Sniper Attack Was Just Practice—the Real Thing is Coming to Your House

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer

In 2009, I wrote the following, which has since come eerily close to reality.

My premonition:  One morning we will awaken to darkness and silence. No radio. No TV. No phone service of any kind. No electricity, no water, no gas. No shipments of food. The sky will be dark, with what? Was it a nuclear explosion? A supervolcano? A meteor? Rumors will abound. And somewhere, somehow, armies will be forming. One of them will be fed and equipped with federal stockpiles. The others will be starving and raiding for food. In that day, men will speak only two kinds of utterance:  Curses or prayers.

In April of 2013, a well-organized, professionally executed sniper attack was launched against a PG&E power substation in California, by persons unknown. The attack did not bring down the power grid, but that is small comfort to the experts in this field. That is because the attack was apparently a dry run, a practice exercise, for a much larger attack, by numerous teams operating at the same time, sometime in the future. Few people appreciate how easily a skilled and determined organization could make this happen. The entire nation could lose electric power, and the damage might cripple our national power grid for years to come. This is not hyperbole. Anyone familiar with the giant transformers that are used in power plants well understands the danger. Those transformers, unlike the ones you commonly see on power lines, are each custom made by hand, and are enormously expensive and time consuming to produce, deliver and install. They are easily destroyed, even by simple overheating. The sniper attack was aimed at disabling the cooling fans.

One estimate is that, if the US power grid were to suddenly be crippled, the effects might be so long lasting, and so devastating, that within a year, ninety percent of all people in the US would be dead. Yes, that’s right, dead. However apocalyptic that may sound, it is not scare-mongering. The United States is no longer a nation in which ninety percent of the population consists of self-sustaining farmers living off the land. Only about one percent of Americans live on farms, and most farms are heavily reliant on the power grid. There are not enough oxen to plow the fields that feed us.

When the power grid goes down, it will take everything with it, including rail transport, the water supply, communications, military defenses, factories—and very much more. Major cities contain only enough food to last a week, and not much drinkable water. With no food coming in, people will have to forage, and that means looting on a massive scale.

All of a sudden, the survivalists will not be seen as lunatics anymore. Even they will have great difficulty getting to their hidden bunkers unseen by looters, but if they can last a month or so, they may well be among the very few long-term survivors of a world that will have seen a sort of Armageddon.

Once the power grid is down—and it will have gone down suddenly, unexpectedly and catastrophically—all communications will abruptly be cut off. Your telephone will not work, nor will your cell phone. Gas stations will quickly run out of fuel, and the refineries will not be able to replace the lost gasoline. Within a few days, we will be living like the settlers of the mid 1800s, except without their skills. The irony is, there actually was a large scale destruction of electrical power lines in the mid-1800s, caused by a solar flare—but the only serious result was a loss of telegraph stations. That was pretty much all the advanced electronic technology there was at the time.

Today, by contrast, electric power is literally life and death to us. Anyone who has been in a major power outage knows how terribly it affected their lives, and how much worse it would have been had not food and water been brought into the affected areas in time to prevent starvation.

The only advice one can give is if you are not into the full blown survivalist thing, at least store up a few days’ worth of food and water. Be prepared to defend it against looters and prepare yourself spiritually for the anguish that is to come.

Here are two video reports if you are interested in learning more.

The Chronicle of Negro Charles

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer

One of Paramount’s highest-grossing movies of 1972 was titled, The Legend of N-Word Charley. No, it wasn’t. The title contained the actual N-word itself. The title appeared on posters all over America, and openly on brightly lit marquees in nearly every theater where it played.  And no, there were no riots, no outraged community organizers demanding the word be removed, no theaters burned to the ground. Charley was, after all, portrayed as the hero of the film. Black people in droves paid to see this movie, seated alongside whites.

It is a sign of the twenty-first century how much things have changed.

In writing this commentary, I thought about whether, I, too, should use the actual n-word, not vituperatively, but literarily. I finally decided against it. Next, I considered dancing around it. No, that too would invite the ire of those who might (and surely would) object.

Imagine! I, who have fearlessly stared down ferocious man-eating tigers in the jungles ofIndia, armed only with my bare hands, am afraid of a simple word. Okay, I just made up the stuff about tigers, but I would rather face them that than to say the n-word. Okay, almost.

Look, I understand that there are two sides to this story, and indeed, many sides. On the one hand is the free speech issue. On the other side is the issue of bigotry in its most harmful forms. 

Were it but that simple, the controversy could easily be resolved on the basis of compassion and decency.  There is no reason for anyone to gratuitously say something hurtful to a fellow human. All decent people understand that. It is simple common sense.

It is no longer that simple.  It has gone way beyond common sense. It is a controversy that has resulted in books being censored by school libraries, such as the classical novel,Huckleberry Finn.  In that work of fiction, the protagonist white boy, “Huck,” helps a protagonist black man, the escaped slave, “Jim,” to flee northward. The n-word is used frequently throughout, but never disparagingly by the heroes.

