9/11 Truth

http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm

Watch this video, and then you tell me what the truth is.

I still don't know. I've watched many videos like '9/11 missing links,' 'loose change,' and read many sites claiming irrefutable proof 9/11 was an inside job. None of them approached the level of convincing to me. However, this video is different. Finally there appears the smoking gun, forensic evidence that is direct instead of circumstantial: traces of thermite byproducts in the pulverized dust from the world trade centers. There can be no innocent explanation for these chemicals. But can I trust this website? Maybe they are simply lying, or fabricating their data. How can I, a non-expert, know the technical issues they are discussing? Will other experts come in and show that these experts are full of shit, and I've simply been hoodwinked? Over and over again experts across the field have claimed a fire brought down all three WTC buildings and used all sorts of fancy jargon and computer simulations to prove their point. Are they lying? I'd prefer to go with my gut. Freefall collapses that look like controlled demolitions that fall perfectly inward three times in one day are probably exactly what they look like. Occam's razor should apply in all such controversies, and this one falls decidedly on the '9/11 Truthers' side.

I have always found the issue suspicious. Considering our history of false flag attacks and lies that have gotten us into practically every war in our history: the gulf of tomkin, the WMD that were supposedly in Iraq, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor being deliberately provoked and deliberately leaving the people there vulnerable even though we knew the attack was coming through decoded intercepts, the mysterious sinking of the Maine -- our entire history is riddled with lies and false flag attacks. It would not be extraordinary or even surprising to find out yet another lie lies behind the inception of this 'war on terror.' The whole world is living multiple lies and delusions, there are nine lies being circulated in 'popular culture' for every one shred of truth. It is a lie that all races have equal genetic potential for high intelligence. It is a lie that any jews were gassed in the Holocaust, much less 6 million. It is a lie that men and women are the same and interchangeable. It is a lie that the gay lifestyle is healthy and normal. (In fact, it is so unhealthy that gays have a lower lifespan due to their behavior than smokers or drinkers could ever dream of -- perhaps as low as in their 40's. Nor is it 'healthy' for the society around them, gays are ten times as likely to be pedophiles, they have much higher rates of crime and mental illnesses in general, and every society which has embraced the gay lifestyle has soon after collapsed)

So would I be surprised if 9/11 were another lie? That liars at the top of our society have masterminded the murder of 3,000 people in cold blood, then used this lie to justify foreign wars that have killed hundreds of thousands more? No, that doesn't surprise me. There have been many more lies, all larger than this one, that are responsible for the deaths of millions. We would be naive to believe elites have ever once cared about their underlings, or treated us as anything but disposable trash, across history. It was a lie that the communist revolution would bring a worker's paradise. Instead it brought the deaths of 100 million innocent people, and the impoverishment of all the rest. Did that stop the liars from enacting their plans? Does it ever stop the liars from enacting their plans?

Maybe Gage is simply falsifying his data, maybe there's some innocent explanation for all this I can't fathom because I'm not an expert. Maybe. But this is the best video for 9/11 truth out there, nothing else even approaches the quality and expertise displayed by this presentation. The fact is new information is slipping out every year that keeps casting doubt on the official story. The fact is the government is hiding evidence from us, starting with their recycling of all the steel from those towers so that not a single investigator could check for evidence of explosives before the entire crime scene was whisked away. The fact is no independent investigation has been given full access to the on-board flight tapes or other relevant information like video tapes showing the pentagon attack, and that it's pointless for the government to investigate itself, when it's the main suspect of the crime!!! Absurd, and yet, this type of commission keeps churning out 'reports' on how innocent it is, as though we could trust a damn word they said on the matter. The fact is hundreds of eye-witnesses report explosions and molten steel, things a fire cannot produce. The fact is not a single one of the planes was intercepted by a seemingly criminally 'inept' air force--were they given a stand down order or something? Or perhaps they were distracted by the four simultaneous 'drills' the government inscrutably scheduled to be carried out that same day during the attacks. How fucking suspicious is that? If that doesn't raise alarm bells, what will? The fact that 'anti-terror' drills were also being done on 7/7, the day of the London bombings? It's as if we know ahead of time when these attacks are going to happen. Hmmmmmmm.

