Wednesday, 28 November 2012

Jim Crow Laws

It's funny. We often hear blacks, guilt-ridden Whites and race-mixing degenerates lamenting - wailing and yammering - about the oh so evil 'Jim Crow Laws' of the American South, how terribly discriminatory and repressive they were towards the wonderful negroes. Personally, as an English observer, I had little idea what these laws were all about, or who this Jim Crow character really was. In my mind, not having done any research on the subject, I imagined Jim Crow to be some handsome, highly respected and charismatic White politician from the late 19th-early 20th century American South. A man who successfully advocated laws to protect the interests of the White American people, and ensure White hegemony in the South in particular. However, according to an online article that I read, there never was a character by the name of Jim Crow. In fact, to my surprise, in the South,  'Jim Crow' was (and perhaps still is) a pejorative term for blacks. 

As for the 'dreaded' and 'dastardly' laws themselves, it appears they were merely segregation laws intended to maintain a healthy White leadership and keep the races - as much as possible - from fraternising and cohabiting with one another. Basically to prevent the South from descending into a mongrelised, miscegenated hell-hole. Some may be inclined to ask, what is a good argument against the Jim Crow Laws? For me, that's easy. It takes no real mental strain at all. For despite the good intentions of White Southerners, these so-called 'Jim Crow' laws were totally insufficient, as they promoted segregation instead of complete separation of the races. For the only real answer to the race problem in the US, and any other (former) White country for that matter, is expulsion, repatriation and complete geographic racial separation. In a nutshell: Deportation, deportation, deportation. 

One may feel inclined to interject at this point and claim that such an idea is unrealistic, that such a massive operation is unfeasible or simply not possible. Well, to him I will say: not so. If you have ever been to a major airport in the UK, where thousands of South Asians clamour to board flights back to their motherland for holidays, family reunions and arranged marriages, you will know that such an operation is indeed very much possible. Allow yourself to imagine for a moment these non-whites being sent out on a one-way flight. Send them over first class if we have to. Send them on cruise liners. What a glorious thought. But to those defeatists that believe the cleansing of White homelands is not feasible, in that case - if you truly believe this - you are in effect declaring the very survival and advancement of the White Race to be 'unrealistic' and you might as well go and bed down with a brute - gook, piccaninny, Dravidian, Australian Aborigine, or whatever takes your fancy. Better still, lay down and die in a ditch somewhere. Seriously.

We must always remember the horrible lessons from the laboratory of India. To paraphrase the great Ben Klassen ever so slightly, I will leave you with the following thought: 

'Yes, the lesson is overwhelmingly clear to even the most naive student of history and that is: if the White Race is to be saved from mongrelization and destruction by the black cancer in our midst the only answer is to ship the blacks back to Africa from whence they were dragged by their 'chosen' slave traders.'

James Mac.

Thursday, 22 November 2012

Hypocritical Israeli Slaughter Campaign in Gaza, Observation

I could not help but raise a severe smile recently when watching the news coverage of the Israeli slaughter campaign in Gaza. The controlled news media, surprisingly, does show the terrible images of the aftermath of an Israeli air assault on Gaza, with entire families killed and maimed, and giant craters where humble Palestinian homes once stood. There were horrifying scenes of carnage and gore, maimed children with missing limbs and broken spines, and wailing from blood-soaked relatives after news was broken to them that their loved ones had perished in the onslaught.

We then skip over to a plush Jewish settlement where residents are kitted out with the latest bomb detecting devices to warn them of possible rocket attacks, and all families have their own personal bombproof panic-room. British journalists interview members of the community and they are all extremely agitated, angered and eager to express their grievances and curse the 'barbarous' Palestinians. The same Palestinians, by the way, that these Israelis refuse to acknowledge and/or refer to by their ethnic identity, claiming they don't exist and are merely Arab interlopers jumping on the anti-semitic bandwagon.

After watching the devastation of Gaza, we hear Israeli's yammering about how they have had to endure relentless Arab rocket attacks - crude things made from fertiliser - and all were scared witless, or so they claimed. The journalists were attentive and sympathetic to their 'plight'. However, I could not help but notice that the only visible damage was a couple of broken windows and a few rags of rubbish sprawled across a road some place. Yet the media wrings its hands and talks of how what is needed is a 'truce' to prevent these two groups attacking one another, or rather, so that Israel does not need to defend itself so 'vigorously' and 'assertively'.

When one concerned Israeli woman pointed to her special rocket detecting gadget on her living room table, there stood right next to it was a rather large and expensive looking vase in pristine condition. It makes you wonder - or it made me wonder - seriously, if a neighbourhood, any neighbourhood, was being literally 'rocked' by a barrage of missiles, crude or otherwise, would such a fragile ornament as this survive the ordeal? The alleged 'terrifying blasts'? Would it have survived in Gaza? Hmm... Perhaps it's just me, but I think not.

Come on, people. Is there anyone out there still so gullible - so utterly naive - that they actually believe the 'Western' press is in any way 'impartial' in this whole affair? A neutral force that just wants to report world events accurately and aspires towards justice and what is right and good for all parties? To such people I can only implore of them - do yourselves a favour: pull your heads out of your backsides and smell the reeking stench of the gefilte fish.

Ask yourselves the question: Would the media be handling such a slaughter as this with kid gloves and sensitivity if this were, let us say, the Iranian military butchering a defenceless group of people within or without their own borders? Would there be calls for mediation, understanding and a diplomatic solution towards ending the 'conflict'? Not a cat in hells chance. There would be international outrage; international condemnation; calls for sanctions, calls for a trade embargo, calls for a no-fly zone - and no doubt even calls for a full scale war to 'save the oppressed unfortunates' and overthrow the 'wicked, murderous Iranian dictatorship'. Why is this? The answer to that is so overwhelmingly obvious that only a complete idiot or ignoramus could not see it. The 'chosen' tribe of Judah rules the roost in the 'Western' world. I for one am sick and tired of this disgusting hypocrisy. Delenda est Judaica.

James Mac.

Sunday, 2 September 2012

Whose side are they on? Not ours!

