Monday, February 23, 2015

The Realist Report - America's Racial Powder Keg

On this edition of The Realist Report, we'll be joined by Victor Thorn and Pete Papaherakles of American Free Press - America's last real newspaper. Victor, Pete and I will be discussing the recently published book America's Racial Powder Keg: How a Violent Dependency State Has Been Created Within the Black Community, edited and compiled by Victor. Call are welcome! You can download the entire program here.

Below are relevant links for this program:


  1. What is the coupon code for the book? Thanks

  2. This book can be purchased directly from Vic Thorn @ for a lot cheaper. By the way, a great interview John. I don't like to mention the slow motion race war against the Am. Indians when talking to White Anglos either, normally, but when they run their programmed mouths about "racism" and the "nazi genocide" etc. etc.. I sometimes have to remind the ignorant hypocrites about the unfortunate genocide that took place right here. Otherwise, I usually avoid the issue. Incidentally, in this vein, the 'genocide' millstone is another one that can be hung around Jewish necks when one has to remind these arch kosher hypocrites about their extermination of the Canaanites etc.

    1. Interesting, anon.

      But to really make your case you must first demonstrate that 'White Anglos' are mobilized politically around our own identity and are politically influential as such; then show how we're engaged in an an ongoing 'slow motion race war' against American Indians; then show how 'White Anglos' as 'White Anglos' run our 'White Anglo' mouths any differently to any other White or other groups about waycism and 'nazis'; then tell us who 'programs' our 'White Anglo' brains - and why you let them off the hook; then show how we're hypocritical on any of these issues; then show just what genocide took place right 'here' - wherever you are, anon? Are you American? Are you Victor Thorn? Why are you anonymous?

      You haven't so much built a case as attacked a race. Hypocritical?

      And aren't all 'Anglos' White by definition?

  3. One of the best interviewers going around with the best guests.

    Many thanks.

    Would love to hear you get someone like John Lash or Christoper Bjerknes.

    Please keep it up.

  4. This was one of your best shows ever, John. Top 5 for sure and I've listened to nearly all of them from the beginning. Both Thorn and Papaherakles were on fire. I don't agree with everything they said, for sure, but I was glad to have their honest opinions in such a comprehensive way.

    I thought you might be interested to see the post that got me banned from Clues Forum with a designation (by Hoi Polloi, a great writer and researcher, but a bit of a fragile ego-trip who has a problem admitting when he's wrong, as in the well-known Staveley-is-a-Sim soap opera) of "racist bastard who deserves to be flushed down the toilet." (lol) And I thought I was a libertarian / anarchist! Not to dyed-in-the-wool liberals. You cross that line or even question it and your ass is grass. I don't think Hoi has seen the 100's of Jazz and soul albums in my collection, from the Golden Age of Black Music, which ended as soon as 'gangsta rap' began, or the Miles Davis Live At the Blackhawk poster that sits in a position of honor right next to my Johnny Cash 'flipping the bird' poster. Yes, yes, I know he said if he had one hour to live he'd spend it choking a white man (lol), but I love the guy's music, always have, always will. I can deal with great artistic work from flawed men but not flawed and bad art from so-called 'perfect' men.

    Here you go, sorry for the length, I hope it will be educational for your readers as I had wrongly hoped it would be for the Clues Forum guys:

    "If somebody told me I had only one hour to live, I'd spend it choking a white man. I'd do it nice and slow." Miles Davis from ["Miles Davis Can't Shake Boyhood Racial Abuse," Jet Magazine, March 25, 1985.]

    Isn't that nice ? He wants to choke 'a white man,' just any white man, because he's white and he wants to do it 'nice and slow,' taking sadistic pleasure in the act. Can anyone imagine a white Jazz musician saying the same thing about blacks without being labeled a bigot (and a pretty extreme one at that: one that has fantasies of murdering someone based on race alone) for the rest of his life and ostracized by every black musician and left-wing liberal in the entire entertainment industry ? They would probably make a poster boy of bigotry out of the guy. But Miles Davis, why, he's a millionaire black trumpet player with a huge white audience, isn't he ? He's entitled to every one of his racist, sadistic fantasies and won't even so much as have to apologize. In fact, according to Maat, he can't even be racist because of his race. LOL

    ~ Negentropic MK I

  5. ( . . . continued)


