very bad stuff, eg, witch trials, wars, the Inquisition, destruction of other cultures, and opposition to science and rationality and the great men of Western civilization like Galileo and Darwin who cultivated them. Equally bad, Christianity has inspired dogmatic thinking, blind obedience, and a turn-the-other-cheek philosophy whose effect was to disable aggression against the State and make political liberty more difficult to achieve -- not so good for Christian peons, but something which may have contributed to Christianity's spread by strengthening the State and thereby facilitating the conquest of other peoples and their religions. But if all this is not bad enuf, Christianity is out of synch with the modern world, where it embraces stupid policies such as opposition to eugenics and abortion, support of minority racism and other liberal idiocies, and the use of taxpayer money to fund the genocidal and warmongering state of Israel, while ignoring or rejecting real advances in religion such as psychic phenomena, scientific studies of religious phenomena, and New Age and occultic insights. So at best, Christianity has a very dubious claim to being a positive force in Western civilization, and a considerable claim to being a very negative one.
But if the usefulness of Christianity to Western civilization is questionable, one could argue that the usefulness of religion generally is not, because it gives men a future orientation necessary for building a civilization that will last thru the ages. I have outlined some of my own views on this matter in the essay 'My Spiritual Awakening' in the Science & Religion section. It is entirely possible that Western civilization would have advanced much more rapidly under a pagan religion which was more in tune with the forces of nature, and particularly psychic forces. Or to put it another way, it would seem that a religion that is TRUE would have a lot more value to Western civ than one that was FALSE.
A Perspective on Jews and 'Haters'
By John "Birdman" Bryant
One of the most important facts of history -- and, for that matter, one of the most neglected -- is that whites built Western civilization, that Western civilization stands as the apex of human social creation, and that while some other races have successfully imitated Western civilization (eg, the Japanese) or have built civilizations notable for their sophistication (eg, the Incas and Chinese), none of these races has come close to equaling on their own what whites have accomplished. Yet today, in every area of the world from America and Europe to Australia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, the white race is under unremitting attack by the political left, whose advocacy of 'multiculturalism', unrestricted immigration, 'affirmative action' and similar policies, along with the constant media defamation of whites as 'racist', 'prejudiced', 'intolerant' and 'haters' is resulting in the slow genocide of whites, and the slow culturacide and return to barbarism of Western civilization. And in all this warfare against whites and their civilization there is one curious and profound fact that no person with half a brain can possibly ignore: The Left is -- and has always been -- principally led and significantly populated by a single tiny ethnic minority: Jews.
But if the above is true, it does not necessarily follow that most Jews wish to see the genocide of the white (gentile) race or the end of Western civilization. Most have probably not connected the dots between their politics and the behavior of their ethnic brethren on the one hand and the demise of whites and the West on the other. But whatever the guilt or innocence of ordinary Jews in this matter, the facts cannot be denied: The Jewish establishment -- ie, the organizations which claim in some sense to 'represent' Jewish people and which are supported by them -- are irreconcilably leftist, and thus hostile to basic American and Western values -- free speech (the Left wants to make 'hate speech' a crime), national self-determination (the Left supports world government), the right of association (the left supports 'anti-discrimination' laws), the right to keep and bear arms (the Left supports 'gun control'), honest money (the Left supports government fiat currency), free markets (the Left wants 'fair trade' and 'economic justice') -- and are actively working to extinguish these values. And with 85-90% of the Jewish electorate voting leftist in America and probably similarly in other countries, there is no doubt that, speaking generally, the Jews represent a significant danger to the West.
But since Jews are intelligent, and in fact significantly more intelligent than whites, and since leftism has proved itself a failure everywhere and in every respect, we have to ask, Why are the Jews still leftists, and still leaning on the throttle of the engine which is carrying Western civilization over the cliff to oblivion? The answer may be partly their group cohesiveness, which makes them more inclined to act in the interest of the group, and thus to trust the leftist/socialist ethic over the Western individualist one. It may be due to their leaders, who influence them in a leftist direction. It may be due to the general influence of the leftist media, which now dominate the West, and which just so happen to be under largely Jewish control. And it may be, as Prof Kevin Macdonald has suggested, that leftism is good for Jews, because while it destroys Western culture, it allows Jews to become even more dominant over what remains.
But if 90% of Jews are leftist, 10% are not, and that 10% could be -- and in fact often has been -- more than useful to the white racial/Western cultural struggle. For example, some of the most important libertarians have been Jews -- 'Mr Libertarian' Murray Rothbard, Nobelist Milton Friedman, LP Vice-Presidential candidate Nancy Lord, libertarian popularizer Ayn Rand, and many others. Again, whites would be out in left field (snicker, chortle) without the numerous Jews who have exposed their brethren's anti-gentilism, including Israel Shahak, Benjamin Freedman and Norman Finkelstein, to name only three who are familiar. Furthermore, Holocaust revisionism has depended significantly on Jews, including David Cole, who secured an on-camera confession from curator Franczek Piper that the Auschwitz 'gas chambers' were fakes, Liberty Lobby lawyer Mark Lane, who has consistently secured legal victories in leftist attacks on revisionism, John Sack, who has just broken into the conventional media with a long revisionist article in Esquire , and Third Reich historian David Irving, the one-man London blitzkrieg , who is half-Jewish. Even Nazism, whose official policy was to regard Jews as inferiors and undesirables, was shot thru with Jews, from the Jews and mischlings (persons of mixed white and Jewish parentage) who made up a sizeable number of Hitler's generals, to Hitler himself, who was probably the grandson of a Rothschild.
It has often been alleged by the Left that those involved in the attempt to preserve the white race and Western culture are 'haters', implying not merely persons inclined to an exaggerated emotional reaction to their opponents, but to irrational and pathological ones. However, given the full frontal assault on whites and their culture by the Left, a full head of hatred for both the Left and the mangy minority garbage which is one of the Left's most important tools of destruction could hardly be inappropriate, much less exaggerated, irrational or pathological. Nevertheless, the charge of 'haters' is false, particularly in regard to Jews themselves; for while supporters of the white race and Western culture may harbor a perfectly rational degree of fear and distrust toward Jews, I think it may reasonably be asserted that movement people actually have considerable positive feelings for Jews in the sense of respecting (if not envying) them for their intelligence, industry, wealth, power and -- yes -- beauty, tho these positive feelings hardly do anything to alleviate the concern that Jewish leftists are going to complete the destruction that they seem hell-bent on accomplishing.
There are two points here that I am driving at. The first is that it is high time for people in our movement to acknowledge their positive feelings for Jews, and to stop behaving so as to fuel the charge of 'haters' which has been used against us so effectively by the Left. The second point is that we must not merely openly embrace the Jews who will give us help, but we must cultivate that help. We can do this in part by pointing to self- interest: that we -- Jew and gentile -- will all be poorer -- both economically and culturally -- without Western civilization and the white race, and that this culture is of prime value to Jews because it has allowed them to thrive as no other civilization on earth. But there is another argument from self-interest to which we can and must direct Jewish attention: If Jews, who constitute less than 3% of the population, continue to threaten the other 97%, then they are doing little more than requesting a genuine Holocaust -- an event from which -- once the sleeping white giant awakens -- there are unlikely to be many 'survivors'.
Our Fight: A Few Hard Questions
By John "Birdman" Bryant
* How much of the things we are fighting against are the result, not of 'evil', but of purely natural forces -- and in particular such things as birth control (which caused the sexual revolution and breakdown in morals and the family), good transportation (which caused the world to become 'smaller' and thus paved the way for multiculturalism), the age of abundance (which brought on liberalism, and the various "Iron Mountain" projects), capitalism (which caused migration from poorer to richer countries), collapse of the traditional family (caused by the sexual revolution and rapid cultural changes which have created a strong difference in outlook between generations) and the fear of space aliens (which may have encouraged world government and multiculturalism)?
* Who are the enemy? There are a lot of different candidates, from businessmen who buy influence and Jews who suppress liberties to the CIA, the government, and secret societies. If we can't clearly identify an enemy, we can't fight a war. And the ugly fact is that all of these may be the enemy, because they are all seeking their own agenda at the expense of everyone else. Thus what we may have is not a 'fight for freedom', but rather a fight among different organizations, much like a fight among countries. It may be that, where once men sought a better life by going to a different location, they may now have to seek the protection of a different organization.
* Are we being manipulated to 'hate' in 'staged' conflicts involving race vs race, conservatism vs liberalism, etc, thereby keeping us distracted from the real enemy?
* Is the worry over socialism irrelevant because of the advance of technology which promises an Age of Abundance?
* If the Jews are on average superior, is it not our moral obligation to yield to them?
* As Erich Schmid has asked, "We could describe the Zionists as exploiting the innocent Americans, Russians, and Europeans, or we could say that life is a competitive struggle for all living creatures, and the majority of Americans, Russians, and Europeans are losers in the competitive struggle with Zionists. If the Zionists destroy Europe, America, and Russia, why not consider it nature's way of getting rid of the crummy societies?"
* Has modern technology and the accumulation of wealth and power led to organizations which are more powerful than government and which seek to control government, but which cannot themselves be controlled, and are they the source of our problems?
On Revolution 7: Lone Nuttism, Violence and Revolution
By John "Birdman" BryantThis essay is the seventh in an ongoing examination of the subject of revolution. Earlier essays on this series will all be found in the forthcoming new edition of the author's Handbook of the Coming American Revolution: Vital Secrets of Nonviolent National and Personal Liberation the Establishment Doesn't Want You to Know .
Part 1: Will Freedom Be Saved by the Lone Nut Phenomenon?
In his book The Evolution of Cooperation , Robert Axelrod observed that violence in humans possesses a self-limiting character -- a character that the German ethologist and Nobel prizewinner Konrad Lorenz ( On Aggression ) first described in the animal world. In particular, Lorenz discovered that many animals have developed 'inhibitions' which prevent fights from going to the death -- a defeated wolf, for example, will turn his jugular toward his opponent, an act which would make it easy for the opposing wolf to kill him, but which Nature has programmed to inhibit further attack. In like manner, Axelrod described many behaviors in humans which act like the wolf's to inhibit aggression, "saying 'uncle'" being only the most familiar.
If, as federal police originally speculated, the killer of the family of the judge who oversaw pro-white activist Matt Hale's recent trademark- infringement case had been a pro-white advocate bent on revenge, then this could have been construed as a case of self-limiting violence which Axelrod described. That is, if this killing had been an assassination by pro-white elements, this could cause other judges to become more careful in their treatment of white activists who are charged with crimes in furtherance of their political aims, because treating such persons harshly raises the specter of the judges' own assassination, however remote that possibility may be. In fact, the effect may be much more general, depending on who or how many are assassinated; for such acts can (and probably will) be interpreted as a warning to tyrants that they must take a personal risk if they wish to tyrannize.