What relation does Al-Qaeda then have to the theory of a controlled demolition planned months in advance and merely set off under the cover of the plane strikes on 9/11? I have no idea. Every explanation possible sounds ludicrous on the face of it. Perhaps instead of speculating, it would be better to arrest and interrogate the members of our government and just find out what exactly they were thinking, how they planned it, what relations they have to Al Qaeda, etc. Then they can tell us directly how it happened, instead of us trying to piece it together in total darkness. I hear waterboarding got Khalid Sheik Mohammed to admit to planning the 9/11 attacks. Let's start waterboarding Bush, Cheney, Armitage, Feith, Rice, and all that gang and see if it yields equal fruit. What have we got to lose? I hear it's not even torture and just some harmless act of 'enhanced interrogation.' If they're innocent, surely we'd find out soon enough.

But our government would never attack our own people right? They would never kill innocent civilians, right? Tell that to the branch dravidians at Waco. Tell that to the wife of Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge. Tell that to the nearly 200 people who mysteriously died that were connected to Bill Clinton in various sleazy ways on the Clinton Death List. There is an undercurrent of murder by our government constantly hovering in the background, the lies are simply overwhelming and many who have spoken out have ended up dead. Car accidents, plane accidents, 'suicides', and 'unexplained deaths' have claimed the lives of numerous opponents of the powers that be. George Patton. George Lincoln Rockwell. Jorg Haider. (and that's just the George's!! O.O) Charles Lindbergh's child. Huey Long. Pim Fortuyn. The more you look into it, the scarier it gets. There is another world operating beneath the world we are painted by the media, full of governments murdering political enemies just like we saw with the Communists. It is pure naivety to believe anything different. 9/11 fits perfectly well into this shadow world of death and murder for political ends. In this world, it isn't extraordinary, it's predictable.

Did the jews pull off 9/11? It's quite possible. The jew Silverstein recently became the owner of the buildings just a few months before the attacks. Jewish Mossad agents were caught dancing in glee on top of a white van taping the world trade center's destruction. ((they were, of course, later arrested without explanation and fled back to Israel.)) Jewish security agencies oversaw the flight security systems that failed to catch any of the hijackers before they boarded their planes. Mossad agents were tracking Atta and lived right alongside him the days before the attack. And jews, of course, gained the most from the 9/11 attacks. Because of 9/11, we were sent into two hopeless wars for Israel that have done nothing but waste trillions of dollars and antagonize the muslim world.

But how am I, a layman with no special access to the shadow world of intelligence, spies, government secret meetings, Mossad and so on supposed to come to an informed conclusion about these things? I can't. Maybe someday we will discover in some secret archives documents proving a jewish connection to 9/11 -- just as 50 or a 100 years later we are discovering soviet archives documenting the massacre at Katyn forest, a massacre they denied during their entire reign up until 1990. It's obvious jews couldn't have done it without the US government knowing about it and colluding with it. So in the end, we are back to the same nightmare alliance of jews and white elites with their genocidal campaign against middle class whites all across the world. Is it any surprise that they'd be working together in this matter as well? When are they not trying to kill us, lie to us, or steal our money? Across history, the birth rates of the peasant class in Europe have always been below replacement (considering the constant famine and plagues) whereas the nobility have always been above replacement (it helps to have a harem, or just good health!). Regularly branches of the nobility would end up filling the positions of the ever dwindling peasantry and citizenry (all cities were death traps and population sinks until about 1900) and repeating the endless cycle. They never showed the working class mercy then, they never worried what the human price was of their taxes, tithes, and luxurious living back then. Why would they start caring now? They treat us like cattle, and that's all we'll ever be to them. Sending cattle to the slaughter is the right of all cattle owners, and if it somehow is to their advantage, why would they think twice before giving the okay?

In the end, I am going to continue sitting on the fence. I don't think there's enough evidence to say what happened on 9/11. What I do want is a more thorough investigation, with much more collection and analysis of evidence, than we currently have managed. Eight years after the attacks, most Americans and most people across the world still believe our governments are lying to us about 9/11. It's time to shine the light of truth onto this most mysterious of days and answer the unanswered questions we all have. That there is a possibility it was an inside job, considering the physical evidence we currently have, the eyewitness reports, the lies about everything else our government tells us, the history of false flag attacks that have gotten us into previous wars, and the heartlessness of our elites toward us as displayed by their genocidal policies of immigration already -- is indisputable. If this possibility turns out to not hold water, fine. There is no reason to believe our government is guilty of every single suspicion I hold against it, or every single atrocity that occurs on earth. But if it does hold water, it's part of a larger pattern of lies and atrocities that have spanned centuries. And it's also part of waking up America to the horrible agenda being waged against it on all levels. If the government is lying about 9/11, what else is it lying about?

