Who is John Young?

June 18, 2009 at 12:51 am 11 comments

Someone has asked me about these mysterious signs that just keep popping up along highways and byways throughout the country. The illustration shows one of them.

With all due respect to Ayn Rand, this seems to be derived from the famous “Who is John Galt?” from her novel, Atlas Shrugged. The novel depicts a world in which the goose that lays the golden egg finally has enough and goes on strike. What our government and corporations have lost sight of is the fact that European-Americans are the goose that lays the golden egg in this country, and by displacing us and denying us civil rights and protections afforded to other ethnic groups, they are ultimately creating a strike in numerous spheres. This country will not survive that strike.

Located in Vermont

Located in Vermont

But, to answer the question — I’m John Young. I’m a member of EAU. I’m a husband, father, scientist, engineer, farmer, musician and a philosopher. I bring a multidisciplinary approach to the analysis of contemporary issues facing our Folk.
The obvious intent of these signs is to get people familiar with European Americans United, and perhaps even with my body of thought in that arena.
Well — I encourage you to do so. I don’t bite!

Entry filed under: Constitutional Defense. Tags: .

The Taxman Cometh Where has John Young Been?

11 Comments Add your own

  • 1. lyn  |  June 21, 2009 at 4:45 am

    I am inerested. I have seen the signs and have only been able to find very little on the subject at hand.

  • 2. David Carver  |  June 21, 2009 at 10:22 am

    I would like to propose what we shall call, The Doctrine of the Perpetual Negative. When the Constitution says that no power shall be exercised ny the general government , that negative cannot be repealed or overridden in any way Legislative, Executive or Judicial under this Constitution except through the next Constitutional Convention.The reason is that when the Constitution says, for example, that there may be NO direct taxes, the the proposal to override it, to repeal it, violates the prohibition. The proposal, though it later be an Amendment, is itself at all times Unconstitutional, thus illegal, and null and void! Negatives may not be repealed. I submit that the 10th Amendment supports this view as well and would love to see it debated.

    Article. V.

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall
    propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures
    of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
    which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
    Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several
    States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode
    of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which
    may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any
    Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;

    AND that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
    in the Senate.

    The 17th Amendment certainly deprived some States of their sufferage in the Senate.
    Perhaps we would be wise to repeal the 17th Amendment! According
    to the 10th Amendment , the States are distinct from the People. This is talking
    about the State Governments.

    Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina and Virginia did not ratify that amendment and were deprived of their equal suffrage in the Senate, thereby profoundly effecting the integrity of every Amendment to the Constitution!

    Also, the unseating of the Senators of these states for their refusal to ratify Amendment 14 constituted “exactly” that prohibition, AND that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
    in the Senate.
    The old idea that the Senate shall be the sole judge of the qualifications of its members, used to justify their expulsion, flies directly in the face of Article V. Likewise when attempting to balance the assertion that attainders of treason are legal with other lines that declare that no attainders of any sort are legal. Likewise whan the Constitution proclaims with great bombast that it is Supreme over State Laws and Constitutions, when it has no jurisdiction over said laws and Constitutions. Nonetheless, it is already done. The 17th Amendment is garbage.

    I also would like to show you a few other things in the Constitution that I am sure
    you will find to be very interesting.

    Article 1. Section 9.3} No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall
    be passed.

    I hate to have to break this to you, but the 14th Amendment fails these
    basic tests of Constitutionality. That amendment is a bill of attainder
    and it was passed ex post facto. I will not even mention the coercion
    and illegal expulsion from Congress of our Representatives and Senators
    for our failure to ratify this Amendment. The history of this amendment
    is a three ring circus of lies and murder.

    Article 3. Section 3.2} The Congress shall have power to declare the
    punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work
    corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person

    This is really great. Remember that Article 1.Section 9.3} declared
    that Congress may not pass Bills of Attainder or ex post facto laws. Now
    we see an exception or a mistake.
    Attainders of treason are permitted with some very serious restrictions
    on them to protect the descendants of the traitors. That is us, by the
    way. The language of the Section seems to me to imply that ex post
    facto is okay here because otherwise the attainder could not work
    forfeiture. No person would vote beforehand to give up his property for
    his upcoming treason unless he is insane, therefore we can safely say
    that the 13th Amendment is okay. The entire problem is the 14th Amendment.