It is useful to point out that the dynamic of such situations is not quite the same as the inhibitions of one-on-one aggression, or even the limitations of war which involve competing groups, and which are reflected in such 'rules of war' as the Geneva Conventions. Instead, the dynamic here is a population (white men) which is not in physical combat, but which has a tendency toward violence depending on the provocations of its enemies, sometimes said to be ZOG, JOG or BOG, depending on the speaker's tendency to blame Zionists, Jews or Bankers for the 'Occupation Government'; at other times is said to be the NWO (New World Order), where the enemy is characterized more generally as 'the elite' -- albeit an elite which seems largely under the thrall of the Hebraic element; but at all times is agreed to be the 'feral government', which is wildly out of control and desperately needs -- in Jefferson's words -- to be 'bound down by the chains of the Constitution', an entity which has unfortunately been turned by the Supremes into a 'living document' which of course means that it is very much dead letter. What these enemies are required to do is to 'keep under the radar' of white anger, lest they (the enemies) cause a breach of the 'white peace' and find themselves in the firing line. More specifically, what the feral government must do is to act in a manner in which the probability of violence breaking out is low, so that the few times when it does break out can be handled as if the events are merely random acts of 'lone nuts', and which serve as harmless but useful test results for the limits of white tolerance for government abuse.
But what, we may ask, is the nature of a 'lone nut'? The answer is that these are people who, by themselves or in small groups, are willing to strike out at the feral government for one or more of various reasons, perhaps because they feel they can change something important (as by assassinating a major government figure), perhaps because they hope to catalyze change (as by inspiring others to follow in their footsteps), or perhaps just because they are angry and want to vent. We are, of course, speaking of 'true' lone nuts, and not CIA mind-controlled zombies who seem to comprise most 'lone nuts' of recent vintage, including Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, Timothy McVeigh, John Hinkley, Jim Jones and probably also Squeaky Fromm and Arthur Bremer. We should add that, by using the terminology of 'lone nut' we do not necessarily intend to disparage such people, but only to make the point that they must be sufficiently mad to become maddened.
In the present context it is important to realize that there are two significantly different kinds of lone nuts: The one who acts from philosophical motives, and the one who acts out of personal desperation. The lone nuts that have been presented in the press are generally of the first variety -- they seem to be out to change the world, and perhaps take some credit for doing so -- but those of the second kind may actually be far more important in initiating political change. For example, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, author of The Gulag Archipelago , remarked that the Soviet police state could not have succeeded if the citizens had been armed, and every time the police came to take someone to the gulag, the person or his friends resisted them with force of arms.
But besides the two cases of lone nuttism we have just mentioned, there is a third and very important case which may be roughly described as that in which everyone becomes a lone nut. What I am referring to is populations with low boiling points like negroes, who will riot at the drop of an epithet, a fact which allows negro race-hustlers such as the Jesse Jackson- Al Sharpton 'axis/taxes of evil' to shake down white politicians for an unsavory mixture of black gravy and palm oil. In comparison with such uninhibited primitivism, whites are of course at a disadvantage, since the control of emotions which whites have developed as a part of becoming civilized, both genetically and socially, inhibits their reactivity to abuse, as of course does the ZOG/JOG/BOG-controlled mass media which cultivates and implants 'white guilt'. There is, of course, an irony here, that primitive people are in some sense able to secure and retain liberty more easily than those who once enslaved them, and this for the very reason -- being primitive -- that they are looked down on by their former masters. We have to wonder just a bit, then, as to whether liberty is consonant with civilization.
The essence of the lone nut is that he is, in the words of Howard Beale of Network fame, 'as mad as hell and not going to take it any more.' This could mean that, like negroes, he has a low boiling point, but it could just as well mean that he is sitting on a lot of heat. And it is heat with which the Internet is beginning to arouse somnolent whites, by demonstrating the pattern of abuse that whites and their magnificent Western civilization are undergoing from ZOG/JOG/BOG and its allies. Because many whites feel frightened or intimidated, it may not be apparent how much change is going on in whites' minds due to the Net. But this medium has unearthed a train of abuses so pervasive and so intolerable that whites who are exposed to it for any length of time have a significant probability of becoming radicalized. This then means that, from a probabilistic 'bell curve' standpoint, the threshold of reactivity of whites is decreasing, with the result that any given act of abuse is increasingly likely to set off white anger, and thus increasingly likely to flush from the woodwork someone who is as mad as hell and not going to take it any more without taking one or more of the bastards with him. Thus I predict that it will not be long before lone nuts will begin to appear in far greater numbers than the minuscule following of Matt Hale, Robert Mathews, Tom Metzger and their ilk would suggest. Furthermore, I think that, at some point in the future, the anger of whites is going to reach a critical mass, and then, as so often happens in history, there will be a sudden change or upheaval which will bring to the fore a whole mass of lone nuts that have cast aside their feelings of fear and intimidation, and are ready and eager to right the wrongs that we now see in such profusion. Whether this upheaval will be violent or not, I would not care to wager, but it will perhaps constitute Der Tag ('the day') that racial revolutionaries have been talking about ever since the time of George Lincoln Rockwell.
The point I am driving at here is that revolution in general, and a revolution to throw off the tyranny that we are presently experiencing in America and the Western world in particular, may be unnecessary if Lone Nut Theory is true, because lone nuts will make the feral government be careful how they treat the peons. It is somewhat the same theory as that behind so-called 'concealed carry' laws: In states where such laws are in effect, criminals know that a lot of people are packing heat, thus making criminal enterprises more risky, and thus less frequent.
Lone Nut Theory, then, is an optimistic one -- while it may not be completely true, it nevertheless gives us hope that tyranny can be defeated without resorting to barbarism -- and without our risking becoming barbarous ourselves in the process. It does not mean, of course, that we should neglect to organize and ready ourselves for warfare with the NWO tyrants, but it does offer hope that things may never get so bad as to require it.
In conclusion, it is my suggestion that a recognition of this situation -- however dim that recognition may have been -- was what gave the feral government the trots over the Matt Hale judge family murders, and which may ultimately prove to be its downfall. That is, the Feds seemed to have realized that the situation which they (stupidly or maliciously) thought they were presented with -- a response of limited violence to the abuse of Matt Hale by a lone nut who has been probability-flushed from the woodwork -- is a situation which suggests that, with every abusive act, they are in danger of overreaching themselves, and that every such overreach may flush out yet another violence-prone lone nut. It is, after a fashion, the situation which I believe was envisioned both by both Louis Beam ('leaderless resistance') and Thomas Jefferson ("The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure"), where armed individuals or small groups -- while not creating a revolution -- nevertheless employ limited violence to make the feral government behave itself. It is, in Axelrod's phrase, another step in the evolution of cooperation. And it may just mean that the long- awaited Revolution is not going to arrive after all because it may just be that we don't need one -- all that we require is the Internet, the bell curve, and a well-armed populace.
Part 2: Violence and Revolution
I have often said that the difference between civilization and barbarism is that civilized men settle their differences by words rather than deeds, that is, that civilized men used such methods as negotiation, arbitration or adjudication to settle their differences, as opposed to violence, threats of violence, or other forms of physical force. This is not to say, of course, that civilization can be entirely devoid of force; for uncivilized elements in civilization can usually only be dealt with by similar means.
But if force is inevitable even among civilized men, this raises the question of when force is 'legitimate' (ie, 'civilized') and when it is not. In the modern world, the general answer to this question has been the adoption of 'democracy', ie, the philosophy that government -- and hence the legitimate use of force -- must derive from 'the consent of the governed'. While this concept is somewhat nebulous, it is now generally construed as some form of representative government which is legitimated by a process of 'one-man/one-vote'.
While the above sounds fine in theory, in practice certain problems have arisen to make the legitimacy of such governments questionable. These involve a long list of issues including voting age restrictions and other limitations on the franchise, the recording and counting of votes, and the role of media and money in influencing both voters and elected representatives. In my book Handbook of the Coming American Revolution I have dealt with a number of these issues, with the intent of showing ways whereby the process of government may be made more fair and hence more legitimate in a moral sense.
If, however, the question of the moral legitimacy of government is raised, this then raises the even more difficult question of when it is morally legitimate to use force against the government, or in the pursuit of ends which are contrary to those of the government. The difficulty of this question is reflected in a related issue which philosophers refer to as the dispute between 'rule utilitarianism' and 'act utilitarianism'. The former holds that the best outcome in the sense of maximized social happiness ('maximized utility', in philosophical jargon) is to 'follow the rules', even if they seem unjust, because greater injustice will likely occur if one 'takes the law into his own hands'. Act utilitarianism, on the other hand, holds that one should act at all times so as to promote what is believed to lead to the 'best outcome', even if 'the rules' are violated. Both positions have a certain validity, and it is not my intention to debate a question which I regard as unresolvable, tho -- for reasons I have explained elsewhere
("Thinking About Violence? Think Again!" http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Fight/Fight-ThinkingAboutViolence.html )
I am inclined to the 'conservative' position of rule utilitarianism.
The question of when it is morally legitimate to use force against the government is actually a special case of rule vs act utilitarianism: The act utilitarian wants to abandon law and use force against the government as soon as he believes it will lead to greater social good, while a rule utilitarian prefers to keep the law and work within the system until he is convinced that justice can never be gained in that way. Needless to say, there is no love lost between act and rule utilitarians -- in JBR Yant's words, act utilitarians believe that begging is the only way one can hope to work for change within the system (That's a joke, Jack) -- but the fact remains that there are no reasonable moral criteria for choosing between act and rule utilitarianism, if for no other reason than that judgments about projected social good are highly personal, and thus may vary widely. Accordingly, the question of whether force should be used against the government cannot be decided morally, but only pragmatically: Opposition is most likely to come when the opposers think they have a good chance of getting away with it, or at least are angry enuf to make the risk seem worth the candle.
For those who contemplate revolution, whether violent or otherwise, an interesting feature of government is that one of the prime sources of its power is the fact that it is in power. This sounds like some kind of contradiction, but it is not; rather it is what is known in systems theory as a positive feedback loop. In the case of a government in power, people see that it is powerful, so they support it in the sense of paying the taxes it levies and obeying the laws it enacts, rather than opposing it. But such support enhances the government's power, and thus makes it even more likely to attract people's support, in the sense of getting people to obey laws and pay taxes. Thus we say that the more powerful a government is, the more powerful it gets, or stays. In terms of systems theory, we say that government power 'feeds back' into the system to make it more powerful or to keep it maximally powerful. And this is why people say, "You can't fight City Hall."
But despite perceptions to the contrary, government is not monolithic; rather it is a whole collection of little governments at the local level. In fact, just as people sometimes say that all politics is local, so one could say -- perhaps with a lot better justification -- that all government is local. Someone may, for example, disobey a federal law, but it is always the local cops that arrest him, and local government that prosecutes him. Which means that 'the government' is only as strong as its local links, and local links are sometimes not too strong. This may be due in some cases to corruption, but it is also increasingly the case that local governments have been (or are gradually being) replaced by 'criminal elements' -- traditionally the Mob, but more latterly by 'gangs', often of racial or ethnic origin. This is important, because it tells us that revolution can be accomplished at the local level, without any need to muster tanks, storm Washington, or launch nuclear missiles.
It is notable that, in recent years, there have been some important efforts by 'legitimate' groups at what might be called 'local revolution'. One of these is the attempt to get libertarians to move to a single state and take over its government, and another is the attempt of white separatists to establish a 'white homeland' in the Northwest. As it happens, neither of these efforts seems to have met with much success so far; but another and rather less legitimate effort is having considerable success, as the feral government allows the largely-uninhibited movement of Mexicans across our southwest border, which, in conjunction with 'amnesties', Mexican fertility, the welfare state, Foundation funding of immigrant-advocacy groups, and various other encouragements, is dooming the Southwest to becoming the new Mexican state of 'Aztlan'.
