by Eric Thomson

14 January 2006

29 DEC 05. Hail [X]! It was great to get your letter of 21 DEC. I'm happy to receive requests for information. I guess we could say that I enjoy having a 'captive' audience,' so I'm almost like a teacher in a compulsory course, where students are required to attend. Ha! Well, my advice is always to make the time serve you, instead of you serving the time, without benefit to yourself. As I said to other gulag-residents, on the outside there is very little time for studying or learning, or teaching! I wish I'd been able to witness your encounter with the bible-banging boob, who thought he was giving, but wound up receiving your excellent impression of "the Christ-Cult of The Jesus Eaters" who "eat his flesh & drink his blood" in their own words in their cannibal er communion services. Some Christers claim that those words are "merely symbolic." I reply that your statement would get you burned at the stake in a Catholic country, for "Transubstantiation" supposedly occurs when the priest blesses the ostensible bread & wine, thereby transferring Jesus' soul or substance into the bread & wine so it becomes his body & blood. I say that The bloody 30Years' War was fought about "symbolic" (consubstantiation) & "real" qualities touted as Jesus' body & blood, so the issue is not tivial. Since I'm Aryan & not Asiatic, I take words at common face-value, & under no circumstances will I agree to eat at a cannibal feast, either real or symbolic. Excuse me for gagging at the thought! The Christinsane stole this theory of "transubstantiation" from Plato, as I recall. "Substance" was also "soul," & I don't know how much wine Plato & his cronies had to drink when they thought this up: Let's consider a table. How do we know it's a table? We know because it has form, dimension, color & solidity. If it is made of wood, it also has odor. After another big swig of wine, let's imagine that these qualities are all removed, so the spot on which the table stood no longer has any characteristics of a table. (Hic!) Well, the wine was much superior to the thinking which accompanied it, but let's (hic!) continue: We have allegedly removed every quality of the table which we can detect with our 5 senses, so we can't see, feel, taste or smell the former table. Unless we were to pound the table we would hear nothing, either, but since there is nothing to be felt, there is nothhing to pound. But Plato (hic!) would insist that "the table remains in substance," because (hic!) substance 'supports' (hic!) the other qualities of the table! By definition, "substance" can not be detected with the 5 senses, so this is what Christ-eaters blabber when they talk of "transubstantiation." This topic would be dangerous if the people who prattled about it were ever sober, for "substance," that is "soul," allegedly supports the physical qualities of all people & things, &, according to Jesus-juicers, SOULS CAN BE TRANSFERRED! If a "soul" or "substance" can be transferred with a combo of mumbo-jumbo & abra-cadabra, as in Christ-insanity, & if a god's soul can be transferred into edible objects, then we could, allegedly, transfer the soul of a table into a living person! Home Depot had better watch out! This would also put Dr. Frankenstein out of business, for we could also transfer one human soul into the body of another living person! Of course, being what one eats is common amongst non-Christian religions, for some cults claim that the killing & eating of a brave enemy transfers his bravery into the preson of the eater, which points to a similarity between Christinsanity & Voodoo, which have currently combined in Santeria, whose santos or saints are really Voodoo loas or gods, as occurred with many other Pagan gods who were converted into christian saints. In short, Santeria is as kosher as any other form of Christinsanity! Since "substance" and "soul" are the same, then we could claim that a person is now our "bread & wine." Dracula would love that! So would Hannibal the Cannibal. some beliefs are actually forms of mental illness which are codified & inculcated. As one correspondent wrote: one kook is a nutcase; a kook group is a cult; & a maniacal mob is a religion. It's all a matter of numbers, as it says in The Protocols of Zion. Imagine if there wree such a cult as "Judeo-Christianity": jews could baptise or naturalize pork as beef, thereby making pork kosher! If nasty old Yahweh is a drag, they could baptise him as Dagon & have themselves a big orgy. If Jesus is too wimpy, he could be baptised into Yahweh & go around smiting everyone who offended him & his followers. Used car dealers could make fortunes selling Hondas baptised as Rolls Royces. Of course, some people would say, we'd have to be crazy to believe such things, & they'd be quite right! In conclusion, Christian = Crazy. End of story.

Well, I guess Yule in the Hole is better than no Yule spirit at all, for Yule is strength & cheer, which is just what you need, & all the rest of us. Again, I say Good Yule & Happy New Year! Wassail! Few people know what that means.

