The religion of rape

All over France there are cases of rapes, by Muslim gangs, of French girls. In Australia, in 2000, Bankstown and Greenacre (in Sydney) had a succession of gang-rapes, in which the victims testified to the particularly gruesome details of being assaulted by a dozen or more men at a time, screaming at them for being "Aussies" or "Christians." It made a big splash in Sydney, when the cases came to trial in 2002. Alan Jones, an Australian commentator, noted: "Let's not mince words here -- these are racist attacks against ordinary Australian girls carried out by out of control Muslim Lebanese...." The girls themselves all testified to the fact that the attacks were full of observations about, not race, but religion -- and the confusion of Jones here is understandable. The Western world is still groping to understand something of which it had been so remarkably and indeed, in some ways so fortunately unaware; it is the attitudes engendered toward Infidels -- a Frenchman who is beaten to death for trying to retrieve his daughter's stolen bicycle, a mother and her year-old-child assaulted on an RER train near Louvres, the thousands of assaults which are a modern version of the rape and pillage that Muslim conquerors were permitted whenever they conquered Infidel lands. This is not mere crime, but ideologically-justified crime or rather, in Muslim eyes, attacks on Infidels scarcely qualify as crime.

The religion of rape

Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or from foreign parents. The phenomenon is not restricted to Sweden. The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations is so extremely high that it is difficult to view these rapes as merely random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. This is happening in most Western European countries, as well as in other non muslim countries such as India.

Stephen Harper, my kinda guy!

Stephen Harper the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada is turning out to be the kinda conservative I like!

He won the Canadian federal election in January with a minority. I took this as bad news, although I was relieved that the nightmare of 13 long dark years for Canada was over, at least for a few months!

However he seems to be doing better then I thought he could. His first overseas visit was to Canadian troops in Afghanistan, thereby cementing his rapprochement with the US. The previous PM of Canada, that truly repulsive Liberal Paul Martin had purposely poisoned relations with the US in an attempt to divert attention from the biggest money scandal in Canada's history that involved hundreds of millions of dollars! Mr Martin thought he could appeal to enough America hating Canadians and Islamic immigrants to stay in power. He failed.

Stephen must be doing something right, the liberals despise him, click here to see what they make of Harper!

Liberals and lefties hate Harper coz he is against Kyoto, abortion, gay marriage, Court domination of the constitution and pro war on terror. Everything I like!

And according to polls his support is up since the election, the Canadian people have realised that the Liberal scare stories of a military coup by an evil blood thirsty Tory were a bit over blow! Maybe there is some hope for Canada!

Ugly of the month!

Yes our winner is the present Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Right Honourable Helen Clarke! Well done!

Have you seen anyone as ugly as herself with as little excuse as her? Me neither! You would think a Prime Minister could find a hair dresser or a dentist or a plastic surgeon! And this is when she looks good! Blimey!

I think it has something to do with her life long addiction to hair brained economics, political correctness, feminism, hugging of terrorists, passe hate of America. I think its termed 'being a socialist'

Well I just want to congratulate Ms Clarke once again on being Western Defence's first 'ugly of the month'

'Peace campaigner' rescued by soldiers with big guns!

Yes thats right! A peace campaigner who denounced Blair and Bush in a al'Qa'ida home video was freed by SAS soldiers wielding big guns and killing terrorists!
This is the guy who condemns all violence and war!
One wonders if he approves of the manner of his rescue?

(Above: Norman Kember, hostage of Islamic terrorists for the past 4 months)

September 11th was meant for us all!

Mohammed Afroze is an Al-Qa'ida terrorist. He admits that the 9/11 attacks should have also hit Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and India, as well as the United States!

On 22 July last year in India he was convicted of criminal conspiracy, conspiracy to disturb relations between friendly nations, and forging documents. He got 7 years for his role in the Islamic plot in which planes should have been crashed into the Houses of Parliament and Tower Bridge in London on 11 September 2001.

A parallel Al-Qaeda cell is alleged to have intended to simultaneously fly a plane into the Rialto Towers in Melbourne, Houses of Parliament in Indiaand an attack in Montreal, inevitably causing thousands of death in India Canada and Australia!

(above, the Rialto Towers, Melbourne. Target of 9/11 attackers)

According to the confession by Afroze, he and his associates were about to board the Manchester to London flight they were to hijack, when they saw the extent of the damage in America, panicked and fled.

(Above, the Twin Towers, the part of the attack that was executed)

Afroze, confessed to spending £150,000 on flying lessons in the year before September 11th, at the same Florida flying school as the 9/11 hijackers. In addition, in August 2001, Afroze enrolled in a £50,000 one-year residential course at the Cabair College of Air Training in Bedford.

(above, Houses of Parliament in New Delhi, an other target for the 9/11 attackers)

A 7th December 2001 article in the Daily Mail in United Kingdom said "he had credit cards and a passport with visas, obtained under the false name of Afridi, for all the countries allegedly being targeted.", which, if true, would support the evidence about additional attacks on September 11, 2001.

According to The Times on July 23rd, 2005: "Afroze admitted that he and seven Al-Qaeda operatives planned to hijack aircraft at Heathrow and fly them into the two London landmarks. The suicide squad included men from Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Afroze said. They booked seats on two Manchester-bound flights, but fled just before they were due to board."
Afroze returned to India and was arrested by Indian authorities.

Has anyone bothered to do an indepth documentary about this conspiracy?

Has any mainstream paper or TV channel done an expose on this?

Probably not, they are much more interested in US soldiers 'committing war crimes' in Iraq.

This is what the left do, they obsese over small and ultimately irrelevant stories, whilst wilfully ignoring the big picture. That is why we should fear for our future!

Kyoto will solve everything!

I feel so stupid!

If only I had bothered to listen to those wonderful people, environmentalists, liberals and the like who have been trying to tell us about 'global warming' but that evil bastard Bush had prevented us from hearing anything about the amazing effects the 'Kyoto' treaty is having.

If only I had known, Kyoto was saving the world, or would save it had that evil demon Bush signed up to it!

Yes I know, you nasty right wing bigots will tell me that Europe, Canada, Japan have seen their carbon output increase in double digit numbers while the US has only seen it grow by 7% or so.

Big deal, its all a cunning plan by that idiot Bush!

If only Bush would sign Kyoto, the problems of the world would disapear!

Well almost, we would also need Bush to give 5 trillion dollars to Africa, withdrawal of all American troups from Iraq, Afghanistan and Qatar. Bush would also need to stop being aggresive with North Korea and Iran and try negotiating for a year or ten.

We would also demand that the idiot Bush stop forcing his EVIL religion down everyone's throats and he would have to put sanctions on the Neo-Nazi state of Isreal!

Then the world would be going on the right direction!

Allahu Akbar!

Paris in the Spring!

Young French men and women are doing what always comes easy to the French, they are rioting, again! Unlike the months of riots last year, these riots have been carried out by the French and not illegal Muslim immigrants.

The riots have started after French riot police stormed the Sorbonne, the pre-emminent French university, where students had been operating a 'sit in' as a protest against new employment laws. Once the Sorbonne had been stormed, it got ugly, days of riots have followed and most universities in France have closed!

The inept Prime Minister of France, Dominique De Villepin, that fearsome defender of Saddaam Hussein, has brought forward a new law which allows companies to hire university graduates on 2 year contracts. This exempts French companies from having to give life long work and benifits to new employees, that prove themselves to be useless! With 'youth' unemployment in France standing at 23%, that, to me, sounds like a step forward!

To the undergraduates at the Sorbonne, this law makes them quite unhappy! Why not go for a 2 year contract and prove your worth to your boss? Then you could have a great job for life! (Whats this obsession with a job for life anyway? Being stuck in the same job forever is my idea of Hell!)

Well, interestingly, some 'French youths' from the suburbs have been migrating towards the riots in central Paris, and groups of them have been attacking the police, burning cars and looting properties. Any of this sound familiar?
We will have to wait for the warmth of summer before we witness the next month long outbreak of riots by disaffected 'French youths' from the suburbs of Paris!