    Like Ahab’s search for the Great White Whale, liberals’ search for the Great White Defendant is relentless and never-ending. When, in 1988, Tawana Brawley’s and Al Sharpton’s then year-old spectacular charge that several white men including prosecutor Steven Pagones (whose name Brawley had picked out of a newspaper article) had abducted and raped the 15 year old was shown to be completely false, the Nation said it didn’t matter, since the charges expressed the essential nature of white men’s treatment of black women in this country. When the Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a black stripper last year, liberals everywhere treated the accusation as fact, because, just as with the Nation and Tawana Brawley, the rape charge seemed to the minds of liberals to reflect the true nature of oppressive racial and sexual relations in America.To see the real truth of the matter, let us take a look at the Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005. (Go to the linked document, and under “Victims and Offenders” download the pdf file for 2005.)

    In Table 42, entitled “Personal crimes of violence, 2005, percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender,” we learn that there were 111,490 white victims and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault in 2005. (The number of rapes is not distinguished from those of sexual assaults; it is maddening that sexual assault, an ill-defined category that covers various types of criminal acts ranging from penetration to inappropriate touching, is conflated with the more specific crime of rape.) [color=#FF0000]In the 111,490 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black. In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. [/color] The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally.

    note: In the past couple of years the DOJ has made these 2005 race-based violent crime statistics extremely hard to access on their website. It is no longer considered politically correct to refer to identify the race of the perpetrators and the victims of violent crime, even to prevent future similar violent crimes, but we have the above screen-capture to prove that they published it and specifically categorized it by race.

    The table does not give statistics for Hispanic victims and offenders. But the bottom line on interracial white/black and black/white rape is clear:

    In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

    What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.[/b]
    [b]The Department of Justice statistics refer, of course, to verified reports.[/b] According to the Wikipedia article on rape, as many as half of all rape charges nationally are determined by police and prosecutors to be false:

    ~ Negentropic MK II

  6. (. . . continued)

    Linda Fairstein, former head of the New York County District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit, noted, “There are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen…. It’s my job to bring justice to the man who has been falsely accused by a woman who has a grudge against him, just as it’s my job to prosecute the real thing.”

    No wonder there was such absolute belief in the guilt of the Duke students among the leading sectors of liberal America. A drug-addled, half-deranged, promiscuous black stripper accused three young white men of raping her. There are virtually zero rapes of black women by white men in the United States, and half of all rape charges against specific individuals turn out to be false. But in the gnostic, inverted world of liberal demonology, the white students had to be guilty.

    Meanwhile, in the real America, week after week, the newspapers report the rapes of white women by black men—though, of course, without ever once using the words, “a white woman was raped by black man.” Just last week in the New York Post there was a story about a serial black rapist who invaded women’s apartments on Manhattan’s Upper West Side; you knew the rapist was black from a police drawing accompanying the story, and you knew the victims were most likely white from the neighborhoods where the attacks occurred. But even when news media’s reports of black on white rape make the race of the perpetrator evident (which the media only does in a minority of instances), no explicit reference is ever made to the racial aspect of the case. Each story of black on white rape is reported in isolation, not presented as part of a larger pattern. There is never the slightest mention of the fact that white women in this country are being targeted by black rapists. In the inverted world of liberalism, the phenomenon does not exist.


    "In the 111,490 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black. In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally."

    White Nationalists who quote this article by the late conservative Lawrence Auster (born a Jew, converted to Christianity) often don't like to mention that in that same year of 2005 these stats were drawn from, 44.5% of the offenders raping white women were still white. So, given the same level of psychosis operative in the population, if there were no blacks or non-whites around at all to commit street crimes at a rate many times higher than that of whites, there would still be 49, 613 rapes of white women by white men (111,490 * 44.5%). However, this obviously does not change the statistical fact that white criminals rarely choose black victims while black criminals specifically target white victims (as well as their own).

    ~ Negentropic MK III

  7. (. . . continued)

    This large and disproportionate number of black-on-white rapes was practically non-existent in the 1950's, not just because Jim Crow segregation laws made it more difficult for blacks to roam around in white neighborhoods and automatic lynchings for even accusations of rape were not uncommon in certain areas of the USA, but also because the black community's values were vastly different.