Besides the items already mentioned, there have been a couple of other notable attempts -- if not at local revolution -- then at least at some form of significantly-greater local independence. One of these is the fact that numerous local communities have passed 'opt-out' resolutions to the so-called PATRIOT Act because this act is regarded as unconstitutional and totalitarian. While the effect of such resolutions is unclear, at least some of them direct local police forces not to cooperate with federal police in enforcement of this law. Less-well-known but perhaps more important is the attempt by local sheriffs in some districts to assert themselves as the highest local authority, with the view to forbidding federal law enforcement activity in their counties without their permission. Beyond law enforcement, there has been an attempt in a number of communities to free themselves from the ever-inflating and unpleasantly-taxable 'federal reserve note' by establishing local currencies, as has been done successfully for several years in Ithaca NY with the well-known 'Ithaca hours'. Ithaca is not the only place where this has been tried, however; for an Internet search for 'local currencies' turned up a surprising number of other instances, tho the success of these currencies could not be gauged from the information available.
It is often reported that the Oklahoma City bombing, for which Timothy McVeigh was convicted, was inspired by The Turner Diaries , a book written by the late William Pierce under the pen name Andrew Macdonald. What is not so often reported, however, is that Pierce's book was a major inspiration for an attempted pro-white anti-ZOG revolution in the early 80s led by the charismatic Robert J Mathews and a substantial band of dedicated followers. Mathews, of course, was a failure in the sense that he ended up dead and his movement shattered, altho for those intent on violent revolution there are undoubtedly some important lessons to be learned from his dramatic tale, which is told in great detail in the book Silent Brotherhood: Inside America's Racist Underground by Kevin Flynn and Gary Gerhardt (The Free Press, 1989). In my view, however, the lessons which Mathews' tale gives for violent revolution are far overshadowed by the lessons about why it should never have been attempted. These include the following:
* It was the wrong time. If one is going to foment a revolution, one is not likely to succeed without convincing a lot of other people that revolution is a good thing. Most people don't have a clue about the ill influence of Jewish power, or indeed even recognize that Jewish power is so pervasive. Yes, people know that one can't criticize Jews, but they usually see this as a well-intentioned social taboo rather than an exercise of Jewish power. So without support of 'the people' -- or at least of a rich elite that makes support of 'the people' unnecessary -- not only will 'the people' prove unhelpful and ungrateful, but they are as likely as not to call the cops.
* Mathews' views were tied up with fringe religion. His Christian Identity faith which held strange Bible-based views on Jews would not have played well in the modern secular world. Yes, there were undoubtedly other things which influenced Mathews -- he was a member of the National Alliance, which has often been a good source of information on the darker side of Hebraic influence -- but his religion seemed to be the primary engine of his efforts. Religion, of course, is often an after-the-fact effort to sanctify what one already believes; but in any event, Mathews' beliefs would have made him appear a kook to most whites, the very people for whom he was playing Savior.
* Mathews wanted to 'do something' instead of doing the smart thing. And with gun nuts, as Mathews certainly was, 'doing something' meant shooting . Mathews' problem is not unknown, of course -- lots of folks want to 'do something' instead of settling down to the hard task of spreading the word, convincing others, and waiting for the 'right time', which is the time when there are enuf people sharing one's views to make a revolution work -- a 'critical mass', so to speak, when a meeting of men's minds creates one of those explosive discontinuities in world events which are the stuff of history. Needless to say, the ability to wait till the right time is characteristic of the higher intelligence which white men are supposed to possess, but which Mathews, in what amounted to a self-indulgent temper tantrum, evidently did not. In this context, famous novelist of the Wild West Louis L'Amour had it right when he said, "Whatever is worth dying for is worth living for."
We noted earlier that, while there are clear (if imperfect) criteria for deciding whether a government is ethical, there are no clear criteria for deciding when it is ethical to use force against the government. For this reason we surmised that decisions about the use of violence would be personal -- they would rely on whether an individual thought things were 'so bad' that violence was warranted, or perhaps a necessity. But when do things get 'so bad'? That is, can we suggest any criteria for deciding when it is time to take up arms against the government, either in an organized manner or as a 'lone nut' who acts from social conscience? I have already suggested two such criteria in Part 1, namely, gun confiscation and closure of the Internet; but there are certainly others. One is the outlawing of health food supplements by turning them into prescription medicines, something which will supposedly happen as a result of treaty obligations come this June (2005), and which may put numerous people at risk of ill health or death, to say nothing of jail. Besides these, there are numerous others which appeal to me as possible justifications for violence. Here is a list of the ones I have thought of in no particular order, tho for completeness I have included the three already mentioned above.
* Confiscation of firearms or severe limitations on their carry and use (Has already happened virtually everywhere except in the US)
* Restrictions on the purchase of ammunition, and particularly outlawing or severely taxing lead bullets * Closure of the Internet, or significant restrictions on its use (in the works)
* Burdensome restriction on the sale of health food supplements (coming in June)
* Suspension of the Constitution or imposition of martial law (Will probably happen on the excuse that some 'Reichstag fire' event requires it) * Suspension of any basic freedom, particularly the First Amendment (Has already happened in most Western countries, where 'racist speech' and questioning the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust are outlawed)
* Institution of 'thought crime' laws (Presently-existing hate crime laws are basically thought crime laws)
* Forced vaccination or medication (Already required for schoolchildren)
* The opening of concentration camps (600 have already been built)
* Roundup and incarceration of 'dissidents'
* Sudden disappearance of pro-freedom and pro-white advocates on the Net
* Re-instituting the draft (Registration is already required by law, and legislation is in the works for this year (2005))
* Illegalizing the saving of seeds by farmers (Has already happened in Canada and probably other places - Food control is an essential tool in maintaining tyranny)
* Closing off highways or restricting travel (Great burdens have been put on air travelers ever since 911, and much the same is being done with train travelers - Automobile 'checkpoints' are now a regular feature of city life)
* Imposing a tax on email (Being worked on)
* The requiring of internal passports (The national ID card -- already passed by Congress in the form of standardized drivers' licenses -- is the first major step in this direction)
* Seizure of precious metals (FDR did this; Nixon happily reversed the policy - government money makes it easier for the government to control the economy and tax the participants)
* The institution of major inflation or monetary restriction (Inflation is a tax on savings, and already runs at several percentage points per year)
* The communizing of property (accomplished by the infinitude of regulations and/or high taxes which make people abandon their property)
* The raising of taxes to impoverishment levels (It's now 40-50%, counting hidden taxes)
* Institutionalization of torture (Already done on Americans by shipping them overseas to such brutal places as Egypt, Israel and other mideast hell-holes)
* Racial discrimination against whites (It's everywhere, and is called 'affirmative action', 'set-asides' and other familiar names)
* Mind control experiments (The CIA has long been involved with them)
* The passing of laws of such volume and complexity as to make it impossible to know whether any given act is legal or not. (Already accomplished - have elaborated more on this in my essay "They Can Get You If They Want To". What has happened, in effect, is that the complexity of the law means that law no longer exists ; for if it is impossible for men to know in advance what is permitted and what is not, then there is no longer a rule of law, but only a rule of men.)
While it may be the philosopher's task to ask whether violence is justified in this or that condition, the pragmatist's task to ask whether he can get away with it, and the strategist's task to ask whether it is useful, there is at least one other matter impinging on the question of resorting to violence that needs to be discussed, namely, How can we make sure we are not waiting till it is too late to act effectively? This is an important question in view of what seems to be the NWO strategy of 'the frog in the pot', ie, the strategy of making changes so slowly that our ability to resist is taken away before we are aware of it, just as gradually raising the temperature of the frog sitting in a pot of water will (supposedly) cook the frog's goose before it occurs to him to leap out. But the frog- in-the-pot problem is not the only one; for there is also the fact of dumbing down education so that children are unaware of their history or of the struggle for political freedom; the fact of deracializing whites by promoting the myths of racial equality, multiculturalism and white guilt in the media and constantly denigrating white achievement; and the fact of demasculinizing boys and defeminizing girls by promoting 'sexual equality', feminism and homosexuality. What I am driving at is that people who do not know their history, who know nothing of our ancestors' struggle for freedom, who shrink from taking pride in the achievements of their genetic family, whose heads are filled with lies about racial and sexual equality, who do not know courage or the proper role of a man in fighting and defending his family, home and country, and who think that homosexuality is a 'lifestyle' rather than a dead end -- when people are in such a state, they simply cannot appreciate, much less defend, the civilization that Western man has been building for the last three thousand years. The answer to our question, then -- How can we be sure to act before it is too late? -- is that there is no clear answer, but that time is surely against us, because our children are being taken from us by NWO brainwashing, if not by the Child Protective Services.
Part 3: Analysis or Advocacy?My understanding is that it is against the law to advocate violent overthrow of the American government. Since I haven't read the law, I don't know exactly what it says; nor do I know the limits and refinements of the law as defined by judges' decisions ('case law'). I do know, however, that I find the law troubling, as far as I understand it. One thing that troubles me is that our government seems to have no problem advocating the overthrow of OTHER governments, and indeed, no compunction in actually DOING it, as recent events in Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia, and less recent events in Panama, Grenada and Chile, amply testify. So, clearly, the illegality of advocating the overthrow of the US government has nothing to do with principle, but only with naked power which will evidently be used against anyone who objects too strongly.
Another thing that bothers me about the law is its conflict with free speech. Basically the law says that, even if you agree with certain statements, you can't say them out loud. There is something pathological about always having to answer 'no' to the question, 'Does the US government deserve to be violently overthrown?' no matter what you believe. It is a kind of pre-packaged schizophrenia that may actually drove some people mad. And anyway, we are supposed to have the right of 'free speech', and particularly 'political free speech', so the law appears to be prima facie unconstitutional.
Another thing that bothers me about the law is whether qualified advocacy of violence is ok. For example, the Declaration of Independence is actually an attempt to justify the violent overthrow of the (previous) American government, so what the Declaration amounts to is a qualified advocacy: If the conditions cited there are met, revolution is, in the Founders' view, justified. So if Mr Echtz comes along and says that such- and-such are the conditions under which revolution is justified, and a prosecutor points out that these conditions currently hold, does this mean that Mr Echtz is guilty of advocating violent overthrow of the government? Furthermore, if Mr Echtz says, not that such-and-such conditions mean that violent revolution SHOULD be undertaken, but only that it is JUSTIFIED, does this constitute advocacy of violent revolution?
The above questions are important in the context of the present essay, since there is little doubt that at least some people would love to make trouble for me by claiming that my analysis constitutes advocating violent revolution. To such a charge, therefore, I would like to make the following points:
* I have long ago advised against violence in my earlier-mentioned essay "Thinking About Violence? Think Again". In the present essay I also advocate against violence in several places, including the Robert Mathews fiasco and in my inclination to accept rule rather than act utilitarianism.
* In the present essay I note how the mechanism of anger and 'lone nuttism' apparently operates to make violent overthrow of the government unnecessary , altho it obviously involves violence.
* The fact that the mechanism of widespread anger will have a tendency to produce 'lone nuts' who will attempt to right various wrongs is not an advocacy of such a mechanism. Yes, it is better to have an occasional 'lone nut' to put the fear of God into badly-behaving bureaucrats than to have a revolution; but to say that 'lone nuts' are preferable to revolution is not to endorse them. Indeed, the best thing is to have everyone as well-informed as possible, which will make it likely that able people will come forward to fight battles WITHOUT violence.