As usual, that slimy oaf Jaques Chirac has nothing to say, he knows he is on his way out and all he thinks about at the moment is how to avoid the corruption charges that will be slapped on him the moment he steps down from the Presidency!
France is a mess!

(Above, French President Jacques Chirac avoids questions on France's future)

Commonwealth Games 2006

The 18th Commonwealth Games were opened by Her Majesty The Queen on Wednesday.

(Above: Melbourne, host city of the Commonwealth Games 2006)

Now being a conservative, I'm not one to advocate change for change's sake(unlike socialists)

But what is the Commonwealth for? I understand the nostalgia value of the Commonwealth, it connects us to the glorious and noble past of the British Empire, I understand the affection and thankfulness felt for Her Majesty and her 54 year reign.

However, the Commonwealth is now an irrelevancy, it has become just another arm of the increasingly corrupt UN, and it is staffed by the same leftie jobsworths that fill any government post!

The Commonwealth also accords equal status between glorious nation like Australia and New Zealand and shit holes like Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) and Nigeria!

But I Digress! However irrelevant the Commonwealth is, the Australians have proven again that they are a great people and a thoroughly decent and agreeable people at that.
The greeting they gave Her Majesty on her arrival in Australia is to be commended. The opening ceremony of the Games were a tribute to that great woman, the warmth shown her was impressive. Where in Britain the government treat her with contempt the Australian government of John Howard and the people of Melbourne, wished her a happy 80th birthday with a thumping rendition of 'happy birthday' and 'God save the Queen'.

(Above, The Queen declares the Games open)

All this in spite of the powerful republican lobby in Australia, this indicates the level of civility that Australia has over her 'mother country'.

The opening ceremony of the Games were truly breath taking, what is it about Aussies and success?

Good news from Aus, apparently republicanism is on the wane and active opposition to the concept of a republic is growing especially amongst those under 30 years old. It may be that the 1999 referendum was the last chance for an Australian republic in a century! It seems republicanism is the reserve of the middle aged middle class and the usual rabble of frothing extremist socialists, something which, thankfully Australia has in small and decreasing numbers!

Sir Ian Blair, Pratt of the Month!

Yeah, this is the guy who warbled on about Islam being a 'religion of peace and tolerance' whilst bodies where being dragged from the underground and the bus in Tavistock Square!

This is the guy who worried more about a 'backlash' against Muslims in the form of 'hate crimes', then the real 'hate crime' that was committed on July 7th 2005.

His officers have to put up with no end of bullshit, so he can look like he is committed to 'diversity'

This is the same guy who accused the Press of 'institutional racism'. The reason, the Press ran the story of Holly and Jessica, 2 girls that were kidnapped and murdered, when a black criminal gets shot by another gang because of some drug dispute, the Press declines to run weeks of coverage. I wonder why?

And now? Well he has just been found tapping conversations he has been having with people on the phone, including government ministers!

What a PRATT!

Labor in freefall!

This is just too good! And propably only 12 months from an election, which will confirm John Howard as PM for an other 3 years, John Howard is well served by the morons in the opposision, no wonder he always smiles!

KIM Beazley's polling has crashed to its worst level in his seven years as Opposition Leader and Labor's gains have been wiped out by weeks of internal bloodletting. (he is such a loser! And a commie as seen bellow!)

Voter support for Mr Beazley as preferred prime minister dropped nine points to just 18 per cent, the same figure made famous in a 1988 edition of The Bulletin magazine when John Howard was struggling in the polls. The headline read "Why on earth does this man bother?"

Voter satisfaction with Mr Beazley's leadership fell six percentage points, to 27 per cent. At the same time, dissatisfaction rose from 52 to 60 per cent. The Coalition's primary vote rose four points, to 45 per cent, and Labor's fell four, to 35 per cent.

Mr Howard shot further ahead of Mr Beazley as the preferred prime minister, with an increase in support from 53 to 61 per cent, while the Labor leader's support fell nine points.
Just after the 10th anniversary of his election as Prime Minister, voters now prefer Mr Howard to Mr Beazley in that role by a ratio of three to one.

Well! As I've said before, sometimes I love socialists! Once the Liberals and the Nationals have once again trounced Labor, it means that the noble Australian people will be spared Labor for another 3 years! it will be 2010 before there is any threat!

Western Defence

Well this blog is named Western Defence, so perhaps it is time to begin a weekly guide to defending OUR culture, OUR nations, realms, countries, homes and families against the aggressors who seek our conversion, death and/or enslavement!

• Defending oneself is tricky! Most governments have made it a criminal offence to defend oneself. The United States is the clear exception. So if you are American, get out there and start buying some weapons!
• Firstly one needs to research the laws of ones country. Find out is it legal to own weapons, preferably guns, for example, if you live in the UK, you can't own an automatic weapon or a hand gun, but you can own as many shot guns as you wish. You can own 2 rifles. However you can only have a certain amount of ammo and it must be kept separate from the guns at all times except when hunting or practicing.
• In New Zealand you can own a hand gun as well as automatic weapons, however considering they are governed by a socialist government, that may change.
• Australia has banned automatic weapons, I don't know it's stance on hand guns. Anyway you get the picture, you need to do some research.
• Next thing you need to do is learn how to use said weapons. I am going to put myself on a survival course, probably in the US when I pay a visit. On these courses you are trained to use guns, knives and one's bare hands. WE may all need to use these before the end!
• We also need to learn some basic things such as plumbing, cooking, how to slaughter one's own animals etc...Things most of us in the modern world are unprepared for. Remember once the war begins we can't waltz into Walmart, Woolworth or Tesco to get our dinners.
• We need to decide where we want to live! Will you remain in London, New York or Sydney? Remember the Muslims live in these cities in great numbers, the best place to defend oneself is amongst our own kind, in the country, also the hand of the socialist state will find it harder to get to you in the wilderness!
• Gather your families and friends about you once you know where you will live, once the war begins you won't have to worry about them!
• Have more then 1 child, this may sound heartless and utilitarian, but if your 1 child is killed by Muslims, you don't want to be left childless, have 4 or 5 or 7 kids. Also remember that Muslims breed like rats, we can try at least to keep up! Also you can build a strong family that will have as it's aim the defence of the West, our culture and your nation, 1 kid aint enough!
• Instill in your family a love of our culture, a determination, to not only survive, but also to flourish. Teach them the history of our great civilisation and the traitors who would hand it over to the barbarians. Teach them to use weapons to defend themselves!

This is only a start, there are many more things we need to do to defend the West. But the main thing to remember is that we need to prepare now, we need to begin now! The war has already begun!

(By the way, Im not serious about getting personal issue nukes!)

Liberal Tolerance!

"Tolerance is intolerance against movements from the Right, and
toleration [only] of movements from the Left."

Liberal Priorities!

Truth in Islam

Qur’an 9:3 “Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations.”

So oaths of allegience to countries, constitutions, in Courts etc... when said by a Muslim mean nothing!


Qur’an 4:142 “Surely the hypocrites strive to deceive Allah. He shall retaliate by deceiving them.”

There you have it, a Muslim's excuse to lie to us!


Bukhari:V2B24N555 “I heard the Prophet say, ‘Allah hates for you for asking too many questions.’”

Right! So you can't question Muhammed?


Ishaq:519 “Hajjaj said to the Apostle, ‘I have money scattered among the Meccan merchants, so give me permission to go and get it.’ Having got Muhammad’s permission, he said, ‘I must tell lies.’ The Apostle said, ‘Tell them.’”

Ok, so Muhammed allowed his follower to lie! What a holy man he is!


Qur’an 5:41 “Whomever Allah wants to deceive you cannot help. Allah does not want them to know the truth because he intends to disgrace them and then torture them.”

Allah sounds like a god I wanna worship!


Qur’an 5:102 “Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account they lost their faith and became disbelievers.”

Maybe this is why Muslims are not allowed to question their faith?


Qur’an 2:6 “As for the disbelievers, it is the same whether you warn them or not; they will not believe. Allah has set a seal upon their hearts, upon their hearing, and a covering over their eyes. There is a great torment for them.”

