White Slavery

Alex Jones of Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com, and Michael Hoffman, author of Judaism Discovered, discuss some of this little known history. Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four.

The Founders Knew Latin

Larry L. Beane II, at LewRockwell.com, reminds us:

The founders of the American Republic knew their Latin.

That is why they carefully chose the word "federal." In James Madison's original draft of a proposed new Constitution (the "Virginia Plan"), the word "national" was used to describe the proposed new Union. However, this word was explicitly rejected by the Constitutional Convention, specifically because the founders did not see the United States as a "nation" but rather as a "federation." Their vision was for the United States to be a union of sovereign states as opposed to a consolidation of the states into "one nation, indivisible" – and this reality is embedded in the very word "federal."
...
Latin is thankfully for the most part a "dead language." It is not subject to political mutation and manipulation. It means what it says.

The word "federal" comes into English from the Latin word foedus (genitive: foederis). And in this light, there is no ambiguity whatsoever when it comes to what the founders meant by rejecting the word "nation" and replacing it with the word "federal." When one understands this, all the clever and pompous pronouncements from academicians and government bureaucrats (who want Washington, DC to plan and manage every aspect of our lives) fall by the wayside. For the word "foedus, foederis" [as a noun - r.m.] means: "a league, treaty, charter, compact."

Thus, federal governance is, by very definition, a compact. The Constitution is a compact. The Union is a compact – not a nation. The founders knew their Latin even as most of our modern-day "educators" and bureaucrats do not. Coincidentally, Jefferson Davis's middle name was "Finis," Latin for "end" or "boundary." His generation's passing marked the end of education that emphasized Latin and history and classical ideals, and the beginning of Big Government's brand of "public schools."

Today, very few people are in a position to even know that the Federal government is, by definition, a compact. Most give it no thought at all.

Correctum est, Larry, bene dictum. Nation does not at all mean government or state; there are other words for those concepts. Nation comes from Latin natio, meaning nation, people, birth, or race. Tangentially, the Latin word gens, strongly related to our word gentile, means nation, family, or clan.

Up until the Tribe and big business took over the West, this was basic, elementary information, learned by everyone who completed sixth grade grammar.

Also, the adjective foedus means ugly, coarse, vile, or disgraceful. That can't be just a coincidink. I think the gods are laughing at us.

Who's a Jew?

Incogman offers some helpful guidance.

First off, let’s make this one thing perfectly clear. When you see the word “Jew” around here, technically I mean “Talmudic Khazars.” Sound complicated? Yeah, it does, but it shouldn’t. These people use the confusion about all this on Whites and to hide themselves behind. And that’s easy for them to do, since they actually believe internally that they are the Jews of the Bible. It doesn’t take much acting to play the part, if that’s what you’ve been raised to think from the get-go!

“No population remains pure over a period of thousands of years… But the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its descendents.”

— Ashkenazi Jew Professor Shlomo Sand, “When and How the Jewish People was Invented”

Furthermore, the term “Judeo-Christianity” is a complete non-sense word because, soon after Christ, Judaism has really been the worship of the Talmud and not the Old Testament of the Bible (the Torah displayed in Synagogues is merely symbolic, a totem no longer even read). And the word “anti-Semite” is a oxymoron as well, since the majority of Jews are descendants of a non-Semite people from the steppes of Eurasia — far from the Semitic peoples of the Middle East! Even the word “Jew” did not exist until the 1700’s. This messed-up situation is due to a long-ago transfer of a religious “Meme” (more below).

These “Jews” are a non-Semitic people, a Mongol/Turkish group called the Khazars of the Caspian sea area, who long ago converted to Judaism. Eventually, to get rid of them, Christian Russia moved them into an area of southern Poland and Russia called the Pale of Settlement. Some of them migrated into Germany (which accounts for the German in the Yiddish language) and other Eastern European areas like Hungary and ... more >>.

If you want to understand Talmudism in all its gory details, read Michael Hoffman's book, Judaism Discovered.

Americans are not ready to secede

Alex Jones does his best Glenn Beck impersonation here, and I don't blame him.

