Richard Heinberg Openly Supports White Separatist

by **Homeless Halo** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:15 am

Several varieties of "technologically primitive"(KUNG!) peoples actually have HIGHER rates of "crime" than the worst industrial societies (USA). Like I said before, don't know anything about Heinberg, personally, although I find the fascination with him to be, interesting, to say the least. Race doesn't exist. If there is a "super" race that foreran anyone, they foreran ALL of us, because there are no obvious genetic markers to seperate the descendents of these people from those of the "common" fold. That is, "reptoids" or whatever you'd like to believe they are related to, have essentially human dna. Which means that they are human, like all of us. etymology on "aryan" leads one to believe that, following the actual history of this notion, the nazis had the ideas all WRONG. Of course, they also thought the Swaztika was an anti-semitic germanic symbol, when it was reportedly used by Jews long before "germanics" were a "kind" of person, even in rhetoric. Point being: Do not trust NAZIS to give you accurate interpretations of eastern/western mythology. Beyond this: Since I don't know who RH is, his opinions are irrelevant to me. However, it could be demonstrated that he is powerful and popular with widely held view. If this is so, I could be persuaded to study him more intently, but probably not, as I find it unlikely that he is of any serious importance. Regarding eco-fascism: That Nazis wanted more "room", that is, resource land and expanded political influence, and that they used "nature" as an excuse for this is no evidence against tree huggers in general. This would be akin to blaming current Crick and Watson for the crimes of axis-funded eugenicists. People should be attacked based on what they themselves DO/SAY not on what someone standing behind them or next to them says. This is not to say that association is not important, but that it isn't the final verdict. Example: Prescott bush financed Hitler. Agreed. Does that neccessarily mean that W is a nazi? No. (MY ancestors once owned slaves, does that mean I want to own slaves? No.) W can be regarded as a fascist based solely on the modern record of his activities. If his father and grandfather were both anti-nazi patriots, he would still be a fascist, because of his own actions, not those of his bloodline and associates. Just saying, y'know, I have met a lot of tree huggers in my time who would be the first people to line up to kick these fascists in the balls. (I don't think anyone can accuse Bush or the curret PTB of being eco-friendly) Lebensraum is not the same as actual Conservationism.