Perhaps this is why they think nothing of detonating themselves on OUR public transport killing scores of us kafirs?


Ishaq:365/Tabari VII:94 “Muhammad bin Maslamah said, ‘O Messenger, we shall have to tell lies.’ ‘Say what you like,’ Muhammad replied. ‘You are absolved, free to say whatever you must.’”

Hmmmm! Interesting!


Qur’an 13:27 “Say, ‘God leads whosoever He wills astray.’”

Again, nice god!


Ishaq:442 “By Muhammad’s order we beguiled them.”

Is it me, or do I see a pattern arising?

Tiss funny, is it not. That such a great(great in this context means big, not cool) religion codefies lies, deception and untruth?

I thought a faith was supposed to be founded on truth?

Silly me!

Give the above a click!

Apologise? NEVER!

Clerics demand cartoon apology
By Per Bech Thomsen in Copenhagen

March 11, 2006

ONLY an official apology by the Danish government to all Muslims for offence caused by the prophet Mohammad cartoons would prompt the lifting of the boycott of Danish goods, Muslim preachers said.

So WE have to apologise to THEM? Ok, I'm listening!

An official apology “is absolutely necessary ... because your government has not dealt with them (Muslims) respectfully,” Islamic scholar Tareq al-Suweidan told a conference hosted by the Government in an attempt to ease tension over the drawings.

Well, are you going to apologise for 9/11 or Madrid or London or Bali or the beheading of schoolgirls in Indonesia or the murder of hostages in Iraq or the wanton buchery of Jews?

(above, Christian girl in Indonesia learns to respect Islam)

The cartoons, first printed by a Danish paper last year and later reprinted elsewhere, provoked a storm of protests among Muslims, attacks on three Danish embassies and a boycott of Danish goods in some countries that has hit dairy exports.

Right, like anyone cares! What do Muslims contribute to the world economy? And don't say oil, that is run by evil white kafirs, Arabs do fuck all!

If there is no apology, “the scholars of Islam and myself ... I am running an Islamic satellite TV channel, we will encourage people to continue the boycott,” Suweidan said.

Yawn!

Amr Khaled, a preacher whose Cairo-based television shows are widely watched, said an apology alone was not enough. “Dialogue and many practical common projects are more important. We came here to build bridges but it must be two-way bridges,” he told the gathering.

Yeah lets build bridges! Maybe us Christian infedels could start by throwing acid in the faces of our bitches who have the gall to dishonour our families by saying something we don't like, just like some followers of the religion of Peace and Tolerance have above?

Suweidan said his argument was not with the Danish cartoonists, who are under police protection after being threatened, but with their government. “We are not angry because some of your cartoonists have drawn our beloved prophet. We are aggravated because of the way your government has mishandled this situation,” he said.

Oh, come on, we all know he is just itching to behead these kafirs, just like those followers of the religion of Peace and Tolerance have done to do to the unfortunate guy bellow!

The centre-right Danish government has refused to apologise on behalf of the newspaper saying it cannot influence the free press, but it acknowledged that many Muslims had felt gravely insulted by the controversial drawings.

Yeah like we didn't notice!

Suweidan, a Kuwaiti, said the Norwegian Government had apologised after a Norwegian newspaper printed the cartoons in January. “If they (the Danish Government) had just done that, the problem would not have arrived,” he said.

That is because Norway is run by a socialist government, and as we all know socialists love to apologise to 'minorities'!
As I've said above, let the Muslims apologise to the West for 9/11

In Norway the editor of the paper Magazinet apologised to Muslims for hurting them by printing the cartoons, while the Government defended free speech but regretted the insult.

Poor blood thirsty, psychotic, murderous, deceitful, Muslims! I almost feel something other then contempt for them(All consuming hatred)

(Bellow, what passes for a main stream political party in the Islamic world)

Both Muslim clerics supported free speech but accused the western world of applying double standards.

Oh, how precious, ah... oh boy, I apologise, I just fell off my seat in hysterical laughter, the thought that Muslim clerics could seriously think that we could beleive that they support FREE SPEECH! Oh ho ho ho! If they support free speech, then why oh why have Muslims gone completely fucking stir crazy when free speech is practiced?

“We want the laws in Denmark and the European Union to be changed, either to have free speech for everyone including on the Holocaust and anti-Semitism, or to change the law to respect religious figures like Mohammad,” Suweidan said.

Yeah! I bet you want OUR laws changed. I got a better idea. Go FUCK YOURSELVES. Go rot in that shit hole you call home! Go rape your daughters molest your sons, stone your wives and rip each other to peices with your hands, go on just FUCK OFF! I am sick to death of these whiney fuckers who elbow their way in to OUR country, con us out of OUR money and then demand that WE change to suit them!
What a FUCKING CHEEK! FUCK YOU! Bellow: Christians in Pakistan have the privelage of experiencing the TOLERANCE and PEACE of Islam, lucky them!

Fall of Man

Someone sent me the article bellow, it is a bit long, but is definitly worth a read.

I appologise in advance if this is belong's to anyone, there was no links or names attached!

The Persian King Cyrus asked the Lydian King Croesus
what he must do in order not to have to fear the
Greeks in his kingdom rising up against him. Croesus
replied: "[T]o make sure of their never rebelling
against you, or alarming you more, send and forbid
them to keep any weapons of war, command them to wear
tunics under their cloaks, and to put laced shoes upon
their feet, and make them bring up their sons to
lyre-playing, harping, and shop-keeping. So you will
soon see them become women instead of men, and there
will be no more fear of their revolting against you."
Herodotus.

"The age of chivalry is gone. ... The unbought grace of
life, the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly
sentiment and heroic enterprise is gone! That of
sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded;
and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever."
Edmund Burke

"There are [those] who, confounding together the
different characteristics of the sexes, would make man
and woman into beings not only equal but alike. They
would give to both the same functions, impose on both
the same duties, and grant to both the same rights;
they would mix them in all things -- their
occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may
readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make
one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and
from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature
nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly
women. "
Alexis de Tocqueville.

Starting around the decade of the 60s, there began to
be observed a marked change in the character of the
White male students enrolled in U.S. colleges. This
change was commented upon by some of the more astute
professors, and had to do with the tendency of these
young men to be too soft, too timid, too lacking in
what had always been considered normal male
aggressiveness. Now, it must be said, there have
always been men who were softer, more effeminate, more
"girlish," than average; just as there have always
been women with a tendency towards masculinity, but
this was not what these professors were observing.
What they saw was a relative increase in the number of
such men, and this phenomenon has been growing at an
ever accelerated pace ever since.

Now it is an accepted commonplace among some of the
more profound thinkers, philosophers, and scholiasts
on the human condition, that there have always been --
and will always be -- two kinds of men comprising that
small percentage of individuals who've shaped history:
the first being the "spiritual" man; the second being
the "economic" man. The first, the spiritual man, is
characterized by the explorer, the conqueror, the
warrior, the poet, the priest and the monk. The
second, the economic man, by the merchant, the
politician, the money-changer, the atheist, and the
bureaucrat. Spiritual man has been the builder of
civilizations, the dreamer of dreams, the spiritual
visionary, and the conqueror of empires: the man who
lives for ideas. Economic man usually appears on the
scene after the fact, and slowly wrests the levers of
power away from spiritual man after the hard work of
nation and culture building has been done. He is the
one who figures the percentages, who knows how to get
along by going along, who believes only in what he can
see, touch, smell or hear: he lives from ideas. The
first can be exemplified by individuals such as
Socrates, Hypatia, Alexander, St. Cosmas the
Aetolian, Dr. Samuel Johnson, Feodore Dostoevsky, and
Robert E. Lee. The second by such as Thrasymachus,
Ephialtes, the Duc d' Orleans, Jimmy Swaggart,
Madeleine Albright, Henry Kissinger, GWB, and Bill
Clinton. The first produces poets like Pindar who
sang:

[In} the presence of the honored gods, all who were
wont to rejoice in keeping their oaths, share a life that knoweth no tears...[and]
whosever...have been courageous in keeping their souls pure from all deeds of wrong, pass by the
highway of Zeus unto the tower of Cronus, Where the ocean-breezes blow around the Islands of the
Blest, and flowers of gold are blazing, some on the shore from radiant trees, while
others the water fostereth; and with chaplets thereof they entwine their hands, and with crowns,
according to the righteous councils of Rhadamanthys, who shareth for evermore the
judgment-seat of the mighty Father, even the Lord of Rhea with her throne exalted beyond
all beside

While the second produces merchants who promote,
politicians who allow, and priests who tolerate the
sickening output of "poets" such as Maya Angelou,
"writers" such as Sydney Sheldon, "artists" such as
Picasso, and the culture-destroying and nihilistic
trash emanating from Hollywood. These are the
economic men who feed upon the decaying corpse of our
Western Helleno-Christian civilization. Their world
produces "music" that includes such lines in a popular
rap song by 2 Live Crew as these:

"Suck my dick ... and make it puke

Lick my ass up and down

Lick it till your tongue turn doo-doo brown."