    Do these values:

    have anything whatsoever to do with these :

    The values of Tupac and Lil Wayne would not even be tolerated for one minute, much less be allowed saturation of airwaves and media outlets. People's values in general were far less thoroughly programmed by vicious, collectivist Marxist doctrines than today, and, as a consequence there was far less tolerance for guilt-trip-victimhood-justified despicable behavior back then and neighborhoods were much safer all around.

    By 1968, the Marxist puppet front group, the Black Panthers, were openly bragging in establishment published and praised books about specifically targeting and raping white women:

    Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver on raping black and white women...

    “I started out practicing on black girls in the ghetto where dark and vicious deeds appear not as aberrations or deviations from the norm, but as part of the sufficiency of the evil of a day. When I considered myself smooth enough, I crossed the tracks and sought out white prey. I did this consciously, deliberately, willfully, methodically.” “Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women…I felt I was getting revenge. From the site of the act of rape, consternation spread outwardly in concentric circles. I wanted to send waves of consternation throughout the white race.” “I know that the black man’s sick attitude toward the white woman is a revolutionary sickness: It keeps him perpetually out of harmony with the system that is oppressing him. Many whites flatter themselves with the idea that the negro male’s lust and desire for the white dream girl is purely an esthetic attraction, but nothing could be further from the truth. His motivation is often of such a bloody, hateful, bitter, and malignant nature that whites would really be hard pressed to find it flattering.”

    ~ from "Soul on Ice" by Eldridge Cleaver 1968

    Promotional blurbs on the back of the fifteenth printing Delta / Dell paperback edition I have in my library, which I paid 50 cents for at a garage sale:

    ". . . beautifully written by a man with a formidably analytical mind. . . . makes you twist and flinch because he is no damned gentleman. He throws light on the dark areas we wish he would leave alone. . . brilliant. . ." -- Julian Mayfield, THE NATION

    "He is full of Christian care, Christian grief and disappointment, Christian resignation, Christian messianic toughness, and hope." --- Robert Coles, THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY

    "Cleaver's moral energy, and his understanding of its vulnerability and source, is unimpeachable." -- Geoffrey Wolff, SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER AND CHRONICLE

    "A spiritual and intellectual autobiography that stands at the exact resonant center of the new Negro writing . . . a book for which we have to make room--but not on the shelves we have already built." -- Richard Gilman, THE NEW REPUBLIC


    ~ Negentropic MK IV

  8. (. . . continued)

    Black & Other Non-White Crime Against Whites

    Over the four decades since Cleaver published his creed, there has been a massive but gradual programming effort by Jewish-controlled media through movies and TV and commercials and print but also and especially through music and sports) to get white females to ridicule and despise white males and show preference for black males.

    Here are just two glaringly obvious recent examples of this gradual subconscious programming that went into high gear in the 1960's:

    Black Alpha Leader Lavishes Praise On White Woman While White Male Dolt Looks Foolish

    "Cool and Smart Black Guy" educates the "Dumb White blonde" who is dating the "White Male Loser"

    and here are just four air-headed, Pavlovized recent results of this type of constant media programming :

    How else can you explain the bizarre phenomenon of white suburban kids suddenly forgetting how to wear their own pants other than to be close enough to some perceived media-ingrained idea of black 'coolness' to please conditioned female retardations ?


    Black communities face 'epidemic' of violent murders

    by Jill King Greenwood

    PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW Sunday, December 12, 2010

    Lueana Coward knows that in a perfect world, no mother would bury her child.

    But twice in the past 10 years, Coward stood in Fairview Cemetery in McKeesport as pallbearers lowered coffins carrying the bullet-riddled bodies of her oldest and youngest sons into the ground.

    "I can't even describe it — what it feels like to lose not one child, but two," said Coward, 51, of McKeesport.

    "There is so much violence among young black men. It's an epidemic, a disease. Blood is running in the streets, and I wonder how many more mothers are gonna have to plan funerals for their sons before society decides enough is enough."

    Black men killing black men is a problem of astounding magnitude. Statistics the Tribune-Review examined from the Allegheny County Medical Examiner's Office show about 8 in 10 murders since 2006 involved black victims, and black men were victims in 7 of every 10 slayings. The victims' average age: 25.

    Experts including academics, police brass and street advocates blame social problems that began festering three decades ago. They cite the breakdown of black families, crumbling moral values and crack cocaine's infiltration into urban life.