Old Rebel wonders what would happen if your state secedes. My reply:

I cannot see any state actually pulling out of the union. Firstly, the main driver of our entire civilization now is money. Cut it off and the sheeple will beg to be admitted back. They could not live 24 hours without modern conveniences -- they would crack emotionally. All their politics and understanding of society and civilization are based on money; they simply have no other conception of what real independence or civilization might be about. Threaten them with loss of funds and they'd fold.

Secondly, even if a state did secede, it would be back in deep guano before morning because the underlying behavior that caused the original problems will not have changed. We have become, by and large, an extremely stupid and lazy people. Millions of conservatives will talk big, stockpile food and weapons, wave the flag at little girl tea parties, blah, blah, blah. But almost none have any intention of changing their idiotic, selfish behavior.

After secession they would immediately shoot themselves (and everyone around them) in the feet spiritually, economically, educationally, and politically. They would blindly follow liars like Insanity, Gingrinch, et al, right back into the black pit because their understanding of history and politics is at the elementary grade school level or worse. Exempli gratia: The RedTeam fanatics are the morons who were guffawing at Ron Paul's Constitutional stance and were clamoring for a police state just a few months ago. They hardly know what the Constitution really says or what the Founders said, and they don't really care -- they just want their political power turned back on.

And the BlueTeam? Ha!

No, no secession; or at least, not a successful one. I have no faith in or hope for the American people whatever. We are far, far less capable of ruling ourselves today than we were 200-300 years ago. There are millions of blogs by now complaining about our situation, but way too few people or organizations doing anything substantive about it.

Look inside our homes. Even though parents say the popular culture is pure filth, they pump hours of it into their homes every day, paying hundreds or even thousands every year for the privilege. And even though they know the schools are rotten, 95% continue sending their children to them. Over half the families I know are falling apart yet no one in them changes or even notices the disintegration. They just keep doing the same things, either expecting different results or not paying any attention to the results. It's mindboggling. Feckless. Totally worthless as parents, citizens, or community leaders.

The American people would not even recognize the few good leaders they do have.

Doch. Learning and change only come through real and prolonged suffering. We will not control ourselves voluntarily and peacefully, therefore someone else will control us forcefully and violently. Get ready for a real nightmare, Folks, brought to you by your own family and neighbors.

Who will lead the change?

Proz has made a statement in his article, Yesterday's Men, with which I agree. He said,

It is no exaggeration to say that our future hinges on the success of the White Nationalist movement.

Change will not come from the existing liberal camp, of course, but neither will it come from conservative leadership. Here's a big reason why.

Look at the most trusted conservative grass-roots organization in America, The Eagle Forum, which I think represents the sensibilities and sophistication of most conservative parents and leaders today, and look at similar organizations. These still behave as though they were operating in the cultural and social 1950's or 1960's America. Their leadership and supporters are upset about the current egalitarian and multiculti disaster but offer only temporary defensive political tactics. They refuse to even acknowedge the racial situation, much less discuss it seriously, and -- God Forbid! -- acknowedge organized Jewry behind much of it. Consequently, they are unable to devise stratagems and offensive attacks, and they lose every major battle they fight.

Why do they behave this way? Because they are still assuming a social and cultural backdrop that doesn't exist any more. They can barely make sense of our problems and cannot launch a recovery program because their underlying assumptions of the context of our situation have expired.

I think this is one reason that, even though they know the schools are rotten, they continue sending their children to them. Verily, they don't believe the problems are that bad; they believe they would tweak the school system a bit and have it back working again. "All it takes is political will," ut dicant. They are, I am convinced, totally unaware that it is not even the same system that it used to be, nor is it operating in the same environment. They don't realize it is another animal altogether, with completly different people, assumptions, goals, and metrics, inside and out.

Practically all of our problems are like that. It helps explain why conservatives will not draw a line and defend it. They believe the rest of their civilization is still standing where it was and the problems at hand can be resolved within that framework, using previously existing shared assumptions and goals. They have not realized, and many never will, that the old framework and those shared assumptions and goals don't exist anymore.

