Most of us have seen the ad where dozens of nonwhites tell us, in heavy accents, "I am Mellican!" (It means American). An American is a person who has certain documents.

There are "undocumented workers," who are just as American as we are but who happen not to have the papers they need. These are the folks you only call "illegal aliens" if you are anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

That ad was put out by the Ad Council, but it didn't make the whole point they wanted to make. So there's a new one that has the same type of "I Mellican" plus Harry Bellafonte and one critical addition that no American Patriot could do without.

This ad has a very dark Asian guy and a very white blue-eyed girl wrapped up together in an American flag. It is shown twice in fifteen seconds, so you don't miss the point. All you can see is their eyes and their complexions. The rest is the American flag they are wrapped in.

If you are not anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews, this illustrates What America Is All About. Anyone who is not anzaiwhowantstokillsixmillionjews has one aim above all: the end of "racism."

Ending racism has to do with only one race. It means the mixing of whites wth other races. Those who fight "racism" only want nonwhites to immigrate and be integrated into white countries. Nobody pushes Japan, which is less crowded than the Netherlands, to bring in non-Japanese immigrants, but any criticism of nonwhite immigration in the Netherlands is Evil.

So this ad, where only the American flag is draped around a colored guy and a white girl, takes up where the old "I Mellican" ad left off. Both are products of the Ad Council.

I have not seen this latter one repeated. Is this one too blatant for even the dumbass white gentiles to swallow?


Charles Lindbergh was America's premier hero after he became the first man to fly across the Atlantic Ocean in 1927. But he became America's premier villain because of his friendliness to Hitler before World War II.

As a matter of fact, Lindbergh was far less friendly to Hitler than every liberal was to Stalin, but modern conservatives agreed to make him a special villain.

In the late 1930's, Lindbergh wrote the article for which he was infamous for the rest of his life. He wanted all the Western powers to unite and destroy Joseph Stalin's Communist regime in Russia. He even wanted Hitler's Luftwaffe to be part of the coalition to destroy Stalin!

Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Peace-Loving Democratic Republics! Stalin, our Great Ally and the Hero whose ideology later took Eastern Europe from Hitler and China from Chang-Kai Chek and Vietnam from France! Joseph Stalin, Champion of Democracy!

From the time he wrote that article, Lindbergh became the man the left was out to get.

After World War II, every respectable conservative agreed with liberals that that article was the height of outright treason. The idea of allying with Hitler to destroy Stalin was Pure Evil.

This is because the only true American patriotism was uniting with Stalin to get rid of Hitler. Liberals wanted to get rid of the extreme right and praise the extreme left.

And if that's what liberals insisted on, that's what today's conservatives want.


Bob never in my life have I ever been able to reconcile Christianity with the white race. I started young by being kicked out of Baptist Sunday school and I have never looked back, Christianity simply has no pull for me and the bible bores me to death. Could you possibly make a case for it since it seems a good many people still circle around it and I do not want to sound like the town atheist like Mencken wasting my time denigrating someone's "faith."

Comment by Simmons


Once again, what I am going to say is so simple it sounds like a joke, but it isn't:

You need to distinguish between Christ and ianity. All I ever heard in churches was the ianity.

In The Screwtape Letters, the Senior Demon Screwtape advised his novice tempter Wormwood to favor complicated theology, "After all, the Enemy (Christianity) has only one doctrine, the Resurrection, and one faith, The Redemption."

That is all there is to Christ, and you can't make a living, you can't make an "ianity," out of it.

That's all there is, there ain't no more. And Christ, minus the ianity, made it even easier: Even a mustard seed of faith was plenty to begin with.

But what appeals to me and to CS Lewis and to other Aryans was the sheer heroism and responsibility Christ took and ianity hides from. Jesus did not say he was a prophet like Mohammed or philosopher like Buddha. To quote CS Lewis, "He was God or he was a madman."

If he was a madman, he was one we can understand, one we can admire. He went up on that cross on purpose, and he took on all of his own Jewish tradition and the mightiest empire the world had ever known.

This drives the theologians NUTS. They want to quibble for a living. They want to quote ever more obscure texts. Above all they want to have something complicated, something to have huge meetings and to write billions of pages about, angels on the heads of pins. That was precisely what Jesus denounced and mocked and got crucified for denouncing.

Lastly, Jesus took FULL responsibility. Nothing resounds in the words of ianity like the word,

***I*** am the way, the truth and the light. No man goes to the Father but by ME."

That is a sentence every theologian denounces daily. ALL faiths are good. Certainly Jesus did not mean the JEWS, the people he was talking to at the time, and so forth.

"ianity" makes me sick. I have only the tiniest bit of faith in the Resurrection, but if that happened, then the Redemption follows. But Christ NEVER said, "Read more Bible." His whole life testifies to the fact that he knew all about the Book but he went out among the people to explain what good was and what bad was while the people who crucified him stayed in the temple.

A hero who said "Take it or leave it." Only the churches could make THAT sound as modern-Jew-whiney as they do.

"Christianity?" "ianity" makes me sick, but I will always stand in awe of Christ.


Clinton has just come up with an Official Liberal Fact. He says that "ninety-nine point nine percent" (99.9%) of the genes of all human beings are exactly the same. Clinton could not have just said "ninety-nine percent." He had to say "ninety-nine POINT NINE" percent. The reason he has to say "ninety-nine point nine" is because human genes are ninety-nine point two percent (99.2%) the same as a CHIMPANZEE'S!

It HAD to be 99.9%. So, by gum, that's what it is.

The fact that a human and a chimpanzee share 99.2% of the same genes does not mean that the real difference between an animal and a human is very small. It simply means that a mere eight-tenths of one percent (0.8%) difference in genes means a tremendous lot. Since the difference between a human and a chimpanzee is just one gene out of one hundred and twenty-five, that one gene in one hundred and twenty-five is very important indeed.

Because it is so convenient, Clinton's "ninety-nine point nine" figure was probably just made up in his speechwriter's head. As I explain in the next article, making up convenient "facts" like this is standard procedure for liberals. But if it is true, what does it REALLY mean? It means that one gene in a thousand makes the difference between a genius and an idiot. That one gene in one thousand makes the difference between a seven-foot giant and a man who was born to be four feet tall. The fact that one gene in a thousand makes all this difference does not make these inherited differences any less important. It merely makes a slight genetic difference far more important.

And, as so often happens, what this actually turns out to mean is exactly the opposite of what Clinton intended it to mean. If only one in a thousand genes produces all the gigantic differences in human beings, then race is probably more important, not less. After all, we know that races have some very VISIBLE differences. We know that those differences that we can see are genetic. We know that each race has a few genes which are very different, because we can SEE them. And, according to Clinton, it takes almost no genes to make ALL the difference!

In other words, Clinton says that 1) only a minuscule, a tiny, a handful of genes makes ALL the difference in the gigantic range of human inheritance. You then note that 2) all the members of a particular race share a difference in genetic makeup that is VISIBLE to the naked eye. If you put these together, Clinton has as much as said that 3) racial differences are enormously important.

Clinton's new Official Liberal Fact has made a very strong case for racism!