HERE we have the British injustice system punishing a remorseful British veteran, Simon Parkes, far more severely than an unrepentant muslim, who openly despises British soldiers (and British society and culture no doubt) and would gleefully watch our serving troops having their limbs blown off.

It makes you wonder, whose side is the government and legal system on? Certainly not ours, that's for sure.

If a Christian or somebody of western extraction were to burn a Koran in an Islamic country, could anyone seriously imagine a Sharia court being so lenient as to let the said offender off with a small fine?

And how would justice be served to somebody like Simon Parkes after they had desecrated a mosque with the blood or dismembered head of a pig? A fine? A prison sentence? I doubt it. He would most likely meet the same fate as the pig.

Simon Parkes was of course wrong to vent his frustration in the manner that he did. He should not hate muslims for their religion, their beliefs, or the way they dress; nor for the sentiments they express.

He should be angry with those that have allowed this ridiculous situation to come about.

The fault lies not with the muslims, as repellant, barbarous and alien as they are to our land and culture, but the government and powers that be that foisted these people upon us.

Wake up and smell the gefilte fish.

As a side note, isn't this 4-month sentence a little harsh? A touch excessive? Surely a small fine or community service would be more adequate to fit the crime?

Who are the people that would support this I wonder? The same people that are wringing their hands with hysteria as they call for the release of Pussy Riot, the feminist slags who desecrated a church in Russia?

Clearly we have a hypocritical anti-White agenda.

* * * * *

I HAVE always said (and I continue to believe) that the detrimental effects of cannabis use are understated. One only has to listen to a regular cannabis user talk. They sound awful. Like a smack head just out of bed.

Let us not forget how cannabis users often appear to have a personality transplant, becoming irritable, aggravated and even violent when they do not have their fix. (Also when somebody has the audacity to contradict them!)

Yet these same people, these drug addicts, are in complete denial about the terrible effects of this drug and even go so far as to claim that it has *beneficial* qualities, 'expands the mind' and they use it for 'medicinal purposes'.

What planet are these people on? Completely delusional.

It has taken millions of years for the human mind to evolve to its present advanced state. What on earth makes these people think that by puffing away on a mind altering 'spliff' - or a 'bong' - it is going to make any kind of improvement on that? It won't. It will only destroy this wonderful miracle of creation - your very mind.

Drug addicts, do yourselves a favour: get help. Get off these stupefying, mind altering drugs before they cause any further damage.

For those that are fortunate enough not to have tried this drug yet, avoid it like the plague. You are not missing anything. In fact, you are saving your mind from destruction.

Stay away from drug addicts. Do not allow them to persuade you of the supposed 'great benefits' of this brain destroying substance. Do not ruin your precious mind as they have ruined theirs.

* * * * *

IF US and UK armed forces were not occupying and 'corrupting' Afghanistan with 'wicked', 'hedonistic' western ideas and practices, the Taliban wouldn't need to behead these people.

Yes, this slaughter is barbaric beyond words; but Afghanistan  belongs to the Afghanis - their primitive culture, customs and all. It is their country. We should not be there interfering.

The fact is, US and UK forces never should have occupied Afghanistan in the first place.

Let us get our troops out of this godforsaken hell-hole as quickly as possible and thus prevent any more lads being needlessly killed or maimed by the relentless Taliban insurgency.

Let us pull our armed forces out of Afghanistan and station them somewhere where they can serve and protect our country more effectively. Such as on our much neglected borders.

James Mac.

Saturday, 14 July 2012

Lone Masked Spartan of the Night: Driver Film Review.

I recently watched a video on YouTube in which a Rabbi (going by the name Chaim Moshe) reviewed the film 'Drive' starring Ryan Gosling and declared it to be violently 'anti-semitic'. Boring! However, I wanted to know what this film was all about, as I keep hearing about how good it is. So I asked my good friend James Steal, the uploader of this Rabbi video, to link me to the film. In short order he duly sent me a link to the film, which I appreciated greatly. James Steal is a mysterious fellow and a little antisocial, but I do like him.

I watched this film and the protagonist, 'The Driver' played by Ryan Gosling, is a mysterious character with a gift for driving and who uses his skills to work as a getaway driver and as a film stuntman. As I say, The Driver is mysterious, almost Spartan I would say. One who is reluctant to speak unless he has something worth saying. 

The character gets involved with a young mother, Irene, who is living at his apartment building. Needlessly, the makers of this film have ensured that his love interest is a pretty White woman who has a son who is of mixed-race. She is also married to some criminal Mestizo creature who is behind bars and awaiting release. Why? Why did these bastards need to do this? A slap in the face for White men is all that I can think. 

Anyway, The Driver's employer, Shannon, is involved with the 'mob' and even has the scars to prove it, as he limps from place to place because one particularly nasty piece of work, a Jewish mobster Nino, had his pelvis broken because he wasn't happy with the way he did business. Shannon has a business proposition for Nino's partner, Bernie Rose. He has a plan to put together a top of the range stock car and, as the star of the show, The Driver would do their stunts for them. Mr Rose is initially sceptical, but once he sees The Driver in action, he agrees to invest in the project. 

Back at the apartment, Irene discovers that her Mestizo husband is due for release. She doesn't appear best pleased, as she seems to have bonded quite a bit with the protagonist. Eventually The Driver and her Mestizo husband are introduced to one another and, though at first they appear frosty, they soon begin to make friends. 

A couple of days later, this Mestizo gets himself severely beaten up in front of his son by his former mobster friends because he owes them protection money and apparently refuses to go back to a life of crime. Things look bleak (at least for the mongrel - I wasn't all that unhappy) as his former associates begin to threaten his family if he does not pay up. 

However, our hero The Driver has a solution to the problem. He informs the Mestizo that he is a professional getaway driver and volunteers to help him do 'one last job' for his former associates and that would be the end of it. The Mestizo and his family would be left alone.

The Mestizo introduces The Driver to an Albanian gangster by the name of Cook, who initially seems impressed by The Driver, though sees him as a bit of a handful. They make an arrangement whereby the Mestizo and a female acquaintance (or 'moll') of the Albanian go and rob a pawn shop, with The Driver as the getaway driver, on the condition that this would be the last job and once completed, the Mestizo and his family would be left alone. 