In regard to meanings, a windjammer is a sailing ship, usually with more than one mast, & usually with square sails, which are called "square-rigged." A landlubber is anyone who is ignorant about ships & the sea, with no proper vocabulary. On ships, walls are bulkheads; floors are decks; doors are hatches; a kitchen is a galley, &c. Sailors just do that to be tricky, to fool the landlubbers. ha! Left is port & right is starboard. It's a different language, even though it sounds like English. Modern vessels use many of the same words, but not so many terms for knots! To be contrary, sailors calculate speed in knots. 45 knots is about the same as 50 miles per hour. That was the cruising speed of The S.S. United States, a steam turbine-powered ocean liner. It could go faster than that, but its actual speed was top secret. Imagine a floating city cruising along at, say, 60 mph, which is a mile a minute. I never got to travel on the S.S. U.S., but I first went to Europe on The Queen Mary, from New York to Cherbourg, FRance. If I recall correctly, it took her (ships are always "she") 2 1/2 days to cross the Atlantic Ocean. She was pretty fast in 1964, but her steam turbines were built in 1936, & an engineering officer told me that they were as good as the day they were built. The Queen Mary was retired, & now sits in Long Beach, if I recall correctly. My family has had quite a few seafarers, ship owners & ship-builders, originating as they do from The Orkney Islands, the Hebrides & Scotland. Maybe that's why I have travelled more sea miles than air miles on this planet, having gone around the world by sea.

Yes, the ZOG 'jewstice' system is scary, for 'evidence' can be made to 'prove' anything, & 'witnesses' can just lie outright. Having lived overseas, I have come to respect the Anglo-Saxon system, which is adversarial, at least in theory. In theory, the defence attorney is supposed to defend the defendant; the prosecutor, also an attorney, is supposed to prove the guilt of the defendant. The judge is supposed to be like an umpire, who is the trier of law, whereas the jury are the triers of fact. If all these people of the court are doing what they should be doing, I would not feel that I was a victim of injustice, BUT, I have seen courts corrupted by collusion, when I was in Canada. I have seen trial judges in cahoots with the prosecutor or the defence attorney. I have even seen the judge give testimony to the jury! I have seen juries who could not distinguish live witnesses from dead ones, on the witness stand. In the U.S.A., my courtroom experience was in small claims cases, which I won because I had proper evidence showing what I had paid for items in question. I also won a couple of quasi-judicial hearings for unlawful dismissal on my part. The idea is to be brief, be focused, be polite & be factual. Use the indirect approach: that is, do not seek "justice," whatever that may mean, but win the case! Court hearings are not place for emotional displays & denunciations. Testimony must be given as answers to questions by attorneys, judge or jury. Even if a witness or defendant lies under oath, a good attorney can obtain the truth in cross-examination, whether he is for the defence or for the prosecution. I have seen it done many times. Obviously, proper testimony cannot be obtained if the "fix" is in, so the proper questions are not asked of the defendant or the witnesses. Imagine a murder 'trial' in which the prosecutor never asks questions about the murder! I usually hire female attorneys, since they can't be Freemasons, & the Anglo-Saxon justice system is definitely corrupted by Freemasons, who are in cahoots. In those cases, judges do not judge; defence attorneys do not defend & prosecutors do not prosecute, all of which I've witnessed in Canadian courtrooms.

In White-ruled Rhodesia, Central Africa, I was a British colonial civil servant, assigned for a time to the Ministry of Justice, Law & Order, under the rebel regime of Ian Smith. The court proceedings were very British, with judges wearing white wigs. I attended a murder trial concerning a White man who had murdered a young female train passenger in her train compartment. The defendant requested a trial by judge, rather than a trial by jury. He was a stupid oaf, & his own worst enemy in court. The judge concluded that "the defendant's memory is too selective for credibility. Therefore..." the judge pulled a black handkerchief from a drawer & placed on his head, on top of the wig... "I find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, & I hereby sentence him to death by hanging." The defendant was hanged within a week. That was old-style British justice. Punishments also included caning, & we had a judge called Old Six & Six, for his sentences were usually 6 months' hard labor & six cuts with the cane. It all sounds like life in Victorian England, but this was going on in the 1970s. I saw the autopsy photos which showed, in color, the signs of the terrible beating the defendant had given the young White girl; after killing her, he raped her, & claimed he'd been drunk, but not so 'drunk' that he couldn't remember important details!

