Book: Toward the White Republic - Compilation - Chapter 12 - 2009: Crisis or Opportunity?

In the last two years, one crisis has followed another. First there was a housing mortgage crisis, then a liquidity crisis that led to a banking crisis, then a dollar crisis, then a credit crisis, then a geopolitical crisis, then an energy crisis, then a crisis of consumer confidence, and finally a political crisis at the highest level of the state, involving a crisis of the spirit which brought a negro to power—a negro symbolizing everything against which the American originally defined himself, and thus symbolizing the destruction of America’s historic identity.

The burning question today is: are these cascading crises “conjunctural” (i.e., due to a combination of circumstances) or are they “structural” (inherent to the system’s nature)? If the latter, then the “American System,” which has governed the world since 1945 at the expense of its white population, faces a systemic breakdown, whose implications are potentially catastrophic. If only conjunctural, the news is still good, for it cannot but highlight the system’s anti-white nature, of which most whites still unfortunately remain clueless.

A crisis is a turning point, “a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, especially for better or worse, is determined.” [1] Though most commentators have emphasized the economic nature of the crisis, almost all recognize its system-disrupting potential. Hence the current obsession with the Great Depression of the Thirties and, in more radical quarters, the Soviet crisis of 1985, which brought Mikhail Gorbachev to power. A crisis, then, can be seen as the prelude to a historical transformation.

Though time alone will tell what the exact nature of this transformation will entail, it is nevertheless likely to undermine the legitimacy of the established powers and imperil the well-being of the middle class, thus advancing the cause of the white-nationalist ethnostate. Indeed, given the absence of an organizational structure and a popular following in the real world, the white nationalist project is predicated on just such a crisis—for it’s the one thing that offers our people a possible alternative to their programmed extinction.

With the mortgage meltdown of December 2007, the crisis initially touched Wall Street, commercial and investment banks, insurance companies, and several government-sponsored enterprises (like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). It has since assumed the quality of a more generalized crisis, as it spreads to Main Street, in the form of retail bankruptcies, mass layoffs, and reduced working hours. Many local and some state governments are also being hit, as tax revenues fall and budget deficits become unmanageable. Once it begins taking a toll on employment, government services, and the general functioning of the economy, the crisis qualitatively changes, crossing over into that realm Joseph Tainter treats in The Collapse of Complex Societies. [2]

It’s “the worst economic crisis since the Thirties,” the pundits agree, but there’s a good deal of uncertainty as to what it forebodes. For Ed Balls, the principal economic adviser to the British government, it’s “the most serious global recession in the last 100 years.” Balls warns that events worldwide are currently moving at a “speed, pace and ferocity which none of us have seen before,” as banks continue to lose cash on a “scale that nobody believed possible.” He suspects that “times could be tougher” than in the first Great Depression, “when male unemployment in some cities reached 70 per cent” and (horror of horrors) “that the recession could play into the hands of the far right.” [3] Paul Volker, George Soros, and other establishment luminaries have expressed similar fears.

In capitals across Europe these fears are being stroked by solidarity strikes, demonstrations, and violent riots which directly challenge the civil authorities, who seem helpless in face of the economic breakdown. Much of the former Soviet bloc also appears on the brink of collapse. And it’s likely that such disorders will soon descend on us.

The pervasive uncertainty surrounding the crisis—threatening the capitalist system, the prevailing model of globalization, and America’s standing in the world order—lends it, as such, an apocalyptic quality that portends large-scale changes which may affect the destiny of European America.

THE CRISIS

A great many white Americans think theirs is the world’s preeminent country, though they know almost nothing about it and less about “the rest of the world.” Compared to the black and brown nations of the Third World, America, of course, is a paradise (even if most whites are lonely, isolated, and lacking any sense of who they are as a people). But compared to Western and Central Europe, or to Japan, Hong Kong, and certain of the other Asian Tigers, it more and more shapes up badly.