The scene cuts to the pawn shop heist and, as usual, The Driver sticks to his rule of waiting only 5-minutes for the robbers to get in and out of the place. The pair enter the building and The Driver waits for them, keeping an eye on his watch and observing all around to ensure he is completely safe. 

Out of the blue, a mysterious and rather flash looking car with blacked out windows pulls over a couple of metres away. The Driver is instantly alarmed, but waits to see what happens. Out of the pawn shop hurriedly comes the 'moll' with a large holdall full of cash. The scene becomes very tense as they wait for the Mestizo to follow suit. A moment later the Mestizo exits the building and he appears to be home and dry when we suddenly hear gunshots. The Mestizo clasps the side of his face or neck with hand and tries to make it to the car. But a split second later, he is shot dead. 

The Driver is clearly stunned and makes a frantic getaway. But he finds himself being pursued by the flash car mentioned earlier. The driver following him appears to be gifted at the wheel also and very nearly runs them off the road. But The Driver manages to elude the pursuing car by pulling off a couple of impressive stunts. 

The moll and The Driver flee to a motel and he tries to figure out what on earth has just happened. He finds that there is far money cash on the holdall than he had expected. Clearly this was a setup. Angered and confused, he threatens to beat the filthy moll senseless if she doesn't tell him what has just happened. It appears that the moll and the Albanian had planned to double-cross The Driver and the Mestizo and keep the money for themselves. That's odd because I thought that the aforementioned had agreed to do the heist without payment in the first place. Very odd. 

Anyway, The Driver leaves the room and the moll betrays him once again by calling up the Albanians men and giving away their location. She would come to regret that phone call, as shortly afterwards the gangsters barge into the motel room with high-powered rifles and shoot her brains out. The Driver, ever anticipating danger as though having a sixth sense, realises that they are about to be ambushed. He disarms one of the gunmen, beats him to death and then kills the other intruder. With his face splattered with blood, this Driver fellow is clearly not one to be messed with. He means business and, with cash holdall in hand, sets about to find those responsible for this carnage, starting with the Albanian scum bag. 

In quick succession, he finds the Albanian and beats him with a hammer until he finds out who the money belongs to. It turns out that the money belongs to Nino, the obnoxious Jewish mobster that crippled his friend Shannon. He agrees to send the money in full back to this nasty piece of work, but Nino has already determined that he must do away with The Driver by sending one of his fellow 'chosen' (or at least 'chosen' looking) henchmen over to his apartment. We would later discover that Nino had plotted to steal the money from 'the East Coast mob' and in order not to have these people come after him, he must 'dispose' of anyone with knowledge of his involvement. However, this is The Driver he was up against. 

The henchman arrives at The Driver's apartment and the two meet in the lift. But the ever observant Driver spots that the mobster is carrying a gun, realises what he is and beats him to death by stomping his precious 'chosen' head into the floor. 

Nino is not a happy bunny. He briefs his partner, Bernie Rose, on the whole incident and reasons that he did what he did because of 'anti-semitic' abuse that he had been subjected to by the Mafia. 'They call me a Kike... right to my fucking face!' Bernie in turn is furious. He has a lot of money invested in this Driver fellow. But fearing that word could get back to the Mafia, they both agree that they must kill off anyone with knowledge of this whole affair. Bernie Rose, who looks and in fact *is* (in real life) every bit as 'chosen' as the Nino character, starts the killing by murdering the Albanian with a fork in the most gruesome fashion. Next up he confronts Shannon, who unwittingly gets himself involved in this whole debacle by asking Rose to help deal with the situation The Driver had found himself in. At first Rose appears sympathetic towards Shannon, but then reluctantly kills him by slashing his arm with a flash looking straight razor. 

The Driver later finds his mechanic boss in a pool of blood and resolves to take action against these mob people. He heads over to one of the studios where he earlier did stunt work and picks up a silicone mask that he had used during a death defying driving scene. Wearing his silicone disguise, he then locates Nino at his pizzeria, waits for him to leave, pursues him in his chauffeur driven car and eventually T-Bones him off the road and onto a beach. Nino manages to survive the crash and, injured and perhaps disorientated, makes his way towards the sea. Appearing in the moonlight like a Lone Spartan in the night, the masked Driver makes his way over to Nino and drowns him in the ocean. He then calls up Bernie Rose on Nino's mobile phone and agree to meet the mobster at a restaurant where he would hand over the money from the heist. 

In another scene, The Driver offers to take Irene and her son away with him, to a safe place out of the reach of her husbands former associates, but she refuses. So now, purely out of love for her, he aims to ensure her safety. 

He and Bernie meet at the restaurant and the mobster promises that neither he nor his associates would go near Irene or her son, just as long as he hands the money over. Outside in the car park, The Driver is just about to hand over the cash when Bernie thrusts a knife into his gut. However, he doesn't anticipate The Driver being armed and he in turn is fatally wounded. For a moment we are left thinking that The Driver is dead, but in fact he is enduring the pain from his wound in his usual stoic manner. He then drives off into the night, leaving behind Bernie Rose's corpse and the holdall of cash. 

Why he left the cash with the body I will never know. The holdall would most likely end up in the hands of the Police. Or passers by, seeing the wads of notes sprawled on the floor, would gather up the money in no time. But in the unlikely event that the mobster's associates did get hold of the cash and were aware of the people that The Driver was trying to protect, I doubt they would be inclined to keep their word (or their bosses promise as it were - which they probably were not even aware of in any case). I find it unlikely that The Driver would have any moral objection to taking the money, as he is a criminal himself. Well, whatever the case, The Driver rides off into the night without the cash and the film closes with the same catchy and ethereal music that we heard throughout the film. 