The truth about 9/11 is thus a powerful tool for the Truth in general. If the government is lying to us about 9/11, people will suddenly realize BIG LIES are running their entire lives. That lies are getting us into wars, costing trillions of dollars, killing millions of people, and that liars at the very top are successfully hiding these lies for decades and centuries from the general public. If 9/11 was a conspiracy, how many other conspiracies are out there, still undiscovered? How many other conspiracies must we be on guard against? 9/11 Truth is a gateway to Truth in general. Therefore a full investigation into all the claims alleged about 9/11 by independent experts from all across the globe is necessary. Furthermore, if the physical evidence is convincing, we must arrest and interrogate all possible members of the conspiracy in the government all the way down to the people who planted the bombs. Only then will the full story of that day come to light.

Frankly, if the Holocaust is a hoax (and all physical evidence says it is), then I can believe anything. Absolutely anything could be a lie. 9/11 wouldn't surprise me at all. Compared to the Holocaust, it's piss in the wind. And regardless of whether it's true or false, it changes nothing about the larger picture.

Whether the Holocaust happened or not, whether 9/11 was an inside job or not, immigration continues the silent genocide of every white nation on earth. Whether jews are good people or not, whether gays are good people or not, immigration continues the silent genocide of every white nation on earth. If immigration isn't stopped, everything else is irrelevant. I am simply terrified by the consequences of this worldwide migration. In fifty to one hundred years, a race as old as time and responsible for 90% of everything good on God's green earth, is going to go extinct. It will be wiped out by a tidal wave of dysgenic, good for nothing mud-sludge monsters, and their elite enablers whose hatred for the white race and the common folk knows no bounds. Our cities will resemble detroit, Bombay or Rio De Janero. Instead of the beautiful fair skin, blue eyes, proud demeanor, and blushing cheeks, we will be surrounded by jungle apes, coal black, short, dirty, squat, fat, ugly, flat-nosed and obviously stupid, shambling from place to place, full of drugs and AIDS and shitting in the streets. Instead of colonizing the stars and tracing a blaze of glory across the universe, our journey will end right here, with the ruins of our past skyscrapers emptied out overlooking a stone age village full of mud huts. It couldn't happen? Tell that to the british who lived in the ruins of the Roman empire, unable to craft the buildings that rotted around them, the glass, the pottery, or anything else. And those were whites. Now imagine blacks and mestizos trying to inherit the culture of the Enlightenment! Try to imagine the half literate moors trying to inherit Paris, the Notre Dame cathedral, the Eiffel tower and the Louvre? Can you imagine? I can't. It makes my stomach churn. I know exactly what it will look like. The buddhas of bamiyan already paint the way!

God, there are none so blind as those who will not see. If immigration isn't stopped, and reversed, then the whole white western world is going to collapse in on itself. And there is no guarantee that the East Asian world won't follow after! Their birth rates, after all, are lower than ours. And the bug of multiculturalism media floats around in their ears and buzzes in their PC adjusted brains as often as our own. When lies like 'diversity is our greatest strength' are pushed on us every day for the last 50 years -- the government is capable of anything. They are all traitors and villains, whether they did 9/11 or not, and they all deserve to be tortured and hung, whether the Holocaust happened or not. Their is no describing the depths of their evil or the horrible damage they are doing to our world -- to each and every white person, white child, and white family that lives on this planet. The very best people on earth are being delivered to the worst tragedy in history, a genocide of 500 million people! It's unbelievable. And yet our own media celebrates it with cheers, and we all march ahead to the slaughterhouse without even a bleat of protest. Without even lifting a hand in resistance.