In Canada, I did research on thought-crime trials & war crime trials. One of the accused war criminals was deported from Canada & murdered in Zionist Occupied Germany, before a trial. One fellow won his thoughtcrime trials in Canada, but has been deported to Germany's ZOG-gulag along with other accused thought-criminals, while historian David Irving sits in an Austrian ZOG-gulag. All these victims of Zion have been accused of Holohoax-denial, & it is unlikely that the zoggies will let them submit ANY evidence in defence of their positions. In the land of CANZOG alias Canada, it is official in thoughtcrimes cases that "truth is no defence!" I have seen that declaration on official transcripts. Jury-tampering is common in North America, along with jury-selection by professional jury selection firms! The former British empire, including the USA, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, et al. recognize case law in all those countries. Thus, cases & legal precedents are cited, that is, used from the USA in Canada & Australia, Britain & vice versa. One thoughtcrime defendant in Canada should have had his trial eliminated by British precedent, for the thoughtcrime law under which he was charged had been abolished decades ago by th British Parliament! Instead, the CAN-zoggies had the defendant pay for two entire trials, both of which went to The Supreme Court of Canada. On the second trial, the law was abolished by The Supreme Court. So much for legal precedent! This is called "selective justice," another way of saying "injustice!"

In the case of the jew abortionist, Morgenthaler, in Toronto, a Jew Yorkjury-selection firm was allowed to pick a jury favorable to abortion, which was then illegal in Canada. The jew declared that he would break the law, which he did. At the end of his trial, the jury nullified the abortion law, under which Morgenthaler was tried, so he was found "innocent." The selected jury concluded that the law was the crime, not the jew's abortion practice! The case stood, & was not appealed. Obviously, the ZOG's fix was in.

In Louisville, Kty., a jew lawyer ritually-murdered a girlfriend in front of his current girlfriend. I just arrived there after the case had gone to trial. As I recall, the jew's name, as reported in the newspapers, was Ignatow. At the murder trial, his former girlfriend who witnessed th torture-murder of Ignatow's other girlfriend testified as to what she had seen, but the jury ignored her testimony, completely! Ignatow was asked if he had committed the murder. He said he had not done it. He was found innocent of the crime. Later, new residents moved into Ignatow's house in Plainview, a suburb of Louisville, Kty. In their replacement of the carpets, they found a trapdoor in a closet. In the compartment beneath the trapdoor, they found a metal container, in which they discovered the blood-spattered photos of th emurder victim, at each stage of her torture-murder, which was conducted in terms of a list of sadistic procedures which Ignatow followed, according to the eyewitness's testmony! There would appear to be no doubt that Ignatow did indeed murder the girlfriend, just as his witness testified, but Anglo-Saxon justice forbids "double jeopardy," which means that no one can be tried again for the same crime, if he is found innocent the first time, UNLESS that person is White! The news reports on the Ignatow case mentioned that all he could be tried for is perjury, that is, lying under oath, but not murder! If he'd been White & his victim Black, you can imagine how the ZOG would exert themselves to retry Ignatow, until a well-packed jury found him guilty! ZOG knows.

I have seen Black African trials in the tribal trustlands in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe. They were very democratic! The tribal chief would preside as judge, just as Anglo-Saxon judges preside in place of the king, but everyone took part in the trial under African justice, even passersby who had no knowledge of events. some would testify about alleged events, & all present would give their opinions. The chief would listen to everyone, as long as he could stay awake, & usually, he found in favor of the majority, although he was officially absolute as judge, jury, prosecutor & defender, all rolled into one. Under colonial rule, however, chiefs were not allowed to try cases resulting in the death penalty. The remarkable thing about an African murder case, in which a black killed another Black, was that there appeared to be no attempt to lie nor to mitigate the crime. One case featured a wife who murdered her husband by dumping cattle dip (with arsenic!) into her husband's beer, at the suggestion of a male visitor who said, basically: "Why don't you poison your husband so I can bed down with you?" The wife stated plainly that she'd done exactly that, with no attempt to claim "he made me do it," or "I was drunk at the time & I did no know what I was doing," &c.

In Europe, as I understand, they have an "inquisitorial system of justice," which resembles the African system to a surprising extent. People can make speeches in court. There are no trial transcripts, as a Frenchman told me, so I cannot imagine how one could appeal a verdict, without testimony from the previous tria! I have seen many cases of editing & rewriting Anglo-Saxon trial transcripts, which make such documents invalid! Anything goes, when the 'fix' is in. Don't let the zoggies grind you down. All the best, as always, & ORION! -- Eric

* * *

30 DEC 05. Dear [X]! Thank you very much for you mailing dated 24 NOV 05, which addresses sufficient subjects upon which to found a university. If only more people would be aware of such important topics! Many thanks, also, for your updates on demographic issues in France. As I was listening to the radio jews today, I heard of Sudanese riots in Egypt. Those Blacks want immediate transportation to Europe or the USA, so they are giving their current Egyptian hosts a hard time. Commander Rockwell asked, "Who needs niggers?" The answer is, "Nobody!", least of all other niggers. If Whites were as racist as Blacks, we would not need niggers, either. It's time for a change, White man!

I note a tendency to glorify certain elements of the past, in regard to the elimination of current abuses. Conservatives need to know that the past led to the present, so the past must have had defects which resulted in present problems. This knowledge does not require great profundity, but conservatives do overlook the responsibility of the past in creating our present. Writers have described "the seeds of our destruction." It is wise for us to study the past in order to identify these seeds, which have sprouted like weeds to choke the flowers in our society of today.

You have pointed out the ongoing issue of Europe vs. Asia, in terms of ideas, culture & demographics. We agree that Semitic religions are asiatic, not Aryan, although lots of Aryan customs & myths were purposely incorporated into Christianity to gain converts, including many of our Pagan gods who were made into "saints." The best depiction of Christinsanity, to my knowledge, was written by the jew, Marcus Eli Ravage: "A Real Case Against the Jews," which appeared first in a u.S. publication: Century Magazine, in February 1928. His subtitle states: "The Devastating Ramifications of Paul of Tarsus & Christianity in Destroying Roman Civilization." It is therefore incorrect to claim that Western Civilization was "created" by Christianity, when the fact is that Christianity distorted Western Civilization. As Dr. Oliver noted, "The good that Christianity brought to Europe was not new, & the new was not good."

The jew, Sarkozy, is stuck in his jewishness, for the current situation in his country of residence is not the result of "inbreeding," but of "outbreeding" & "downbreeding." To claim that one must commit adultery, that is, race-mixing, to avoid inbreeding or incest is not only absurd, but it is something the jews condemn, in regard to themselves, while they recommend race-mixing for non-jews. Otherwise, the jews are noted for their abuse of universalism ("The Rights of Man," &c.) on behalf of tribalism. Sheenie semantics means one thing to Goyim & something quite different to jews. One example is the jews' use of the word "humanity": Goyim think (incorrectly) that the jews include them in that term, but to jews, "humanity" means jews only. Others have noted that the jew insists on his exclusivity, just as he insists on non-jews' INCLUSIVITY. Judaism is exclusive; Christinsanity & Islam are inclusive, for the latter two semitic cults are always seeking converts. The gist of the jews' message is "Do as we say, not as we do!"

Your report of th rampant degeneracy afflicting the French media of education, information & entertainment is symptomatic of Roman-style decadence. It is a sign of acute alienation amongst the French that some of them think that the Burning of French Cars in France is comical. Maybe only non-French think that is a serious matter. I do not think that the Chinese are inscrutable at all, as compared to the French! Good luck on your heroic efforts!

Poor David Irving! I know him personally, & I've arranged speaking venues for him when I was in Canada. He is a great speaker, with his delivery, pleasant voice & wit. One source which I cannot vouch for claimed that Irving was a jew. Now youmention that he has discovered that Fieldmarshal Milch was not a jew, because his father "was not a jew." Mr. Irving needs to learn at least 2 things: 1) Who actually won World War II, & 2) Who is a jew? The rule is that one is a jew if his mother is a jew. Fathers have nothing to do with it in jewish race law! Religion is irrelevant in determining one's jewishness, for "jew" is a nationality, as jews use it, regardless of one's touted religion or lack thereof. It is biological, not theological. Perhaps Milch's father was a convert to Christinsanity, for "Milch" is a commonly jewish name. I have known Milchs in America, & they were all jews. I also knew a Polish girl whose father was a jew. She went to Israel, mistakenly believing she was jewish. The Israelis told her that she was not a jew, because her mother was Polish, not jewish. A jew father is insufficient, for that makes her a "mamzer" or bastard, a half-jew or Mischling. Certainly, if Milch's mother was a jew, Milch would be, too. A jew is not what David Irving may think. A jew is a jew according to jew law. I wish him the best of luck, under Austria's Zionist regime. Unlike the Zud, I would not expect Irving to recant in regard to the Holohoax, but I fear that Zundel has yet to prove his revisionist bona fides, which we 2) shall not know until he actually goes to trial. I have no doubt that The Zud is pro-Zud, for that's what he's always been, to the detriment of his touted beliefs, which he has a reputation for abandoning, as one would drop a dead mouse into the trash or down the toilet. That's what Zundel did with The White Power Movement, so he could easily do so with the Holohoax, if the ZOG makes him an offer, as they did with Fieldmarshal Milch. The translation of Milch's sworn statement at Nuremberg refers to the Allied belief in his jewish background, in regard to which Milch replied that it did not pertain. Milch was obviously loyal to Germany, whatever his background may have been. If jews were ready to recognize Milch as jewish, that is one indication. I'd like to know how Irving has determined that Milch was not of jewish descent. Once again, his mother is the deciding factor. In this regard, a biographer, whose name I do not know, who wrote in German, described the mother of the present Queen Elizabeth as being the former Sally Bowes-Lyons, who was one of the jewish owners of the noted Lyons Tea House company, which made her jewish, regardless of her church affiliation. If Queen E. was born to a jewish mother, then she is likewise a jew, & so is Prince Charles, who was notoriously circumcised by an orthodox jew rabbi or mohel, according to various jewsmedia reports. One Brit stopped writing to me, after I suggested he check out this story. I guess the truth hurts. The so-called British aristocracy is heavily mixed with jews, as recorded by Arnold Leese & others, so I would not be surprised if the Sally Bowes-Lyons story is true. One obvious item is that the "British Royals" are NOT, I repeat, NOT pro-White in their programs, nor in their behavior, so that is a clue. Loyalty resides in identity, not geography.