Many viewers of Drive (particularly White Loyalists) have been impressed by the leading character in this film. No doubt viewing The Driver as an Aryan Assassin who deals with the despicable 'chosen' in fitting style. For the same reason, this is why certain Rabbi's are up in arms claiming that the film is hateful, anti-semitic and encourages violence against the 'oh so chosen'. I don't see it myself. As with most of these Hollywood films, the cast, producers and others involved in the film were disproportionately 'chosen'. According to Wikipedia, Nino was initially not the sinister character that he would become. It was only when the 'chosen' actor Ron Perlman showed an interest in portraying an Italian gangster 'wannabe' did the character develop. To quote Director Winding Refn: 

'The character of Nino was originally not particularly interesting, so I asked Ron why he wanted to be in my movie when he's done so many great films. When Ron said, "I always wanted to play a Jewish man who wants to be an Italian gangster", and I asked why, and he said, "because that's what I am -- a Jewish boy from New York", well, that automatically cemented it for me.'

This sounds to me like a director pandering to a 'chose's' desires, rather than deliberately setting out to be 'anti-semitic'. The Rabbi's criticism is unfounded. The question I would ask is, who was this director trying to impress upon by needlessly putting racially mixed relationships into the story? That ruined much of this film for me.

James Mac.

Tuesday, 26 June 2012

The Spiritual and Cultural Desert of Modern Day Britain

Just the other day I got reading the blog of right-wing journalist Peter Hitchens and I found out that he had been a Question Time panelist on the 14th of this month. As I do not watch television very often and because I haven't checked out the iPlayer page for this program in a while, I had missed out on viewing it. So I went up to the BBC website and watched the episode in question.

One of the questions asked by an audience member was words to the effect of, 'Do any of the panelists know any poetry by heart and if so, have any of you ever been able to use this poetry in a practical situation?' 

Instantly the audience burst out into a rowdy, mocking laughter. Apparently the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, recently suggested that school children should learn poetry by heart as part of their education. David Dimbleby then, just for a giggle, set the panel the challenge of reciting a poem. 

The first person to be challenged was a Tory politician, the 'chosen' Minister for Housing and Local Government, Grant Shapps. This is a fellow who was once a youth leader for the B'nai B'rith Youth Organisation. He chose to recite 'Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star', much to the amusement of the audience. I am pretty sure he could have recited a couple of those anthems from the youth organisation. 

Most of the other panelists were quite dismissive of the whole idea also, saying that politicians shouldn't be getting involved with education. We should leave it to the teachers and children should be taught things that are of more practical use, they said. 

The Labour politician on the panel, Emily Thornberry, suggested that the only good reason why we should study history is in order to help prevent us from making the same mistakes as our forebears. That is a typical Marxist attitude I think and we know where it leads. These people only want to focus on the negative side of our history, to undermine our heritage. To portray our ancestors as uncouth, underhanded and barbarous. The thought of focusing on the happier chapters of our history that tell us about our racial character, fill us with racial and national pride and which we can use as a positive guide for the future is unthinkable to these people. 

They would rather our children were taught about the 'terrible Tudors', focusing on Henry VIII's wives and how he 'enjoyed' beheading many of them. Of Shakespeare's history plays, they would sooner have students study Richard III so that they can demonise our (former) nobility as little more than murdering gangsters. That anybody would suggest the children study such national heroes as Henry V - perish the thought. 

And so it goes, that if you were to ask the average English youth if they know or have even heard of Henry V, for example, or if they they could recite a line from Shakespeare's great play about his exploits in France, he or she would most likely give you the deer in the headlights look and then mock you for even bringing up the name of such personalities as the Bard. 

And heaven forbid you dare to recite from any of Shakespeare's great works. Most of the befuddled, ignorant and illiterate youth of our country would think you are an escapee from a lunatic asylum. They would most likely point and laugh you out of the room before you could finish a single verse, then invite their friends over to laugh you down the street. That is the unfortunate mentality of the average student that have been subjected to an 'education' at these brain pollution centres they call schools. And these social-marxists are happy to keep it that way.

Anyway, back to Question Time, after most of the panel had derided the idea of learning about the more beautiful aspects of our cultural heritage, the audience decided to wade in, with one Marxist looking young school teacher mockingly declaring that the learning of poetry in schools would be a pointless endeavour, a waste of time for the schoolchildren. To quote the silly cow: 'Making them sit down and recite poems would just be a waste of my time and a waste of their time.' This mindless drivel was met with a round of applause from the audience and mumbles of agreement from many on the panel. 

At this point I sat there at my computer feeling ever so slightly embarrassed and deflated about my passion for English literature and culture in general. I reflected to myself for a moment, 'Perhaps I really am just one of these out-of-date oddballs that appreciate our heritage - our poetry, our literature, music, traditional art and architecture?' One has to reassure ones self in these degenerate times.  

However, the one person that Dimbleby seemingly ignored asked if it was his turn to recite a poem, or 'pass this test' as he put it. This one individual was none other than Peter Hitchens. He then proceeded to give a moving recital of 'Into my heart an air that kills' from Alfred Edward Housman's 'A Shropshire Lad'. I was so touched by it that I instantly vowed to learn this poem for myself. 

Shockingly, this recital was met with a (albeit lukewarm) round of applause and Hitchens proceeded to give an impassioned monologue about the importance of having our minds 'furnished with beauty' and that having knowledge of our cultural heritage (our *real* cultural heritage, not this multicultural rubbish that has been slopped onto us) is a fundamental - 'profound' - part of being British. 

I am not a huge fan of Hitchens, as he is a typical right-wing reactionary 'conservative' type who incredibly - unbelievably - has got it into his head that Jewish Christianity is the only salvation for our country and thus he is useless. His racial heritage (and thus true allegiance) is very questionable also. But I must give him due credit, this speech of his was absolutely fantastic. I felt compelled to post a comment on his blog congratulating his performance:

'I just watched Question Time on iPlayer and thought your recital and speech about the importance of being familiar with our national literature was absolutely magnificent. I couldn't believe what I was hearing when I listened to these other panelists and teachers in the audience mocking our heritage. I think that somebody should upload a video exposing each of these sneering degenerates and then finish it with your fantastic monologue.'