Now, one may well ask, just what all of this has to do
with the feminization of our young White men; the
ever-growing number of "sensitized" males and outright
homosexuals we see all around us? Well, the answer
lies in the replacement of spiritual man's
aristocratic values, which foster honor, ambition,
discipline, and self-control, with economic man's
democratic and feminine values, which foster safety,
comfort, security and the home. In a democratic
society the role of the government shifts from that of
a father, who maintains order but allows for the
incentive and freedom necessary for success, to that
of a mother whose function is to provide security and
comfort to all of her children; to make sure that
their demands are satisfied.

As the role of the government changes, individual
behavior follows suit. Children begin to be raised
differently, and a disciplined environment gives way
to a permissive one. Such things as spanking or
disciplining a child become subject to censure, and
the result is a failure on the part of the child to
learn from his mistakes, to mature and grow up. This
move from a masculine idealism to a feminine
materialism leads inevitably to hedonism and
self-absorbed egoism. The young -- both male and
female -- put self-gratification as their most
important goal in life, and it is this urge to satisfy
the senses that economic man exploits and encourages.
In the case of the male, it is not the acquisition of
honor, glory or esteem that is encouraged; what is
touted as most important is indulging in whatever
happens to satisfy one physically and emotionally: if
it feels good, do it; if it's something that
discomforts you, avoid it. Honor, glory, and
self-control are not encouraged by economic man
because there is no money to be made from such things
in his world, and money, as a means to power, is what
counts for him.

As the merchant mentality dominates, and economic man
gains more and more power, the opposing ideology of
spiritual man is ridiculed, distorted, and
marginalized. Manliness, the sacredness of marriage,
the idealization and protection of inviolate
womanhood, the importance of religious belief, of
race, heritage, and tradition, and other such values
of spiritual man are scorned. Economic man realizes
that the systematic weakening of these inclinations
are in his best interest, because it is only in their
diminishment or demise that he will be able to keep
spiritual man at bay and maintain his own power.

It is therefore perfectly understandable that the crowning
achievements of spiritual man, Hellenism and
Christianity, should be considered the absolute
enemies of economic man. Hellenism and the glory that
was Greece must be removed from the curricula of our
schools; when it is allowed, it must be made to
reflect the lies and myths that are being hustled,
because the truth is too compelling, too magnetic, and
would serve to inspire a new way of thinking: would
serve to create a new kind of spiritual man. As far as
Christianity is concerned, one need only look at the
way it is portrayed by Hollywood and the television
industry nowadays to see the scorn, contempt, and fear
with which it is held by economic man in order to
understand how important an adversary, and how much of
a threat, he considers it to be to his power. It is
truly to be regretted that so many of today's church
leaders -- in their desire to be "mainstream" -- have
rejected the masculine Christianity of the past in
favor of the ultimately self-destructive feminine
Christianity so commonly seen today.

A few words about the severe damage being
caused by the feminization of the White man are in
order. Some examples will suffice, we think, to show
that even though a man may not be a homosexual, his
feminization can have dire consequences for the
society in which he lives.

A few years ago, some White employees of the Texaco
Corporation were turned in to management by a group of
their Black colleagues who'd been systematically
tape-recording their telephone conversations. During
these illegal invasions of privacy, the Whites used
the words "niggers," and "black jelly-beans." The
"Rev." Jesse Jackson saw in this another means by
which he could extort money from what he knew to be
the wimpy White management that typifies the heads of
American corporations these days, and this is exactly
what he proceeded to do. Jackson threatened a boycott
of Texaco, and, in the end, was able to grab
approximately 170 million dollars from the lily-white
management of the company who were too cowardly to
stand up to an action which, if tried by the average
citizen, would most likely land him in jail. It must
be emphasized that the use of such words --as
"honkey," "gringo," "dago," "spic," etc.-- though
offensive, are constitutionally protected by the first
amendment which guarantees free speech. But to the "go
along in order to get along," feminized, "captains of
industry," like Texaco's "economic man" management
team, avoiding the possibility of a red bottom line on
the corporate balance sheet is more important than
standing up for the precious right -- bought with
blood, pain, and sacrifice -- of free speech.

During Mardi Gras in Seattle -- on so-called "Fat
Tuesday" earlier this year [2001] -- small groups of
Blacks viciously attacked individual White men and
women in an overwhelmingly White crowd. While the
Blacks punched young White women to the ground and
then kicked them senseless, and while they ripped the
clothes off other White women and pawed and probed
them, White men standing nearby just stared without
attempting to intervene. The victims were mostly
between 20 and 30 years old. They were chased, dragged
to the ground, punched severely, and kicked
mercilessly; some were sexually assaulted. Of course,
this incident wasn't reported on by the controlled
national media, but the event was witnessed by so many
people it could not be kept out of some of the local
papers. On March 12th, an article in the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, described how White women were
being forcibly held down by gangs of Blacks while
effete White photographers took the pictures. "[T]here
are about 20 Black... hands on her body," wrote the
White reporter about one typical incident, without
feeling the least bit of shame for not acting to help
the victim. (Emphasis added.)

On the evening of December 14th of 2000, two Black
brothers, 20-year-old Jonathan Carr and 23-year-old
Reginald Carr, invaded a White home in Wichita, Kansas
and kidnapped the three White men and two White women
inside, all of whom were in their 20s. They then drove
them to a snow-covered soccer field outside of town
after forcing them to withdraw money from several ATM
machines. At the field, they raped the two women, then
told all five of the Whites to kneel in the snow and
shot them in the back of the head. After that, the two
Blacks returned to the victims' home, burglarized it,
and shot a pet dog they found there. One of the young
women did not die, however. After recovering
consciousness, she ran naked and bleeding to summon
police. The Blacks were arrested and, of course, the
national media clamped a total blackout on the story.
The local female district attorney repeatedly asserted
that "race was not a factor," and that the incidents
would not be treated as "hate crimes"; but the idiocy
of "Hate Crime" legislation is another matter for
another time. What is important here is to analyze the
behavior of the White victims. The degradation and
humiliation they suffered would have been resisted
most forcefully just a few decades ago. These animals
not only raped the two women, they forced all of the
Whites to put on a sex show for their amusement. They
made the White men engage in homosexual acts, the
women to have sex with each other and with the white
men before shooting them, and then ran over their
bodies with one of the vehicles they were driving. The
pistol used by the Blacks was an anemic .380 caliber
-- which does not have much stopping power. What
should be especially noted is that three able-bodied
White men let two blacks, armed only with a .380
caliber pistol, degrade their women and even took part
in the degradation. They then knelt obediently in the
snow and let themselves and their women be
slaughtered.