What is telling about this censorship is that the censors were utterly unconcerned about whether the word was used disrespectfully. It was used in the necessary context of the milieu in which the novel is set. Rather, the objection is to the very word itself, the word, regardless, end of story.  And if you disagree, you are a racist pig, deserving of the worst punishment of all, which is, to be called a racist pig.

The precedent was thus set and enshrined. A word’s meaning and context had become irrelevant.  The “word-nazis” could ban a word, merely on the basis that it was the word that they banned.

Matters then proceeded to become even more complicated than before. It seems that while white folk were berating each other for any use of the n-word at all, black folk were co-opting it, using it liberally among themselves. It is a word commonly heard, or at least overheard, when black people are talking among themselves, calling each other by one or another variant of the n-word, sometimes in anger, sometimes jovially, but in however friendly a manner it might be used between black people, white people are not allowed to join in. Don’t you dare. To do so is offensive, racist, and may well provoke serious violence.

We are not done. As complicated as it is, it gets even worse. The National Football League, the one with a team called the Redskins, is now reported to begin banning the n-word on the playing field. Oh, it continues to get more convoluted even than that. The problem in the NFL is not that white players are insulting blacks. The problem is that black players are openly using the n-word toward each other where everyone can hear—sometimes insultingly, sometimes as a so-called (get this) term of endearment.

As this real life parody gets more tangled, it is the black players who are offended—NOT by black players using the n-word, but by white management censoring the word. In sub-section three, sub-paragraph (a9z), footnote E=MC squared of this objection by black players, white players continue to be forbidden to use the n-word, but for black players, this censorship is an affront to their culture.

Not done yet. It gets worse still.

The NFL owners, at the behest of the Fritz Pollard Alliance, a racial diversity association, are also proposing banning the n-word in locker rooms. They are banning it, not only for the players themselves, but for any rap music being played on radio or recordings. Mind you, they are not banning the music because it is misogynistic, not because it refers to women by the B-word (is it still okay to say bitches?), not because it calls them ho’s (whores), but because the music uses the n-word.  That’s why.

One could list many more absurdities in this controversy. Advocates of the censorship against whites have claimed that the n-word was “forced” upon black people by white people. It is claimed that black people now “own” the n-word, and that white people have no right to use it. It is said that “this is not up for a vote.” White people do not have a right to have any say in the matter.

White people must, without objection, bow down to these demands, and say nothing. That is an order, white boy.

An issue that once could have been resolved by courtesy, has gotten so far out of hand that any sensible resolution is now out of the question. It is no longer a matter of, as the late Rodney King lamented, “Can we all get along?” We can’t. It is now a matter of political power and brute force. Do as I say and shut up.

By the time you read this, I will not be surprised if it is burned in a fire because it contains the N-Word—not the word itself, but the word, “Word,” with an “N” in front of it. No doubt we will be forbidden to say N-Word, or any substitute for it at all, not even “daffodil.” It’s racist, you know.  After all, what word isn’t? 

Saying Sooth—Predicting the Obvious

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer

When soothsayers predict that the end of the world is near, we tend to yawn. When I predict the end of the world economy as we know it, people tend to laugh. When esteemed economists warn us of the same thing, perhaps we should take note.

I’m not a rocket scientist, not an economist, not even good at picking winning teams in sports. I can, however, do simple arithmetic and get the right answer. The simple arithmetic involves this: Spending more money than one has is not a good idea. Borrowing more than one can repay is a very bad idea. Printing counterfeit money to pay for unsustainable spending and borrowing is a horrible idea. Combining all three of these into one—a national economic policy—results not merely in catastrophe, but in a disaster that is so easy to predict that even I can do it. This is exactly the present policy of the United States.

Great minds think alike. I am now joined in my dire prediction of doom and gloom by at least one highly esteemed economist, Grady Means. Means has managed multi-billion dollar firms, is a former economist at the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and was advisor to Nelson Rockefeller. He does not walk around on the sidewalk with a poster that reads, “Doom and Gloom.” What he did do, was to write a commentary that was published in the Washington Times in October of 2012, in which he predicted that “America’s fall will take global economies [down] with it.”

Whether this will happen soon I cannot say one way or the other. According to Means, it may happen around March 4, before you ever get a chance to read this, in which case I am predicting the past.

It is natural to ask, if a policy is so seriously flawed as that of the US, why do not more people see it? Why is it allowed to be enacted? Why does no one stop it? It is natural to conclude, then, that such a policy might not be doomed to failure after all, at least not catastrophic failure. Surely, surely, someone would step in and stop it.

History is replete with examples of fools leaping before they look, fools ignoring the obvious, fools leading nations to ruin, despite ample warnings. Admiral Yamamoto warned the Japanese against attacking the US in 1941. He accurately predicted that the course of such a war would lead to inevitable defeat for the Japanese. He was ignored, and his prediction proved true. In Europe, Japan’s ally, Nazi Germany, embarked on military blunders so serious that a few German generals attempted to assassinate Hitler with a bomb in a briefcase. They failed, but only because they were afraid to do the obvious—simply pull out a gun and shoot. Afterward, even as Berlin burned, even as the Fuehrer bunker was being overrun, German commanders were executing German soldiers for desertion.