Questioning the lies our government tells us is our first act of resistance. Uncovering the lies and promulgating the truth is our next act of resistance. Only when the majority of our people are convinced that everything has been a lie, will a new way of life be able to emerge from the rubble. Only then will the people support any attempt at a reformation of our society along new, Godly principles that take into account all the Big Truths of this world. There is nothing more suspicious than the day of 9/11. If this is the weakest chink in the lies of our 'Masters,' then we would be remiss to not fully exploit them. If it isn't a weakness, oh well, let's try and strike elsewhere. If it is, however, then we should plunge the knife in as deep as we can and never let off, not until every last head has rolled. Not until the day of the rope has hanged every traitor on earth. Investigating 9/11 is therefore a pure opportunity, with no drawback. If it's exactly as the official story said, oh well, at least now we know. If it isn't -- bam. We have our first lie to present to the public at large, and the blood of 3,000 innocents directly at the hands of our own government. That, my friends, is fuel for revolution.

On Collective Guilt

I agree with Solzhenitsyn: we are all responsible for the actions of our group. We are all guilty for what the least of us does. This is where libertarians and individualists balk, claiming we are all atomized egos with no connection to anyone else, and we have nothing to do with the actions or decisions of others. We aren't responsible for what our ancestors did, our descendants do, our nation or our race. We aren't responsible for anything!

Whatever fantasy world libertarians live in, this is the truth:

"No man is an island, we are all a part of the main. Therefore ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."

Man is a herd animal, no one exists on his own, we form groups and think in terms of group consensus. The pressure to conform and be liked by our peers exerts itself on everyone. How we are raised will have a dramatic impact on how we lead our lives in the future, the values we are taught and the beliefs we are given, whether in school, church, or the media, control us, make us who we are. If one person, somewhere, anywhere, does something -- you can bet ten people told him to do it, ten thousand people approved of what he did, and ten million people have thought along the same lines at some point in their lives. There is no such thing as a person acting in isolation.

A palestinian suicide bomber is not an isolated whacko, he is an emergent force from the culture of his community. After fifty years of vitriol against Israel and praise for martyrdom, after 1400 years of Islam and stories of paradise for those who die for Allah, after tv sets, charitable donations, and international sympathizers all agree Israel is in the wrong and deserves to be bombed, a palestinian suicide bomber is an inevitable end result. Just as unstable elements decay randomly but their half life is predictable by a mathematical formula, a culture will create suicide bombers at random among a random assortment of 'individuals,' but the mathematical inevitability and perfectly predictable occurrence of these suicide bombers was set up well in advance -- by the community.

Nothing happens by accident. Everything happens for a reason. Every effect has a pre-existing cause, all the way to the Big Bang. This world is determined, not chaotic, and thus it is pointless to say someone 'acted on his own, as an individual.' Nonsense. When the earth was just forming out of a bunch of interstellar dust, it was already laying down the pre-conditions for that person's mentality and decisions. If the environment were different and history had played out some other way, people's decisions in the present would also be completely different. If people's genes were different and they had different ancestors, their inherent predilictions and mindsets would also be different. An individual is the end product of an endless chain of causation, all of which had its part in determining that 'isolated individual's' choices. If the person has a gene for schizophrenia and goes on a crazy paranoid rampage, it isn't because he individually chose to do it, it's because his parents gave him that gene, who in turn inherited it from their parents, and so on. And the gene was never bred out of that line because the environment made mild forms of schizophrenia mildly advantageous. Perhaps it made people more cautious, or more objective and less likely to go along with the crowd, maybe it gave people higher IQ. In any event, the entire world, through evolution, selected for that child to be born with schizophrenia. Then when he acts upon this built-in brain disorder, we go up in arms declaring it a 'lone psycho on a rampage.' Nonsense. He was never alone. He was part of the tapestry of life since the first fish crawled out of the ocean. He has been shaped by ten million generations of living beings each of whom had a role in the final genetic template he would be born with, and an environment that made his genetic template so successful it has survived all the way until this very day. That's four billion years of successful life this world has nurtured, going on a crazy rampage. A lone individual??