    The value of the slaves concerns us here. That value is the forfeiture
    that is Constitutionally bound to be returned to the Southern people as
    we shall not suffer Corruption of Blood or lose our property except
    during the lifetimes of the Confederate Politicians and Soldiers. They
    are now all dead. Also, the theory known as the Incorporation Doctrine
    is defunct. The application of the Incorporation Doctrine is Corruption
    of Blood and is Unconstitutional. We, the Southerners living now, are
    not and have never been Traitors to the United States. We are thereby
    under the jurisdiction of the original Constitution or else Corruption
    of Blood is being allowed to function as the Supreme Law of the Land
    rather than the Constitution of the United States. This cannot continue.





    I propose that any one or all of the Southern States expelled from Congress to force their ratification of the 14th Amendment, simply repeal their states ratification of the 14th Amendment. That alone would tie EVERYTHING up in the Federal courts for the next 20 years. Liberty would blossom again.

  • 3. Dr.D  |  June 21, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    I have a couple of questions for you, John.

    1. What kind of scientist/engineer are you?

    2. What general part of the country are you writing from?

    John Young Responds:

    Hi Dr. D.! I tend to be somewhat vague in the interests of modesty. I have undergrad degrees in chemistry and electrical engineering and am 4 classes away from completing a second dual major in biology and computer science. I also have two postgraduate degrees, but neither is in a hard science. (philosophy and divinity) I’m a polymath, so the absence of specific training in a given field doesn’t mean I lack that skill. You use my inventions anytime you send email, use a car, view a videotape, etc. etc.

    I generally write from New England.

  • 4. Jerry  |  June 21, 2009 at 10:51 pm

    Huh? So are you behind these signs or not? Someone is obviously making a concerted effort to draw peoples attention to something… I’m in Washington state and saw the same homeade chicken scratch sign as in your photo of the one in Vermont. How can signs pop up all over America and nobody knows who’s placing them and for what purpose? I’m confused here…was I supposed to find you or John Young the astronaut or what? Talk about frustrating, it’s like a mystery with no answer. I’d sure like to know the person that posted the sign in my area (Graham, WA) Ok back to things that matter..

  • 5. LAG  |  June 22, 2009 at 1:39 am

    Seen the sign in Puyallup WA, Who is John Young, we still are trying to figure out who this guy is…!!!

  • 6. Monty  |  June 24, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    OK John, someone hooked me into a bit of slogging through your blog and checking up… I saw signs in Puyallup too, like LAG above and was curious enough to have a peek.

    I was thinking “seems like a thoughtful guy, shares my interest in local agriculture,” that sort of thing, till I decided to follow the links to EAU, the European Americans United. This is where I ran into some issues…

    So, John, answer me a question. You seem to me to be a thoughtful guy who seeks rationality. Do you support the Statement of Principles of the EAU? I’ll refer first to the belief that “…an eventual geographic separation (of races? cultures?) is necessary for the preservation of all unique cultures and values.”

    Here’s my problem John. I’m mostly white European, but my ancestors had the occasional taste for native women, so I’ve got a bit of Native American and a bit of Hawaiian in me. To further complicate matters, I have a number of children adopted from Asia. They are being raised in a good Baptist church by a pretty whitebread family. I have other children with even more native blood than my own. Which geographical section of the EAU-envisioned future will they be sent to? Which will I be sent to?

    As a student of human nature and race oppression I’m a bit sensitive about these matters, and I would be interested your thoughts…


    John Young responds:

    First, let me state something that (to you at least) should be obvious: no race of people has a monopoly on virtue or vice. Every person, based upon his/her character has the capacity to be beautiful. No person should be oppressed or harmed in any way on the basis of a factor over which they do not have control — such as the race of their birth.