The great industries that once made America the world’s foremost economic power and provided working people a decent standard of living have been shipped overseas, along with the technologies and know-how that made them such powerhouses. The wealth-producing manufacturing sector is now at 12 percent of economy and the parasitic financial sector (which shuffles papers and cyber ciphers) is paramount. Between 2000 and 2008, the US share of world product fell from 31 percent to 23 percent. Trade imbalances have grown, just as the US has shifted from being a creditor nation to a debtor nation. Bubbles in housing and lending, lack of diligence in oversight, opacity in the credit market, flawed computer models in place of human judgment—each vital link in the country’s economic chain seems to be snapping.

Before the crisis, the economy was in fundamental disequilibrium, based on consumption rather than production, with consumer spending making up more than 70 percent of the GNP. Since the crisis, it has been turned topsy: the banking system, the bedrock of US capitalism, has failed, wholesale markets have frozen, the entire regulatory system is in a shambles, and consumer confidence is at its lowest point in history. Not a few mainstream observers claim the United States “no longer controls its economic fundamentals” and “compared with the rest of the world, is on the way down.”

In this spirit the foremost globalist cheerleader at the New York Times, Thomas Friedman, has begun, after a recent trip to the Far East, to complain that America is becoming “decrepit”—somewhat in the way the Stalinist achievements of the old Soviet Union were becoming decrepit in the 1980s. [4]

Against this backdrop of decline and looming disaster, the dominant mantra, endlessly echoed by the media, remains to “consume”— to rack up those credit card purchases that keep the banking/credit/financial industries afloat—even though there’s nothing Americans produce or earn any longer to pay their debts.

It seems poetically just that the country’s principal export is now the junk culture fabricated in Hollywood, a “culture” which celebrates behaviors and values historically considered pathological.

De-industrialization and “financialization” (i.e., the hegemony of financial economics over industrial economics), which were to make the United States the leading edge of the new postmodern, informationbased, global market, are obviously implicated in the current crisis.

At the most basic level, the new interdependence of a world market based on digital financial exchanges and porous borders means that problems in one sector inevitably become problems in another, that disturbances in one country set off corresponding disturbances in other countries, that local crises have the potential of becoming system-wide crises, that American efforts to shore up the collapsing national economy (such as certain protectionist measures in the recently enacted “stimulus plan”) come at the expense of other national economies and are thus bound to increase tensions in the international order.

The country’s compromising dependence on exterior forces is compounded by the “Ponzi” or “pyramid” dynamics of the US financial sector, based on speculative bubbles that create a false prosperity; by debt-ridden, mismanaged, and often unaccountable corporations run by “Wall Street con men, hedge fund nabobs, and casino capitalists” unconcerned with taking “outrageous risks with other people’s money”; and by government policies (shaped by special interest groups) that redistribute assets from competent people to incompetents [5] (particularly minorities that sponge off the public in the form of welfare, subprime lending, “positive” discrimination, and a host of other racial privileges).

To pay the interest on its spiraling debt, the country in the last decade has had to borrow two to three billion dollars a day from foreigners, mainly Chinese and Japanese, who are acquiring in the process ownership to wide swaths of the economy, while American speculators have racked up vast (and, as it turns out, largely meaningless) ciphers of wealth in cyberspace. Though the United States has never owed so much money to the rest of the world, its financial and political elites, addicted to fiat money, continue to believe they can expand the debt indefinitely.

Even to many of its champions, it’s increasingly obvious that the American economic model of deregulated market capitalism and profligate consumption has proven to be a disaster rather than “a vehicle of progress.” At the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland in late January 2009, where “the masters of the world” convened their annual meeting, the mood, fittingly, was one of shock and despair, as the fear spread that there would be no recovery, only ongoing decline. [6]

Decline, though, seems built into the globalists’ economic order— and decline that is more than economic. As Karl Polanyi wrote on the eve of the American Century: “To allow the market mechanism to be the sole director of the fate of human beings . . . [cannot but] result in the demolition of society.” [7] We will soon see how well the global market system designed by our multiculturalist planners endures the coming strains.