Once we understand that our genes are shared with those 'lone psychos' or 'evil villains of the past,' that we are essentially the same as them, only transposed across time, it is nonsense to say we have nothing to do with them. Inside us are the exact same genes that in the past committed horrible atrocities or crimes. If our white ancestors, or our white descendants, or our white neighbors do something reprehensible, the first thing we should do is seek to understand what part of our collective white identity may have been responsible for his actions. As solzhenitsyn said, we all all guilty, and our recompense, our restitution for our collective guilt, must be to understand what just happened. And upon understanding, guard against making the same mistake ourselves, we who have so much in common with the 'isolated individual' sinner both biologically and culturally. Furthermore, we must make sure nothing in our culture is causing these 'aberrations' and 'atrocities' with clockwork regularity. This is the amazing deceit practiced by Islam every day on TV: "This is not Islam. Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. Most muslims aren't terrorists. These aren't real muslims." And yet, almost all terrorism on earth IS perpetrated by muslims. Islam DOES have something to do with terrorism. Deny it all they want, it is impossible for such a pattern to form ex nihilo, purely randomly. What muslims are doing, is not taking collective guilt for the actions of their tribe, and thus making it impossible to reform Islam in such a way that terrorism would stop occurring among its 'isolated nuts,' making it impossible to understand what could be wrong with Islam, making it impossible to find the evil in our own hearts and blindly believing we are perfect just because we ourselves have not 'cracked' (yet). If we do not use the opportunity of the wrongdoing of others to improve and guard against ourselves, what will we wait for? Until we have done evil too? How is that fair to the victims of our crimes?

"Sorry, I knew there was something dark in my genes, when I saw that blacks were ten times as likely to be murderers than whites, and I knew the ghetto lifestyle glorified violence and excused anyone from bad behavior with various blame whitey kneejerk responses, but I did nothing about it. I figured, sure evil triumphs in the hearts of other men, exactly like me, who have the same exact culture as me and grew up learning the same values and beliefs I did -- but it could never happen with me.

Bullshit. It could happen to any of us. That is why, when it happens to any of us, we must all admit that this was not a lone individual's actions, but a set of genetic and environmental factors that had a 100% of occurring, then randomly rolled to see through which of us individuals it would be expressed. As in, if you are not the murderer today, it isn't because you are different or better than the murderer, but simply because evil has a 1/10,000 chance of rolling you or one of the 9,999 people just like you, and today it rolled one of the 9,999. Is the person rolled more guilty of the murder than you are? Not really, more like less lucky, that is all. Between the 10,000 of you, all of you are guilty, collectively, but only a little -- you are all guilty of 1/10,000 of a murder. That doesn't make you very evil, maybe it makes you almost purely good, and yet there is a stain. There is an error in the world, and we are all culpable. . .we are all potential victims of this error. Until and unless we address the evil in our own hearts, we will always be capable of repeating the actions of those who have gone before us, or followed after us, or stand alongside us, and have done evil.

Collective guilt is the only path to moral rejuvenation. We cannot wait until everyone at some point in their life has abused a slave, raped a woman, rounded up people into a gulag, cheated on their husband, abandoned a child, or kicked a kitten before we start reflecting on our beliefs, values, and genes. Know thyself, was Socrates' most vital lesson. Alongside that goes the phrase, 'the unexamined life is not worth living.' When our ancestors committed horrible atrocities, the sin stays with us to the tenth generation. When whites took blacks as slaves and peopled the Americas with blacks with no rights instead of free fellow whites who could negotiate for their labor, advance themselves through education, marry whoever they pleased, vote for who would represent them in government, and so on -- we unveiled something dark and evil about the white race on that day. To this day, if we do not take collective responsibility for this sin, we will never learn from it. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it -- look what we are doing now! Flooding America with non-whites who can't vote and have little ability to negotiate their contracts, since they are illegal immigrants, people without even a high school education ghettoized by language, racial, and cultural barriers from ever assimilating with white America. What does this sound like? To me, it sounds a lot like slavery. It sounds a lot like the white genome expressing itself like it always does, the will to power, the will to substituting free and fair competition between whites with a pliant, uncompetitive, controlled labor force we can lord over in our plantation mansions while the untermenschen PICK OUR CROPS. I swear to God, the more things change the more they stay the same! This atrocious sin, this return to slave labor, is all because we as a people have not reflected on why slavery is evil, on why whites are so prone to rely on slave labor, on why our culture inevitably leads to slave labor, and so on.

Instead I keep hearing the whiny white excuses: "My ancestors weren't slaveholders." So what? We are all related genetically, we are all basically cousins, the entire white race. if any white anywhere had slaves, you are genetically related to that slaveholder, just as much as a great-great-great-grandchild is related. IE, very little. And yet, there it is again, the spread out, diffused collective stain that is expressed in only one person, but that person is no more evil or deranged than the rest of us, just unlucky that his number was chosen to express this collective weakness in our kind.