    Now that we’ve got that out of the way, does the EAU Statement of Principles contradict the above? No, it doesn’t. Let me explain.

    First, please read my article that provides EAU’s overall understanding of race, The New Racial Consciousness. You can find it at this link. The article includes considerable scientific citation from mainstream sources describing the reality of “race” at an indisputable biological level; and explains the reasoning for why intermarriage should be avoided, and why the best interests of ALL genetically distinct peoples are best served via separation. Even though the article is somewhat long, please take the time to read it with an open mind; as otherwise we will be debating things I’ve already described and documented in considerable depth. I think you’ll find it worthwhile.

    Second, it is important to understand that a great deal of inter-ethnic violence already occurs in this country. If you look at “The Color of Crime” (compiled from FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the National Crime Victim Survey), and do a little math, you will discover some very amazing information that you would never suspect from watching TV, listening to talk radio or reading newspapers. First, you will discover that white women are specifically targeted for rape in this country because they are white by the tens of thousands every year. You will also discover that whites are targeted as victims of multiple-attacker violence conducted by non-whites hundreds of times more often than the other way around. You will find that, every year, more white people are murdered by non-whites than are dying in the Iraq War; and you’ll also discover (through some math) that since 1965, more white folks have been killed by non-whites than died in either the Vietnam War or WWI.

    If you do some research on the rates of Palestinian on Jew violence (and suicide bombing) in Israel; you will discover that a white person in this country is about 400% more likely to be a victim of violence at the hands of some other ethnicity than a Jew is to be harmed by a Palestinian. Everybody acknowledges that a large level of ethnic violence is taking place in Israel; yet nobody even notices (because our media deliberately leaves us ignorant of the fact) a far more severe situation in this country.

    As I describe in the article The New Racial Consciousness, this phenomenon isn’t surprising. It arises every time — every time — you combine resource scarcity with a multi-ethnic population. The only way around it is either dictatorship or suppression of one group by another. Or — of course — what we have described as a much more humane and preferable solution: separation.

    It is important to understand that the separation we describe is unlikely to occur at the specific behest of an organized government. If you look around the world at multi-ethnic states that existed at one time; once either resource scarcity has been introduced or a powerful authoritarian regime has been deposed — formerly multi-ethnic states have spontaneously separated either with or without violence. Yugoslavia is a great example. Look also at the former USSR. Even if you look at Iraq today — Iraq was a multi-ethnic state held together under a dictator, and now that the dictator is gone, most of the violence is inter-ethnic.

    Maybe, if I could wave a magic wand, things wouldn’t be this way. But I have no magic wand, and instead I must honestly see the way the world really works, and has worked for all of recorded history. Rather than rail against it, it must be accepted. Once it is accepted, we can work with it to achieve the best outcomes practically possible.

    As I have described in a vast body of economic writing; America is coming in for increasing levels of resource scarcity. Peak Oil has been acknowledged by the Government Accountability Office to be both REAL and PROXIMATE. While they may hide behind “Global Warming” as a trick to make it appear that resource reductions are voluntary — that is not the case. And these resource reductions, particularly in the United States, will have severe consequences in terms of resource scarcity.

    In the wake of resource scarcity in a multi-ethnic country — what is going to happen? This is totally predictable because what is going to happen is what has ALWAYS happened: either we will be living under a totalitarian government or ethnic separation will occur. In all likelihood, a bit of both in various stages.

    So this separation is not the sort of thing where some dictator is going to sit back with a list and say: “All you whites go here, and whites with a bit of black go there, and blacks go over here and Asians go over there.” There is no PLAN. Of course, it will either be done with a plan, or it will happen on its own anyway; just as it always has.

    In these sorts of situations, blood will be thicker than water, no matter how much we may love or care for someone of another race — such as adopted child. This is a tragedy — an unspeakable strategy — and I can understand that. But you have to understand that as (essentially) a white person, once resource scarcity sets in, there will be huge portions of this country where you will not be able to go and remain alive just because of the color of your skin. Such places exist now, but they will be much larger and likely even gain independent sovereignty.