America’s “human capital,” evident in the darkening of its populace, is also in conspicuous decline. Literacy rates are among the lowest in the industrial world; its once prestigious graduate schools of science and engineering are filled mainly with foreigners; its public schools are concerned less and less with mastering the rudiments of reading and writing than with dispensing contraceptives to fourteen year-olds and preventing the use of hand guns on school premises; the population as a whole is socially balkanized; its incarceration rate is the highest in the world; and its spirit, culture, and understanding is increasingly “McDonaldized.”

Geopolitically, the situation is also one of decline, as other countries begin lecturing the formerly self-righteous schoolmarm on how to conduct her bungled affairs, and as regions formerly subservient to the United States (like Latin America) assert their autonomy and defy the very notion of American world leadership. [8] The United States has now lost its bases in Central Asia; it’s been stymied in the Caucuses; it’s about to retreat from Iraq; it’s backing off its anti-Russian “missile shield” in Eastern Europe; and, according to the US commander there, it’s “stalemated” in Afghanistan. [9] More generally, “the international blowback to the US-created world economic crisis has,” as William Pfaff describes it, devastated “the American reputation for competence and with it the justification for America’s six-decade role as world leader.” [10] The American-centric postwar geopolitical regime is, indeed, becoming a thing of the past.

But perhaps of greatest consequence, the dollar is starting to lose its status as the world’s reserve currency—which means no more free credit and no more free rides. The United States will now have to pay normal market price for the funds it borrows abroad, and it can expect a sharp devaluation of its currency, as foreign investors unload their US dollar assets. Some commentators have gone so far as to claim that the dollar’s demise is imminent. But whatever happens, it seems safe to conclude that the fat times we have known are not coming back.

Because these economic problems bear directly on the country’s political and social order, both American and foreign academics, some with distinguished credentials, have begun predicting “an economic and moral collapse [which] will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the United States.” [11]

At the same time, there have been warnings from at least one former high-ranking Bush official (Thomas Schweich) of a “secret coup,” as the higher reaches of the state fall increasing under military control.

What began in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the Army became a colonial administrator, is apparently “coming home.” [12] The “mission creep” under Bush is likely to continue under Obama, as long as he’s allowed a free hand to pursue his social-racial reforms—which seems especially likely considering that the military was the original “equal opportunity employer.” Unusual for a Democrat, Obama has appointed three high-ranking officers to his Cabinet, promises not to make any significant cuts in the Pentagon’s astronomical budget, and plans to augment US ground troops by another 100,000, escalate Bush’s imperial mission in Afghanistan, and perhaps extend it to Pakistan.

What’s especially revealing in the recent spate of doom-and-gloom predictions about America’s future is the expectation, among not a few establishment authorities, that the crisis could—perhaps won’t, but might—lead to violent class struggle, military dictatorship, or even social revolution. This is unprecedented.

Against those who confuse the state with the nation, it needs stressing that the American System responsible for the crisis is not, and never has been, a national-state system committed to the defense and well-being of the people it represents. Its principal function has instead always been to defend those liberal democratic practices that facilitate market transactions. Uncommitted to the embryonic white nation that made up the American people prior to 1965 (a nation is not founded in 400 years, especially a nation based on such divergent European stocks as the United States), the ruling liberal elites have been free to pursue whatever policies foster their specific institutional interests or those of the dominant economic interests, while policies favoring the country’s white majority have only rarely been adopted and then usually in the form of electoral bribes. Indeed, the very notion of European America is an offense to these elites, who see the nation not as an organic body, but as a great market made up of competing individuals, whose interests are primarily economic, not social, racial, or national.