by **proldic** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:01 am

Since 2002 I have been trying to warn people about this guy. Then, people treated me like a kook. Times are different now, though. About the day before I posted the original link on this thread, I sent my young basement-dwelling boarder down to a Heinberg speech wearing a sandwich board that read "Heinberg Supports Eugenics". What a story that was. Here he has spent some time cut-and-pasting various people's work to try to form an initial summary of what is going on: Richard Heinberg is a Stealth Fascist Who Epitomizes What "Peak Oil" Is All About -Part One- Who is Richard Heinberg? Richard Heinberg is the author of two very popular books supporting the "Peak Oil" theory, The Party's Over and Powerdown. Heinberg is an open supporter of massive de-population. He says that de-population will be necessary in the face of a coming oil crash. He currently speaks all around the country to large crowds, usually in politically liberal and leftist areas. Why is Heinberg Important? Richard Heinberg has become one of the primary, if not the primary, supporters of the "Peak Oil" theory in the U.S. today. His views and claims are nearly 100% in line with the views of the other major "Peak Oil" cheerleaders, such as Colin Campbell, Matthew Simmons, Kenneth Deffeyes, Michael Klare, and of course the infamous Michael Ruppert. Heinberg is endorsed by the entirety of this crowd, and, indeed, they and their doomsday prediction of "Peak Oil" are gaining considerable attention these days both in the mainstream media and in political activist circles. "Peak Oil" is gaining a lot of acceptance with relatively little challenge across the western world, despite the fact that there is much disagreement amongst geologists and oil industry analysts, and despite the fact that the "Peak Oil" people have declared "Peak" to be imminent many times before, and have been repeatedly wrong. Understanding who Richard Heinberg is sheds great light on understanding what "Peak Oil" is really all about. Heinberg Supports Mass De-population While Heinberg does not endorse a specific eugenics program, per se, he loudly calls for mass de-population. He favorably quotes Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> If all people are to be fed adequately and equitably, we must have a gradual transition to a global population of 2 billion. A population policy ensuring that each couple produces an average of only 1.5 children would be necessary<hr></blockquote> (The Party's Over, page 226). For anyone who sees this belief as possible benign, or does not understand mass de-population as part of the fascist agenda, it does not take many "degrees of separation" to see Heinberg's connection to open eugenics. On page 227 of The Party's Over, Heinberg quotes Garret Hardin, an ecologist whom Heinberg endorses in multiple places in his book. Hardin is a famous de-population advocate, who is, tellingly, a grantee of the Pioneer Fund. The Pioneer Fund is an aboveground eugenics foundation that funds some of the most egregiously racist scientists in the world. On its web site the Pioneer Fund qualifies: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The fact that the origins of the Pioneer Fund lie in the Darwinian-Galtonian evolutionary tradition, and the eugenics movement has guaranteed us our share of controversy<hr></blockquote> and <blockquote>Quote:<hr>we have supported behavioral genetic studies which have shown that the genetic component in human behavior is about 50% and, even more controversial, that it is more likely than not that there is a genetic component to between-group (sex, socioeconomic, and racial) IQ differences.<hr></blockquote> There is a genetic difference between the rich and the poor, that is what we are to believe, according to the funders of Richard Heinberg's hero Garret Hardin. Far from dismissing the beliefs of the people who pay him, Hardin has based his career on this racist ideology. So, too, has Richard Heinberg. Heinberg's connections only get more extreme. One Degree of Separation: Heinberg Supports an Open White Separatist! On page 228 of The Party's Over and at the very end of the following interview, <a href="http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/220,">www.globalpublicmedia.com...ripts/220,</a> Heinberg endorses Virginia Abernathy, another population reductionist. Most notably, Abernathy's "population reduction" stance fits within the rubric of her *white separatism.* Professor Abernathy writes for Occidental Quarterly (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occidental_Quarterly),">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occ...uarterly),</a> a white supremacist publication. Do alliances with eugenicist and white supremacist types necessarily make Heinberg a bad egg? Well, yes. But the story doesn't end there. Heinberg closely associates with eugenics philosophy and does not disown it, while cloaking his own garb in eco-conservatism. Never supporting social justice or systemic political solutions, or even truly acknowledging the power of the corporate and political ruling class, yet always emphasizing individual and small-scale "save-yourself-from-apocalypse" measures, Heinberg is best understood as an anti-humanist. However, he's being taken seriously in academia, and such is the threat of the modern eschatological horror show; now it's going mainstream. Heinberg Denies That Clean Alternative Energies Such as Solar and Wind Could Ever Replace Oil In time to Avert Total Societal Collapse Richard Heinberg never mentions the long history of oil industry suppression of solar and wind energy, as documented in the book Who Owns the Sun, of which Publishers Weekly said, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>(authors) Berman and O'Connor offer a scathing explanation of why solar technology has played such an insignificant role in meeting America's energy needs. Politicians, utility companies and even many mainstream environmental groups come under attack for either their lack of leadership on this issue or for their downright hostility to solar possibilities. The authors argue convincingly that the impediment to widespread adoption of environmentally friendly energy sources is no longer technological but rather the fear that private utility companies' profit margins will suffer. Numerous examples of the ways in which renewable energy advances have been sabotaged by politicians and utilities are presented, as are a wide array of solutions. The most interesting solutions include public ownership of utilities, enlightened building codes favorable or at least neutral to solar technology, utility company buy-backs of excess electricity generated by homeowners, tax breaks for the installation of non-polluting sources of power, removal of massive governmental subsidies of fossil fuels and equalization of governmental research dollars for renewable and non-renewable sources of energy. Where such reforms are already in place, in the Netherlands and Israel, for example, solar energy is playing a very significant social role. This is a book likely to stir people to action.<hr></blockquote> Solar and wind power are the most obvious efficient and clean mass-power sources, and their incorporation into widespread usage is practical on both on a technical, humanistic and environmental level. Heinberg, though, in The Party's Over, essentially dismisses solar altogether. Regarding wind he says, <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Just to produce 18 quads of wind power in the U.S. by 2030 would require the installation of something like half a million state-of-the-art turbines, or roughly 20,000 per year starting now. That is five times the present world production capacity for turbines. This feat could be accomplished, but it would require a significant reallocation of economic resources. <hr></blockquote> One is left wondering why Heinberg is not calling for that allocation of resources- a 5x ramp-up in wind turbine production doesn't seem like much in the big picture, does it? Yet he'd rather drum up Armageddon. Heinberg Says No! to Hope <blockquote>Quote:<hr>When I talk about this stuff to audiences, people immediately say, 'can't you give us some hope'... well I think hope is actually part of the problem.<hr></blockquote> Heinberg is not the only "Peak Oil" advocate with fascist ideology. Colin Campbell is another. Matthew Simmons is another. What is the effect of these people and what they say? Their effect is anti-political. At a time when political action is most needed, at a time of Bush economic attack on the poor, unions being attacked, fascism rising - they are here to say, save yourself. Which is very nice and all if you're rich. A large base of the potential supporters of a strong movement for progressive change- and those with the economic resources to even be thinking of "saving themselves"- are being derailed into an armageddonist and eugenicist ideology based on pseudo-science. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=proldic@rigorousintuition>proldic</A> at: 11/4/05 7:28 am