    Certain things can be done to shape how the future will look. Remember — nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. If we understand and acknowledge nature, we can work with it to effectuate the best possible outcomes. But you simply cannot have a multi-ethnic state, resource scarcity and a benign government simultaneously. That’s just the way the world works. And I, for one, will not accept a dictatorship simply so I can have the privilege of living next to some guy who wants to kill me.

    Your “whitebread” reference, unfortunately, doesn’t mesh well with your being a student of racial oppression. As a student of racial oppression, you should be aware that “whitebread” is an ethnic slur. Taking away a group’s right to define and label themselves is the first step along the path of oppression. You shouldn’t tolerate such attitudes in yourself, in my opinion.

    Hopefully this helps!


    • 7. Matte Black  |  December 16, 2009 at 9:10 pm

      Puyallup is pretty cool!

  • 8. Monty  |  July 3, 2009 at 4:05 am

    Thanks John. Lots there, little that I agree with. I’m hoping that we can disagree peacefully.

    I’ve certainly heard similar theories before. If I had decided to look at the world through the filter of “my people are best” I might even agree. Humanity is exceedingly capable of such thought processes.

    The question of “which race is most intelligent?” is interesting. Surely you’d have to admit that if you happen to be of the race that created the test you have a leg up.

    I’m wondering if you ever saw the film made of Jane Elliott and her class of school children which segregated the kids by eye color. Do you think it was valid work? I’d be interested in your take on that experiment.

    It is true that there will certainly be famines here and there and yes, there will continue to be instances of horrible racial backlash in such instances. There will also be many cases of new friendships, sharing and love between people of different races. Those events are far less interesting and reportable, and those looking for reasons to distrust “others” will pay little attention to them.

    How about cases where humanity tortures or punishes its own kind? The Pol Pot situation in Cambodia for instance? Barbarity on that scale would seem to indicate that those who have formal education should naturally seperate themselves from the uneducated masses in times of scarcity.

    In my life I have found little correlation between attributes such as intelligence and race or skin color. Anecdotal? Yes. I have travelled quite extensively however, and my sampling of humanity indicates that all peoples are capable of savagery and grace, both to their “own kind” and to the “others” among them.

    I choose not to fear or feel superior to racial groups such as blacks, Native Americans, South Asians, Chinese, etc, based upon my many interactions with them. I will always watch intolerant individuals with some care however.

    Oh, yes, whitebread, sorry if that’s taken badly. I have lily white skin and pale blue eyes, I don’t tan, I burn. I claim the right of any “racial group” to demean “my own people” with impunity. No race has been as savage to its own than caucasians. I can’t help but to retain some of the savage celtic/anglo-saxon/norse that makes up the bulk of my heritage, after all.


    • 9. Matte Black  |  December 16, 2009 at 9:07 pm

      Choose Your Future!

    • 10. Andrew  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:27 am

      Monty, in none of John’s writings have I inferred any claim that White Folks are “superior” or more “intelligent” than other races. I understand one of his points to be that having multi-culturalism ramrodded down our throats and forcing different races to live in close quarters causes more far more harm than good for all races. For a number of natural and normal reasons, humans generally tend to prefer to associate with their own kind, and the right of such folks to do so should not be abridged by coercive authority. Peaceful, even mutually beneficial, coexistence is far more likely when people are left alone to live and work with those with whom they are most comfortable. White Folk respect and honor other races, but are now sorely pressed to exercise their long-repressed right to defend themselves against the not-so-subtle endeavors to obliterate them. Speaking only for myself and in reference to your case, I would add that any family which respected the mores and traditions of my ancestors and was a productive, self-sufficient, and peaceful member of my community would be a welcome neighbor.

  • 11. Victim of crime Not backin down  |  July 9, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    Does this Red Dragon have anything to do with Welsh false histories in Ohio to benefit black criminals? Republican historians here are terrible when falsifying stories to please the black community that doesnt do their own research or care.

    ANSWER: No


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


June 2009
« Apr   Nov »

Most Recent Posts

%d bloggers like this: