Topics

Ordinary life, bills, jobs, separation and a vanity project by our friends in the police.

Our family home was the subject of a spurious "anti terrorism" raid in Fall, 2021, suffice to say they failed to find my cashe of munitions and explosives, my hit list of traitors and politicians, they did however find/steal books, t shirts, personal correspondence, hoodies, magazines along with badges, a small collection of bladed weapons and pro-white badges.

Thirty pigs and three hours later my marriage was over, subsequent reports, including a picture ensured that I lost not one but three jobs.

Nothing in their search gave grounds for my arrest or even a caution, I was however nicked in December, questioned for 10 hours and released on bail. Charges of misuse of telecommunications and incitement to hatred followed with even the judge questioning the basis of this bullshit.

As in cases worldwide it seems that they had hoped I'd be another patsy in their agenda.

Needless to say this has indeed been a financially and personally episode in my affairs, immediately after the home invasion I 'contracted' covid, this I believe was deliberate and calculated.

Financial assistance was provided by Heritage & Destiny, the British Movement and individuals connected with the National Front & Patriotic Alternative as my savings along with my employment went within weeks of the kosher blitzkreig.

Am currently out of work and no longer reside in the family home.


My (first rate though leftist) legal team are putting forward a freedom of speech defence which has resulted in the monthly charade of the case before a court with the prosecution putting the case back.

But as Old Fredrick said, that which does not destroy me makes me stronger..::

In Racial Loyalty....

Female required to correspond on a non-romantic basis with imprisioned brother doing indeterminate sentence for what most of us would consider a justified act in the RAHOWA.


He has century read NER, so a sister with a working knowledge of our credo and program would be particularly welcome.


Age/nationality not issue, PM me for address and further info.

Since events in Charlottesville we have seen a very real, very dangerous censorship of the net, effective sites have been effectively "shut" down, not directly by JOG but by the big-business corporations which effectively (((own))) the net.

My own opinion is that without forums and the ability to comment, increasingly angry and disposed whites will take matters increasingly into their own hands, sadly this will see good people locked away.

Use whatever freedom you have via social media, etc., to promote CA, utilise the outrage in the promotion of our creed and the survival of our people.

As a side note, I have noticed sites, personalities and outlets critical or questioning the Xianity hoax have been particularly hit hard.

Gee, I wonder why 

http://tbtmsobriety.org/

These guys are promoting a lifestyle free from addiction, let's face it, "the movement" is a drunken shambles, certainly in the British Isles and I assume, everywhere else!

I stumbled across a small, forgotten blog on the classic MIGHT IS RIGHT, transferred its contents & added appropriate graphics. A fantastic read which I'd highly commend to Creators.

http://redbeardsravings.wordpress.com/

[2]

Over the  course of two thousand years, Christianity has grown from nothing to the largest  religion on the planet.  Some 2.1  billion people now consider themselves Christian, about one third of all of  humanity.  It significantly  outnumbers Islam, in second place with 1.5 billion members.^]1 America  is among the most religious of all industrialized nations; about 77 percent are  Christians, and most of these are regular church-goers.  And yet few people, even Christians themselves, understand the origin of  this most influential religion.  In  one sense, of course, we will never truly understand exactly what events  transpired two millennia ago, in that land of shepherds, nomads, and dusty  villages of the near Middle East.   Archeology tells us some things, ancient documents others.  But these give us only an outline of the facts of that place and time.  If we wish to comprehend early Christianity and its implications for  today, many gaps must be filled in — by analysis, probability, guesswork, and  faith.

Friedrich  Nietzsche took a great interest in Christianity and its allied religion,  Judaism.^]2 This interest,  however, was strikingly — shockingly — negative.  The title alone of his final book, Antichrist, gives a good indication.  For Nietzsche, Christianity was decadent, weak, and nihilistic.  It led to a sickly, subservient, herd morality, and suffocated the quest  for human excellence.  Worst of all,  it replaced a life-affirming naturalness with an otherworldly, life-denying  negativism.  It has become, in fact,  "the greatest misfortune of mankind so far" (Antichrist,  sec. 51).^]3 And this disaster of Christianity is impossible to  understand, he said, without grasping its Jewish roots.  Thus it is not simply Christianity, but Judeo-Christianity, that must be examined with a brutal honesty, if  we are to overcome its weaknesses.