If white Americans had but a modicum of political savvy, they would have long ago realized that a state which does not serve them as a people has no right to govern and, in fact, is their enemy. [13]

The system’s folly, whose ramifications are going to be paid for with a good deal of popular misery, assumed fantastic—and, as it turns out, unbearable—proportions under the former Bush Administration. Thus it was that the neo-liberal, globalist tenets, which ideologically undergird the American System and reduce every question to a matter of individual economic interest, were emboldened under Bush’s neocon cabal by the boundless vanity of its Judeo-Evangelical “faith-based community”—which held that anything the American state does is right, that the United States always triumphs in the end, and that, contrary to traditional Christian stricture, the United States pursues God’s purpose in the world. Like the left, whose ideology leaves it unable to accept the realities of race, sex, and sexual orientation, Washington for the last eight years has been unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy, as it chases its various ideological chimeras.

A $400 billion per year war, with no strategic goal, except perhaps to support Israeli interests, was launched on the basis of a neocon hallucination (non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction). Then, as the government entered this theater of illusion, its vast military machine bogged down before a few lightly armed Sunni insurgents (who were eventually bought off with great dollar sums during the so-called “surge”); lies and deception then became the basis of US policy; incompetents and schemers willing to kowtow to the reigning illusions were put in control of policy-making; more than $100 billion of US loans and aid somehow went missing, and the national debt assumed astronomical proportions; those who questioned the administration’s aims and practices were deemed un-American; historic liberties were compromised or destroyed; and, all the while, aliens, at the top and at the bottom of the American polity, were allowed the full run of things—from Jews dictating foreign policy that had nothing to do with the national interest, to Mexicans challenging American sovereignty on American streets.

When George W. was asked in his last press conferences who should be held accountable for the present economic disaster, he answered that no one person or group was actually responsible. “The whole system,” he said, “became inebriated.” [14] To the degree the crisis is systemic, he, better than most, has designated the real culprit. But what he failed to mention is that the system wasn’t just temporarily inebriated: it has been so from the start. And like the mind-numbing incoherence of any serious drunk, the destabilizing, destructuring, and disordering power of this well-oiled system—despite the wealth and prosperity it has created for some—is about to provoke the most massive civilizational hangover in history.

THE MAN OF DESTINY

There’s been no better example of the bankruptcy of America’s liberal ideological system than the presidency of George W. Bush (whose only brush with Nemesis thus far has been dodging Muntader alZaidi’s shoe). [15] That this third-rate individual, lacking an understanding of the most basic things, including English syntax, was put at the helm of the most powerful state in history unambivalently testifies to the system’s unfathomable corruption. His mediocrity, his lack of vision, his small stature as a man all took a high toll on both the nation and the state. As even many Republicans acknowledge, his presidency bears responsibility for squandering the vast power and legitimacy bequeathed to the United States in the wake of the Soviet collapse.

Obama’s programmed election was specifically designed to restore something of the power squandered by the Bush Administration. In the highest reaches of the American establishment (and this is evident less in written documents than in the innuendoes and asides of its representatives), it became apparent in the last year or so that a restoration of American power and prestige in the world would require a makeover of unprecedented proportions. Hillary, who was previously the leading establishment candidate, was thus abandoned, for, besides being white, she was simply too closely associated with the establishment to create the impression of a major turn-around in American politics.

Hence, the scheduled entrance of the dusky knight, who was provided the money, the advisers, and the media frenzy to make his candidacy a shoo-in. This “47-year old black man with a political resume as ephemeral as a Mets pennant drive and a governing philosophy as dubious as Paris Hilton’s choice of boy friends” [16] has not disappointed his handlers, for he was an ideal candidate. Given his race and undistinguished political profile, he possessed the seemingly “populist” credentials to appeal to an electorate fed up with Washington’s neocon mania; he spoke a recognizable form of English, dressed respectably, and avoided public displays of negro behavior; but, above all, he (or his advisers) knew how to appeal to TV-educated youth, who saw his campaign as another Great Awakening (with “racism” replacing the older Calvinist notion of sin).

The prominent British historian, Niall Ferguson (who has been dubbed “the Leni Riefensthal of Bush’s new imperial order”), could trumpet, once the formality of the vote was over, that “American world leadership is [now] back in business.” [17]

It’s questionable, though, if the new administration has the capacity to lead. For those who care to see, scandal and fraud lurk behind every facet of Obama’s media-constructed image. His past has been carefully erased from the public record; his numerous, compromising ties to the big New York banks, the major foundations, black liberation theology, Chicago crime, and K Street have all been ignored by the controlled media; he may not even be a native-born American and thus not constitutionally eligible to be president. This cover-up won’t last. The strident anti-white racism of his wife, as well as his bonds to the nation’s financial oligarchy, will also eventually surface. Given the nature of the economy, he probably won’t even be able to deliver the goods to the black masses, who see him as a cargo-cult Messiah, and this will undoubtedly become a source of further unrest.

But most of all, this frontman of the elites is thick with the Jews, whose wealth and power controls the Democratic party (even more than that of the neocon-led Republicans) and whose interests, as already evident, will be foremost among his administration’s concerns. It’s hardly coincidental that his chief-of-staff, Rahm Emanuel, is the son an Irgun terrorist and is himself a rabid Zionist; and that the prominent Jews Obama has delegated to resolve the crisis (Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, etc.) “represent political duplicity and malfeasance on a grand scale.” [18] Obama, in fact, is such a creature of Jewish interests that some have begun to call him “the first Jewish president.” [19] The incompetence, corruption, and Jewish jingoism already evident in the new administration suggests, moreover, that the former neocon regime was less responsible for the present disaster than the system itself. Obama, Bush—black hustler, bungling cowboy—it doesn’t seem to matter who occupies the office. It’s the system that rules, and the system is now on life support.

The gap between the governing elites and a disaffected middle class, hurting economically and wary of further social experimentation, may thus widen and become more unbridgeable, as blacks, Jews, and denatured whites join the crusade to “change” America, while the largest, most productive sector of the population is either ignored or fleeced.

Obama’s failure will come, though, not through an exposure of the smoke and mirrors surrounding his fabricated persona. There is a deeper, structural problem confronting the first post-American US government. As William Lind points out, “the heart of our inability to reform is the crisis of the state itself. Reform endangers the money and power of the New Class, which controls the state and feeds off it.” [20] Though there will be a qualitative expansion of the state under the new regime, as money is thrown at the crisis and expanded social programs are introduced to root out “racism,” the anti-national impetus of the American System, which is at war with the forces of history, culture, and nature, is almost certainly to remain untouched. Likewise, the kleptocratic economic system, so crucial to the elites who support Obama, will go unreformed, as even vaster sums are looted from the government’s coffers in the name of his “stimulus plan.” At best, his Zimbabwe-style Keynesianism (whose soundness is a matter of debate in this period of rampant budget deficits) may provide a palliative to the crisis, but no cure. [21] At worst, there’s simply not enough money and far too much structural rot to rescue everyone.

Given the government’s dismal track record, especially its criminal regulatory negligence, its bailout of those responsible for the crisis, and its alliance with Big Money, it’s also doubtful if it will have the wherewithal to save those firms that might become future wealth producers and sacrifice those beyond recovery. Indeed, one wonders what economy there is left to stimulate, considering that most productive enterprises have relocated offshore.

But whatever happens, Versailles-on-the-Potomac, isolated from the people it allegedly represents, will undoubtedly use the crisis to usurp whatever independence remains of the country’s formerly decentralized republican institutions, just as various state governments, already debilitated by the policies coming out of the imperial capital, will, from necessity, become increasingly defensive of their Tenth Amendment rights. [22] This will again accelerate the centrifugal forces. If conjunctural and short-lived, such developments, of course, may not matter; but if structural, it could mean the collapse of the monstrous bureaucratic labyrinth that is the Washington Leviathan.