Another example of the "demasculinization" of the
Western White male can be seen by anyone who visits
some of the many trendy vacation spots -- mostly in
the Caribbean -- frequented by sexually frustrated
White women, seeking to escape from the still
"straight" but flabby, limp-wristed, indecisive,
fearful and sensitive White males back home. Decades
ago, such scenarios had to do with the women from
upper-class social strata -- educated, sheltered, and
spoiled -- who would form liaisons with their White
chauffeurs, music teachers, gardeners, gamekeepers,
etc., ala Lady Chatterley's Lover. Nowadays, even
these once robust types have been "sensitized" to the
point where many can no longer satisfy the cravings of
a sexually normal woman. How many times have we heard
this complaint voiced by so many of today's young
women?: "It seems every man I meet is gay." They're
really not, of course, they're just "caring" and
"non-aggressive," and "tolerant": that is, feminized.
This has given a big boost to tourism in the Caribbean
and to other vacation spots considered by many White
women to be inhabited by men not tainted by the
castrating poison of politically correct, liberal
hate-mongering against White European males. (It
should be noted that Greece and the Greek islands get
a yearly influx of Scandinavian, English, and German
girls eager to be "hit-on" by the local "kamakia, " as
well.)

In a new book by Dial Press titled Privilege: the
Enigma of Sasha Bruce, the true story of a
blue-blooded heiress is told. She was the beautiful
and intelligent daughter of a diplomat and one-time
U.S. ambassador to France, W. Germany, and Britain.
Educated at the most exclusive and expensive schools,
she ended up being murdered at 29 by her last lover.
Prior to that, her fruitless search for a man who
would not only love her but also master her had led
her through an endless succession of Blacks, and just
about every form of degradation, humiliation, and
self-abasement at their hands imaginable; and her case
is not at all unusual. One of the more bizarre forms
this hunger to find a strong mate has taken in recent
years, is the growing migration of White women to the
jungles and shantytowns of Jamaica where they bed down
with the dreadlocked Blacks known as Rastafarians:
members of a White-hating, drug-using, Black sect. In
a recent issue of Der Spiegel, the German news
magazine, this phenomenon was written about in a
lengthy article: "When one travels along Jamaica's
north coast ... one is struck by the fascination the
daughters of White civilization have for the Black
sons of the wilderness .... One sees rows of female
eyes turn from the Jamaican sunset toward the locks of
an approaching 'dread' .... One experiences the sight
of a dozen blooming maidens following the lips of some
talking Rasta. One feels the irritation of the hotel
guests when a White girl with a Rasta shows up, she
bright and combed, he dark and ragged." Not only
German girls, but Canadian and American, and others
have been drawn to such places as Jamaica. Some have
been murdered, raped, and robbed, but they keep going.
One woman interviewed by Der Spiegel was a 26-year-old
German university student -- and a feminist. After
seven semesters of Sociology, she left school and
headed west. looking for something. She found it in
the raw masculinity of the Rastas, "...who fought
violently over me." The Rasta she is sleeping with is
full of rage against "White oppressors," and he
constantly berates her with tirades of his anti-White
hate. This, she says, has given her a different
perspective for her own race: "I understand better
now, that although our race is totally deformed, it
could one day become just as wonderful [as the Black
race] if it would only return to its original ways."
So that Black men [having a strong consciousness of
their roots] are "simply more attractive [to me] than
White men." (Emphasis added.)

And finally, let us remember that when Odysseus
returned to Ithaca and found his family, women, home,
and substance being wasted and defiled, he did not
concern himself with worrying about why the brutish
suitors were behaving so reprehensibly; he did not
seek to find justification for their insolence in some
real or imagined trauma they may have suffered in
their childhoods; he did not blame himself for being
richer or more powerful than they, and feel guilt
because he was the cause of their envy and resentment.
He simply made a plan, gathered his son and loyal
servants to his side, and massacred the bastards. What
has always been a source of wonderment about this
incident, was not that the suitors behaved as they did
-- there have always been and will always be such
people among us -- but that the rest of the population
of Ithaca stood by and allowed the despoilment of
their beloved King's family and property to go
unchallenged. But then again, isn't the same thing
happening today?. How many of us of White European
ancestry are making plans and gathering friends and
family in preparation for the day when we -- using all
the legal means still available to us -- " 'massacre'
the bastards" who are behind the planned destruction
of our Helleno-Christian world?

But let us turn our attention now away from the
feminized and back to the homosexual man. Such a
person, from the age of Homer -- if he were "gay" in
today's sense of the word --was called kinaithos (KIN
ay thos), which means "causer of shame" in both modern
and ancient Greek (aftós/aftí poú eíinai ó kinón tín
Aidó). The word has etymological connections to
"shame," "corruption," "disgrace" (Aidó/Aísxos), and
literally means "he who brings about the curse of Aídó
(a minor goddess who punished moral transgressors and
was a companion of the goddess, Nemesis). In Athens,
and most other Greek city-states, he would not be
allowed to take part in public affairs, and if he were
blatant in his behavior (that is, behavior such as
that characterized by homosexuals today), would be
disenfranchised, exiled, or executed by the state.

What must be kept in mind is that the ancient Greeks
were perpetually at war, either with foreign
(barbarian) or with Greek foes. War in those days was
brutal and final. There were no M.A.S.H. units just
behind the field of battle, ready to give life-saving
first-aid. No helicopters to take the wounded to
hospital. If one were captured, there were no Geneva
Conventions to ensure the proper treatment of
prisoners because there were no prisoners: All
combatants were slain, their women, children, and
non-combatants sold into slavery, taken as booty, or
slaughtered as well. Such war-like societies must,
perforce, develop a warrior code in order to survive.
This meant that there was a premium on manhood and all
that that word implied. Think of Achilles who, when
given the choice of a long life with no glory, chose a
short life with glory and honor instead. Think of
Sparta and her "wall of men," of Leonidas and his 300,
or of their Spartan mothers who said to their sons as
they left for war: "Either come back with your shield,
or on it." Think of Socrates who chose to die rather
than bring dishonor upon himself by disobeying the
laws of his beloved city: a city he had fought for
with honor in many a battle. Think of Alexander the
Great at Opis, in Persia, and of his famous speech to
his men when he offered to strip in order to match his
wounds with theirs, all of which were on his chest and
none on his back. Such states could not afford the
luxury of the kind of weak, effeminate men we see all
around us today. The glory that was Greece was only
possible because strong men were willing to fight and
die so that their country could survive and their
philosophers and poets could flourish. Before there
could be a Parthenon there had to be a Marathon (Xoris
Marathones then ginounte Parthenones).

This concentration on the development of strong and
honorable men, upon whom the very life of the state
depended, ultimately resulted in the creation of an
aesthetical male ideal. (As opposed to the feminine
"Hollywood" ideal prevalent in the West today;
focusing, as it does, on sex, romance, and the female
form, instead.) And it naturally follows that, in such
a society, the manly virtues (aretes) would also be
the most prized. And since there were no military
academies to train young men in these virtues, this
important task was taken up by the older, experienced
males who grew to love their charges, just as these
young men grew to love and respect their elder
mentors. Such training also put a great deal of
emphasis on the importance of friendship, especially
in the need for a close companion or friend on the
battlefield. So important was this training considered
to be, that families unable to find a suitable
pedagogue for their son felt socially slighted and
disadvantaged. The aesthetical ideal of the male
mentioned above (similar in its essentials to the
idealized Christian feminine ideal, which inspires
male effort to a higher good) is delineated in
Plato's Symposium, where we are presented with the
mystical realization of Plato's famous Doctrine of the
Forms. Socrates, having been instructed in matters of
love by the priestess, Diotima, seeks to show that by
understanding "Eros" (love), we can learn to approach
the Forms, toward which our souls are oriented. This
is done initially by admiring a young man's body as a
thing of beauty. One continues this "aesthetical
ascent" by the admiration of all bodies, then on to
human institutions -- such as the state -- until,
finally, one can come to understand and love the
beauty not only of nature but of the Supreme Beauty of
God Himself: an evolutionary process that is
ultimately meant to purify one's soul, and free one
from the enslavement of the flesh.