Before  looking in detail at Nietzsche's critique, I want to briefly review the state of  knowledge on the origins of this religion.  We obviously know much more today than Nietzsche did in the late 1800s.  But it is to his credit that the present facts seem, by and large, to  bear out his analysis — though perhaps his conclusions remain as controversial  as ever.

Historical  Background

Consider,  first of all, the ancient origins of Judaism and the corresponding events of the  Old Testament (OT).  The original  patriarch, Abraham, apparently lived some time between 1800 and 1500  bc — he  being the traditional father of not only Judaism (and thus Christianity) but a  leading prophet of Islam as well.^_]4 The next major figure, Moses,  lived around 1300 bc, and some time afterward the "Five Books of Moses" began to  take shape, likely at first as an oral tradition.  These books, as we know, would eventually form the Pentateuch (Torah) —  the beginning of the OT.^_]5

The remaining  30-odd OT books were added over the next one thousand years, with the set  becoming complete around 200 bc.   These books were written in Hebrew, but a Greek translation — the Septuagint —  was begun about this time, completed circa 50 bc.  The Dead Seas Scrolls, which date to the first century  bc, contain  fragments from every book of the Hebrew OT, and thus are our earliest proof that  the complete document existed by that time.  Whether it appeared any earlier is a matter of pure speculation.

Dating of the  OT texts is one thing; accuracy is  another matter altogether.  First of  all, the earliest dates cited above are purely conjectural, since we have no  recorded reference to the travails of Moses prior to 850  bc.  Furthermore, prominent Israeli archeologist Ze'ev HerZOG has shown the  increasing discrepancies between archeological data and the biblical stories].⁶ Efforts in the 1900s to confirm the OT yielded a plentitude of new information,  but this "began to undermine the historical credibility of the biblical  descriptions instead of reinforcing them."  Scholars were confronted with "an increasingly large number of  anomalies," among these:  "no  evidence has been unearthed that can sustain the chronology" of the Patriarchal  age; of the Exodus, "the many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of  the Israelites' presence in Egypt, and are also silent about the events of the  Exodus";]⁷ and the alleged conquest of Canaan (Palestine) by the  Israelites in the 1200s bc is refuted by archeological digs at Jericho and Ai  that found no existing cities at that time.  Even the famed monotheism of the early Jews is undermined by inscriptions  from the 700s bc that refer to a pair of gods, "Yahweh and his consort, Asherah."  An overall picture thus  comes into view:  a kernel of true  people and events magnified over time, acquiring legendary status.  Disparate tribes of wandering and warring Jews become heroic freedom  fighters, and ultimately the chosen people of the (eventually) one God.

Perhaps  surprisingly, Nietzsche appreciated the Old Testament — in spite of his  skepticism about its historical veracity.  He liked the power of the language and the concept of a 'God of the  Jews', a god appropriate for a given people and a given time, one who rewarded  and punished in equal measures.  "In  the Jewish 'Old Testament,' the book of divine justice, there are human beings,  things, and speeches in so grand a style that Greek and Indian literature have  nothing to compare with it" (Beyond Good  and Evil, sec. 52);  and again:  "all honor to the Old Testament!" (Genealogy  of Morals, 3.22).

The New  Testament — the Christian Testament —  however, was a completely different matter.  Again, the historical facts set the stage.

The Maccabean  revolt of 165 bc, against the Seleucid Empire, reestablished Jewish rule over  Palestine.  The resulting Hasmonean  dynasty was formed in 141 and ruled until the Roman Empire incorporated the  region in 63 bc.  Until that time the  indigenous Jews had lived under many occupying powers — Persians, Babylonians,  Alexander the Great — but apparently were able to accommodate their foreign  rulers and still thrive.

Things were  different under the Romans.  Having  been the ruling power in Palestine for 100 years, the Jews were rather quickly  and dismissively subsumed into the Empire.  Relatively benign at first, governance became increasingly callous and  brutal.  In addition to passing  judgment on Jesus, Pontius Pilate was known for his aggressive treatment of the  Jews; but things grew even worse after his removal in 36  ad and the ascension of  Emperor Caligula.  Ben-Sasson writes,  "The reign of Caligula (37–41 ad) witnessed the first open break between the  Jews and the Empire. ...  [R]elations  deteriorated seriously during [this time]."^]8 Tensions culminated in  the first Jewish revolt, which began in 66 and ended in Roman victory and the  plundering and destruction of the famed Jewish temple at Jerusalem (Herod's  Temple) in the year 70  —  which had  stood in place since 516 bc.^_]9
Rome retained  power over Palestine for nearly 400 more years, until the fracturing of the  Empire in 395.  The surviving Eastern  (Byzantine) Empire continued to rule the region for another 240 years, until the  Arab Caliphates took over in 638.   Thus it is clear that Roman rule, beginning in 63 bc, was decisive for the  emergence of Christianity.  Nietzsche  seems to have been the first scholar to grasp the significance of this fact:  "Without the Roman Caesars and Roman society, the insanity of  Christianity would never have come to rule" (Will  to Power, sec. 874).   

Nietzsche's  Analysis of Christianity

So, how shall  we understand Christianity?   Nietzsche's analysis starts from three essential facts. "The first thing to be remembered if we do not wish to lose the scent  here, is, that we are among Jews" (sec. 44).  This much is obvious, but it bears repeating.  Jesus was a Jew, as were his parents Joseph and Mary, and all 12  apostles.  The three other main  figures of the New Testament — Mark, Luke, and Paul — though not apostles, were  also Jews.  And the many unknown  authors that contributed to the New Testament (NT) were almost certainly Jewish  as well.  This situation is not  incidental, and not a question of individual character or action; "[it is] a  matter of race."
And not just  Jews, but lowly Jews — the  'chandalas', as Nietzsche calls them, the untouchables, the lumpenproletariat: "the people at the bottom, the outcasts and  'Spadeers', the chandalas within Judaism" (sec. 27).  It was these men that gave  birth to this great religion of redemption.^]10 Even granting that Nietzsche exaggerates  here, it is clear that they were the low class, 'blue collar' people of the day  — the farmers, fishermen, carpenters, and laborers.  Christianity was born not simply of Jews, but of the lowest caste of  Jews.
This  situation is important to grasp because it demonstrates that the proto-Christian  Jews had, in effect, two sets of masters:  the Romans, and their own elite Jewish priests, the Pharisees.  Hence they were doubly enslaved.  In order to establish any sense of freedom and autonomy they would have  to rebel against both parties — even as the Pharisees would be their allies  against Rome.  A difficult situation,  to be sure.

His second  fact — an unquestioned assumption, really — is that the entire concept of an  actually-existing, transcendent, all-powerful God is utter nonsense.  Stories about holy visions, miracles, redemption, and divine intervention  are nothing more than "foeda superstitio" — vulgar superstition.  This does not, however, mean that Nietzsche was opposed to 'God' in  principle.  He believed that every  people and every culture need to create their own concept of religion, and of  the divine.  These things are a  formalized recognition of respect and reverence toward that which embodies one's  highest values.  Each culture and  each era needs to create its god(s) anew, appropriate to their situation in the  world.  Western Europeans have  utterly failed in this task:
There  is no excuse whatever for their failure to dispose of such a sickly and senile  product of decadence [as the Christian God].  But a curse lies upon them for this failure: they have absorbed sickness,  old age, and contradiction into all their instincts — and since then they have  not created another god.  Almost two thousand years — and not one new god!  (sec. 19)

A proper  re-conception of religion, however, must be a truly uplifting, life-affirming,  and ennobling enterprise — decidedly unlike Judeo-Christianity — and must never  be taken as permanent and absolute truth.  All superstitious, i.e. anti-natural, religions are out of the question.  The human condition, and human 'salvation,' must be firmly rooted in the  present, physical world — the real world.

The third  basic fact, as explained above, is the historical context of the Roman  occupation and persecution.  Without  this, the events of the Christian era are incomprehensible.

* * * * *

With this in  place, let me attempt to reconstruct Nietzsche's conception of early  Christianity.  This is difficult in  any case, due to the radically unsystematic nature of his writing.  But a coherent picture emerges from his many disparate observations.