The moment I posted the above comment, I went and did a search on YouTube to see if I could find an excerpt from this episode of Question Time so that I could share it with other like-minded people. Much to my surprise, I found more or less exactly what I had asked for in the above comment. The video was most appropriately titled 'Peter Hitchens vs. Educational Philistines'. Another could have been 'The Spiritual Desert of Modern Day Britain'. However, my only problem with this upload is that it did not contain the idiotic 'Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star' remark from that 'chosen' guest on the panel. Never mind, it is an excellent clip nonetheless that I would recommend to anyone. This is the state of degenerate, 'modern' day Britain. 

'England, bound in with the triumphant sea, Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame, With inky blots, and rotten parchment bonds: That England, that was wont to conquer others, Hath made a shameful conquest of itself. Ah! would the scandal vanish with my life, How happy then were my ensuing death.' 

One has to ask, was the Bard a prophet? :-/

James Mac.

Tuesday, 12 June 2012

A Choice of Terms

Aryan, White Race, or White Volk?

No matter what nomenclature is selected, none of the above accurately describes the group of people for whose survival, expansion and advancement Creativity is waging an all-out battle. Since there is no one and only, it is therefore more a matter of choosing the most appropriate term to describe that select group of humanity that is Nature's Finest. Should we refer to them as Aryans, or as the White Race, or perhaps as the White Volk?

In all my writings I have rejected from the very beginning of Creativity the "Aryan" terminology as being completely inadequate. And the reason I have done so is because the term is so vague, so nondescript as to be meaningless. Like the much bandied about word "spirit", when critically examined, nobody knows what it is, or what they are talking about. Like the "spirit" idea, why make such a big to-do about something when you don't even know what that something is? (See 'What is a Spirit?" Racial Loyalty, Issue No. 29.) So it is with the term Aryan. What does it mean? Nobody knows. If so, why use it?

The word Aryan, is a technical term, derived from the Sanskrit arya, or the Zend airya. In later Sanskrit arya means "of a good family." In modern usage the word has become a fictitious concept, a meaningless word, that has done more to confuse our racial identity and biological heritage than it has to clarify or enhance it.

The word Aryan has been brought into prominence in the latter part of the nineteenth century, by such writers as Arthur Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and in the twentieth century, by Hitler's ideological mentor, Alfred Rosenberg, and others. However, it was the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany that really made it a household word, a word that had become extremely emotionally charged and highly controversial. It has remained such ever since, and has the connotation of somehow being part of the Nazi idea, if not their sole invention. Yet, nobody really defined it specifically, not even Rosenberg or Adolf Hitler.

What then, if anything, does it mean?

Does it encompass all of the "White Race"? No, emphatically, it does not if it has any meaning at all. It excludes large segments of it. It would by and large exclude the Slavs, most of the Italians, the Spaniards, the Rumanians, large segments of the French, and even of the Germans and the Austrians, to name a few. It is doubtful that even the exemplary British would qualify as being Aryan, since English is not considered to be an Aryan language. A stinking, black Hindu or Pakistani could technically be considered as being more Aryan than a solid White Anglo-Saxon.

Does Aryan mean the same thing as the Nordic? When we talk of Nordics, we recall an image of blonde haired and blue eyed peoples, a dying species, such as are still found in northern Germany, in Holland, the Scandinavian countries, and to a diminishing degree, even in the United States. But are the words Nordic and Aryan synonymous? By no means. By such definition, even Hitler would not be an Aryan, since although he had blue eyes, he certainly was not blonde. Nor would that foremost propagandist of the Nazi idea, Joseph Goebbels, qualify. He was a dark, physically diminutive and poorly constituted individual, certainly a far cry from the Nordic ideal. Nor were many other luminaries of the Nazi hierarchy, such as Heinrich Himmler and a host of others. Nor were such notable Fascist leaders as Mussolini of Italy, nor Francisco Franco of Spain, blonde haired and blue eyed. So it would be idiotic to use the two terms, Aryan and Nordic, interchangeably.

Again, when we examine the term Aryan, we get pushed further and further into the negative position of what it is not. Like the term "spirit", every time I ask a preacher what it is, he keeps postulating and expounding in an endless harangue of what it is not, never what it is.

Let us go back to as neutral a ground as we can possibly find, a source that carries some weight of authority, and one that goes back to the time prior to when Hitler and the Nazi movement made the word Aryan an emotional, a partisan and a controversial word. Let us go back to Volume II of the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA, New American Supplement, 20th Century Edition, 1904. This is probably the most intellectual, factual and unbiased set of books available, compiled at a time before the Jew got his slimy hands on the company and managed to corrupt and render worthless the succeeding editions. Here is some of the information it provides.

ARYAN, a technical term, applied to one of the great families of language, which extends from India to Europe, and which, for that reason, is called INDO-EUROPEAN. Friedrich Schlegel, who first recognized the family relationship of these languages (Die Sprache and Weisheft der Indier, 1808) assigned to them the name INDO-GERMANIC, a name still used by preference by many scholars in Germany.

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA then goes on to criticize both of these terms as being inaccurate and completely inadequate. It recalls other attempts to define this group of languages, such as Indo-Celtic, and Indo-Classic, since there are many languages in Europe that do not belong to this family. Other alternatives have also been offered, such as Sanskrit and Japhetic. However Encyclopedia Brittanica rejects both of these as also being inaccurate. Sanskrit would imply that all members of this family would be derived from Sanskrit, which is not true. Japhetic would seem to revive the Jewish conception of the three ancestors of the human race Shem, Ham and Japhet. This, as I have pointed out repeatedly, is based on an idiotic Jewish fairytale and must be rejected out of hand by any thinking, intelligent individual (See "The Story of Noah" Racial Loyalty, Issue No. 38.) Another term in an attempt to classify these languages is INDO-IRANIAN, as comprehending the language of India and Persia, which constitute the south-eastern as distinct from the north-western (Greek, Latin, Celtic, Teutonic, Slavonic) branch of the family. (We again quote from Encyclopedia Brittanica.)

Encyclopedia Brittanica goes on to say that the word Aryan became popular because it was short, it was of foreign origin (therefore had an exotic ring, presumably) and it covered a whole range of unexplained misconceptions. Nowhere in its long dissertation does Encyclopedia Brittanica ever even imply that it describes any race of people, or any biological group. It merely attempts to group a family of languages, and even in this it fails badly.