Against this backdrop of uncertainty, the controlled media endeavors to portray Obama as a man of destiny, another FDR or Lincoln, who will lead us through the valley of shadows to the Promised Land. The immodest African seems, though, to identify more with Jesus, ordained to save America and the world from the sin of racism. [23]

It’s difficult to anticipate exactly what the future holds, for anything today seems possible. I suspect, like Philippe Grasset at dedefensa.com, that our postmodern global age will be one of profound upheavals at accelerated rates—and that it will be shaped less by our putative leaders (whose incompetence is a matter of record) than by the destablizing force of events, whose “Maistrian” effects simply sweep up and carry along all who try to control them. As I write in mid-February, the rhetoric of “hope and change” is already turning to warnings of “catastrophe” and “dire consequences,” if the black Jesus doesn’t get his way.

The man of destiny may turn out, then, to be the man manipulated by destiny, especially considering the impossible expectations he is certain to disappoint. As the refutation of America’s European being, it would be ever so fitting if he should preside over the demise of the failed experiment known as “the United States,” opening the way, thus, to the founding of another, more authentic expression of European America.

THE KNIFE

As white Americans slide deeper into the economic abyss created by their new Afro-Judaic leaders, they face something far more challenging than anything their ancestors faced in 1776. For they have fallen victim to a regime that cannot control the dysgenic economic forces it unleashes; a regime ruled by incompetents, thieves, and alien manipulators; one that never considers the interests of those it rules but attends to every whim of the rich and powerful; that is at war with the history, culture, and interests of the majority; that refuses to defend the border; that is influenced by foreign lobbies; that relentlessly attacks Christianity; and that imposes “hate” laws and free speech restraints to muzzle whites opposing its anti-national policies.

This regime is not some modern variant of old George III’s venal monarchy, but the homegrown American System mentioned above. To such a system, “reason,” understood in quantitative economic terms, is primary. Liberalism’s rationally engineered system consequently believes in nothing, for belief (which stems from religion, culture, tradition, and tribe) is the opposite of reason. Such economically-anchored systems of “consummate meaninglessness” may run smoothly as long as the goods are delivered, but once things break down, their legitimacy and efficacy inevitably disintegrate.

A half-dozen years ago, “Yggdrasil,” one of the pioneers of American white-nationalist thought, argued that the United States would likely go the way of the former Soviet Union if its system of financial rewards and punishments should ever cease to benefit the white majority. [24] For though US elites have not the slightest interest in its welfare and security, the majority willingly accepted their tutelage as long as its material welfare was ensured. Today, we are entering an era when the regime’s ability to ensure its security is obviously diminishing.

For this reason, I believe the impending catastrophe has the potential to cause white Americans to abandon their allegiance to the existing system. Such a possible transfer of loyalties away from the central state will likely entail less a racial awakening than an understanding of how to cope with a hostile world, once the virtual realities of the American System collapse. Nevertheless, at that point when whites abandon the status quo, the possibility of an emerging white-nationalist movement championing their racial-social interests will quicken.

Our role as nationalists ought thus to be subversive and revolutionary. For there is nothing worth conserving in the existing antiwhite system. Against it, we need to forge a spirit that opposes it at its root—by defining Our America as a nativist variant of European civilization, affirming the primacy of our ancestors’ beliefs and values, and preparing a new Declaration of Independence.

“Our numbers are too small!” the cautious will argue.

But this is always the case. For “history is made not by majorities who vote but by minorities who fight.” [25]

The Belgian revolutionary, Jean Thiriart, once pointed out that a man skilled with a butcher knife can reduce a five ton whale to steak slices. The knife is the revolutionary sect, and the whale the flabby society preoccupied with economic matters and individual pleasure. [26]

Liberal modern societies are particularly vulnerable to a determined political minority, especially in times of crisis. For, unlike liberal elites, members of a revolutionary sect are absolutely disciplined in the essentials and maximally elastic in their operations.