On  Nietzsche's view, Jesus was a humble Jew, an ordinary man, though clearly a  leader and moral preacher of some merit.  He spoke of the value of humility and pity, and of a God who viewed with  compassion even the lowliest slave.   Jesus sought to relieve suffering through compassion — the 'Kingdom of God'  within each person.  Simultaneously  he opposed, via a path of nonviolent resistance, both the social oppression of  the Pharisees and the political oppression of the Romans.  To achieve all this, it was necessary to "spread the word," the Good Word  of God.  Jesus' life, his faith, and  the faith of the real Christian were essentially pragmatic. His faith was the  response of a lowly Jew struggling to assist other lowly Jews in the face of  oppression.  Thus follows the practice of true Christianity, which is its essence:

[Christianity] projects itself into a new practice, the genuine evangelical  practice.  It is not a 'faith' that  distinguishes the Christian: the Christian acts, he is distinguished by acting differently: by not resisting, either in words or in his heart, those who  treat him ill...  The life of the  Redeemer was nothing other than this practice — nor was his death anything else. ...  Only the evangelical practice leads to God, indeed, it is 'God'!  (sec. 33)

This was  absolutely appropriate for a man in Jesus' situation — namely, an underclass Jew  fighting oppression and seeking to help his fellow sufferers.  But this was a very specific situation, and appropriate only to a  particular time, place, and culture.   In a very real sense Jesus was, and could be, the only 'true' Christian:  "in truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.   The 'evangel' died on the cross" (sec.  39).  But to exploit this singular  example, to expand it, to universalize it, to use it as a generalized weapon  against the powerful and noble classes, against nature and against life itself —  this was the crime.  Notably, the  crime was not of Jesus' doing — though he too was a 'criminal' — but that of his  followers; first and foremost, Paul.

The ground  was ripe for exploitation in that first century of the new millennium.  Traditionally the Jews had a long history of prophesies of coming  saviors, of redeemers, and of a messiah who would deliver them from suffering  and slavery, and restore the Kingdom of Israel as it was in the era of the  so-called unified kingdom of David in 1000 bc.  But for all this talk of saviors, there is surprisingly little textual  basis in the OT.  The Pentateuch  contains no mention of a messiah.   Neither do the 'historical' or 'poetic' books.  Only the prophets speak of a savior, but rarely and obscurely; nearly all  references of any specificity are found in just one book — Isaiah.  In any case there was some extant tradition for such a man, and if there  ever was a need for him it was during the Roman occupation.

However,  there is strikingly little evidence that, during his lifetime, people considered  Jesus to be 'the' Messiah.  He was  born around 4 bc, but we have astonishingly few details of his early life —  apart from the miraculous virgin birth described in the Gospels, which are  problematic in themselves, as I explain below.  It has struck more than one commentator as extremely odd that this  miracle child could be born and then all but drop out of sight for some 20 or 30  years.^]11  Virtually  nothing is known about the facts of Mary's life, and even less of Joseph; even  the years and places of their deaths are a mystery.

Most  surprisingly, there is virtually no recorded documentation about Jesus during  his lifetime, or by anyone who personally knew him.  Jesus himself wrote nothing, which, while not impossible, is counter to a  long tradition of moral or spiritual teachers leaving a written legacy.  (On the other hand, if he was in fact a poor uneducated Jew, he likely  did not know how to write.)  In spite of alleged miracles performed in front of thousands of people —  recall the fishes and loaves story — no one at the time bothered to record such  momentous events on paper.  The men  who knew him best, the 12 apostles, wrote nothing.^_]12 Of their lives we know almost nothing,  other than some presumed years of death for five of them (John, Peter, Phillip,  Thomas, and Judas).  Again this is  striking; once the true nature of the Messiah was confirmed by his resurrection,  one would have expected his close followers to be revered in themselves, and for  their every step to be noted and recorded.

At this point  the student of the Bible will respond that two of the apostles, John and  Matthew, wrote their corresponding Gospels.  But few experts believe this today.  The present consensus is that the four Gospel authors were anonymous  individuals who did not personally know Jesus.^]13 Based on events  mentioned in them, however, scholars have assigned them approximate dates.  The earliest was Mark, written about the year 70 — some 40 years after the  crucifixion.  Again, this is an  amazingly long time to wait to record the miracle of the Messiah, even if done  by Mark himself (a man who did not personally know him).

Nor do we  have any confirmation of Jesus' life story from contemporaneous non-Christian  sources.  One would certainly have  expected his enemies to document his life, if he had been a person of substance  or threat.  But no such writings  exist.  The earliest mention is by  the Jewish author Flavius Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews from circa 93  ad.  Pliny the Younger and  Tacitus both refer to the Christians in their writings of the early 100s ad.  Again, these  sources come 60 to 70 years after Jesus' death — not what one would expect.