* My list of possible criteria for violence is not advocacy of violence, any more than agreeing with the justification for the American Revolution in the Declaration of Independence is advocacy of violence. In fact, my list of possible criteria does not even rise to the level of the Declaration, since the latter was an actual justification of violence for the conditions of America in 1776, while my own list was a mere proposal of possibilities which individuals might wish to consider.
I have said time and again that I am against violent revolution in all but the most extreme cases, because violent revolution is an abandonment of the very thing -- civilization -- which we are trying to preserve, and because violent revolution very rarely improves the lot of the population, but only changes the tyrants in charge -- a point so artistically made in The Who's classic rock song 'We Don't Get Fooled Again'. Thus if anyone seeks to claim that I am an advocate of violence, I can only reply that I advocate nothing more than did our revered Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence. If that be bad, then make the most of it.
On Individualism, Organization and Error Correction
By John "Birdman" Bryant
This is a slightly-modified version of Birdman's Weekly Letter #284
1. Is Individualism Impossible?
"Nature abhors a vacuum, and most of all she abhors a power vacuum." --JBR YantLibertarians are the great advocates of individual liberty -- ie, individual power -- as against the liberty (ie, power) of the State. As I have shown elsewhere, libertarianism is flawed because libertarians do not realize that State power is not the only kind of power which can be used (and hence abused) against the individual; and in fact, as the State is made to wither away -- the desideratum of the libertarian, but a possibility never yet realized anywhere save the anarchist's dream -- it is entirely possible, and indeed likely, that other forms of power will spontaneously emerge to fill the power vacuum that the State has left. Thus while we may all prefer individual liberty, if there is no way to obtain it besides becoming troglodytes, we may be better off trying to shape the powers that affect us so as to minimize the coercion that we are destined to experience.
But is it really true that Nature abhors a power vacuum? I think the answer is Yes, at least in proportion to the extent that individuals are forced into social closeness, ie, in proportion to the extent that they are not troglodytes, who have no interaction with others at all. The proof is as simple as recognizing that, when people work together in an organized manner, they are far more efficient (powerful) than if they worked separately -- a fact that means those who are organized will far outstrip those who are not. Now if this isn't obvious, consider the simple fact that it's a lot easier to move furniture with two people than one -- some pieces are just two heavy for a single carrier. Likewise, it is a lot easier to run a store with two or more people than one: One stocks the shelves while the other deals with customers; or one takes over when the other is sick. Indeed, organization is at the crux of what 'Mr Libertarian' Murray Rothbard cited as the great engine of the Industrial Revolution: Specialization, aka 'division of labor'. When men become experts in doing some particular task or set of tasks and limit their work to that, they work much more efficiently than a man forced to be a jack-of- all-trades and a master of none; but specializing requires an 'economic engine' into which a man can fit himself as a 'part' which provides specialized services, and this 'economic engine' is obviously a product of (conscious or unconscious) organization. One might say, then, that acting in a organized or coordinated manner is a way of amplifying the power of the individual . Indeed, libertarians have discovered this in a covert way by founding organizations such as the Libertarian Party, whose purpose may be to achieve individual liberty, but whose modus operandi is exactly the opposite.
In terms of systems theory, the reason Nature abhors a power vacuum is that organizations, or 'human power amplifiers', are more stable (or at least some of them are) than disconnected individuals. To illustrate, let us take a simple case -- government. As all libertarians know, government is a protection racket that has assumed a mantle of hoary authority, and has woven itself into the social fabric to such an extent that its minions can claim with a straight face that the protection money people pay -- aka 'taxes' -- is a 'moral obligation'. But libertarians, as usual, have not quite got things right. That is, they are right that government is a protection racket; but in recognizing that government is an SOB, they have overlooked that it is ' our SOB' which (gasp!) actually protects us. Or at least it does sort of, and most of the time, and for a very good reason: It doesn't want some other group of shakedown artists to take over its racket. What we are talking here is what libertarians like so much, namely, pure self-interest: The government doesn't want to lose its shakedown money, so it has to keep the barbarians outside the gates so they can't get a cut. The shakedown artists, then -- criminal as their intent may be -- are forced by self-interest to run a clean house -- well, sort of -- because they don't want dissension, which costs them police time, or dissatisfied 'customers' who take their grubstake offshore and deny the government its pound of flesh. They are, in a word, businessmen -- folks engaged in the occupation of extracting money from others -- and they want to run their business in a, well, businesslike fashion . One of the ways to do that, of course, is to claim a mantle of authority handed to them by God, or, since God is now out of fashion, to claim that they rule by an 'electoral mandate' (democracies) or 'for the people' (communists and socialists). All this, of course, is pure hookum, but it is a very warm and fuzzy hookum that the shakedown artists may even believe themselves, at least sometimes.
We said above that organizations are more stable than individuals, but that, of course, is true only of some organizations, and comes about because -- again as we said above -- organizations are human power amplifiers which attract people who -- lest we belabor the obvious -- want their power amplified. This is particularly obvious in the case of political parties, which are associations of like-minded individuals who hope to make their views prevail if they act together. But it is also obvious upon reflection in the case of corporations, whose agenda is not political, but financial: People want to make money, so, somewhat like Willie Horton, they go where the money is being made.
Having said the above, let us now tackle the question which this essay was intended to answer: Is individualism impossible? By 'individualism' we of course mean the libertarians' vaunted 'individual' who is 'free' from 'coercion'. But libertarians just don't get it: Government is by no means the only form of 'coercion', for there are forces everywhere that 'coerce' just as much as government ever did, from your mother and your minister to the local gang or mob. Some of the 'coercion' may be from the obligations which one feels, and some maybe from fear of getting 'knocked upside the head', as my Southern school chums used to say, but all of it is about force.
And what is the individual against all these forces? He may be able to handle moms and ministers, but he is vulnerable when there are two or more people arrayed against him and acting in a coordinated fashion. Which means only one thing: He needs an organization behind him for protection. Back in the bad old days this might have been family or friends in his (small) town. Nowadays, however, when the vaunted individual has been detached from his roots and is just another cog in the industrial machine, he is vulnerable to any little group that comes down the pike, because virtually any little group has more power than he does. Happily, however, there is a group that will protect him -- namely, society , which has all kinds of structures to shelter individuals who do not otherwise have protection. This includes the police, but also includes a wide array of 'services' which are in fact protections, tho they are other things as well: Taxis, restaurants, libraries, stores, rental properties, dating services -- just about anything that offers surcease from a cruel world of vaunted individuals and their organizations.
But while this array of structures makes it possible for the vaunted individual to function without what we usually think as membership in any group, the fact remains that the vaunted individual can survive only because he is a member of society -- or at least modern society -- which is a group that provides him protection from lesser groups. This, however, throws a monkey wrench into libertarian theory, because the vaunted individual is not, after all, a vaunted individual, but rather someone who is dependent on a group for survival. This does not quite reduce human beings to the status of ants, but it shows that we are a lot closer to an ant colony than some might think.
So much for individualism.
The reason that the Jews are running rings around us gentiles is not because they are smarter -- Jews may have a higher average IQ, but the immensely greater population of gentiles means that, in America for example, there are ten times more smart gentiles than smart Jews.
And the reason the Jews are running rings around us gentiles is not because they are richer -- while Jews on the average are significantly wealthier than gentiles, the immensely larger population of the latter means that there is far more wealth in the hands of gentiles than Jews, and far more rich gentiles than rich Jews.
No, the reason Jews are running rings around us gentiles is because Jews are far better organized than gentiles. And not only are Jews organized into Jewish organizations (check the Yellow Pages, and compare the list of Jewish organizations with those of any other religion or ethnicity), but they are major players in gentile organizations, as recent investigations have shown.
Now it is easy to understand why Jews are so well-organized, because acting in an organized fashion gives the participants much more power then they would have in acting as separate individuals. This comes about -- as noted earlier -- because organizations are 'human power amplifiers.' Jews must have discovered this secret early, for they have survived longer than any other racial isolate in spite of frequent persecution from most of those among whom they have lived.
Thus if we are to save ourselves from the actions of the Jews -- or, more particularly, from the NWO conspiracy of Organized Jewry and the gentile elite who are helping them -- it is vital that we too, discover and implement this secret of amplifying our power. Or to put it another way, as I have said many times to my gentile comrades, Organize or die!
So what, then, is preventing whites from organizing? There are several possible explanations, particularly including 'white guilt' which has been implanted in whites by the 'antiracist' Jewsmedia, bad information about the real situation our race and culture are facing, and of course the media-induced couch-potato-ism which hypnotizes the hoi polloi into thinking that there is nothing happening that is more important than cars, beer and the next Big Game -- but there is one thing above all that I believe is responsible: The inability of whites to get along well with others . Exactly why this is a problem for whites but not for Jews is not entirely clear, but there are at least two factors which I believe play a prominent role:
* Jews have a much greater sense of group identity than whites, and this means they will come together to act in the interest of the group much more readily than whites. This theory is supported by the fact that Jews have a profound socialistic bent which has been exhibited by everything from the Russian Revolution (for which they were responsible) and 'racist Marxist Israel' (which they established) to kibbutzes (a type of celebrated communal farm in Israel) and voting heavily Democratic (the party of American socialism). It is also supported by the fact that Jews have survived for so long as a group, since no group could survive that long without a strong sense of group identity.
* Jews have achieved much in the world in terms of money, fame and power, and are thus, on the whole, a self-confident people. A self-confident person, however, can take criticism -- and make the changes which that criticism suggests -- much more easily than one who is not, for the simple reason that the self-confident person can always say to himself, "All right, I admit that I screwed up on x, but I have done a good job on p, q and r, so I am still an OK person." That is, a confession of error does not mangle a self-confident person's ego in the way that it does an inferior person's. But why is this so important? Simply because if people are going to work together effectively, they are going to have to be able to correct their errors as quickly as possible. But if the people in the organization have trouble taking criticism, it is going to be difficult to correct those errors, and that is a big problem for whites. Jews, on the other hand, not only are better at correcting their errors, but they are more willing to place themselves under centralized control (ie, 'fascism' or 'a dictator') because self-confident people are those who have been much better at satisfying their ego needs, and are thus more willing to submerge that ego in a group effort, ie, they are willing to let others take credit (satisfy their egos) in order to promote group welfare. This, I might add, recalls to mind a bit of wisdom given to me by my father, a fairly self- confident guy, who several times remarked that if you really want to get things done, let other people have the credit. He practiced what he preached, too -- he regarded as one of his important accomplishments in life his book How to Get Things Done -- a book on which only his co- authors' names, and not his own, appeared.
So what, then, is the solution to the internecine warfare that besets less- than-fully-self-confident white men as they jockey for ego satisfaction? I don't think there is any one solution, but there are probably several different things that could help. The first thing to do is to recognize that there is a problem -- if we don't recognize it, we certainly can't solve it. The second thing is to realize that disputes can easily escalate out of control -- as among the legendary dispute between the Hatfields and McCoys, where each act of aggression was met by another and even more outrageous act -- particularly when one of the parties starts insulting or cursing the other. A third thing is to develop a dispute-resolution mechanism, eg, a custom of presenting disputes which are 'irresolvable' or have escalated out of control to a trusted third party for binding resolution. But one thing which must certainly be done is to add to the 'magic words' we teach to kids -- 'please' and 'thank you' -- yet another set of magic words, 'I apologize' and 'I was wrong'. It may seem surprising, but it is possible for both parties in a dispute to apologize even when they both think they are right -- all they need apologize for is for causing the other to become upset, "since that was not my intention". Such apologies will then smooth the way for more substantive apologies pertaining to the content of the dispute.