    "When I hear there is a homicide coming in to the office, I assume it will be a black male killed by another black male, that it will involve multiple gunshot wounds, and it will be overkill," Medical Examiner Dr. Karl Williams said.

    "The black male victims come in, and they are covered in tattoos, and they have old bullet wounds, and some have been shot upwards of 17 times with automatic weapons. It's clear they are living very devalued lives."

    The trend is not unique to the Pittsburgh area.

    A study by the Tuskegee Institute shows the Ku Klux Klan killed 3,446 black people in America over 86 years; black men in America kill about the same number of blacks — mostly men — every six months,[/b] said Phillip Jackson, founder of The Black Star Project in Chicago.

    ~ Negentropic MK V

  9. (. . . continued)

    "Young black men are exterminating other young black men at a very alarming rate," Jackson said. "The African-American community has failed miserably in creating positive, stable, successful young black men. And as a result, entire generations are being lost."

    Read the rest here:


    The following peace-loving, culturally sensitive hippies:

    plus their hundreds of imitators and the music industry slimebags who funded and marketed them, of course, bear no responsibility whatsoever for romanticizing an idiotic lifestyle directly related to the above crime statistics, making an already bad situation much worse.


    Gangsta rap is a subgenre of hip hop music that evolved from hardcore hip hop and purports to reflect urban crime and the violent lifestyles of inner-city youths.[

    The genre was pioneered in the mid-1980s by rappers such as Schoolly D and Ice-T, and was popularized in the later part of the 1980s by groups like N.W.A.[1] After the national attention that Ice-T and N.W.A attracted in the late 1980s and early 1990s, gangsta rap became the most commercially lucrative subgenre of hip hop. Some gangsta rappers have been associated, or allegedly have ties with the Bloods or Crips gangs.[3]

    The subject matter inherent in gangsta rap has caused a great deal of controversy. Criticism has come from both left wing and right wing commentators, as well as religious leaders, who have accused the genre of promoting crime, serial killing, violence, profanity, sex addiction, homophobia, racism, promiscuity, misogyny, rape, street gangs, drive-by shootings, vandalism, thievery, drug dealing, alcohol abuse, substance abuse, disregarding law enforcement, materialism, and narcissism.

    Some commentators (for example, Spike Lee in his satirical film [i]Bamboozled[/i]) have criticized it as analogous to black minstrel shows and blackface performance, in which performers – both black and white – were made up to look African American, and acted in a stereotypically uncultured and ignorant manner for the entertainment of audiences. Gangsta rappers often defend themselves by saying that they are describing the reality of inner-city life, and that they are only adopting a character, like an actor playing a role, which behaves in ways that they may not necessarily endorse.[4]


    ~ Negentropic MK VI

  10. (. . . continued)

    Actually, at the same time that the epidemic of crime in the black communities is being reported from one end, from the other end, BBC runs an article showing that the overall U.S. crime statistics have been on a steady decline since 1991 and are now at their lowest level in 20 years:

    So, which one is it ?

    How can statistics showing an epidemic in the inner-cities co-exist at the same time with a steady 20 year decline ?

    Me thinks they are cooking the books at will for different agendas, left and right, playing both sides against the middle. Reading the Jewish names Blumstein and Levitt and Wolpow as three of the 'experts' interviewed for comment in the BBC story does not exactly inspire confidence either, since it's anything but a unique instance of coincidence but the standard modus operandi of how most of these stories are given the right spin.

    What's fairly certain from what I can see with my own eyes and sense in the air here in Los Angeles is that if the shit does hit the fan, and 40 million people no longer get their welfare checks, subsidies and food stamps, you can bet your ass the inner cities and the suburbs closest to them will be the worst places to be.

    Note: I'm against both forced segregation and forced integration of any groups because they are, on principle, violations of individual rights. However, when property owning individuals get together and buy up a whole area of town, it is, they, the property owners who set the rules of conduct they deem appropriate and who they will or will not associate with, according to any criterion, rational or irrational, and will enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences accordingly. The free market, if allowed to operate is not very forgiving of irrational decisions. As long as they have not initiated force against anyone, it is nobody's business if they don't want pets, fat people, white people, black people, Asians or Eskimos on their property.