Are we therefore any closer in defining the word Aryan as a racial term? No, far from it. It is at best a confusing and misleading term for language groups and even in this category it fails miserably.

We now come to the present day scene in America and find such groups as the Nazis and Identity people and the Aryan Nations, trying to capitalize on this word. But they, too, have never attempted to tell us what it means. The Nazis take for granted that since Hitler, Rosenberg, and the Nazi movement used it extensively, we all should know what it means. But as I have already pointed out, they too left it in a vacuum and left the world as confused about its meaning as have the Christian preachers about the word "spirit".

With both, the preachers and the Nazis, it is a case of trying to hang a whole battleship on a flimsy coathook.

Strangely, the Aryan Nations and the Identity people take a completely different tack from that of the Nazis. They claim we the Aryans, are descendants of the ten "lost" tribes of Israel, who somehow, about 1000 B.C.E., barged into Europe and settled a vacant continent, and now we White peoples are the true Israelites, the chosen of God. This idea is so preposterous, so contrary to the real facts of history, that it hardly needs further refutation. (See Racial Loyalty, Issue No. 32 "White Men Wandering in the Wilderness".) It could only appeal to those poor individuals whose minds have been deranged by an overly massive dose of Jewish-Christian mind manipulation to the point where they themselves would like to become Jews.

So much for the term Aryan. In my writings since the inception of Creativity (and even before) I have consistently used the term the White Race, because I consider it vastly superior to the term Aryan. However at the same time. I have repeatedly admitted that it is far from perfect in describing Nature's Finest. It is, at best, an approximate term, not an accurate definition, but it does have real meaning in that it differentiates us from the mud races - the niggers, the Semites, the Hindus, the Indians and the Orientals. Like the Atlantic Ocean, its boundaries in some areas are vague and undefined, but nevertheless, everybody knows what and where the Atlantic Ocean is. So it is with the White Race, which although technically does not have enough cohesiveness in its genes to even be defined as a race at all, nevertheless, everybody knows what the White Race is, especially so its multitude of enemies, the mud races.

So we have chosen to run with this term, the White Race, because we believe it is the best there is. You will notice that on the cover of this book I use the term The White Volk. The word Volk is a German word that has a meaning similar to the word people, yet it has more of an ethnic connotation than the English word. Hitler used it repeatedly in his speeches and writings (Das Deutsche Volk) and whereas it also is not the perfect word, it is more accurate in the meaning we wish to convey than the word race. I point out this distinction in answer to those critics who will critique us that technically the White Race is not a race at all. In this they are correct, and for them I have substituted the world Volk as an alternative.

Nevertheless, accurate or not, I still believe the term White Race is the best there is, that it is most widely accepted and understood, and we Creators will continue to use it as our standard terminology. When we succeed in persuading the White Race that it has a wonderful legacy in its genes to pass on to future generations; that it has every right to claim this Planet Earth for its very own; that when it embraces Creativity as its own natural religion and practices Eugenics as inherent in such religion, then the time will come when the White Race will truly be a race in its finest biological sense and the undisputed master of this Planet.

Thursday, 5 April 2012

Is Religion Evil or Beneficial?

And the Futility of the 'Humanist' (Social Marxist)
Atheist Movement

I am sure most of you will be familiar with the many so-called 'militant atheists' that seem to be overly represented on the Internet. From hundreds of websites to blogs, and especially on video sites such as YouTube, these activists are tireless in promoting the message that 'religion is evil', barbaric, a throwback to the stone age.

You most probably have an image in your mind as to what these people are like. The type that just love to shout and holler about the stupidity and ludicrousness of 'creationism', religion, and how such gullible believers in the supernatural need to extricate themselves from delusion and embrace science and 'reason'.

They also boast that atheists are 'winning the battle' against the 'religious crazies'. All well and good you might think… that is, until you learn of the less than savoury agendas that these people are often trying to push. Such as homosexuality and other sexual deviancy that the vast majority of us are repulsed by.

So, is all religion the heinous force that these people claim it is? And are the secular humanists of the 'godless movement' truly winning the battle in their 'war on god'?

Only recently, on the 24th March 2012, there was an event held in Washington D.C., which went by the provocative title of the 'Reason Rally'. I assume this choice of title is meant to send a message to those who may not agree with these paragons of enlightenment - agree with us or you are 'unreasonable'. How about that to rub you up the wrong way?

The gathering featured some of the most prominent, 'leading atheists' from around the world (an 'all-star, international line-up', as a certain Internet activist, Mr. Philip (Thunderf00t) Mason, put it) who were to give godless sermons to a crowd of (so they claim) around 20,000 of their most dedicated fellow heretics, howling about the evils of 'religion' and praising the benefits of a 'secular' society. The event was hailed as the 'Woodstock for atheists and sceptics'.

The line-up, according to various online sources, included such reprobates as Eddie Izzard, the transvestite and alleged comedian; television host and all-round anti-White worm Bill Maher; Tim Minchin, who appears to be some kind of mascara wearing hipster and (again) alleged comedian (of whom, I must confess, I had never seen or heard of before viewing a certain video clip promoting this rally); that big mouthed, oversized, irritating illusionist Penn Jillette (who should keep to his day job in my opinion), various politicians, social commentators and many other so-called 'hip' and 'trendy' celebrities from the world of entertainment.

And, of course, keynote speaker, the author of 'The God Delusion' and 'lion' of the 'atheist movement', was none other than Richard Dawkins himself. All rejoiced that they were 'winning the battle' for hearts and minds in the name of atheism.

This event had been promoted on the web for quite a while (with activists offering a chance to win a three course meal with Richard Dawkins, etc.), so I had been aware of it for the last couple of months, though quite honestly I tried to ignore it. But after watching a nauseating - yet breathtakingly laughable - presentation on YouTube, where many of these nerdy, weak looking specimens (activists and supporters) showed such emphatic optimism for their 'unholy cause' (a cause that is, I believe, surely *doomed to failure*), I couldn't resist expressing my thoughts to these people:

About how they are completely delusional if they think they could 'win the battle' against 'religious crazies', especially with a one world, pro-deviancy world view that encourages all the scum of the third world to proliferate, invade former-White homelands, bringing with them the 'gods of their far-off lands' (namely Islam), their superstitions, their prejudices, their diseases and - worst of all - contaminating our precious White gene pool with their filthy seed…

How many of the participants at this event (both the crowd and the speakers) appeared to be the kind of degenerates that most normal, decent people frown upon and are disgusted by. Or if they are not disgusted, they certainly do not feel comfortable having their agendas rammed down their throats…

And of course, how broadcasting themselves as the epitome of progressive thinking - despite promoting degenerative lifestyles, race-mixing etc. - would surely anger many people.