by **jenz** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:05 pm

Could you expand on the 'being taken seriously in academia' bit?

by **RollickHooper** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:36 pm

<a href="http://www.infonegocio.com/xeron/bruno/adam.html">www.infonegocio.com/xeron.../adam.html</a>

by **Gouda** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:08 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Their effect is anti-political. At a time when political action is most needed, at a time of Bush economic attack on the poor, unions being attacked, fascism rising - they are here to say, save yourself. Which is very nice and all if you're rich.<hr></blockquote> Esatto!! Save yourself; or, don't bother it is hopeless and overwhelming.

by **starroute** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:34 pm

I'm not trying to go all airy-fairy on you. My disagreement was specifically with the humans-as-top-predators line. Humans are neither physically nor psychologically adapted to predation, and their attempts to assume the role have been half-assed at best. The "darkness" in human nature seems to be primarily connected with intra-group violence: Fights, murders, rapes. Impulses towards incest and cannibalism. That sort of thing. Chimps are not natural hunters -- grabbing off the occasional baby baboon is not hunting -- and neither are we. And war, which is far more like hunting than like getting into a fist fight in a bar, doesn't come naturally either. The archaeological "evidence" for human aggressiveness is largely the result of systematic distortion by scientists with a bias towards 20th century notions of survival of the fittest . But handaxes, for example, would make terrible weapons, because they're sharp on all sides. The protein/large brain connection is certainly valid -- and one attractive aspect of the aquatic ape hypothesis of human origins is that it suggests an alternative source of high-quality protein in the form of seafood to account for the long period of brain growth in the absence of large-scale hunting. Even among Homo sapiens, big game hunting may never have amounted to much. A recent study showed that both lifespans and population levels began to increase markedly around 30,000 years ago. This was apparently the result of new technologies which made it possible to tap into a broader range of food sources -- fish traps, rabbit traps, bird snares, and so forth. The people who devised these new technologies are generally described as mammoth hunters, and perhaps they were, but it doesn't seem to have done them as much good nutritionally as a steady supply of the small stuff. Human beings may not be all-round nice guys, but neither are we pumped-up alpha male predators. We're clever opportunists, with a preference for cunning over force and an overall sense that honesty and deception both have a role to play in getting ahead in the world.

by **rocco322** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:53 pm

I don't think it's about race. I think they're just sick of gridlock traffic and they'd rather kill millions of useless eaters rather than give up millions of dollars in profits.