In conclusion, I might say that it took me many years and the gentle hand of a good wife before I ever learned to get along with people (read: I was one of the world's biggest assholes). The basic trick is to try to make others feel good -- and feel good about you. Making others feel good costs you nothing, and is often rewarded -- in the long run, if not the short -- by others trying to make YOU feel good. Of course making others feel good requires that you be sensitive to their reactions -- that you be able to read their body language and read between the lines of what they say -- but if you work at it a bit, you will often be rewarded with good feelings from others, and maybe even a few good friends.
What Is to Be Done For the Long Term to Save Western Civilization?
By John "Birdman" Bryant
In numerous essays I have pointed out the grevious danger in which Western civilization and its founding race -- the white race -- now find themselves; and in pointing this out, I have emphasized that the white race is unique among races by having created a civilization which is significantly superior to any civilization founded by other races, and which indeed does not seem maintainable by -- or indeed, even suitable for -- any other race. Another point that I have emphasized is that -- at least as far as can be determined -- the threat to Western civilization and the white race comes not primarily from external enemies, but rather from one internal enemy -- organized Jewry.
In preserving our civilization, there are two basic questions to be addressed: What to do in the short term, and what to do in the long. In the present essay, we will address the latter question. In particular, we will attempt to set down certain principles which we believe that a long term solution must follow. Before setting forth these principles, however, we must emphasize one meta-principle which governs all others:
GOVERNING META-PRINCIPLE: The solution to the problems of Western man is not, as a general rule, to 'throw the rascals out', tho this might be ok for certain special cases; rather the solution is to change the system to keep it from generating rascals .
More specifically, what needs to be done is to set up a system in which the incentives for men in power are such as to make them act honorably and in a principled manner, as opposed to the current system, in which honor and principle are sold to the highest bidder, and where the definition of 'honest politician' is 'One who, once bought, stays bought'.
One special case which is important to mention in the present context is that it should not be our intent to 'get rid of the Jews'; for the Jews have merely exploited weaknesses in the system which others could exploit just as well. What I mean is that 'getting rid of the Jews' would improve nothing save only to allow unscrupulous men of our own race to exploit these same weaknesses. Thus our goal should be that, by removing the weaknesses of the system, the Jews (and others) will turn their superior energy and talents away from exploitation and toward the direction of acting in a way that is productive both for them and for the society as a whole. Thus by avoiding a vengeful attitude toward the Jews, and instead providing incentives for them redirect their talents into positive channels, we reduce -- and hopefully eliminate eventually -- the hostility toward gentiles that has driven the Jewish race for so many centuries, and -- let us admit it frankly -- that has been significantly fueled by gentiles' religious prejudice and superstition.
By saying the above, however, I am in no way saying that the Jews are innocent of abuses of gentiles in historical times. This is a question which can be debated endlessly, but is not really important. What is important is that Jews are guilty in the present day of a whole host of destructive behaviors which are on the verge of bringing down the civilization which has allowed both Jew and gentile to develop and prosper beyond anything either had ever imagined. It is these behaviors which must be addressed, and hopefully brought to an end by educating the smart but unwise Jews on the harm which they are inflicting on themselves as well as others.
In addressing the Jew-gentile conflict, it is vital that we understand the two basic dynamics of this conflict. The first, which has been explored by Prof Kevin MacDonald in his trilogy on Jews, is that the destructive behavior of Jews as involving gentiles may be readily explained as a group survival instinct -- a subject which, while fascinating, is beyond the scope of the present essay. The second dynamic of the Jew-gentile conflict is that this conflict represents what in systems theory is called a feedback loop -- one action leads to a reaction by the other side, which then leads to a reaction by the first side, and back-and-forth, back-and- forth in a never-ending succession of mutual hostilities. The classic situation of this type is the feud , as represented for example by the Hatfield-McCoy conflict of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The operating principle here is that, once a feud gets going, it (usually) keeps escalating until a final-blowup completely crashes the system. The only way such feuds can be stopped is to have some sort of 'damping out' of the action-reaction pattern. In the Hatfield-McCoy case, this happened when some of the most active principals were sent to jail; but action- reaction patterns can end amicably as well, as when the husband brings his wife that fur coat that started the argument in the first place.
PRINCIPLES FOR REFORMING THE SYSTEM
* PRINCIPLE: Take account of the Acton Dictum The most important principle by far in reforming a social or political system is Lord Acton's dictum that 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Another and perhaps more accurate way to put this is to say, 'the greater the power, the greater the corruption,' to which it should be added that 'greater power' means ' more greatly concentrated power'. The proof of the Acton dictum is almost if not quite tautological: To the extent that others have no power to constrain us, we will act as it pleases us; and there is no reason to expect that what pleases us will also please others. (To paraphrase one wit, It may be our intention to govern well when we govern, but it is nonetheless our intention to govern.) The Acton Dictum is so important that I have changed from calling myself a libertarian to calling myself an Actonite.
Because government is usually the most concentrated form of power, the Acton Dictum impels us to the libertarian view that, in the words of JBR Yant, 'When it comes to government, small is beautiful.' For this reason, we should support the return of federal power to the states, cities, local communities and other small groups. In general, the only time when centralized power should be permitted is in time of war or other major crisis when it is necessary for people to act together in large coordinated groups; but since war is often the product of centralized power, the sparing use of such power is evidently an excellent way to insure that it is rarely needed.
Because wealth is a form of power, an important implication of the Acton Dictum is that excessive concentration of wealth should be avoided. In saying this, let me be clear that I am no socialist, and do not object to people getting 'rich', tho I do become concerned when accumulated wealth is so great as to allow the purchase of major political influence by a single individual or small groups of individuals. Thus while there are many possibilities in placing limits on the concentration of wealth, the following seem to me to be critical in their importance:
(1) Remove the money from politics except for certain restricted instances. This can be done quite easily, as I have outlined in my Handbook of the Coming American Revolution . The result is that, instead of politicians focusing on satisfying the people who have paid them off, they can focus on doing what is best for the people they supposedly serve.
(2) Bust the trust: Big corporations can wield big influence because they have big bucks to purchase politicians. While it is reasonable that such entities have their needs represented, in the past the influence of corporate power has often been socially negative.
(3) At the death of their possessors, large fortunes should be distributed to talented private individuals in amounts that will make them financially independent so they can develop themselves without excessive concern for money-grubbing. This helps avoid the dangerous situation of having an elite upper class founded on inherited money, while at the same time ensuring that the money will be kept out of the government's grubby hands.
(4) Dispense with large charitable foundations. These create problems similar to large corporations.
(5) Keep government power in check by limiting government money. Our Founders recognized the importance of restricting government power, but they made the strategic mistake of attempting to accomplish this by an assortment of Constitutional decrees. Their mistake was that money speaks a lot louder than words; so if the government has the money, it can buy almost anything it wants, from legislative acts to Supreme Court judges. However, as a 'back-up system' there should also be legal limits to government power, including the forbidding of any government action except for defensive war and perhaps a few other things. All other power should be left to local or regional governing bodies.
(6) Create an adequate monetary system. This is a complicated subject which cannot be adequately treated in the present essay, altho I have discussed it at length in other essays. Suffice it to make the following points:
* The monetary authorities, ie, those who control money and credit, should not be allowed to do it for their own profit, as the Federal Reserve has been doing ever since it was established in 1913.
* The monetary authorities should be independent of both politicians and bankers.
* The goal of the monetary authorities should be to provide sufficient money and credit so that business can be carried on easily, and so that there is no significant change in the general price level (ie, no inflation).
* The monetary authorities should establish a method of banking insurance so that people's money will be safe when and if their bank goes bankrupt.
* Experiments with 'local currencies' such as the famous 'Ithaca hours' should be encouraged as an alternative to national currencies.
* PRINCIPLE: Communities and nations should be kept homogeneous, especially racially. Hoover Institution scholar Dr Thomas Sowell has documented case after case of racial disharmony in multicultural nations, so to avoid this, racial homogeneity should be a watchword. Likewise, religious differences have been a source of disharmony for centuries, but religion is no longer the force it once was, so that homogeneity in religion may not now be that important. Attention should be given to political disharmony, however, where it may be a good idea to separate leftists from the general population and allow them to have their own government and finally prove to themselves that leftism is unworkable.
* PRINCIPLE: Make the law simple and difficult to change, and remove the legal system from government hands. The basic ideas I have in mind are the following:
* Limit the organic law to one volume, which it will be the responsibility of all people to know. Do not allow this law to be changed without major difficulty, including a referendum by the people. This idea, of course, conflicts with the notion that representatives must meet most of the year to 'write laws', something which should be dispensed with in view of one wit's remark that 'The nation is in danger whenever Congress is in session'. The only 'laws' that representatives should 'write' are decisions on how to spend government money -- a matter which is completely outside the purview of 'law'.
* Dispense with 'case law', ie, the history of judges' decisions which supposedly clarify the law and are binding on future cases. The reality is that case law makes law much more complicated, and gives judges the power to make new law by 'interpreting' law in any manner they choose.
* Privatize the justice system. I have described a manner of doing this in my essay "Free-Market Justice" in my book Bryant's Law . Such a system will place each case in the hands of a judge or set of judges agreed upon by both sides, and the decision which is rendered will be final. Focus of the system will be righting the wrong done to the complaining party, not penalties imposed by government fiat. Complaints will be brought solely by private citizens, not government agents ('District Attorneys'). Precedents ('case law') will not be binding -- only organic law and common sense. Judges will be businessmen whose business depends on a reputation for fairness ('pleasing his customers').
* PRINCIPLE: Make individuals and communities as independent as possible. Centralized control is just a hair's breadth from tyranny, and when people and communities are independent -- ie, when they have independent sources of food, water, weapons and other essentials -- they can't be centrally controlled, or can be controlled only with great difficulty. It is thus important that technology and other current knowledge be employed to make people and their communities as independent as possible. An important aspect of community independence concerns technology. According to historian Murray Rothbard, the key to the Industrial Revolution which has been the source of so much wealth to Western man is specialization, or the 'division of labor'. In particular, when men specialize in one job, rather than trying to be a jack of all trades (and master of none) or 'generalist', they work much more efficiently; and the Industrial Revolution helped structure society so that men would work as specialists rather than generalists. But while the division of labor results in work output of high efficiency, it carries the danger that specialists of one kind or another will cease to work, and in so doing will bring down the entire economic system or a significant part of it. We see this occurring in labor strikes, where one segment of the economy can be severely crippled by the walkout of only a small segment; but there is another and even more important case, namely, when technology migrates to other locations because of economic factors, usually lower wages. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the need for efficiency in a system must be balanced against the need for security or stability. In terms of systems theory, what we are saying is that the system must have a degree of 'redundancy', so that if one part breaks down, there is another one to take its place. We see such redundancy in hospitals which have backup power systems; we see it in survivalists who keep a supply of food on hand for emergencies; and we even see it in the human body, where the loss of one hand or one eye or one kidney will not bring down the system because there is another part which can serve the function of the lost one. The importance of the discussion above for community independence is that communities need to have sufficient redundancy to retain their functioning should an outside power destroy part of their system in an attempt to coerce them into submission. Thus a community needs the ability to raise its own food, take care of its own sick, and maybe even make its own steel and computer chips. Clearly for a small community this could be quite difficult, so it is no trivial decision as to how much redundancy a community should have. In conclusion it should be noted that redundancy is not only a problem for communities, but for nations as well, especially our own. Several years ago presidential contender Ross Perot warned that America would hear a 'sizeable sucking sound' (or something to that effect) taking American jobs down Mehico way if the NAFTA 'free trade' agreement was ratified, since labor was so much cheaper south of the border. Perot was mostly right, being wrong only in that the sucking sound was the snuff heard round the world, as jobs died and went not only to Mexico, but also to India, China, the Philippines, and just about everywhere else in the Turd World. The result, then, is not just that zillions of Americans are now out of work or are forced to subsist on Turd World wages, but that America has lost its manufacturing capacity -- both the plants which make things and the people needed to run them. Americans may have gained by letting their products be manufactured more cheaply by Chinese slave labor, but they have lost the far more valuable capacity of making them themselves, and it will not be long till America itself sinks into Turd World insignificance as a result, perhaps to be conquered by the very countries which provided America's 'help'.
* PRINCIPLE: Keep education out of government hands, and under parental control. The educrats, from John Dewey and Horace Mann onward, have viewed education as a means not of educating, but rather of shaping children into their generation's version of the New Soviet Man, subservient to the State. But if this is not bad enuf, there is absolutely no reason for formal schooling -- once a child learns to read, he can get pretty much all the education he needs by himself, with no more than occasional intervention by adults for answering questions or guiding the reading itself. The only exceptions I can think of are where there are hands-on techniques to be learned, as in laboratory work, or where there is a need for expensive equipment to which an individual could not obtain access except via an institution. It is true that there may be some social benefit to the child in a classroom situation, but there is no more reason to think that this is in any way more helpful than other social situations which can readily be supplied by interested soccer moms.
In conclusion, there are probably other principles which could be added to the above without excessive objection. The collection here, however, offers a long-term perspective on where we ought to be going, and, if lacking in perfection and completeness, at least gives us something to focus on.
What Is To Be Done For The Shorter Term to Free Ourselves from the Tyranny of the NWO?
By John "Birdman" Bryant
This was originally published as Birdman's Weekly Letter #289
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed it's the only thing that ever has." --Margaret Mead
"If you will not fight for your rights when you can easily win without bloodshed -- if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly -- then you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." --Winston Churchill
"You can stop armies, but you can't stop ideas." --Voltaire.
In other essays we have pointed out that Western civilization -- arguably the greatest creation of humankind -- and the race which founded it -- the white race -- are under attack and in danger of extinction within only the next few years by the now-widely-followed policy of 'multiculturalism' -- integration, immigration, feminism, anti- discrimination, 'equality', minority favoritism and the like, supported by laws against 'racism' and 'hate' which make sure these policies never receive serious critical examination. Multiculturalism's result, of course, is not difficult to see: Destruction of the white gene pool and the culture which it has created, and the subsequent emergence of a less intelligent and less vigorous population which will be far more subservient to its rulers than whites would ever be. The name most often used for the organization behind these policies is 'the New World Order' (NWO), and its members I refer to as the New World Orderlies. No one really knows what the NWO is or who is behind it, tho many candidates have been proposed, including (among others, either separately or in combination) the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, the Rothschilds, the International Bankers, the Vatican, the Jesuits, the Masons, the Illuminati, the British aristocracy, the Committee of 300, and of course ETs; and indeed, the only sure way of knowing that the NWO exists is the fact that multiculturalism and the liberalism in which it is embedded has suddenly emerged full-blown as the directing policy and philosophy in every country of the West -- something that could not possibly have happened by chance, but is instead the result of a force whose power is evident not merely from its omnipresence, but from the fact that it is totally invisible save for its results. While it would obviously be worthwhile to know who is behind the NWO, the issue is not really of prime importance; for tho we may not know the names of the commanding generals, we can certainly identify the troops, and many of those listed above may be counted among those troops.
There is one group, however, which has been outstanding in its promotion of the NWO, namely, Organized Jewry, a group whose activities against Western civilization and the white race (hereinafter 'the West') have been extensively documented on this author's website, www.thebirdman.org. It is my belief that Organized Jewry -- by which I mean the Jewish organizations and leaders who promote policies inimical to the West -- does not represent the attitudes of Jews as a whole, because it is contrary to the interests of the Jewish people to subvert the culture which has allowed them to survive and prosper as they have done in no other time and place. The point is that the motives of Organized Jewry are different than those of ordinary Jews; for in order to justify their fat salaries and keep the shekels flowing from their contributors, they constantly ring the alarum bell of antisemitism, claiming to see a nazi in every nook and a Skinhead under every bed, and, if sufficient 'hate' incidents do not materialize to fill their lachrymose letters of solicitation, then, as recent history has amply demonstrated, they simply create the 'incidents' they need, which, if the truth about their falsity be discovered, are quickly passed over and forgotten by the Jewsmedia.
For someone unacquainted with the facts, what we have asserted here may seem bizarre; and yet the facts which support this thesis are both massive and well-documented, as anyone who cares to visit my website can see for himself -- particularly in the two sections labeled The Jewish Question and Articles of Others (Subcategory: Jews). What is more, these facts are largely unknown outside the community of Internet-savvy and racially- conscious whites, because most people take their information from the mass media which lie and cover up the facts on a massive scale to keep them from the population at large, and to insure that they are mostly disbelieved on the rare occasions when they do become known.
While we have no hesitation in assigning to Organized Jewry the greater part of the responsibility for the attack on the West, this is not exactly the same as blaming , in the sense that the attack by Organized Jewry is stimulated at least in part on a (correct) perception of historical persecution of Jews by gentiles. It is not our purpose in this essay, however, to attempt the impossible task of allocating blame between whites and Jews for the behavior of each to the other; rather it is our belief that it is in the interest of ordinary Jews to help preserve the West, because -- as we stated earlier -- the West has permitted Jews to prosper as nowhere else, and indeed to rise to the highest pinnacles of power and prestige. Thus in my view the efforts of whites should be to seek an alliance with Jews on this basis, not merely because it is useful, but because -- in view of modern-day Jewish wealth and power -- it is essential if the West is to be saved.
But if the NWO is prosecuting what amounts to a war on the West, it is nonetheless true that this war is essentially an information war in which the hearts and minds of whites are the ultimate prize. What this means -- among other things -- is that we do not want to engage in violence unless there is simply no other choice, and for several reasons:
* When people are uneducated about our cause, as they now largely are, violence is a sure way to alienate them.
* Violence is dangerous, because even if it is successful in overthrowing the enemy, the resulting chaos will usually inflict far more pain and destruction than if the enemy had remained in power.
* Our cause has little access to weaponry, and will therefore likely be outgunned.
So how, then, do we fight this information war? To answer, we begin by noting that, among the health-conscious there is a saying about the human body which applies to the social body as well: "Use it or lose it". That is, just as one will lose the strength of his muscles if he does not exercise them, so the social body of American citizenry will lose the traditions established in the Constitution if they are not exercised, and likewise for other countries of the West. This latter is because people will accept what they are accustomed to, so that if they are accustomed to people carrying guns or speaking freely or worshipping as they will, this will not cause the uproar that might be expected otherwise. The lesson, then, for the opponent of the NWO is that he must use his freedoms not merely to fight, but to keep people acclimated to the ways of freedom so that he will then be more easily able to use them when he needs to.
So how then can we use our freedom of speech most effectively? As I see it, there are several ways to do this, including the following:
Use soundbites. One of the most effective ways to get across an idea is to summarize it in a quick, pungent and easy-to-remember sentence or phrase, aka a soundbite While many have complained that TV mungs political debate by reducing complex issues to soundbites, I feel that the emphasis on soundbites is a positive development, because it forces an economy of words based on an economy of thinking. True, complexities are left aside of necessity, and this may be bad in some ways; but as a practicing aphorist, I have come to appreciate that much complexity can be crafted into a well- constructed soundbite, and that therefore whoever chooses to communicate with others should become well-versed in this craft. In particular, there are questions and comments which arise again and again, and having an effective soundbite with which to deal with them will not only save time and effort, but will get the essential message across more effectively.
As an example, consider the frequent accusation against white racialists that they are 'bigots'. What better way to answer than to follow Ambrose by saying, And what, my dear fellow is a bigot except someone who happens to disagree with you? Similarly, since 'bigot' is an insult and a 'shut-up word', one may reply that "Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued." Likewise, if called a hater, one may reply that "Hate is good, provided only that it is directed against hateful things. Like you." And then there is Birdman's All-Purpose Deflector Shield, useful against just about every accusation you can think of: "Ask not whether I am an antisemite/hater/conspiracy theorist/lunatic/idiot/you-name-it -- ask only if I am RIGHT!" For those wishing to master the art of the soundbite, a good collection will be found in my essay on Soundbites in the introductory section of my website.
One final note on soundbites is that they often sound outrageous:
** Racism is good, and in fact it is a law of nature: "Birds of a feather flock together."
** Ask not whether I am racist -- ask only if I am RIGHT!
** Slavery was good -- it gave blacks all the good things they are missing today -- a steady job, a stable home, a low crime rate, healthy food and a drug-free environment.
These statements aren't really outrageous, of course, but it is hard to keep from noticing their parallel with chutzpah, which is (or is supposed to be) outrageous. There is a virtue in chutzpah, however -- it is an offensive weapon which often throws opponents off-balance. In using soundbites, then, it may be wise to be aware of the 'chutzpah effect', and to cultivate it. After all, superjew Alan Dershowitz advocates more chutzpah for Jews, so maybe it is time that we use soundbites to develop a little Aryan chutzpah (OK, just call it nerve .)
* Phone in to talk radio shows. For folks who know their stuff and like to talk, this can get to a wide audience; and if the host likes you, he may invite you for special 'appearances' or interviews. Talk radio is known to be generally friendly to the 'right wing' viewpoint, and this needs to be exploited to the fullest.
* Mass email. Untargeted mass email is inexpensive, and has the potential of reaching millions. There are a great many people on the Net who read the conventional websites, but have yet to be introduced to the ideas of racialism, the NWO and other chewy topics. ISPs are very uptight about 'spam' however, with the result that any mass mailing will probably have to be done by a commercial mailer who can parry any legal problems and complaints about 'racist mail' and 'hate sites'.
When I attempted to do some mass emailing a couple of years ago, I wrote an essay which was specifically targeted to an uninitiated audience -- "Some Vital -- And Very Ugly -- Facts You Need to Know" found in the Liberalism section. Unfortunately, however, the essay was not properly documented with hyperlinks (and still is not, tho I would expect to do this before any further mass mailings), something which would have made it a much more credible piece by addressing in advance the disbelief that many readers experience in reading it. In fact, the reactions to this essay were what convinced me to create the Articles of Others section, wherein is contained substantial documentary evidence for just about any question that any reader can raise.
