On November 4, in HATE IS ALIVE AND WELL IN NEW YORK SENATE ELECTION, I talked about some Democratic ads. They said that, if Lazio was elected over Hillary Clinton, he would vote for Evil Southerners to be in leadership positions. By contrast, the ads conclude, "Hillary Clinton would represent New York."

The party in the majority in the Senate elects all the committee chairmen and other critical positions. What the ad says is that Lazio would vote for the Jesse Helmses and Trent Lotts from the hated South, whereas Clinton would vote for unspecified people outside the South. This apparently means she represents New York, which is for anything but Southerners.

In the national election, Florida's recounts made the national news, but I think we all noticed that poor little Oregon also just sat there undecided. The Northwest seems to have had a bad year because Washington State had a similar problem. The incumbent Republican Senator up there was also in a race that was too close to call.

And, as in the presidential race, it was the undecided one that made all the difference. If they lost that race, Republicans would split the Senate 50-50 with Democrats. Commentators were saying that, in that case, whoever is elected Vice President would break the tie and determine the majority.

This has actually happened once before in my lifetime. In 1952, liberal Republican Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon got upset with the Republican platform and became an independent. But when the new Senate convened in 1953, he still voted with the Republicans, splitting the Senators down the middle, 48-48. The newly installed vice president, Richard Nixon, broke the tie and gave the majority to the GOP.

But in 1955, exactly the same thing happened AGAIN! There were 48 Democrats, Wayne Morse the independent, and 47 Republicans. This time, Lyndon Johnson persuaded Morse to go to the Democrats and Johnson became Majority Leader, 49-47.

Another vote that decided the majority at the last minute was in 1931, in the House of Representatives. The Republicans won a razor-thin majority, but just enough of them died before Congress convened to give the Democrats a one-vote majority!


The media keep referring to the fact that both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and they are very close to a shooting war -- again.

Well, gosh, gang, the third world's got nukes and we may be heading for a nuclear war! Who could possibly have guessed that might happen?

The answer, of course, is "any sane person."

But in our times, Political Correctness always takes precedence over sanity.

You see, in order to keep nukes out of the hands of the third world you have to admit that the third world is not equal to the white world.

But if the third world is just as good as the white world, why are so many people so desperate to LEAVE the third world?

Political Correctness does not let you say that if the third world population takes over the first world, it will become the third world, too. So if the first world becomes the third world through immigration, we will be killing the golden goose. But that has been OK with the media until now because it will take decades for immigration to overwhelm the white world.

So we thought we could all talk about how equal everybody is and let it be a disaster for future generations, but not for us. But now that the third world has nukes WE may have to face the consequences of repeating "all men are created equal."

PC says that India and Pakistan should have those nukes because the third world has as much right to them as anybody else.

If you disagree, you're anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.


So if our cult-like community's bleak outlook is dead wrong compared with Bob's future of white designer babies, then what are we doing here? Let's just forget about all this stuff that isn't fun to think about. From my understanding, regardless of what we do or don't do, think or don't think, the future will be white since almost all parents will choose white because it is smarter and prettier.

Al Parker


THINK a minute! What is it you get here that you don't get elsewhere? One of the major things you DON'T get here is a Whitakerism, an Only True Program like Mr. Webb's newspaper. I just said to Shari:

A major part of our job may simply be to make people WANT whites to survive. The baggage here is that you think you know it will all involve dramatics, fighting, torchlight parades, or an economic collapse.

I have fund that politically interested people are exactly like generals: They are always preparing for the LAST war. That's what I call baggage.

I got Charles Issawi's permission to quote him on the first page of my first book (in my own name) thirty years ago, so I'll do it here:

"Social scientists like generals are always preparing for the last war."

The Maginot Line and the gas masks carried by soldiers early in WWII are perfect examples of how everybody was preparing for a repeat of the poison gas and trenches of World War I. So much for generals preparing for the last war. Issawi goes on to describe social scientists:

"Depression when inflation is rife, oppression when society is out of control, and the rights of minorities when the majority has lost its direction unable to assert its will."

Once again, you carry that "It's no point if collapse is not eminent" psychology EVERY other pro-white site will give you. Some will give you an Only True Program to deal with The Crisis. Others will say the Crisis is hopeless so we should all, in full self-righteousness because Lord knows we TRIED, just plain QUIT.

Unlike the CIA, I didn't care if the Soviet Empire collapsed because of increased Intelligence budgets or just fizzled out the way it did. I wasn't in it to be a dragon slayer. I just wanted the God damned (literally) thing DEAD.

I don't care if you get your drama or not. I don't care if my race is saved by Webb making a million dollars on his newspaper or by a wave of sympathy for our race's survival due to the Mantra when designer babies come along.

If you would get that baggage off your back, you would realize that one of the establishment's major anti-white gambits is whites adopting non-whites.

I am here to save my race, not to run around in jackboots.

I don't CARE whether it is a drama or not. The Soviet Empire didn't collapse in any of the dramatic scenarios anyone would have guessed. It fell out of SILLINESS. Ross Perot was not leading in the polls for the presidency because of anything dramatic. We came close to a political revolution, because that would have made opened up ALL avenues, because people had the attitude they have right now: the political system doesn't make any difference.

In fact, the baggage you are carrying is the one thing the establishment still SURVIVES on. You take them seriously. Respectable conservatives get PAID to take them seriously. All anyone remembers about Perot are his big ears. I know that Perot was not the point. The fact that he was number one in a field of three, just like Jessie Ventura who stayed in, was the critical point.

It is also a fact you will see NO ONE MENTION OUTSIDE OF THIS BLOG.

The tiny samizdat self-publications did more to bring down the USSR than the CIA EVER did. Reagan's two words, "Evil Empire" did more to bring it down than all the Tough Guys put together.

Meanwhile our entire side is bemoaning the immovable power of the geniuses that rule us, shouting about 1933 torchlight parades, and looking for a Depression like the one that brought Hitler to power. None of them even NOTICE that these geniuses have made Europe subject to an electoral bloc that hates Jews worse than Hitler did, that just brought an end to Holocaust education England.


A little while back, Dr. Rolandi sent out a copy of an email from a leftist who declared neo-Confederates to be traitors, I found one particular line fascinating

"Our group, by studying the neo-Confederates and realizing their hostility to the Statue of Liberty, the Declaration of Independence, and American democratic values in general have also come to realize one thing. RACISM=TREASON."

What is there about the Declaration of Independence or the Statue of Liberty that we are supposed to be hostile to?

Is this anti-Confederate saying we denounce the thousands of words directed against King George in the Declaration? Clearly not. Is he saying neo-Confederates object to the mention of God in the Declaration? Clearly not.

That is almost the whole Declaration, and we have denounced none of that.

What he means by "the Declaration of Independence" is actually a grand total of five words: "all men are created equal."

What he means by The Statue of Liberty is not the representation of a white woman inviting Europeans to come to America. He is talking about the inscription on that statue written by Emma Lazarus, a dedicated Zionist. Emma was giving away a country inhabited by goyim, while she dreamed of a homeland reserved for her and her fellow Jews.

If one denounces Emma Lazarus for giving America to any of the goyim who wanted it, while dreaming of her own land for Jews only, one is being "unpatriotic."