In Xenophon's version of the Symposium (sometimes
titled, Banquet), Socrates expounds on the importance
of a love that transcends bodily desires. He tells one
of his fellow banqueters that: "My heart is set on
showing you ... that not only mankind but also gods
and demi-gods set a higher value on the friendship of
the spirit than on the enjoyment of the body. For in
all cases where Zeus became enamored of mortal women
for their beauty, though he united with them he
suffered them to remain mortal; but all those persons
whom he delighted in for their souls' sake he made
immortal." It is this love -- a love on a plane higher
than that of the merely physical -- that has come to
be known as "Platonic love" in all of the languages of
the world. And it is just this love that set the
standards of behavior that existed between teacher and
boy, as well as between adult friends in ancient
Greece.

Though it never reached such lofty heights,
the admiration of the beauty of the male form was also
prevalent in the Roman world as evidenced by such as
St. Augustine of Hippo (arguably Christianity's most
heterosexual saint), who said that the body was
obviously created for more than mere utilitarian
purposes; it was also meant to be admired for its
beauty. As an example, he cites the beard which has no
functional purpose but was given to men to make them
beautiful.

So that we have the combination of the need in the
Greek world to develop strong, honorable, and
physically capable men, coupled with a male aesthetic
of the beautiful that was universally admired and
sought. Add to this the aforementioned custom of
putting the schooling of young boys in the manly arts
and virtues into the hands of older men, and one
begins to see that such a mix could be potentially
explosive. For this reason, although these friendships
were encouraged, there were -- according to many
sources such as Xenophon, Plutarch, Plato, and others
--tough restrictions imposed by custom and law. As an
example, an older man (Erastis) might take on the
training of a young boy (Eromenos), but under no
circumstances was intimate touching allowed. The
difference between homo-erotic friendships, and actual
homosexual practices (in the modern sense of what it
means to be "gay"), was clearly defined. The Greek
ideal was a non-physical, purely pedagogical,
relationship. That some, if not many, may have
strayed, cannot be denied, but what is important here
is to understand that those who did risked serious
legal penalties such as banishment or death, and that
such behavior was most emphatically discouraged and
forbidden by custom and law.

Proof of this can be found through an observation of
Greek vase paintings having the depiction of Erastis
and Eromenos as the subject. The strong ties between
the older man and the boy he is training are easily
seen. No close bodily contact is ever depicted,
however, and one notices that all of the prohibitions
regarding these relationships are being strictly
observed. Had overt homosexual behavior been
considered acceptable, it would most definitely have
been shown -- because the Greeks were prone to
"letting everything hang out" -- but this is hardly
ever the case. Those vase paintings that do depict
what might accurately be categorized as homosexual
scenes comprise such an insignificant percentage of
the total -- something like 30 out of tens of
thousands (cf A. Georgiades, Debunking the Myth of
Homosexuality in Ancient Greece. 2002. p. 126.), that
one is perfectly justified in wondering just what the
real purpose is that lies behind the extrapolation of
this minute percentage into the absurd charge that
they represent the norm. Moreover, a percentage of
these 30 or so could have been commissioned by
homosexuals, or even by "straight" customers who saw
them as a means of ridiculing behavior they disliked
or thought to be amusing. (It is important to note
that Greek vases were a major export item and have
been found from Russia to Gibraltar, as well as
throughout Northern and Western Europe. In the
province of Attica alone -- where Athens is located --
over 80,000 have been found to date.-- cf Georgiades.
p.127.) When one compares this small number to what we
see today on TV, in ads, books, magazines, the
cinema, etc., one can just imagine what future
generations will think of us.

That such behavior was the subject of ridicule can be
seen in the disapproval voiced by Socrates, for
instance, who, as Xenophon tells us in his
Memorobilia, when he found out that Critias loved
Euthydemus, tried to restrain him by saying that such
a thing was "mean," and that it was "unbecoming" of
Critias to ask of Euthydemus "... a favor that it
would be wrong to grant." When Critias persisted,
Socrates berates him by saying that "Critias seems to
have the feelings of a pig [that can't] help rubbing
[itself] against stones"( Emphasis added.). And it is
Xenophon as well who tells us in his Lacedaemonian
Constitution, that Lycurgus, the great Spartan
lawgiver, "... banned the [physical] connection
[between man and boy] as an abomination; and forbade
it no less than parents were forbidden from sexual
intercourse with their children and brothers and
sisters with each other." Spartan life was harsh, and
boys from a certain age slept in barracks with other
boys as part of their training. This fact has given
much cause for sly and cunning conjecture, but upon
closer scrutiny the effects of this practice can most
accurately be compared to what Evelyn Waugh, the
English writer, said about the exclusive, all-boys
private schools of his time. He said that though there
may have been some homosexual activity, he did not
know of one single case where a graduate, of his
school for instance, did not go on to marry and raise
a family. The same can be said of the Spartans who
were expected to give strong children to their
country, and who, according to Plutarch, in his "Life
of Lycurgus," were severely dealt with if they
didn't.

Concerning Sparta, Plutarch, in the "Sayings of
Spartan Women," to be found in his Moralia, relates
some pithy but informative anecdotes about these
extraordinary females. As one reads them, it is
extremely difficult to think of the men they are
talking about as being "gay," or effeminate in any
way. One of the most famous of these is the following:
A woman from Attica asked a Spartiatisa, "Why is it
that you Spartan women are the only women that lord it
over your men?" The Spartan woman answered: "Because
we are the only women that are the mothers of [real]
men." It is worthy of note that what the woman from
Attica said, in effect, was that all Greek women were
under the complete control of their men, whereas the
Spartan woman answered, in effect, that even these
dominating Greek males were not "men" in comparison
with Spartans. Another, the wife of Leonidas, of
Thermopylae fame, asked her husband what she should do
[should he be killed]. He answered: "Marry a good man,
and bear good children." First off, it is noteworthy
that she asked her husband what she should do, hardly
a likely possibility if he were an effeminate male,
and she, not he, were the master in the home.

Secondly, his chief concern is that she marry and bear
children; something a homosexual wouldn't give too
much of a damn about. Another has to do with a Spartan
girl who is the object of some very sissified advances
by a visiting foreigner. She pushes him away and says
deridingly: "Get away from me, you can't even 'come
on' to me like a man." This tells us, since it is
perfectly logical to assume that the girl had never
left Sparta (travel outside of Lacedaemonia was not
something ordinarily done by anyone, male or female),
that in her prior experiences with the men of Sparta,
the advances they'd made were aggressive. Finally,
when a Spartan woman was asked if she had made
advances [before marriage] to her husband, she
answered: "No, but he made them to me." And speaking
of Spartan men, we mustn't forget that it was
Menelaus, the Spartan, who waged war upon the Trojans
in order to win back his wife, the beautiful Helen.
Whether she was the actual cause of the war is not the
issue here; what is important is that the idea of a
Spartan husband -- not to mention the whole of Greece
-- going to war for a woman had enough verisimilitude
about it to be considered the natural thing for any
husband to do. Had this story contained too much of
the fantastic, it would not have had the staying power
it has enjoyed down through the centuries.

From the time of Homer, in whose epic poetry there
cannot be found one iota of a hint of homosexual
behavior, to the time of Alexander the Great, such
practices as sodomy between adults -- or between an
adult and a boy -- were considered abominations, and
were strictly forbidden and severely punished. As for
Alexander, according to Plutarch in On The Fortune of
Alexander, when the Macedonian conqueror was asked by
the lickspittle governor of one of the conquered
provinces in Asia Minor, if he would like him to send
Alexander "...a youth, the like of whom for bloom and
beauty did not exist." he received the following
reply: "Why you vilest of men, what deed of mine have
you witnessed in the past that would make you think I
would be interested in such pleasures?" And speaking
of Homer, the friendship between Achilles and
Patroclus has been the subject of much snide innuendo.
This malicious and self-serving commentary always
seems to ignore the fact that the whole theme of the
Iliad -- Homer's great epic account of the Trojan War,
and Achilles' heroic exploits in it -- was the "Wrath
of Achilles." And what was Achilles so worked up
(wrathful) about? Why, it was that Agamemnon, had
taken Achilles' slave girl away from him. When
Achilles and Patroclus came back to their tent after a
hard day on the field of battle, their two captured
slave girls -- taken as booty -- were waiting for
them. When they went to sleep, they slept with these
girls. The idea that the glorification of friendship
that the Greeks so admired could have been nothing
more than an excuse for sodomy, is as ridiculous as it
is despicable and unhistorical.