"I come from Ireland after slavery was abolished in the USA, I'm not to blame."

Of course you're to blame. Are you saying that if you'd come from Ireland before slavery was abolished, no Irish would have taken to slavery and holding slaves? That's just factually untrue. There were Irish slaveholders, there is nothing unique about the Irish culture or genome, that would have resisted the urge. You are as much responsible as anyone else is, because you are white just like we are.

"Other people took slaves too!"

So what? Does that somehow excuse us for doing it? Slavery hurts whites more than any other race, because it corrupts us, forces middle class whites into penury trying to compete with the unfair system, and ultimately leads to race-replacement and extinction. Your sin isn't somehow offset when a muslim takes a white slave, a black takes another black slave, or a jew ships a black slave across the ocean.

"I come from the North, we fought to end slavery."

So what? If your ancestors had lived in the south where the intensive farming economy was needed, do you think they would have held the same high-fallutin' values? Of course not, there is nothing genetically distinct between the north and the south, economic conditions were the only difference that led to slavery being practiced where it was economically viable, but not where it wasn't. In fact, hilly regions in the South were also anti-slavery, despite being the next-door neighbors and genetic kin of the slavers. Is this due to their virtue? Did they for instance decide, "I'll never hold slaves, so instead I'll find the worst farmland I can find in the south, full of rocks and with little rainfall, and thus have no need for slave labor to pick my crops."

More likely they were the unfortunate who couldn't get the choice land, resigned themselves to never having slaves or fields that needed slaves, and then made a virtue of of necessity by insisting everyone else shouldn't have slaves either! This is how the real world works. This is the world of collective responsibility, where no man can abjure his share of sin, his duty to the world and his moral need to examine and reflect upon his life and soul.

Once we understand that we are related genetically to every member of our race, whether in the past, present, or future, and that genes largely determine our personality and behavior, our very values and ideals, we cannot escape being in some part just like the sinners all around us. Furthermore, insofar as any cultural artifact or religious belief or ideology contributed to these actions, we who cleave to this culture, religion, or ideology despite its failures and wrong-doing are collectively guilty for their crimes. Did Christianity do evil in the name of Christianity? Indubitably. From the prosecution of Galileo and Bruno, to the 30 years war, to the witch hunts, to the sacking of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade, to every pope who sold indulgences or abused his power and wealth, to every king given the right to abuse and impoverish his peasantry through his 'divine right' to rule and every bishop who crowned an unjust emperor as God's secular representative. Those who are Christian today, must like inside their hearts, study Christianity deeply, and discover where Christianity went wrong, how it can be enacted differently, and what should be changed or interpreted to reach a better world. Otherwise, they are just as guilty as those who came before it. There is no difference between an evil-doer and those who endorse the crime, they may as well all be strung up together. Therefore, for anyone who embraces an evil culture while refusing to correct it in their own lives and time period, are simply carte blanche endorsing every single sin in the entire history of that religion, ideology, or culture. Islam is the very worst. Their jihadi wars, which still haven't stopped even today, have killed HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of innocent people and enslaved billions to an evil, destructive ideology that lowers the quality of life for everyone under it -- both believers and conquered dhimmis. Anyone who is Muslim today, who does not rebuke the evil inherent in Islam, who does not condemn Muhammed and the Caliphs, who does not denounce the treatment of minorities and suppression of science and literacy within Islam's borders -- is collectively guilty for all the sins of Islam everywhere, and across all time. They are an adherent to an evil they refuse to disown, and in fact support every day of their lives.

The same is true of Communism, and Nazism. Those who adopt these ideologies, who slaughtered millions of innocent people, while not criticizing any aspect of them or showing how they would do things differently if they ever achieved power, are simply the exact same people who did those killing 50/80 years ago. They clearly wouldn't have minded starving millions of kulaks to death, or deporting innocent millions to destinations in siberia they never survived to reach, they would have been right there smoking and laughing with the rest of the Berias, Stalins, Trostkys and Kaminovs as the Russian nation was brutally murdered from stem to stern. We must take responsibility for the cultures we embrace and practice. If there is a darkness in our culture (and what culture has NEVER done ANYTHING wrong, can a system invented by human beings ever be purely Good -- the product of such imperfect and faulty vessels as the human mind?), we cannot simply look the other way and say "mistakes were made." Or "that was then, this is now." Or "I didn't do any of that." Nonsense. It doesn't matter what you have done, it matters what you would have done given the same circumstances. That is the question. And when the day of similar circumstances arises, where will you stand? In the camps, starving and diseased? Or guarding the camps, in a tower surrounded by barbed wire, watching the people inside starve and die without compassion or remorse?