* Leafletting. This is a strategy that has long been used by activists, especially the NA. There are basically two types of leaflets:
(1) A sheet or small card printed with a simple message and contact information, including, if possible, how to get Internet access at the local library ("Did you know blacks commit crimes at 9 times the rate of whites? Want to know more of the facts that the media is suppressing? Then check with the Birdman -- see reverse side for contact information")
(2) A folded leaflet with a lengthy 'story' (The ones put out by the IHR are good examples of what can be done with this medium).
While both types of leaflets are not without potential, they are nowhere near as efficient as mass email, and there are many problems in getting them to their intended audience. These problems will vary, according to the laws of individual communities and other factors, but in my view there are only three ways in which this means of message-spreading can be done with any effectiveness at all -- (a) by putting under auto windshield wipers in parking lots or along streets with many parked cars, (b) by handing out in a crowd, or (c) by leaving next to residents' doors in condominium communities where there are many accessible doors within a short walk. On the whole, however, I cannot really recommend leafletting in most instances, not merely because of the inefficiency, but because of the likelihood of being hassled by the cops. (I speak from experience, and the literature I was handing out had nothing to do with race, but was 'only' attacking the politicians in St Pete Beach.) However, if you do decide to go the leafletting route -- or do any other kind of handout, for that matter -- you need to have checked local law (usually available at your local library) and have a copy of it on your person to show the cops. It is also useful to have a cell phone or a card with your lawyer's phone number on it and the lawyer available to take calls -- you can tell the cops to give the man a buzz if they have any doubts. An alternative is to leaflet at 4AM, but this may be a bit of a strain for those who hold a 9- to-5.
* 'Large' literature handout -- newspapers, booklets or mass-market paperbacks. This means of communication involves a substantive up-front cost -- the effort to compose and the expense to print, with the additional problem of distribution -- throwing on lawns, driveways or doorsteps. In spite of the costs, however, there is real potential here, especially when done in upscale neighborhoods.
(1) Large literature sends a 'complete message' -- as opposed to leafletting, whose message must necessarily be short -- meaning that, with large literature, the recipient does not have to go to the library or do anything other than read what is in his hands.
(2) The residents of upscale neighborhoods are usually older, and -- unlike current high-school graduates -- are usually literate enuf to read a serious book, and wealthy enuf to make a serious contribution to the Movement if sufficiently moved, which they may be, since older folks were raised before the liberal virus became endemic.
NB: Material in newspaper format is cheap to print and easy to distribute, but books (in the form of inexpensive-to-print paperbacks) may have more impact and get more readership.
* Publish a free 'community news' type publication filled with politically incorrect articles taken from TheBirdman.org which are left for distribution at various businesses or other public locations. Once your publication becomes popular -- if you can survive the Usual Screams from the Usual People -- you can start selling ads and -- Who knows? -- make a mint. Hey, it's a better prospect than working 9 to 5 under a negro -- or not having a job at all. (This idea is modeled after Walter ('Walter the Mule') Mueller's publication.)
* Run smallish 'display ads' (picture and text in a box) in your local newspaper, sporting (for example) a picture of the Birdman plus short pungent message. Birdman's pic is striking, so people will be drawn to the ad, unlike most other ads. The message can then be something like "Find out what THEY don't want you to know. Visit www.thebirdman.org or send SASE for free literature." Naturally, I am against putting money into the mass media's pockets, but if this is offset by the help it gives our cause, it may be worth it.
* Communicate to the powerful: We need to get our message out to people who have an ability to make a significant difference by their wealth, their intellect, their influence, their contacts, or in other ways which are unavailable to ordinary people. Mailing lists of philanthropic organizations, the wealthy, and Who's Who people are commercially available. The strategy would be to send a book or video to these people, or to send a letter which offers to send them a book or video (see below) if they respond.
* Make films which communicate our message. There is nothing more powerful than a well-made film, and the ability to make films is now within the technical ability of private individuals, who can make professional- looking productions with the use of VCRs, camcorders, modestly priced computers and editing software. In fact, there are many films which have already been made, and which can be cut-and-pasted or used directly to get our message across. Films are especially important because there is now a high degree of illiteracy among the population due to the dumbing-down efforts of the publik skoolz, but also because films are a powerful medium that in many ways can never be equalled by books.
* Utilize public-access TV. Current law requires cable providers to give access to 'public service programming' at little or no charge. This has truly major potential for not only filmmakers, but also for alternative news programming (such as a program based on news stories from the Birdman's Daily Reads page) and who-knows-what-else. Or to put it another way, with just a little effort we could start competing with Peter Lemmings, Tom Brokejaw and Damn Blather!
* Explore the commercial TV option. If you have a book to sell, or a website to promote, or if you have developed an expertise in defending our Cause against liberals, you can reach a huge audience thru TV. If you can afford it, there is at least one magazine (I think it is called Radio-TV Interviews Magazine ) which you can use to get interviews, and you can also utilize direct mail advertising to get the attention of TV people who might invite you onto their programs. Local TV is often a good place to start (and to get experience), because a 'local angle' is what the stations are always looking for. It will be easier to get interviews if you are newsworthy; and if you have distributed 'racist' literature, or have a film or regular program on public-access TV, one of those may be the hook that gets you a place on the Tube.
* Put up a billboard The National Alliance has purchased billboard space, but unfortunately seems to have had a lot of difficulty keeping its message up, altho the controversy which was generated probably got them a bunch of new members. Ditto for an anti-immigration billboard in the Southwest a couple of years back, which was denounced far and wide by high government muckamucks. Billboards are expensive and risky, but the publicity is formidable, and a billboard ad gives your message a 'socially-approved status' that it would not receive from a mere handout or even a newspaper ad.
A variation on billboards has been done by at least one member of the Cause, who has a mobile billboard on the back of his truck. Small messages may also be placed on bumpers or back windows, tho these messages should not be too explicit (Try "Find out what THEY don't want you to know. TheBirdman.Org") so as not to encourage vandalism.
* Take over the political parties. This has been the strategy of the Libertarian Republicans -- place people who agree with you in key positions. To what extent they have been successful I can't really say, but if David Duke can get elected Republican country chairman for his area, then this opens big possibilities for the racially aware. The important thing to be noted, however, is that we have truth on our side (not quite as good as God, but he's dead) and a lot of anger by people who are angry about how the NWO is screwing them, and this can go a long way in winning an election -- at least until they can cook the vote tallies more effectively.
* Found your own political party. This is not as hard as it seems -- one of our regular readers has already done so -- and is advantageous for several reasons:
(1) It gives you the opportunity to put the issues avoided by the political establishment into a classic political context and embarrass the Republicrats by debating them or heckling them for refusal to debate.
(2) It is a great way to get publicity during an election campaign, and a way to 'legitimize' handing out literature (ie, to keep the cops off your back)
(3) It may help in getting favorable media treatment if you have mastered the soundbite, for media people love to quote soundbites even if they hate you.
(4) The work you do -- while unlikely to win any elections, at least at the outset -- nevertheless constitutes spadework for future political activity, including practical experience in getting your message out and in building a donor base.
(5) Should you choose to use a name like the BRASH party, ie, Bigoted Racist Anti-Semitic Haters, not only can you get a lot of attention, but you can create a natural defense against the usual slurs (After all, who can accuse you of being an antisemite if that's what you call yourself?). And why are we BRASH? Here's why:
- We're BIGOTS because we oppose the liberal establishment's nonsense about race, and since the establishment can't refute our arguments, they try to call us names. But if they are going to label our philosophy as bigotry, then we say it is time to make the world safe for bigotry, and in fact, it is time to EMBRACE it.
- We're RACISTS because we stand up for the white race and the world's greatest civilization which it has produced. The liberal establishment has no problem with black racism or Jewish racism or hispanic racism or any other kind of racism, but they want to destroy the white race because it makes minorities look bad in comparison and shows that the notion of racial equality is nonsense.
- We're ANTI-SEMITIC because the Jewish establishment is the driving force behind liberalism, and we oppose liberalism because it is destroying Western civilization and the white race. That means the Jewish establishment hates us, but since they can't answer our arguments, they have to try to make us out as mindless Jew-haters.
- We're HATERS because we hate those people and those ideas which are destroying our race, our country and our civilization, and because we believe that hate is good when directed against hateful things.
As an aside, one issue that has arisen recently is whether pro-white activists should dump everything else and present a united front by focusing on the single issue of Jews. This is a useful notion, but one could argue also that the Jewish Question should be placed within the nexus of other issues which are also a concern, eg, the erosion of civil liberties, CAFR, the Drug War, the restrictions on health freedom, the War on Terror, etc, etc, etc. My suggestion would be to try both ways and see which gets the best response.
* Use the Media Access Law to get media advertising at rock-bottom rates during political campaigns. While I don't have all the information on this, Jim Condit Jr has gone this route and apparently made a big splash. I believe his website (votefraud.org) has detailed information on this matter, and should be investigated by anyone going the political route.
* Use the Internet as an information source. The Net has been the major factor in raising people's consciousness about the NWO's war against the West -- it has managed to sidestep the major media, and in fact has brought the major media into decline. But until recently, there has been no well- organized source of information which puts Net-borne information into perspective and show how it forms a pattern, particularly as regards Jewish behavior. Happily, my own website, with its compilation in the Articles of Others section, has taken a big step forward over the voluminous but poorly-culled and ill-organized rafts of articles on important subjects sequestered in different websites all over the Net. Keeping these articles organized and up-to-date is a chore which I will continue to do as long as I am able.
* Hall of Shame/'NOT Wanted' Rogue's Gallery and Hall of Fame/WANTED -- More of One of the great unexplored potentials of the Internet is keeping track of the Good Guys and Bad Guys. I have attempted to do this to a limited extent with Movement people in the Net Losses section, but there is much more that can be done in terms of keeping track of politicians and other public figures, at local, state and national levels. Unless we know who the Bad Guys are, we can't fight them very effectively; and unless we know the Good Guys, we can't give them our support. Specifically, we need a Rogue's Gallery of Bad Guys, which contains their pictures, a description of why they are bad guys, and "contact info for those who wish to dialog, picket, protest, or engage in whatever other legal means of expressing outrage our system allows." We are not just talking about the odious cabal in DeeCee, but the bad guys in every burg and hamlet in the nation. (Remember, the policies of anti-freedom and political correctness may be hatched in Washington, but they are implemented locally, and that's where it needs to be fought.) Here is something that is not that difficult to do, and could give the movement some real attention. But we need a thousand (or ten) movement people to put up sites to do the job.
* Stand up and be counted: Put your mouth (and your money) where your heart is. I find it most distressing that so many people either wish to be anonymous, or do not wish to 'expose' themselves as racialists, opponents of the NWO, and the like. America is supposed to be a free country, but people are so timid about speaking out that our forebears who wrote the First Amendment could be forgiven if they thought we had all been lobotomized. We cannot have serious free speech unless people are willing to stand up and be counted; and the fact that the great majority are not willing does not bode well for resistance to the tyranny that is surely coming down the pike. It is pitiful -- literally pitiful -- to see how people who come from 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' are neither free nor brave, but these poor piddly wimps that have about the same backbone as a chocolate pudding. Perhaps the reader might reread the quote from Churchill at the beginning of this essay for a little inspiration.
* Each one teach ten (or whatever number) This idea, from Master of Webpage Wizardry Tsun, is one which has been knocking around in my head almost from the time I became a presence on the Net. The basic idea is to use your personal influence with 10 (or however many) friends or relatives to get them to look at the issues, with the hope that they will become converts once they come into contact with the truth. If you 'convert' them, it then becomes their obligation to find 10 others who will be similarly 'educated', and bingo, the whole world is shortly informed -- or so goes the theory.
If you are going to make converts of your friends, one of the best ways may be to regularly email them stories from the Net which you pick up on enlightened websites such as (of course) the Birdman's. The downside of this is that it is slow, or that your friends may not have email access, but the upside is that it may be the most effective way of converting people. A quicker way would be to invite them over for a good movie and discussion afterward, but this movie has yet to be filmed, and should be one of the Movement's top priorities. (Another priority, I might add, is a film of the American concentration camps -- that one just might scare the hell out of a few couch potatoes.) In fact, what seems to need doing is to create a series of movies, where the first introduces the Big Picture, and the subsequent movies explore particular issues which were only touched on in the initial movie.
* Different strokes. The information war will have to be fought differently in different countries. While in America we can talk about the issues directly, other countries may require a more indirect approach that will vary with the legal climate. For example, if one is forbidden to talk about Jews, one might talk about 'those who harm us by ...' or 'those who want to give away our country to others'. One important part of such a strategy should be a discussion of the laws which prevent free speech: One can keep asking who is trying to suppress information, and what it is that they are afraid of others finding out, after which should be listed some possible candidates.
It can be argued that if Western civilization and the white race are to be saved, they must be saved here in America. Europe is the Old Country with a history of monarchy and dictatorship and a very weak tradition of individual freedom, while America was birthed by men who rejected the Old Country and her ways. What is more, Europe is home to a whole host of 'anti-racism' laws, which prevent frank discussion of the problem of race. A further important point is that Europe has never been a place congenial to the individual ownership of firearms, while in America such ownership was seen from the outset as a bulwark against tyranny. Mao correctly noted that political power flows from the barrel of a gun; so now that the populace of all Western countries, including Canada and Australia, have been disarmed except for America, we are the only white population standing in the way of complete white enslavement and capitulation to the NWO.
There is, however, a countervening point of view, to wit, that the proportional representation system of most European countries will allow a pro-West government to emerge more quickly than in America's winner-take- all two-party Tweedledumb-vs-Tweedledumber system. We see this possibility in the performance of France's National Front, Belgium's Vlaams Bok party, the British National Party, and others, each of whose main attractiveness is of a pro-West nature.
Whether the European or the American system will ultimately prove to be more fruitful it cannot now be said. It is possible, however, that the combination of their different approaches will be better than either alone: America will provide the 'free speech' necessary to educate Europeans over the Internet, while Europe will provide a political system that will give whites a fighting chance to reclaim their homeland.
But if pursuing an information war is at the center of what we should be doing, there are other important matters we must address.
* Time is of the essence. We have only a limited time to get out our message; for educated people who are schooled in the traditions of freedom and self-responsibility that have been hallmarks of America and the West are rapidly dying off, and the whites who are left are the dumbed-down de- racinated and feminized products of our publik skoolz, the Tube and the ethos of socialistic government dependency which they spread. The longer we wait to get moving on some kind of plan, the less chance it will have to succeed.
* Money talks. You can get your message out to anyone provided you are willing and able to spend enuf money. The Jewish establishment has lots of money and spends it readily on liberal -- read 'anti-white and anti- Western' -- causes. Whites, on the other hand -- not having the socialistic inclination of Jews, nor the same feeling of responsibility toward their own kinsmen -- are as tight-fisted as a Scotsman who recycles his wife's tampons, in spite of the many noises which one hears in praise of whites' 'sympathetic' and 'liberal' nature. My point -- made several times before -- is that whites are going to have to start opening their wallets while we still have the chance to get our message out. One thing which I particularly have in mind is funding specific projects such as the ones discussed in this essay -- that way, the contributors can feel that they are getting something tangible for their money, while worthy projects can get the kind of funding they need.
* Credibility. Pain is the only route to the brain, ie, as long as people don't feel pain, they won't move, and tv, liquor and other narcotics do much to insure that they will continue to feel nothing -- until it is too late. HOWEVER, the politically-incorrect information that the movement collectively possesses ought to make a lot of people pretty angry, and it is that anger which we must rely on to get people moving. To do this, however, it is vitally necessary to make ourselves credible. My own credentials give me a credibility that most others in the movement don't possess, and I plan to exploit that credibility wherever I can. But almost anyone can come across as reasonably credible if he knows what he is talking about and is careful to cite sources for his claims rather than making wild statements, profane interjections about other races, or similar capers which are bound to turn a lot of people off who might otherwise be receptive to his message.
* Organize or die. Jews are successful because they are intelligent and hard-working, as well as racially-conscious and willing to work for something greater than themselves. Whites have a huge advantage over Jews in numbers, which translates into a huge advantage in wealth and also a huge advantage in intelligence (There are ten times more Mensa-level gentiles than Mensa-level Jews in America). But in spite of these advantages, whites are dominated by Jews. Obviously there is an enormous unrealized potential in whites which can be mobilized for overcoming Jewish dominance, if we can only head the lesson which bitter experience has taught the Jews so well: Organize or die!
One point that needs to be made in the present context is that the organizational ability of whites seems to be crippled by a difficulty in getting along with others. Elsewhere I speculated that the Jews' ability to cooperate was the result of Jewish achievement which gave them greater confidence and thus made them less inclined to play ego games, including the most common one of pulling others down in order to build oneself up; but whatever the explanation, poor cooperation among whites seriously impairs the Movement -- something which means that whites cannot take advantage of their numbers, and thus they end up much like a herd of sheep who are controlled by a single dog.
The question then arises, Is it possible for us to learn better interpersonal skills? The answer is obviously Yes, but the question is How? This is a complex subject on which many books have been written, so I think it must be put aside till some future time.
What we cannot afford to put aside, however, is the need for organization. What I particularly have in mind is people who will build local organizations that are able to do things in a coordinated fashion that will make the media take notice. These might include distribution of effective literature (unlike that of the NA, which is generally regarded as crapola), local radio and TV interviews, political activity of the sorts described earlier, picketing, visiting and informing the police of what is going on, and the like. "Think globally - Act locally" is a good philosophy, with the added benefit that, by informing local people, there is less likelihood that the NWO federales can get a draconian hammerlock on the local power structure.
But how can you build an organization without coming out of the racial closet? Answer: You can't. And that is an important reason why people MUST do it. Of course there are other reasons, eg, the more people who come out, the easier it is for others to do so; and the stronger an organization, the less likely that its people will get pushed around by the Powers-That-Be.
One important factor to consider in any organizational work is the fact that lefties, and especially lefty Jews, are experts in disruption of meetings and have absolutely no shame in the kinds of things they will do. That means that security matters must be thoroughly thought out before any meetings take place. This can range from speakers collecting their fee in advance (you get paid whether you speak or not, thus giving your hosts the motive to have good security) to having participants show ID and sign statements allowing security people to use force. But the best security for most purposes is probably to stick to communications where no security is needed -- after all, people don't become converts by going to meetings, but by having the facts set out for them in a way they can understand, which is best done by videos, printed literature or the Internet.
* Don't look for a Savior -- become one! Religions of the world have given us the Savior story innumerable times (16 at last count, I believe), and from this it is obvious that people are inclined to sit around waiting for someone to transport them to heaven -- whether religious guru, Space Brothers, or some other form -- rather than doing anything themselves. But the reality is that Saviors are rare, so if you want anything done, you have to do it yourself. You may not attain the status of a Jesus, but people will often accept someone's leadership based on the simple fact that he makes things happen. And don't get the idea that leadership is 'born, not made', for raw talent -- and whites have plenty -- is no substitute for hard work, self-education, and good planning. Remember Demosthenes who put pebbles in his mouth to overcome a stutter and become one of the greatest speakers of Ancient Greece, or any of the other great white men who have proved that where there's a will, there's a way.
This is a critical moment in history, for never has there been a time when the white race has been on the cusp of extinction, and along with it the marvel of Western civilization which it has produced. The reason for this situation is not so much because of the decline of white numbers, but rather because of the decline of the white spirit -- deadened by luxury, by the idiot box, by the evaporation of religion, by the forgetting of white history and white knowledge, by the out-of-control growth of government, and above all by the effect of a race of aliens -- namely Jews -- who have not only parasitized their host, but are in the process of killing it in the apparent belief that revenging the ancient wrongs done them by gentiles is better than enjoying the fruits which this race provides in abundance to all who are lucky enuf to live in its bosom.
And if the white race is to be saved, who is to save it? The answer, dear reader, is YOU. At this moment there are only a very few who know the score. There are some -- the libertarians -- who see the danger of government; and there are many who see the unfairness and destructiveness of politically correct racial policies; but there are only a tiny number who see the destruction of our race and understand what that will mean to Western culture, and who see that this destructiveness has been fueled in large measure by Organized Jewry. That then means that you, and the small number of others who have come to the same perception as you, are the ones who shoulder the responsibility of saving our race and our civilization. It is no use to say you are not up to the task, for there simply are no others who can substitute for you. Yes, there are others whom you can convince to help you, but it is entirely dependent on you that they become informed, recruited and energized. You are, in short, a member of a tiny elite. You hold knowledge that few others possess, but which has the power to move mountains, and you hold the responsibility to get that knowledge out to others so those mountains will be moved. It is you, then, who must be the modern Moses that will lead white men out of the wilderness of ignorance of self-destruction.
If, however, the burden upon your shoulders is beginning to feel heavy, it may help to remember the words of a song familiar to many of you which begins:
"If you are worried and you can't sleep
Then count your blessings instead of sheep
And you'll fall asleep counting your blessings."
It can be argued that today in America we are not as free as we once were, but I am not sure this is quite the case. Yes, it is true that there is a great deal more government regulation of business, personal demeanor and the use of private property, but it is also true that information and speech is freer than it has ever been, thanks largely to the Internet and the collapse of sexual and religious taboos, and also the rise of racial consciousness. In fact, one could even argue that taxation and regulation of business is less debilitating to freedom than it once was: In the case of taxes, incomes are now much larger than they once were, so that even a 40% tax on incomes -- the current effective rate as calculated by many experts -- is not as difficult for the taxpayer to pay as the very tiny rates mandated by the Stamp Act and the Townshend Duties which set off the American Revolutionary War, simply because the incomes of Americans in the Colonial period were so small that even the tiniest tax was a heavy burden. As to the regulation of business, personal demeanor and private property, while the laws are much more intrusive now than even 50 years ago, much of the impulse of new laws has been to replace the ethical constraints of moribund religion which was once much more important than law in restraining people's behavior.
Now at this point many readers are probably saying, Yes, there are lots of things that can be done, but doing just one thing is only a drop in the bucket, so what use is it? The answer to this is what I call the Fun Factor: If every interested party would simply pick one thing that he thinks he would find enjoyable, a hell of a lot of things would suddenly start getting done, and the people who do these things would be rewarded not merely by knowing they are doing something constructive, but also by simply having fun. Contrariwise, one should NOT do something he DOESN'T enjoy, because he won't do it well if he doesn't enjoy it, and he won't do it very long because he doesn't. In short, if the Revolution isn't fun, don't bother with it.