Where, today, are such active minorities to be found?

Every generation of Europeans has produced men ready for the heroic life. When the opportunity arises, they will appear. Whether it leads to collapse or simply to a patch of stormy weather, the present crisis cannot but expand that opportunity.

Above all, what must be held in mind, as we enter this year of crisis, is that the future belongs to us—if we approach it in the way the butcher wields his knife.

Michael O’Meara, Ph.D., studied social theory at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris and modern European history at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe (Bloomington, Ind.: 1stBooks, 2004).

∗ The first draft of this article, “2009: Year of Crisis,” appeared on December 31, 2008 at Western Voices World News, http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=6347.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary (New York: Random House, 2006).
Joseph A. Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
“This Is the Worst Economic Crisis in a 100 Years,” Independent (UK), February 10, 2009.
Thomas Friedman, “America the Decrepit,” New York Times, December 26, 2008.
Jonathan Stempel, “Jim Rogers Calls Most Big US Banks ‘Bankrupt,’” Reuters. December 11, 2008.
Julien Glover, “Shaken Survivors of Economic Bust Ask: What Went Wrong?” Guardian, January 30, 2009.
Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957 [1944]).
Andrew Edgecliffe, “Wen and Putin Lecture Western Leaders,” Financial Times, January 28, 2009.
Patrick Buchanan, “The Long Retreat,” Antiwar.com, February 20, 2009
William Pfaff, “The Catastrophic Collapse of American Leadership,” http://www.williampfaff.com, February 1, 2009.
The most authoritative of these is Arnaud de Borchgrave, “Nostradamus Redux,” UPI, November 21, 2008. 12 “Obama, the Military, and the Threat of Dictatorship,” http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/dec2008/pers-d23.shtml, December 23, 2008.
The Declaration of Independence (1776). The ignorance of the American public has been classified as a threat to national security. http://www.nafsa.org/public_policy.sec/public_policy_document/study_abroad_1/securing_america_s_future.
“Transcript of Bush’s Last Press Conference,” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/12/raw-data-transcript-bushs-white-house-press-conference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntader_al-Zaidi.
Mark Goldblatt, “The Upside of Obama,” National Review Online, January 5, 2009.
Niall Ferguson, “Chronicle of a Decline Foretold,” Financial Times, December 27, 2008.
“The Big Banks vs. America,” http://us1.institutionalriskanalytics.com/pub/ IRAstory.asp?tag=337, January 26, 2009.
James Petras, “Barack Obama: ‘America’s First Jewish President,’” http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php%3Fp%3D1768, January 12, 2008.
William Lind, “On War #78,” at http://www,d-n-i.net/lind/lind_7_28_04.htm.
“Can the US Economy Afford a Keynesian Stimulus?” Financial Times, January 5, 2009.
Joel Kotkin, “The Height of Power: As Other American Fiefdoms Fade, Washington Looms Larger Than Ever,” Washington Post, January 25, 2009; Dave Nalle, “State Sovereignty Movements Quietly Growing,” http://blogcritics.org/archives/2009/02/05/183354.php, February 5, 2009.
“Obama’s America,” Northwest Observer no. 79, January 2009.
Yggdrasil, “The End Game” Yggdrasil’s White Nationalist Library, http://www.whitenationalism.com/ms/ms-51.htm, September 14, 2001.
William Lind, “On War #103,” at http://www.d-n-i.net/lind_2_09_05.htm. Hitler said this more accurately: “The history of the world is made by minorities whenever they embody the will and aspirations of the majority,” in Johannes Ohquist, Le National Socialisme des origines à La Guerre (Paris: Avalon, 1989), 101.
Jean Thiriart, “Les prétoriens politiques,” http:// www.voxnr.com/cc/d_thiriart/EEpApFyAVpUmdMEZub.shtml, February 2, 2005.

runebooks

MODERATORS