As another example, most conservatives over 40 don't get too exorcised about the filth and lies on TV and the Interwebs. Don't be fooled: no matter how much they complain, they still continue watching it all and let their children do the same, via screens in several rooms. They still watch because they are, they believe, able to tell the difference between it and the real world; they can separate social and cultural fantasy from social and cultural reality. This belief allows them to continue seeing it as entertainment. Bad entertaiment, granted, but merely entertainment. What they fail to comprehend is that the social and cultural reality they remember and believe to still exist, doesn't. Worse, they don't understand that our youth know nothing of real community, nothing of civilized society; they have never experienced them and only a tiny few have studied them without the help of communist instructors. To our young, what they see on TV and the Net is all the community and society they have ever known, all there is. To them, what they see on screen is not entertainment which society watches in their communities, it is society, it is community.

On the right side of the column, only WN's have realized the truth of our new situation and are willing to discuss it. It is why they and not conservatives -- not even old-style liberals, who are now conservatives of a kind -- must be the leaders back to sanity and civilization.

Happy Ostara

Bankster Bernanke speaks

Despite Recovery, Economy Likely To Feel Weak.

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke Tuesday said it's likely [he doesn't really know] the recession has come to an end, but he reiterated that tight credit conditions and a soft labor market will prove to be a challenge [but not, of course, for the banksters and their willing accomplices in the media, government, and academe].

From a technical point, the "recession is very likely over at this point," Bernanke said in a question-and-answer session at the Brookings Institution. [Again, he doesn't even know if it is over, not even "from a technical point," whatever that might mean.]

But he added that even if [!] recovery is underway, it's still going to feel like a very weak economy because credit conditions remain tight and any decline in the unemployment rate will probably only happen gradually. ["Look, maybe unemployment will stop rising and banks will staht lending again, maybe. Oy! Who knows? Whaddya askin' me for?"] He noted that one risk is that the economy will grow in the second half of 2009, but not enough to trigger a rapid recovery. [Another risk is that Bernanke and his whole jolly pirate crew will remain in charge.]

If there is only moderate economic growth, "employment will be slow to come down," he said. "It will come down, but it will take some time." [If, maybe ...]

Meanwhile, Bernanke expressed confidence that policymakers will move forward on plans to overhaul the nation's finance rules.

"I remain pretty optimistic that a comprehensive reform will be coming," he said. ["One thing is certain: we will continue plundering the stupid goyim as usual. About that we are very excited. Who's gonna stop us, our boy Obammie? Git owda hehr."]

In response to a question about the securitization market, Bernanke said he expects the market "will come back." But he said he's seen "very encouraging" signs that the market is improving. ["MSNBC tells us the market is improving, so sell what you have left and put the money into the market where we can get at it."]

Still, the market will be "simpler, smaller, less opaque" and subject to more oversight by regulators, all things that could constrain its growth for a period of time, said Bernanke.

The market probably "will not return to the size it was before," he said. ["The market will be smaller because by then we will have stolen it all! Ha! We only made billions from plundering Russia (right before they kicked us out, stupid Russians), but America has given us trillions! Is this globo-capitalism great or what? Mozeltoff, Arrgg!"]

Don't worry, Dear American, though you may occassionally grow weary of standing in long bread lines, leading banksters assure us that everything is back to normal.

The why and how of Classical Education

A Classical education is one based on the study of the languages and literature of Classical-age Greece and Rome. Many parents are interested in this method of educating their children but do not know enough about it to make a commitment or build a curriculum. Here are some articles and books that I think are helpful:

Online Articles

The Classical Education of the Founding Fathers, by Martin Cothran

The New Learning That Failed, by Victor Davis Hanson

Philosophy of Great Books Program Explained, by Professor David Mulroy

The Idea of a University -- Elementary Studies, by John Henry Newman

The Four Principles of Latin Instruction, by Cheryl Lowe

Other Memoria Press articles

Books
These discuss the history and reasons for a classical education:

- Invitation to the Classics, edited by Louise Cowan and OS Guinness
- Who Killed Homer? by Victor Davis Hanson and John Heath
- Climbing Parnassus, Tracy Lee Simmons

Here is an outline of a Classical curriculum. I'm still working on it, so it will be updated from time to time over the next few years, but the basics are there for you to get you started. The Latin and Greek elementary workbooks are Christian, designed specifically for children of parents who are new to Classical Ed. Some have asked me for a non-Christian program but I don't know of any for elementary ages.

Men and their philosophy

Last night while reading Chesterton's Heretics, I was pleasantly surprised to rediscover this old favorite paragraph. It ends his chapter which argues that the most important thing about a man is his philosophy of life.

Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, “Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good–” At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.

This is so true, isn't it? For every man-made "crisis" these days we are urged by our thoughtless leaders to quickly do something, anything, to avoid a catastrophe. The war on terrace, war on drugs, war on poverty, war on education, et cetera, und so weiter. "We must act now! The Founders, the Constitution, and freedom be damned. It's for the children, we must not let the terrace win, we have to save the economy, we must protect Israel at all costs, blah, blah, blah."

People are so funny how their nature never changes. Comforting, sometimes, in a strange sort of way. I as get older I tend to be less surprised by the short-sighted, selfish, careless, feckless nature of most people, and the imperfections even within the best of us. (Present company excluded, of course.)

The latest from MaxKeiser.com

Stacy Herbert warns today of a downturn in the markets in September & October but stops short of predicting Armageddon as Max is want to do.

For my money, Max takes Peter Schiff's position this past two months as the most entertaining financial commentator. If you haven't yet seen his recordings on YouTube or Google Video, start with the ones posted around the first weeks in July. This is my favorite, Max Keiser takes offense to Goldman Sachs story (pt1 of 2).

Neo-Nazism on the Rise!

Oy Vey! There's a swastika under my bed and a Nazi in my closet! Anti-Semitism! Holocaust! Terrorism! Oy, how vee are suff'ring!

Brother Nathan reports on the Jews' fear of losing control of Germany to those "evil right wing extremists" (Jewspeak for any German who loves sein Vaterland over money).

Oy! Did I mention dat vee are suff'ring?
 

Who are White Nationalists?

A simple definition: " ... a White Nationalist is any white person who refuses to be assimilated into the multicultural, multiracial new emerging world." YouTube video with fuller explanation here.

Flemish Cookies and Secession

Karen De Coster is sweet on the Flemish Separatist movement.

An Attack on Dickens

is an attack on our culture, our history, our sensibilities, and on us. Every day, beginning with the Marxist takeover of our publishing and academic institutions in the 1960's, our history is being re-written -- literally (yuk, yuk). The original, meaningful versions of many of our stories are being effectively wiped out, written over, to use a computer metaphor; thrown down the memory hole just as in George Orwell's book, 1984.

Michael Hoffman describes the latest outrage:

In Charles Dickens' novel Oliver Twist the Judaic receiver of stolen goods, Fagin, is a kidnapper, accessory to murder and a figure of nearly supernatural evil. In the misnamed PBS "Masterpiece Classic" broadcast nationally last February 15 and 22, the writer Sarah Phelps ("East Enders") served up her revenge on Dickens with a falsified monstrosity of a film, endorsed and broadcast by PBS.

Mike Hale writes: "The filmmakers ...do some politically correct touching up of Fagin. This brutal leader of the gang of boy thieves becomes a nearly saintly protector of Oliver and Nancy and outré symbol of Jewish suffering... In the single most egregious departure from the book, the judge at Fagin’s trial...tells him that he can avoid the gallows by declaring his allegiance to Christ, a device that grants him outright martyrdom."

No felon in 19th century England --Judaic or otherwise -- was spared capital punishment by converting to Christianity and no such scene exists in Dickens' story. more >>

Eventually, the real story will disappear from public view, expunged by those who have taken over our civilization and led its destruction, and our posterity will only know the corrupted, worthless Judaic version. This is why I recommend buying books printed pre-1960's-ish, reading them yourself, and comparing them to newer versions. A community book reading club of some sort is good; "classic" and "1000 Best Books" groups are best. Once you find the best books, buy extra copies as gifts for family members so they, too, will be sure to grow up with the correct, true European versions.

Money and civilizations

In reading Silver and Gold, 'Star Trek,' and the Truth About E.T. from John Bowman, I stopped at this:

Our own history is rife with examples of the failures of paper money going back to 600AD. They all collapse, and with them the underlying society or civilization.

If this is true -- and I have too little history to believe it is not -- does it tell us something about the current, obviously suicidal course of the Fed?

Republican Heroes

James Edwards has a good article today about the GOP's new "Heroes" page.

James doesn't mention it specifically here, but the leadership of the RedTeam is of the same tribe as that of the BlueTeam, which explains the almost identical outcomes of their efforts.

Europe's looming demise

The intentional destruction of whites in their own homelands.