I argued that such a mentality was intentionally divisive and would undoubtedly lead more traditionalist and moral minded people to side with the 'religious crazies', whether they are into spook chasing or not.

That inevitably provoked a barrage of foulmouthed responses from these 'disciples of reason'. Predictably, the rabid - frothing at the mouth -hyenas, that we might call 'militant (social-marxist) atheists,' shouted me down with their usual invective and down-thumbed my comments into oblivion.

However, truly, it does seem that these people are - guided, of course, by the largely 'chosen' intellectuals - happy to stoke the flames of such dissension, which their activism will inevitably lead to.

So, remind me again, how on earth do these people intend to prevail? Both in this sea of racial madness and their obnoxious posturing? Sounds like a recipe for disaster - and even genocide to me.

Regarding the 'humanist atheist' argument that 'all religion' has a detrimental effect on a society, I cannot help but disagree. We must remember, religion and the affinity of mankind for religion is an inborn trait with which Nature has endowed us, and is inbred in our genes. Obviously if we are talking about the Abrahamic religions (the favourite and most unchallenging punchbag of the atheist), such as parasitic Judaism (detrimental to us!), race-mixing Islam and suicidal ('love your enemies', 'give all you have to the poor') Christianity, then, of course, there would be little argument and I would have to agree, they are bad religions - especially for White people, the only people I am concerned about.

However, if we are talking about a *Racial Religion*, such as the one and only, true and revolutionary White Racial Religion *Creativity* - which is based on the eternal laws of Nature, history, logic and common sense - and whose adherents strive for the redemption and resurrection ('survival, expansion and advancement') of the White race, then clearly it is a benign and beneficial religion - again, for White people, that is.

Religion is like fire - it can be both evil or it can be benevolent, depending on how you use it. Or as the Great Founder of Creativity, Ben Klassen, put it:

'Religion, like fire, is a powerful force, but, like fire, it can be either constructive or destructive depending on how it is used, by whom, and on whom.'

Actually, it can be argued that the fanatical ('humanist') atheism, as espoused by the likes of Sam Harris, Eddie Izzard, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Fry and the many entertainers, comedians and other celebrities, is every bit the bad 'religion' that they so fervently seek to overthrow. They are certainly as dogmatic as any other religion, even though its adherents claim to be 'free thinkers'.

So though I think we White Loyalists can agree with the 'atheists' that the spooks in the sky is a lot of piffle - and Richard Dawkins indeed lays the argument out so eruditely in 'The God Delusion' - that is where our similarities end. The world view of these people is dominated largely by (Jewish) 'humanism', which is - to put it mildly - completely at odds, is hostile to the racial loyalist position, even though many of those who identify as 'humanists' may actually agree with us (at least behind closed doors) on the issue of racial differences and so forth.

As these people do not embrace the racial loyalist position - let alone even come close to addressing the 'chosen' question - they are doomed to failure regardless of how flawless and 'reasoned' their argument about the non-existence of spooks and the supernatural. In fact, this entire so-called 'reason' movement is completely dominated by Jews and Jewish thought. To confirm this, one only has to type in 'The 25 Most Influential Living Atheists' or the 'FFRF honour board' into the Google search engine. There you will see a practical Jewish wedding of academics - who are all (rather strangely one might think - at least to the uninitiated) intensely proud of their Jewishness. Those that are not Jewish will be completely under the influence of the chosen tribe and the most fanatical apologists for them. And that is only scratching the surface.

So in conclusion, it is plain to see that the 'atheists' are never going to succeed in converting, for example, the masses of the muslim world to their way of thinking. Actually, it is clear that the more non-whites (especially the more primitive variety) that enter former White ('western') countries, the more prevalent and powerful such backward religions as Islam and Christianity become. So they will never be able to tackle these vital issues, whether it be spook craft, militant Islam or anything else - unless they come to grips with that most urgent issue of all - the issue of race! That and the Jewish question. Until these 'atheists' see through Jewish lies - and that is looking like a near impossibility, so befuddled are they - they will continue to be led by the nose into pointless, phoney causes. So extinction it is.

What we White people of the world actually need is not humanist atheism - as espoused by Dawkins, Sam Harris, the now deceased Christopher Hitchens (etc.) and their largely degenerate and befuddled fan base - or even a nationalist political ideology. What we most desperately need is a *Racial Religion* of our own. That racial religion is *Creativity.*

With our religion, Creativity, we have no desire to convert the masses of the third world to our way of thinking. In fact, they have *absolutely* no place in our future - not if we can help it. We seek only to spread the gospel of White Racial Loyalty to White people and White people exclusively, wherever they may live upon the face of this planet. We also have no interest in promoting sexual deviancy or any other immoral and degenerative lifestyle. What we promote is simply healthy White families, up-breeding of the White Race through eugenics and all round Salubrious Living.

If we can take anything from the 'militant atheists', it is - dare we say - their religious zeal. They are fanatical in promoting their ideas, degenerate or otherwise. We must do likewise. We must be tireless. We must be assiduous, dogged and indefatigable in promoting the holy message of White Racial Loyalty. If we do not do this - quite simply - *we are doomed!* We will be condemned to the scrapheap of evolution along with these muddleheaded 'atheists'.

'We now have a religion of our own, a White Man’s religion, established for the survival of the White Race, for the White Man’s benefit. It is called Creativity. Since religion is like fire, let us make sure we utilize ours to burn down the treacherous facade that is being used against us, and to fuel our own engines to steamroller the Jews and other mud races out of our culture.' (Ben Klassen - On the Brink of a Bloody Racial War.)

Read Natures Eternal Religion today and embrace *your* racial religion - Creativity.

Saturday, 4 February 2012

A Rather Pointless Debate.

I recently watched a DEBATE between renowned 'atheist' Christopher Hitchens and (the rather 'chosen' looking) Christian 'apologist' William Lane Craig. The debate took place at the Biola College, an evangelical Christian university, near Los Angeles California.

Although this Craig fellow used the same old 'creationist' trick of posing a series of unanswerable questions about the cosmos and declaring that this is a good reason to believe in the Jewish Bible and its super-spook, Yahweh, he certainly showed Hitchens to be, yet again, well out of his depth intellectually.

For one thing is certain, Hitchens is no scientist and can hardly be regarded as an academic. As one commentator correctly remarked, he is just a loudmouthed journalist. He is a man who, when the chips are down, relies purely on his rhetorical skills. It is yet another example where this rather piggish looking alcoholic is whipped by his opponent. So much for the 'unchallenged intellect'.

For at least this Craig fellow appeared to have an idea what he was talking about, although so proficient was he with his - rather questionable and irritating - verbiage that one couldn't help but get the impression that it was indeed well rehearsed. He so eloquently argued for a religious belief system that is quite clearly primitive and has no place in a world that is *supposedly* striving towards progress.

However, one got the impression that this entire debate was utterly pointless, as to believe in the worldview of either one or the other - with the ideology propounded by both speakers - would certainly not be conducive towards the progress of humanity. We would still be on the road to genetic degradation and oblivion. Both world views - Christianity and Marxist-humanism - are 'chosen' to the core. In fact, both speakers in this debate practically are 'chosen': Hitchens a proud mischling and Craig having the 'chosen' tribe written all over his face.

James Mac.

Saturday, 7 January 2012

The Iron Lady - Review

Film biopic telling the life story of the notorious Margaret Thatcher, starring Meryl Streep in the role of Maggie and Jim Broadbent playing her now deceased husband, as the eccentric buffoon, Denis Thatcher.

The Iron Lady tells us of Thatcher's rise, from her early aspirations to become an MP after graduating from Oxford, to the height of her turbulent years in power as Prime Minister.

Even before watching this film, I got the impression that it wouldn't exactly be the most flattering pro-Thatcher production. After all, the film industry isn't exactly renowned for its strong conservative leanings. And I suspected even further that it would be a hatchet job when I heard that Lady Thatcher and her family turned down an invitation to the film premiere in London.

So when the film opened showing Thatcher as an old codger suffering from senile dementia; having flashbacks about her days in office, and hallucinations about her dead husband Denis, conversing with him every time she was left alone, my suspicions were confirmed. I can't say I was especially surprised. I also thought it was amusing how her daughter, Carol (Olivia Coleman), was portrayed as a bumbling caricature of the real person, with her speech impediment and all.

It was interesting to see the young Margaret, played excellently I thought by Alexandra Roach, starting out as a geeky young girl with a Lincolnshire/Yorkshire accent, working as a shop assistant in her fathers grocery shop in Grantham. It appears that her father became her inspiration to get into politics, as he appeared to be an active and very passionate member of the community, even becoming Mayor of Grantham.

When the young woman graduates from Oxford and decides to become a candidate for office, it is actually quite adorable to see the transformation in her accent, from a northern lass into an affected received pronunciation. It clearly demonstrates that this was a woman with ambition and was something that her future husband found rather amusing - as well as attractive.

We are taken through Thatcher's years following her first elections to become an MP, to her time in the cabinet, and then her candidacy to become leader of the Conservative party. It was again amusing to watch her being groomed for leadership, with yet more elocution and public speaking lessons. There's no doubt there were certain people at the time who invested a lot of money in her. She was clearly far more glamorous than the miserable old sods that were then leading up the Tory party. You could not help but get a sense that these people represented a country in decline, so Thatcher was presented as a breath of fresh air. Something to be optimistic about.

It was not at all surprising, however, that there is little mention of the 'chosen' figures that influenced much of her outlook at the time. Particularly as regards to economics, that she learnt whilst at the Institute of Economic Affairs. Characters such as Arthur Seldon that were the disciples of Friedrich von Hayek. And let us not forget Keith Joseph, the power behind the thrown of Thatcherism. The documentary 'Tory! Tory! Tory!' documents much of this. But this wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary. This is the norm as far as these treasonous careerists are concerned.

Once in power, we see a lot of historical footage from much of the Nineteen Eighties, from the Falklands War to strikers riots and police brutality. We also get a proper feel for the boisterous and somewhat intimidating atmosphere of the House of Commons.

Much of the historical events that followed, from the Brighten Hotel Bombing to the Falklands Conflict, really makes you want to look into these happenings in further detail. Thatcher's handling of the Falkland Crises certainly gave you the impression of a resolute individual who was not afraid to act. Her declaration to 'Sink it!' when referring to the Belgrano shows her as a decisive (though cold hearted) individual, while her cabinet are shown to be very reluctant and weak. There is also certainly a very jingoistic streak in the woman as she tried to arouse the country to support her endeavours - and keep her in office.

Towards the end of her time as the head of the government, she is shown to be an obnoxious megalomaniac with little tolerance for what she sees as a very incompetent cabinet. From there on out, she is on her way down, as loyalty from her colleagues begins to wane. It is most peculiar that we do not see or hear from Norman Tebbit in this film, as he was a leading personality at the time and I am sure his character would have made the film far more interesting.

Though Streep is highly convincing in many respects, though not too dissimilar to the Spitting Image caricature, her performance gives you the impression of a woman who was completely in denial about her own femininity. An arch feminist if you will. She mocks those who act on their 'feelings', a common trait amongst women, and vows never to end her days washing a teacup. A woman constantly trying to prove that she was worthy of a place in a male dominated world.

There were many excellent scenes from this film that had me laughing out loud. The acting from Streep, Broadbent and the young Margaret was more than passable, though I felt that in many respects the characters they portrayed were, again, mere media caricatures of the real people. Enjoyable nevertheless. I would highly recommend it, for entertainment value if nothing else.

James Mac.