By all  accounts, then, Jesus was a rather ordinary individual, a preacher of faith and  action, and a consoler of troubled souls.  He likely counseled his fellow down-trodden Jews to stick up for  themselves, and perhaps to disobey the unjust Roman rule, and even the  contemptuous dictates of their own Jewish elite.  Such rabble-rousers were frequently exiled or put to death (recall  Socrates), and so it is not surprising that the elite Jews would agitate for his  execution — against the reluctant wishes of Pilate himself, if in fact he was  ever truly involved.  We know the  result: "God on the Cross."

Then we come  to Paul.  For Nietzsche, as for many  other scholars, Paul is the central figure in early Christianity — to the extent  that 'Paulism' would be the more appropriate designation.  In Paul's rendering, Jesus — the real Jesus — becomes virtually irrelevant, even counterproductive.  Paul needed not Jesus' life, but his death; only this could work miracles.    The entire story of Jesus' life was rewritten and altered, motivated not  out of love but the very opposite:   feelings of hatred and revenge toward the conquerors:

In  Paul was embodied the opposite type to that of [Christ]: the genius in hatred,  in the vision of hatred, in the inexorable logic of hatred. ...  The life, the example, the doctrine, the death... — nothing remained once  this hate-inspired counterfeiter realized what alone he could use.  Not the reality, not the historical truth!  And once more the priestly instinct of the Jew committed the same great  crime against history — he invented his  own history of earliest Christianity.

The  Savior type, the doctrine, the practice, the death, the meaning of death, even  what came after death — nothing remained untouched, nothing remained even  similar to the reality.  Paul simply  transposed the center of gravity of the whole existence after this existence — in the lie of the 'resurrected' Jesus.  At bottom, he had no use at all for the life of the Savior — he needed  the death on the cross and a little  more.  ... Paul wanted the end, consequently he also wanted the means.  What he himself did not believe, the idiots among whom he threw his  doctrine believed.  His need was for  power; in Paul, the priest wanted power once again — he could use only concepts,  doctrines, symbols with which one tyrannizes masses and forms herds.  (sec. 42)

The real  Jesus was thus reduced to a caricature, a trigger for some fictionalized grand  narrative:  "The founder of a  religion can be insignificant — a  match, no more!" (Will to Power, sec.  178).  On Nietzsche's view, then,  Paul repeated the trick of the Old Testament:  He took the basic elements of a man's life and history, a kernel of  truth, and wove out of this a fantastic story of miracles, immortality, and  divinity incarnate.  And precisely  here was the source of the problem.
Recall the basic facts of Paul's life.  He was born in Tarsus (modern-day Turkey) around the year 10 ad as 'Saul', a Jew like the rest  though different in one important respect:  He was not a chandala Jew, but rather a Pharisee, an elite Jew.^]14  He never knew Jesus, and was in fact an early and harsh critic of the  Christians, he tells us.  Then on his  travels to Damascus in the year 33, three years after the crucifixion, Saul  encountered the 'risen Christ' in a revelatory vision and was immediately  converted.  Taking the name Paul, he  became the foremost champion of Christianity — even more so, strangely, than any  of the apostles who knew Jesus.  He begins  to create fledgling churches around the Mediterranean, and in the process writes  a series of letters — the 13 "Pauline" epistles — encouraging and cajoling his  recruits, and declaring his faith in Jesus the Messiah.  These epistles — by far the earliest written Christian documents — would  ultimately comprise nearly half the 27 books of the New Testament.^_]15  Like his Savior, Paul evidently acquired a reputation as a troublemaker.  He was arrested and sent to Rome for  trial, though we know few details.  He was  apparently executed, either by beheading or crucifixion, some time in the  mid-60s ad._]¹⁶

Nietzsche is  rightly suspicious of Paul's conversion, and not only on grounds of  'superstition.'  First of all, the  two earliest epistles — Galatians and 1 Thessalonians — date to around 50  ad; this is a full 20 years after the crucifixion, and nearly as long after  Paul's conversion.  Granted, starting  up a new religion is slow work, but one would expect some written record sooner  than this, particularly from an elite, well-educated Jew.  Second, Paul's conversion in or around the year 33 is virtually  coincident with the initial outbreak of Jewish-Roman antipathy — during Pilate's  reign, and just prior to the major break in relations attributed to Caligula.  This suggests some causal link.  Third, things worsened under the subsequent emperor, Claudius, as he  expelled the Jews from Rome in the year 49 (see Acts 18:2) — just about the time  of the first epistles.  Fourth, the  epistles are strikingly lacking in details about Jesus' life:  nothing on his birth, early life, ministry, or the apostles.  This suggests that Paul either did not know, or did not care, about such  trivial details.