by **starroute** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:34 pm

I've just been doing a bit of googling, trying to get up to speed on this. It seems that the central question isn't Heinberg and his Shambhala fantasies -- it's the entire Peak Oil movement and its agenda and who's behind it. I found a blog called Peak Oil Debunked: <a href="http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/10/123-more-racist-connections.html">peakoildebunked.blogspot....tions.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Richard Heinberg has this to say about the political dimensions of peak oil: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>There are a few people who are mostly scientists, people like Virginia Abernathy who wrote the book "Population Politics" and David Pimentel a professor up in Ithaca, New York, people like that are aware of the issues but these are scientists, they're not political leaders<hr></blockquote><hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>We've already seen in #106 that Abernethy is on the board of The Occidental Quarterly, a white nationalist publication. The Southern Poverty Law Center is keeping an eye on Abernethy, and dug up this interesting interview material: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Center for New Community, an antiracist group based in Chicago, reported that PAN director Kathy McKee in July brought in Virginia Abernethy, a retired professor who is tied closely to the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC; see Communing with the Council) hate group. Although Abernethy denied being a supremacist, telling the Arizona Daily Star that she was merely a white "separatist" who preferred to be "with my own kind," she was immediately denounced by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). FAIR, which helped pay to gather signatures for the referendum but later broke angrily with McKee, described Abernethy's views as "repugnant.<hr></blockquote><hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Now, it turns out that, in 2004, Pimental ran for the board of directors of the Sierra Club on an anti-immigration platform. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The candidates—Lamm, Cornell University entomologist David Pimental, and retired Foreign Service Officer Frank Morris—all say curbing immigration will lessen domestic pressures on the environment and the economy. But what really has alarmed the Sierra Club's leaders is that right-wing Web sites, some with nativist pro-white views, have noticed the fight and have been urging readers to become Sierra Club members and support the immigration-reform candidates. To make matters worse, some of the candidates' views on immigration—which evolved after discovering population as an environmental issue—are almost identical to positions espoused by right-wing, anti-immigration activists or white supremacists on their sites. That confluence is just too explosive for a centrist, national organization like the Sierra Club, which is why the Club's senior management is so alarmed. "I don't think that Lamm, Pimentel and Morris are racists," Executive Director Carl Pope told the Los Angeles Times. "But they are clearly being supported by racists.<hr></blockquote><hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Here's some frank commentary from one of Pimental's supporters: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Homo Jew Threatens Takeover Of Sierra Club Board Anti-Immigration Environmentalist Fight To Keep Morris Dees Out 1/15/2004 12:12:45 AM Montgomery, Alabama -- Bisexual Jew Morris Dees, backed by the stable of young, homosexual and Jewish men and woman at the Southern Poverty Law Center, is struggling to takeover the board of directors of the Sierra Club as a clique of anti-immigration activists around VDARE struggle to bring the Sierra Club into conformity with the hopes and aspirations of millions of Americans<hr></blockquote><hr></blockquote> I also found this, by somebody who believes the oil industry are the one behind Peak Oil: <a href="http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr55.html">www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr55.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Support for a remedial program of oil exploration and development versus switching to research and development of alternative energy sources tends to be found among oil experts who are consultants to the industry. While accepting some of the values of the New Age, they largely remain loyal to their calling as oil geologists and wildcatters. The leading trio of Jean H. Laherrere, Colin J. Campbell, and L.F. (Buz) Ivanhoe have worked for, or with, the leading firm modeling oil fields, Petroconsultants of Geneva. Since the 1950s, they have been fed data on oil exploration and production by just about all the major oil companies, as well as by a network of about 2000 oil industry consultants around the world. They use this data to produce reports on various matters pertinent to the oil industry, which they sell back to the industry. "This much is known, Kenneth Deffeyes writes, "the loudest warnings about the predicted peak of world oil production came from Petroconsultants" (Deffeyes, 2001: p. 7). In a late 1998 merger Petroconsultants became IHS Energy Group, a subsidiary of Information Handling Services Group (IHS Group), a diversified conglomerate owned by Holland America Investment Corp., IHS Group's immediate parent company, for the Thyssen-Bornemisza Group (TBG, Inc.). In the 1920s George Herbert Walker and his son-in- law, Prescott Bush, had helped the Thyssen dynasty finance its acquisitions through Union Banking Corp. and Holland-American Trading Corp. (Wikipedia, 2003). Until his death last year, Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, the nephew of the Nazi steel and coal magnate, was one of the world's richest men. Some of the old Hubbertians would probably flinch at such an association.<hr></blockquote> All very interesting. There's a lot here to think about. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=starroute>starroute</A> at: 11/4/05 1:44 pm

by **anotherdrew** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:44 pm

thanks for the recap Prol - OK, I'm not totally convinced about heinberg but I see what you're getting at. There may well be a peak and we may well be near it. However, not all people who advocate this possibility are coming at it from the same direction or intending to go to the same place... So not ALL people who advocate that we pay attention to the possibility of peak oil are "bad guys". Here's a telling quote: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In the 1970s Hubbert embraced solar power, saying "I'm convinced we have the technology to handle it right now. We could make the transition in a matter of decades if we begin now" (Hickerson, 1995). Although his thinking was definitely in the ecotopian tradition, he has often been mistaken for a cynical dystopian by those who swear by Hubbert as the prophet of the Great Malthusian Die Off (Hanson, 2003).<hr></blockquote> Another character who's heart seems in the right place is Kenneth Deffeyes, Professor Emeritus at Princeton and author of Hubbert's Peak: the Impending World Oil Shortage (2001). Deffeyes, who worked with Hubbert in Houston for Shell Oil, says, "I never came to identify with management." That's a good sign. The oil industry has been telling itself about peak oil for some time: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In 1995 a report by Campbell and Laherre on world oil resources, World Oil Supply 1930-2050 (Petroconsultants Pty. Ltd., 1995), written for oil industry insiders and priced at $32,000 per copy, concluded that world oil production and supply probably would peak as soon as the year 2000 and decline to half the peak level by 2025. Large and permanent increases in oil prices were predicted after the year 2000.<hr></blockquote> That report was not public knowledge for many years after it was written. The oil lords and other shadowy forces have likely been planning how they will use this "peak" for quite some time. If the oil barons know that a peak is coming (and no-one could be more sure one way or the other than them) and have only a fuzzy idea of when, they would surely strive to ensure that the effects of peak start to hit early, so that they can at least control the time and manner of the initial reaction. The "official" weight we see being lent to peak oil has often come directly out of the world oil producers data/brain-trust: Petroconsultants, from when came Colin J. Campbell, Laherrere and others. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>This much is known, Kenneth Deffeyes writes, "the loudest warnings about the predicted peak of world oil production came from Petroconsultants" (Deffeyes, 2001: p. 7)<hr></blockquote> Now if you really want to get people fired up about the Reich's maneuvers behind all this, one could just point out that (drum roll please)... Petroconsultants is now owned by the Thyssen-Bornemisza Group ( Petroconsultants now known as Information Handling Services Group, owned by Holland America Investment Corp, owned by TBG). The shadowy black bulk of Thyssen-Bornemisza should cause everyone to react like a cheesy vampire to a cross. Additional resources: <a href="http://lists.gp-us.org/pipermail/texgreen/2003-July/002633.html"> Coming Panic over the End of Oil</a> - This is a fairly long piece by Walt Contreras Sheasby (a green eco-socialist, [everybody's trying to get into the act] but never mind that, it's got a lot of good background info and lots of footnotes). A great resource on the underground nazi thesis and in this show Peak Oil in particular check out this blog entry providing notes to go along with this radio show: <a href="http://ftrsummary.blogspot.com/2005_04_26_ftrsummary_archive.html"> FTR #506 The Road to Lugano Part II</a> - link to notes on <a href="http://wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=14879&archive=19737">this</a> real audio show. excellent further resources here, including some very good books downloadable: http://www.spitfirelist.com/ http://ftrsummary.blogspot.com/ So YES I do see that The Underground Reich is involved with SOME of the people pushing peak oil (possibly most of the ones saying, 'drop everything and head for the hills'). Not everyone who goes down that road is a paid shill though, they could simply be unaware of the true nature of the company they keep. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=anotherdrew>anotherdrew</A> at: 11/4/05 2:50 pm

by **planar** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:00 pm

anyone seen the quotes from robert macnamara [vietnam, trilateral commission] to the effect that 'we havent succeeded in lowering population by artificial means so we are going to have to use natural means' quoted in 'the naked empress' [blowing the lid off the medical industry] - ie contraception has failed, so we are going to use natural diseases - ie AIDS, SARS, etc first they suck all the money, then they suck all the life - these people are INSANE - they are like the man that grabbed people and made them fit his bed by stretching them or chopping bits off, or the man who tied people to corpses and let them rot - they are dressed in the sheepskin of sanity but inside they are destroyers, perfect haters of life lord keynes: someday [when people wake up] moneymania will be classified as a mental disease spinoza: avarice is madness superrich have been using malthus for 200 years to support their inhumanity THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE SUPERRICH THERE IS EVERY REASON TO NOT HAVE SUPERRICH every extremely rich-poor country has extreme violence and has selfdestructed - the lesson of history superwealth is not just, it is not beneficial, it is extremely destructive, painful, bad, slavery, tyranny - for rich and poor - for overpaid and underpaid - robbers and robbed - antifreedom, antiamericandream - if you had a community of people all working fulltime, would there be any benefit in making pay extremely unequal? would that be anything except destabilising, troubletroubletrouble? so you already know it is bad - so wake everyone up and outlaw it the american dream of freedom was BASED on limitation of fortunes - prohibition of entail, primogeniture, fixing clergy salaries - the first thing done after the decl of independence - lincoln warned you about the corporation - JEFFERSON warned you about the corporation you know that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - you know it isnt because the rich work harder and harder and the poor work less and less - ie, it is unjust - injustice = violence there is plenty for all - $75,000 for every family in the world - and one acre of arable land per person - if you outlaw overpay, youll be preventing overpay/underpay/violence - if you dont, you wont go out and get the numbers by rational discussion and outlaw overpay pay, after 1000s of years of uncontrolled richgetricher etc, ranges from $1000 per second to $1000 per lifetime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1000s of years of freeforall of everyone grabbing as much as you can, means that now, 1% have from the average to 1,000,000 times the average, and 90% have from a 10th to a 1000th of the average hourly payrate we have also had 1000s of years of escalation of war and weaponry, from throwing stones to ICBMs are you totally incapable of even discussing this? are you going to bleep over this post and go on chatting forever about katrina and heinberg and an endless string of consequences of extreme overunderpay? the millions of messes that flow daily out of extreme overpay/underpay? i am not trying to be rude - im am trying to be heard you are swallowing the camel of extreme overpay underpay and straining out gnats of heinberg, katrina, etc, etc henry thoreau: there are 1000 [more like 1,000,000,00<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"> striking at the leaves of the tree of problems for every one who is striking at the root of the tree of problems - it is much easier to get rid of problems by chopping the tree down than by looking at leaves - much much much easier PLEASE i havent dealt with human aggressiveness - isnt it possible that humans are aggressive not from nature but from extreme situation? if you starve a nice dog and beat it long enough, it will become hopelessly savage - extreme wealth and poverty generates extreme situations which cause humans to become savage - lets get rid of extreme suffering and then see how humans behave - we are starving to death 50,000,000 a year - while there is $1,000,000 annual income PER STARVING PERSON - forget compassion - it hasnt worked - think of yourselves - how you are embroiled in this megamess - eg, you are trying to save the world by writing about katrina and heinberg when you could be living

Richard Heinberg Openly Supports White Separatist

several

Re: Peak Oil = Eugenics

thanks Prol

Re: thanks Prol

Re: thanks Prol

To Homeless Halo

Re: separatism

So the real issue isn't Heinberg, it's the Peak Oil bunch

Re: thousand pound elephant identified lurking in closet...

depopulation and human aggressiveness

Who is online