    In this capacity the homeowners in this town form their own little self-governing body and may decide, of their own free-will (not of any enforced 'democracy' nonsense or majority rule) to take a majority vote as to what rules of behavior are acceptable and it is entirely up to them whether to exclude certain individuals, races, religions, etc. Religious freedom does not extend to dictating what a bunch of property owners are allowed to do on their own property.

    ~ Negentropic MK VII

  11. (. . . continued)

    In this way you can have gated communities where all the streets are also owned by the property owners there and you can freely exclude by choice [i]anyone[/i] you don't want to deal with for any reason, just like a fancy restaurant that will not let you in unless you are wearing a noose and suit or a burger joint that will not serve you unless you have your shirt and shoes on. No different in principle than 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.'

    In a republic of individual rights, no 'democracy' or dictatorship of the majority exists unless those who lose out in majority votes have consented freely to abide by majority rule.

    For example, if a group of 50 property owning neighbors decide to get together and form of homeowners' association, buy up all the streets in their neighborhood and ban all Hare Krishnas and Muslims from their neighborhood by posting signs and having security guards patrol, ALL 50 of them would have to freely agree to this rule OR they would all have to freely agree to abide by either a majority vote 51% or two-thirds majority. If they have not freely given their consent to this limited dictatorship of the majority or 'democracy,' then, in a Libertarian Republic, even if 49 of these homeowners agree to ban Hare Krishnas and Muslims and 1 homeowner does not give his consent to majority rule, they have to leave him alone. They can ostracize him all they want until he leaves on his own but they can't beat force anybody out with physical violence. If they do, then as soon as they raise the stick of initiated physical force, they can no longer lay claim to be advocates of free-choice and liberty. At that point they will be no different than any other win-lose forced collective in history.

    This is enforced by [b]the law of the land which supersedes limited-partnership free-consent 'democracies' and enforces only inalienable individual rights derived from the natural right of free choice.[/b] The only recourse the 49 owners would then have would be to BUY OUT the rebel with hard cash and replace him with one of their own.

    However, in a Republic that does not allow 'democratic' coercion of the majority over any nonconsenting minority or individual, the non-comformist homeowner has the advantage and can set a VERY HIGH PRICE for agreeing to sell. On a nationwide scale, if all the citizens of a nation who actually vote have agreed to consent to a two-thirds majority in electing a leader, this leader has no right whatsoever to extend this democratic majority rule to any other area where such free consent has not been granted. The majority that voted this ruler in does not get to use the police or the military to enforce its morality on anybody else as long as that person has not initiated demonstrable harm (physical force, fraud, libel through fraud, etc.) to anyone else. [b]That is the only basic moral principle operative in the society and that is really the only one needed.[/b] All other moral positions can be advocated only if they're not in violations of this most basic one.

    ~ Negentropic MK VIII

  12. (. .. continued)

    The tyranny of media monopolies funded by usury and counterfeiting that force-feed entire populations their black propaganda, degeneracy and collective abdication of responsibility in favor of a bogus 'security' is absolutely criminal in this system and would not be tolerated for one minute.

    This is the true meaning of Jeffersonian / Lysander Spooner 19th century Libertarianism that should not be confused with the post-Ayn-Rand-Von-Mises, Murray-Rothbard-led limited-hangout hijacking of it in the 1950's and this is a good little nightmare for all lazy, scheming little tyrants (enablers of the big tyrants) everywhere. This is the only system that teaches [b]'freedom is a hard discipline,'[/b] and there is no such thing as freedom without individual responsibility for it. The willing assumption of this responsibility is also what the Freeman-on-the-land movement of guys like Dean Clifford has come to learn (using a different, roundabout route) can free individuals from all imposed and extorted-consent contracts.

    Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature by Murray N Rothbard[/b] can be read here:

    No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

    by Lysander Spooner can be read here:

    Audio File:

    Lysander Spooner - Vices Are Not Crimes - A Vindication Of Moral Liberty

    "Absolute freedom mocks at justice. Absolute justice denies freedom. To be fruitful, the two ideas must find their limits in each other." ~ Albert Camus, The Rebel

    "Yes, there was an element of abstraction and unreality in misfortune. But when an abstraction starts to kill you, you have to get to work on it." ~ Albert Camus, The Plague

    "Read not to contradict nor refute
    Nor accept and take for granted,
    But to weigh and consider.
    Histories make men wise."
    -- Francis Bacon

    Wise = vice with two v's and a c that has mirrored itself backwards to form an 's,' or can 'c' or 'see' front and back simultaneously. In other words, a 'vice' that has learned to contemplate and temper itself as if looked at in a mirror, is the fire that formerly burned, now giving warmth, but which would not have been warmth but for the burning.

    ~ Negentropic MK IX

  13. ( . . . contineud)

    You do not rule with numbers, you rule with power and leverage and immense wealth gained through legalized counterfeiting and usury. Do Colonels override Generals in the army ? So why would they in the world of the immensely wealthy ? How in the world can 'Build-a-Burgers' possibly order around the Rothschild kabal Banks of London and Berlin
    * Goldman Sachs Bank of New York
    * Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York/Shearson American Express
    * Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
    * Israel Moses Sief Banks of Italy
    * Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Germany and Amsterdam
    * Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
    * Chase Manhattan Bank of New York (David Rockefeller)


    Why should you care if someone only chooses to associate with their own immediate family members and circle of friends ? Would you not consider it none of your business whether this behavior was 'unfair' to those discriminated against and deprived of this social contact and attention ?

    Likewise, why should you care if someone chooses to associate, as much as possible, with his own extended family or ethnicity or race or culture ? What business is it of yours to force him to make the entire human race his extended family ? Is he preventing you from embracing Afghanis and Nigerians and Somalians as your immediate extended family before you do your own white Europeans? If not, then what could possibly be your problem with his racially based preferences and outlook ? Since when does a person's free choice of association automatically become a crime of initiatory force when his criterion is not the same as yours? Since when does [i]your[/i] standard of judgment become the moral law to be forced upon him at the point of a gun ?

    Only by giving primacy to collectives or bogus 'group rights' in violation of individual rights can you possibly justify this. The other choice would be simply acknowledging the reality that given free choice, some groups of individuals (often of heterogeneous ethnicities) will always and FAIRLY get much farther ahead in their endeavors than others and that there is nothing wrong in this inequality of results. Inequality of results between different groups, whether ethnically delineated or not, does not automatically imply injustice. However, this is what Pavlovized Marxists always use as an excuse to justify collective punishment as some sort of self-defense of the 'victimized,' who could not have possibly achieved their unequal status through lack of merit but always through 'systemic institutional power.' Libertarian philosophy does not acknowledge such collective, unprincipled thinking:

    "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." ~ Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816

    And who made it possible for these non-whites to have any power whatsoever in white nations or even the right of asylum or immigration, much less dictate to the 'white-ruled nations' how to run their own countries? Was it not the very institutions of the whites themselves which DID respect and at least idealize and seek to protect individual rights that none of these other nations barely even had an inkling of?

    ~ Negentropic MK X

  14. (. . . continued)

    Systemic, institutional power and the biggest collectives in the entire world still do not nullify basic principles. You're either a person of principle or you're not. You are either for individual rights or you're for this or that group, whether 'victimizer' or 'victimized' to suppress individual choice by brute force, at the point of a gun while blurting out all kinds of inane .

    Since when is a free person required to satisfy your standards in making choices as long as he's not forcing anyone to do anything ?

    Since when is a person's decision to make choices based only upon race and not on other behavioral factors?

    "The vast majority of people in our culture are well adjusted because they have given up the battle for independence sooner and more radically than the neurotic person. They have accepted the judgment of the majority so completely that they have spared the sharp pain of conflict which the neurotic person goes through. While they are healthy from the standpoint of 'adjustment,' they are more sick than the neurotic person from the standpoint of the realization of their aims as human beings." ~ Erich Fromm

    Being unbalanced is the precondition of a search for a higher point of balance from which to see far.

    When you discover that actions a lifetime of conditioning has taught you are good and life-giving are only so because logically consistent with a deliberately peddled false set of values, and you proceed to react to these actions from the perspective of a truer set of values, processed independently outside conditioned response, then what triggers pleasure to those in the Pavlovized reality or 'matrix' will obviously trigger displeasure to you and vice versa but they will have vast perverted (pre-inverted) institutions to reassure them their weakness is strength and you only your logic and a few iconoclast philosophers to reassure yourself a rudder through their stormy sea and that your strength is not weakness.

    ~ Negentropic MK XI


Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.