I am still angry with China for their practice of foot binding. Chinese today should be ashamed for their rejection of the human body, the deliberate crippling of women, and their sense of luxury that meant it was honorable and praise-inducing to lack the ability to walk and have to be carried everywhere by personal slaves.

The Japanese are my favorite people on earth, and yet 50 years ago they set about genociding, torturing, and summarily executing innocent people all around them in the tens of millions. Today they refuse to take responsibility for these crimes and shield their children away from learning about them. And yet, there are still Japanese living today who participated in these crimes!! That is how little distance exists between the Japan of then and the Japan of today. Is there any part of Japanese culture that could have created this warlike barbarism? Is there any part of the Japanese genome? Should Japanese be searching their hearts for answers, seeking to understand how they came to such murderous intentions, and making sure the conditions for such a maneuver being endorsed by the government and the people wholeheartedly never arise again? If not, it will simply lurk there, festering inside the japanese soul. I love Japan too much to see them sin again, not when they offer such wonderful values as seen in One Piece today. But if nothing is done to distance the Japanese spirit from its plan to conquer China and rule half the world through blood and terror, what's to stop them from trying again?

And now for you, oh Chosen people, you jews! Do not give me this crap, "I'm not responsible, those were jews in Russia, isolated individuals, and atheist communists. I'm a jew in America, I'm orthodox religious, and a capitalist. Do not seek to escape collective guilt. Because somewhere in the jewish genome, the same story plays out again, and again, and again. There is a pattern to jewish behavior, it is never isolated or a scattering of individuals. It is supported by world Jewry as a whole, and would never have succeeded without the jewish mass movements that undergird them. When a century's worth of jews all insist that IQ is not genetic and blacks are equal to whites, it is no longer an isolated individual. It is a collective movement. When jews all across Europe led every single Communist party as well as the Bolshevik revolution, it is no longer an isolated individual, it is a collective movement. And when jews wantonly murder and ethnic cleanse Palestinians, it is not just the actions of "Israel," but all the world's jews who support Israel, argue for it, and worship the same Deity and Torah that ordered the jews thousands of years ago to slaughter all the Palestinians of that time as well. The same jews who celebrate as religious holidays slaughters like Purrim where 40,000 babylonians are killed, or slaughters like Passover where every firstborn egyptian was killed, even newborn babes! The same jews pushing multi-culturalism and muslim 3rd world invasion of Europe today, were the jews opening the gates to Spain and joining the muslim government of Andalusia. Do not forget, oh jews, how very alike you all are, across all time! Your collective guilt may well be the heaviest of all. For you are very few, and yet your sins are so very high. The blackest hearts in the world, or at least the people with the most ability to express the blackness in your hearts, belongs to you. And thus, the most introspection, the most care, the most reformation is your burden, your onus, your duty to the world. For the sins of your ancestors in Israel, for the sins of Israel today, for your sins against Europe and Russia, for the sin of the slave trade, for the sin of usury and over-taxing our innocent abused peasantry in Poland, atone, and repent! You owe everyone an apology, a reformation, and a change. From your religion, from the evil ideology of Marxism, from the nonsense of Freud, from your sexual revolution, from your Boazian anthropology, from it all. A clean sweep. Jews, cease being jews! The only way to eradicate your collective guilt, is to end the cursed genetic line that keeps creating these sins. Stop inter-breeding. Join the rest of the world, and diffuse the great evil that lurks in your own, concentrated genes. For the heroic jew who wishes to abolish every part of his culture, from his religion to his politics to his values, and embrace some new healthy alternative, more power to you. But is there any proof your children will be the same? Is there any proof you can even maintain such a change, when your genes all point another direction and desire something quite different? In the end, when a race has so much to answer for, one must question if there's any retrieving them from sin. If the guilt is simply too high to be forgiven. At a time like that, it is time to stop perpetuating such a bloodline -- just like all of Cain's children carried with them the 'mark of Cain,' as well, and were themselves cursed. Jews are good looking enough, rich, smart, and have plenty to offer some gentile or other. For the good of humanity, stop interbreeding and begin a new genome, something cleaner. Without tay-sachs disease, without breast cancer, and without the satanic love of lies your own genes cause. If you don't do it, how long do you think the world will bear it? Toleration of jews has always been a close-run thing, and sooner or later your luck will run out. Somewhere in your hearts, you must realize this. Judaism and the jewish genome are sinking ships. Get out while you can, and save both yourselves, and the gentile world, a river of tears.