Your description of humans mating with apes should be mentioned to Sarkozy, in terms of "inbreeding," & you might suggest that he practice what he preaches. Oy veh!

I gathered from my reading of the French language texts you sent that there are numerous "no-go zones" for French police. This is what Thomas Chittum described as a precursor to civil war, which he predicts for the USA. Unfortunately, I see nothing whatsoever to contradict him.

Thanks for the revealing text on Victor Hugo. He seemed to suffer from the same delusions about Republican France & its Judeo-Freemasonic founders, with their bogus ideas, as did the French writer, Anatole France, whose "Penguin Island" was fun to read. As I read, he had a jewish mistress, which accounts for his pro-Dreyfuss stance. The Zud also favored jewish mistresses, one of whom domintaed him, & none of whom had had any good influence on his policies. Zundel has publicly hinted at his own possible jewish background in the Canadian jewsmedia, so his supporters should prepare themselves for surprises, when The Zud goes on trial.

The Judeo-historical resemblance between the kosher "French" Revolution & the kosher "Russian" Revolution is greater than both revolutions have with the Freemasonic "American" Revolution, which was an ostensible separation, rather than a socio-economic reorganization which would constitute a true revolution. The separation of the American colonies was only from the British Parliament, but not from The (so-called) Bank of England, as directed by the jew, Alexander Hamilton. Apparently, both kosher revolutions in France & in Russia resulted in civil wars, such as the Vendee resistance & the White Russian armies, whom the World War I Allies betrayed, under the direction of their jew-bankster masters in London, Paris & Washington, D.C. I was surprised to learn that the Soviet titles were not equivalent to "Mr. or Mrs.", but meant "Citizen," just as this title was used by the revolutionaries in France. After all, the USSR was also a "republic!" In jew-thought, contradictions abound. That which 'conceals' is also designed to 'reveal.' By using names & titles common to the "French" & the "Russian" revolutions, I could see both in evidence: By using "citizen" & "republic," the Soviets were at once attempting to mask their reality with French revolutionary terms, but they were also unmasking the kosher similarities in both revolutions. It reminds me of the crematoria at Auschwitz, which the jews claim were meant to 'conceal' evidence of the "Holocaust," as they were blantantly 'revealing' it by their use! Go figure.

Many thanks for sending me the trenchant report by Richard C. Duncan on "World Energy Production & Population Growth!" That makes great bedtime reading, for those warm-fuzzy feelings. Ha! Get ready for The Stone Age. As the author indicates, it's too bad we did not make intelligent use of our limited resources, while we had them. Few appreciate the water 'til the well runs dry, as some have noted. I have not heard of clothing from human skin, although jewish propaganda accuses the Nazis of maing gloves & lampshades therefrom. World War I Brit propaganda accused Germans of gouging out Allied soldiers' eyeballs with which to make necklaces for their women, just as Yankee propaganda accused the Confederates of the same practice. One jew claimed that Dr. Mengele pinned inmates' eyeballs on his bulletin board. Aztec priests were alleged to wear victims' skins, but I don't know any Aztec priests, luckily! All the best. DOWZ! & ORION! -- Eric


Back to VNN Main Page