As far as the classical age is concerned, a reading of
Aristophanes' great comedies (as just one source among
many) should be enough to convince any reasonable
person that, when this great artist poked fun at the
perpetual battle between the sexes, he was accurately
reflecting the ethos of an overwhelmingly heterosexual
society. His play, Lysistrata, is the perfect case in
point. The premise of the play is that the
Peloponnesian War is destroying Athens, and the women
want it to end. They decide that the best way to get
their men to stop fighting is to refrain from having
sex with them, so they go on what might be called a
sex strike. It all makes for very funny reading, but
the point we wish to emphasize here is that the men go
crazy! After all kinds of very comical goings-on, the
men finally give up and agree to stop fighting if only
their women will come down from the Acropolis, where
they've barricaded themselves, and sleep in their own
beds again. If the ancient Greeks were "a bunch of
fairies," as that paradigm of civic virtue, the "Rev."
Al Sharpton, once remarked, why did they all go nuts?
Why were all of the males of Athens running around
with "three legs," as is so graphically and comically
depicted in the play?

It is important to note that throughout the entire
written history of Hellenism (and the same can be said
of Christianity as well), erotic love was universally
presented in terms of male and female: the bride and
the bridegroom. This is true of all of the scriptural
images we possess, just as it is true of about 99% of
Greek art and literature. When one looks over the
whole of Greek literature, poetry, and art, for
instance, one sees that when the subject of erotic
attachment comes up, it is always between a man and a
women: Odysseus and Penelope (whose relationship is a
near-perfect model of a mature marriage), Hector and
Andromache, Hippolytus and Phaedra, Aegisthus and
Clytemnestra. Even among the major gods like Ares and
Aphrodite, Zeus and Hera (and Zeus' behavior can be
best described as macho and heterosexual in the
extreme), on down to the minor gods, such as Peleus,
married to the goddess Thetis, and Heracles, who took
the mortal Deianira to wife, the list goes on and on.
And this model extends as well into the Hellenistic
age, with such lovers as Leander and Hero, and all of
the couples in the plays of Menander. The same pattern
holds true of Greek art running from the Minoan,
Mycenaean, Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic ages, a
span of over 2000 years. All through this enormous
length of time, the overwhelming majority of the
sculptures, figurines, wall paintings, mosaics, and
vase paintings (something like 99%), show males and
females when the subject is erotic love. By contrast,
America went from Christian Puritanism to "Gay and
Lesbian pride," "Heather has two Mommies," Barney
Frank in the U.S. Congress, and "Don't ask, don't
tell" in the U.S. Armed Forces -- with all of the
attendant decadence these nihilistic constructs have
brought us -- in just over 200 years.

This pattern of strict adherence to God's Natural Law
held true in the political arena as well. There was
not one Greek political leader -- from Homeric to
Classical times -- that was known to be a homosexual.
Prominent men such as Odysseus, Diomedes, Agamemnon,
Menelaus, Nestor, Priam, Paris, and Hector of the
Trojan War; down to the classical period, with such
men as Pericles (who, after he divorced his wife,
lived with his mistress, Aspasia, until his death),
Aristides, Phocion, Themistocles, Miltiades, Nicias,
and others, too numerous to mention, were all, without
exception, married or involved in heterosexual
relationships with mistresses or Hetairai (roughly
equivalent to the Japanese Geisha). The same can be
said of the "mythological" heroes like Perseus,
Cecrops (who first instituted monogamy among men), and
Theseus (who was the first man to abduct Helen of Troy
when she was a girl); to such heroes as the Argonauts:
men like Jason, Orpheus, and Heracles; all of whom
were involved in (sometimes stormy) heterosexual love
affairs throughout their lives. The playwrights and
poets too -- Hesiod, Archilochus, Aeschylus,
Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Menander, and
others, were all masculine, normal men as well. And
this is true of the philosophers whose lives we know
something about, such as Socrates (who married twice),
Aristotle, and Plato.

Though Plato never married, he had much to say on what
he felt was normal behavior between the sexes: Much
that would blow to pieces the devious and self-serving
assertions being put forward by our postmodern
"scholars," and "intellectuals" today. Here is a
sample: In his Laws he states quite categorically that
"... male does not touch male for this purpose, since
it is unnatural...." And again, in the same work, he
tells us that "... when male unites with female for
procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due
to nature (kata physin), but is contrary to nature
(para physin) when male mates with male or female with
female, and that those ... guilty of such enormities
[are] impelled by their slavery to pleasure." Plato's
views might even be termed puritanical by many today
for in his "Seventh Epistle" he tells us that "...if
one's existence is spent in gorging food twice a day
and never sleeping alone at night ... [then] not a
single man of all who live beneath the heavens could
ever become wise." And Plato, who has been called the
wisest man who ever lived, was certainly wise enough
to know that compulsive homosexuality leads inexorably
to the utter enslavement of, first, the individuals
who practice it, and second, the society in which it
is allowed to flourish. For, as the Emperor Julian
(the "Apostate") -- a scholar of the first rank who
was superbly schooled in Greek paideia -- so aptly put
it in his Sixth Oration: "Then never think, my friend,
that you are free while your belly rules you and the
part below the belly, since you will then have masters
who can either furnish you the means of pleasure or
deprive you of them."

So that what we see in ancient Greece is a devotion to
the male ideal, engendered by the need to create a
warrior class capable of defending home and hearth
effectively. This self-preserving ideal resulted in
the creation of strict codes of honor on the
battlefield, and in the elevation of friendship
between men carried to what may today be considered
the extreme. A similar situation occurred in the age
of the Samurai warrior in Japan. These men were the
embodiment of heroic virtue, and their idealization
led to the cult of the male in that country as well.
These manly virtues may provide plenty of material for
ridicule for the likes of Woody Allen (who gets lots
of laughs when he quips: "I'm way beyond 4-F; I'm
categorized as 'coward' by my draft board"); and Bill
Clinton, who famously wrote that " I despise the
military," and actually demonstrated against his
country while American boys were dying in a war he was
illegally evading. One more thought on Clinton: It was
because those 1500 men on the Titanic had been raised
while Helleno-Christian influence was still strong,
that they were able to muster the courage and
determination to give up their lives so that their
women and children could live. There were, of course,
a few cowards who dressed as women in order to gain a
place on the lifeboats, and you can be sure that
"Slick Willie" would have been one of these. Yet, this
man --who would not have been allowed to hold the
office of "night-soil collector" in ancient Greece --
was elected the Commander-in-Chief of the American
armed forces! What does this tell you, dear reader,
about the state of "feminine democracy" in that
country?

What does this say about the contempt in which the
dumbed-down and misinformed citizens of that
once-great land are held by those who control that
nation's media, and are therefore able to wield the
power necessary to have the
"lickspittle-of-their-choice" elected?

It may be reasonably argued that there was something
wrong with the culture that fostered these irregular
and illegal homo-erotic relationships between some
Greek males in the 6th, 5th, and 4th centuries. What
must be repeatedly emphasized, however, is that,
unlike in America (and more and more in Europe) today,
this activity was never legalized, never encouraged,
never lauded as being perfectly normal, never part of
the Greek educational curriculum, never depicted on
the stage as something trendy and "cool." No candidate
for public office, known to be a homosexual, could
ever, by the wildest stretch of the imagination, have
been elected; no openly homosexual person -- male or
female -- could have avoided death, banishment, or, at
the very least, severe public censure. The idea of
same-sex- marriage would have been incomprehensible
and repugnant beyond words to them; and the thought of
a group such as the North American Man Boy Love
Association (NAMBLA -- whose goal is "to end the
oppression of men and boys who have mutually
consensual relationships") forming in their community
would have thrown them into paroxysms of
uncontrollable rage.

The philosophers and priests of ancient Greece were
dedicated to the principle of never violating with
thought or deed that which has been given to man by
the gods. This principle was encapsulated in the
much-heralded phrase, Sozein ta phenomena; which
phrase we translate as follows: "Preserve the
natural!" The acorn may most certainly be observed,
commented upon, ridiculed or revered; but it must be
allowed to become an oak tree. The idea that within
the acorn there is a weeping willow struggling to
"come out" would have been met with the ridicule and
scorn such fuzzy-minded thinking deserves. This
thinking is today encouraged and promoted by a
malignant and elitist minority, hell-bent on bringing
Western Civilization -- given to the world by White
men and women of European ancestry -- to its knees so
that it can fill the power vacuum that will result.
Some have stated that such thinking is only possible
among academics and "intellectuals"; such a belief is
simplistic and unrealistic. A more likely reason for
the collaboration of such water-bucket-carriers for
the aforementioned elitist minority, is that these
people are simply the products of a society controlled
by the "economic men" previously described. If touting
homosexuality, feminism, multiculturalism, diversity,
etc., will enhance our careers, why let's do it , and
to hell with what damage will be done to future
generations. These are the Clintons, the Bushes, the
Albrights, the Kissingers, the Friedans, the Abzugs,
the Franks, the Simitis', the Karamanlis', the
Jacksons, the Sharptons, and the Blairs of the world.
For such creatures there is no salvation, no saving
grace: everything they do is anathema, corrosive, and
self-serving in the extreme. And their most feared
common enemy is the White male of European ancestry:
It is he who must be ridiculed, marginalized,
feminized, and ultimately destroyed before he awakens.

Those of us who wish to preserve what is left of our
culture must develop a zero-tolerance attitude towards
such people. The kind of "tolerance" demonstrated by
the "diversity"-promoting leftists who demonstrate
their love for diversity by shouting down speakers who
don't toe the party line. We risk losing our
identities, our culture, and our freedoms because we
seem to think it more important to be polite than to
engage in the kind of behavior that has proven so
rewarding for our ideological enemies.

WARNING! Socialists die younger.

Today's untimely death of Slododan Milosevic, former President of Yugoslavia at the tender age of 64, got me to thinking. It seems to be a pattern! Socialists die young! Mr Milosevic was a communist all his life, he ruled like a commie and look what has happened to him! He died aged 64! That is very young by todays standards

If we look at the UK, several senior socialists have died at suspiciously young ages!
Robin Cook, former Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons, before resigning over the Iraq War, he died last year at the age of 49! He was also a life long socialist!

Tony Banks, former Sports Minister in Blair's government died in January this year aged 62! Another life long socialist

Mo Mowlem former Northern Ireland Secretary, another life long socialist died aged 46.

John Smith, leader of the British Labour Party 1992-1994, died aged 55 of a masive heart attack, Tony Blair succeded him. Smith was another life long socialist

Adolf Hilter was a life long socialist who led the National Socialist German Worker's Party, In German the National Socialist part translates as National Sozialistiche (NAZI) Adolf Hilter died aged 56, granted it was suicide, however he was already very ill(He was it should be noted, a vegetarian, anti-hunting, anti-smoker)

Is this only a coincidence? Perhaps, but lets look at some right wing figures and see how they fare!

Sir Winston Churchill, a great conservative died at the age of 95, despite leading the free world through its greatest military contest ever and smoking cigars every day and drinking too much alcohol!

Ronald Reagan, that great American President, conservative to his core lived untill 93. True he had alzheimers, however that affected only the last decade of his life

Margaret Thatcher, bless her cotton socks, she is an old bird now, but she has gone down in history as one of Britain's finest Prime Ministers, her acheivements are too many to recount here and yes she is a life time conservative! She is now in her 80th year.

Queen Elizabeth II, a long lived and greatly loved monarch. She is now 80 years old and going strong, she looks like a woman of 60 bless her. Conservative to the bone! Her mother Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother lived untill just before her 102nd birthday!

Perhaps this is all a massive coincidence! Perhaps not!

Maybe socialist parties and societies and books should carry health warnings, eg: Socialists die younger or socialism kills or socialism is highly addictive don't start or socialism causes ageing of the skin

I think I have proved my point, if you want a full, happy contented life ditch socialism, it takes years off your life!
Anyway socialists are miserable creatures, not only do they die prematurely, they are full of bitterness, have no sense of humour and takes themselves far too seriously. They just continually bang on about global bloody warming and moan about the end of the world and how Bush is it's cause! GET A LIFE!

So the moral of this Health Warning is be a Tory, live life to the full!

Labor on the edge of civil war!

Well this is going to be fun!

Australian Labor pary members are in volved in a spiteful, bitter campaign against each other

It's getting worse! I wrote about this before, now these Laborites are begining to rip each others jugulars out.

Sometimes I love socialists!

Heroes of the West

Our great civilisation has many we can call heroes!
Men and women who have fought for our civilisation, our freedom and our future, many have given their lives. Are we worthy of them?

Charles Martel was the King of the Franks, he fought the Saracens(Muslims) at Tours in 732AD, he halted them and defeated them, sending the barbarian horde back into Spain(which they had just conquered and enslaved)

Martel fought a running series of hard fought battles as he drove the Islamic savages from France

John Sobieski, King of Poland raced to the relief and certain rescue of Christendom in 1683. The Turkish savages had invaded and brutalised the Balkans, enslaving the great races of the Serbs, the Bulgarians, the Greeks, the Croatians, the Hungarians and many other smaller races. The Turks advanced on Vienna and for a time it looked as if Europe would finally fall to the Islamic barbarians.
They didn't count on the Polish King, who selflessly rode to Europe's rescue, he drove the Turkish barbarians from Vienna and has earned his place in the hall of Christian heroes.

The battle of Lepanto was fought in 1571. It was led by Don Juan Hapsburg, he led the christian fleet against the Islamic barbarian fleet of Ali Pasha, Sultan of the Ottomans who was attempting to enslave the free West. He was routed and defeated by the combined fleets of Venice, Spain, Genoa, the Holy Order of the Knight's of St John of Malta, Savoy and the Pope's fleet.

Queen Isalella of Spain with King Ferdinand finally liberated Spain from the blood thirsty and uncivilised Moors who had treacherously invaded and enslaved Spain in the 8th century. Spain was now free and able to build one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen!

Queen Elizabeth I was instrumental in defending a free England from the subversive powers of Europe during the reformation, she headed off the Spainish Armada and preserved England's independence.

William Pitt the Elder was Prime Minister of Great Britain during the Seven Years War(the French and Indian War) 1592–1598 in which he was instrumental in defeating the French and ending their hopes of conquering the British colonies of North America, thereby ensuring the continuity of the English speaking peoples of North America.

William Pitt the Younger was Prime Minister when Europe was threatened by the revolutionary hordes of France in the 1790's and then the armies of Napoleon in the first decade of the 19th century. His efforts led to Napoleon's eventual defeat on 1815

Horatio Nelson, Admiral of the Fleet, led the Royal Navy against French Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, dying in the Battle of Trafalgar, which ended Napoleon's ability to invade England.

Sir Arthur Wellesley, later the Duke of Wellington, led British forces against French armies in Spain and Portugal and later left the Congress of Vienna to lead Allied armies against Napoleon and to his final defeat at Waterloo in 1815.

General Charles Gordon, died heroically in Kartoum in the Sudan when he defended the local people against the savage and blood thirsty Mahdi in 1885. He had the opportunity to leave the locals to the barbarous Mahdi and his savage followers, but he was too decent to do so, he paid with his life as did the men under his command,

The men of the West who fought bravely in the trenches of France agaisnt German aggession in WWI, my great grandfathers were amoungst those brave souls who fought for King, Country and freedom.

Winston Churchill, stiffened the resolve of Britain during WWII and helped save the world from German Nazism, he also realised the threat posed by Soviet Communism long before others.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, were vital in the fight against communism. They both challenged defeatists in their own nations, they both fought vigorously for free trade both at home and abroad, they stood together against the tyranny of state socialism resulting in the Soviet Union's final collapse in 1990. Thatcher fought and won the Falkland war, when most thought that she would lose it, Reagan instilled a new confidence in America and laid the ground work for the Republican party's ascendance today.

Are we worthy of these great people?