There is no easy way to prevent obvious catastrophe when powerful leaders are in charge of the policies leading to that disaster. I myself personally discovered this, on a small scale, when I tried to prevent a government building from being painted the very day before it was scheduled for demolition. Once a policy is in place, no matter how insane, it becomes like a machine that has been set in motion with no method in place to stop it. The result of my failure was a freshly painted pile of rubble.

If you sometimes get the feeling that you live in a madhouse, it may be more than just a feeling.

Here are two links if you are interested in knowing more.

Translation: Text of Geert Wilders’ speech in Ukraine debate

It is invaluable to have information on events in Europe that parallel events transpiring here. A little while ago, we learned that US lawmakers had fast-tracked $1 billion for Ukraine. Even as Americans face cuts in salaries and hefty Obamacare costs. Wilders doesn’t mince words. I think you will enjoy this. 

Don Hank


PVV Newsletter

Text of Geert Wilders’ speech in Ukraine debate

Mr Verhofstadt and Van Baalen [Members of European Parliament (MEPs), Guy Verhofstadt is Belgian and Hans van Baalen is Dutch] went to Kiev. They wanted to make history. There they stood in a square full of people, including National Socialists, Jew-haters and other anti -democrats. People with helmets and baseball bats. They went where the revolutionaries hang out. On stage, they tried to stir up the mob even more.

Mr Verhofstadt spoke in no uncertain terms. He talked about a fight, a fight. That is what Brussels supports. And with money. The leader of the VVD [Party for Freedom and Progress], Mr Van Baalen, stood beside him cheering, clenched fists held high.

Shame on them. These shameless Europhiles and their dreams of empire.

Now we have always been told that the EU stands for peace. But now that these two characters have appeared on stage, we know better. The EU stands for war provocation.

Ukraine is still a big mess. Dutch taxpayers are on the hook to fix it. The country tops the list of corrupt countries. All the money you send there disappears.

Last week, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mr. Rutte, said that tax cuts for the Netherlands is not in the cards. Netherlands craves lower taxes and lower excise duties. But Prime Minister says that won’t happen. However, they’ve managed to scrape together 11 billion euros, including Dutch money, for the Ukraine.

Meanwhile excise taxes are still high, income taxes are sky-high. Meanwhile, nursing homes are being shuttered. But there’s plenty of money for Ukraine. Matter of priorities.

It would be good if the prime minister had the intestinal fortitude to explain this here tonight, but he has to campaign. He’s sitting tonight in a cafe in the beautiful Roosendaal to tell you why everyone should vote VVD. He thinks this is more important than being accountable to Parliament for that 11 billion being sent to Ukraine. Mr Rutte holds the voter in low esteem.

Now if you need help and want to stay in a nursing home in the Netherlands you’re out of luck. But if you live in Ukraine these days, you’ve got it made. That country takes the prize. At one time, we could support Greece. And all the other countries in the South. Now our money is going towards the bottomless pit of ultra- corrupt Ukraine.

Now this cannot and should not be. Hence the following motion:

The Chamber,
having heard the deliberations,

whereas the European Commission proposes to give billions of euros of European money, including Dutch money, to Ukraine,
believes that not one penny of Dutch tax money should be given to Ukraine,

and requests that the government makes certain that not one penny of Dutch tax money goes to Ukraine,

and proceeds to the order of the day.


Translated from the Dutch by Don Hank

This is What Happens When Clowns Run the Circus

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer

What did we expect? What did anyone expect? How could clowns possibly conduct foreign policy?

The last Democrat president to practice statesmanship was Harry Truman. His last two secretaries of state were George C Marshall and Dean Acheson; both had achievements and resumes that make Obama’s appointees to these positions look to be the rank amateurs they are. Neither Hillary Clinton nor John Kerry can hold a candle to them – both are politicians, not statesmen by any stretch of the imagination.

Truman took office at the most critical moment of World War II, facing the most momentous decision with which any president has been burdened. He ordered nuclear bombs to be used against Japan, a fanatical enemy which was using suicide bombers to kill thousands of Americans. It was a decision which could well have gone terribly wrong. Had the bombs not been used, a land invasion of Japan could have cost a million allied casualties, and the outcome could easily have been a Russian occupation of Tokyo, just as in Berlin.

If the bombs were used, but failed to detonate, the technology could have fallen into enemy hands. Given that very little was known about radiation poisoning, American troops could have been sent into contaminated areas, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, disfigurements and subsequent birth defects at proportions unimaginable.

This was not a time for political calculations. It was not a time to plan the next election campaign. It was not a time to play politics for personal advantage.

Contrast this to the Obama administration, where every decision is based on winning the next election, and where every one of those decisions is predictably disastrous to our national interests.

Libya, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Egypt, and now Ukraine, populate the list of Obama failures. Enemies of the U.S. who once dreaded our every word of warning, now openly laugh in our faces. Allies who once came to our side, confident in our leadership, now distrust us, and go their own way, to our detriment.

This is what happens when clowns run the circus. What did we expect? What did anyone expect?