Dr.  Thomas Dalton (email him) is the  author of Debating the  Holocaust (2009).
Permanent URL: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Dalton-Nietzsche2.html

Notes to  page 1

Hinduism is number three, with about 900 million adherents, although  those professing atheism or holding other explicit non-religious views are  greater in number, now about 1.1 billion. [return]
For a detailed study of Nietzsche's complex views on Jews and Judaism —  see my article, "Nietzsche  on the Jews." [return]

Most of the following quotations are from Antichrist, and this book is the  source where I have indicated only section numbers.  Quotations from other books will be explicitly cited. [return]
According to legend, Abraham had two sons: Isaac, who gave rise to the  Jewish lineage, and Ishmael, the father of the Arabs.   [return]

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,  and Deuteronomy.   [return]
The following quotes are from his article "Deconstructing the walls of  Jericho", Ha'aretz Magazine, October  29, 1999.   [return]

"Most historians today agree that, at best, the stay in Egypt and the  exodus events occurred among a few families, and that their private story was  expanded and 'nationalized' to fit the needs of theological ideology."  There is one later Egyptian documentation of such an event, by the high  priest Manetho from the third century bc, which comes to a similar conclusion.  As recounted by Lindemann, "the Jews had been driven out of Egypt because  they, a band of destitute and undesirable immigrants who had intermarried with  the slave population, were afflicted with various contagious diseases."  The Jews were thus expelled "for reasons of public hygiene."  In sum, "the account in Exodus was an absurd falsification of actual  events, an attempt to cover up the embarrassing and ignoble origin of the Jews."  (Esau's Tears, 1997: 28). [return]

A History of the Jewish People (Harvard University Press; 1976), pp. 254-255.   [return]
Future emperor Titus led the Roman attack.  His victory was commemorated with the construction of the Arch of Titus,  a striking monument that stands today aside the Colosseum.   [return]
With the notable exception of Paul — details to follow.   [return]
The sole exception is an incident recorded in Luke (2:41-51), in which a 12-year-old  Jesus escapes from parental oversight and is later found in the company of some  spiritual teachers.  Certainly  nothing miraculous about that.   [return]

As we recall:  John, Matthew,  Peter (aka Simon, aka Cephas), Andrew, James the Greater, James the lesser,  Phillip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Jude (aka Thaddeus), Simon, and Judas.   [return]
This fact should be widely known by now, but it's not.  Even a quick glance at an encyclopedia confirms it:  "Today, many scholars doubt that any of the writers of the Gospels knew  Jesus during his lifetime.  They also  doubt that we know the actual names of the writers."  (World Book Encyclopedia, 2003,  'Jesus Christ')    [return]

See Philippians 3:5, and Acts 23:6 or 26:5.    [return]
Seven of these 13 are considered to be genuinely authored by Paul; the  other six are disputed.    [return]
In another biblical oddity, one would expect details of his death to be  recorded in Acts, which is otherwise  so detailed about Paul's life.  This  is especially true given that this book dates to the years 80-100, well after  his alleged execution.  But it stops  just short of describing his death.

    "The dying out of racial instincts means the same thing to an individual as it does to a race, people, nation, State, Culture: unfruitfulness, lack of will-to-power, lack of ability to believe in or follow great aims, lack of inner discipline, desire for a life of ease and pleasure."             

—	Francis Parker Yockey

Greetings WRCs, I am a UK based National-Socialist, blogger, writer & political activist. I am also fully acquainted with Creativity having read NER, WMB & other supplemental volumes pertaining to the credo & philosophy.

My interest & concern is for a whiter & brighter world, having looked at other "creativity" outlets I feel that CA would be the professional outlet that Klassen would favour.

Looking forward to getting to know you all - RAHOWA!!!