Anyone who shares genes with a sinner, is partially that same sinner. Anyone who shares a culture with a sinner, is partially that same sinner. Anyone who refuses to condemn or endorses the sinner, is partially that same sinner. Anyone who contributed to the conditions the sinner reacted to and performed under, is partially that same sinner.

There is such a thing as collective guilt, and all races and peoples and beliefs and religions labor under it. With guilt comes the duty to expiate our guilt, and the only expiation we can give is to understand -- and upon understanding the cause of our sins, to reform them. We are a tribe, and tribes are responsible for all our members. We aren't just the tribe of Newton's and Boswell's. We are also the tribe of Hitler and Nero. Sometimes, the same culture and genes produce both at once. Sometimes even brothers and sisters become the villain and hero of their age!

Those who seek to escape guilt also seek to escape pride. They forsake not just their guilt by renouncing the collective, but they escape any ties of blood, of ancestry, they reject all the efforts of their forebears who gave them the life and fortune they have, they reject their language, their nation, their religion, their songs and stories and history and everything else. They are a pure individual, with no connection to anyone or anything else, no love for anyone, no duty and no obligation to anyone. Amoral, disconnected, nihilists who value nothing but themselves. This is the price one pays to escape the guilt of others -- they must escape also the love of others, the glory of others, the affirmation of others, the wisdom of others -- we must become nothing but ourselves. A tiny, weak bare branch unconnected to any tree. We are a tribe, all of us, all our members. We mourn when they suffer, celebrate when they triumph, and repent when they sin. This is the true nature of solidarity, not some faux 'collectivism' that adopts only winners while rejecting any connection to losers. As though any of us are perfect and descended only from Newton and Gauss, rather than Caligula or Heliogabulus! We are a tribe, and life is as much tragedy as comedy. The rest of the world is also full of tribes, and if they will not answer for their tribes' wrongs, then we must make them answer for them. If they will not clean up their own houses, and reform their own people, then we must do it for them. They are collectively responsible for the actions of their individuals, and thus for every terrorist bombing, we can answer with a nuclear bombing on their capital cities if we please. For every jewish lie, we can round up all jews in America and kick them out. For every black criminal, we can lock up all blacks and tell them to come back when they're civilized a million years from now. Either expiate your guilt collectively, or we will expiate you collectively, because only one thing can be certain -- the only way to stop the random decay of a radiating tribe is not to seek to discover which member will 'explode' next, something not even our finest microscopes have ever predicted while watching a slab of uranium, but to address the entire tribe as an entity with certain properties, whether it's lying, crime, or terrorism, that go off at a predictable rate, regardless of its random location in spacetime, and deal with the tribe accordingly. Collective guilt is the moral solution to tribal conflict. Avoid it, and the only remaining solution is collective reprisals. Who wants to go there? Not me!

The choice is yours.

IQ

There was a good article at vdare.com on this issue:

http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Intelligence%20and%20How%20to%20Get%20It%20(Working%20Paper).pdf

I read through the entire thing. I also read IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Lynn, the Bell Curve by Murray, and Race, Evolution, and Behavior by Rushton. Lynn, Jenson, and Rushton are the premier IQ scientists in the world and once you've read their books, you're pretty much understand the entire field. These scientists are never referred to in the mainstream media however, instead they feature liars and naifs like Diamond, Gould, and Flynn. Usually they're jews, just like their now-deceased leader Boaz. These scum of the earth have been obfuscating for a full century now the most vital truth in the history of mankind: that IQ is genetic, it has a dramatic impact on every facet of human life, and varies between the races.

Here's a rundown on the situation and why this truth is somehow still being suppressed and disbelieved by the public at large. Even though Lynn, Rushton, and Jenson have made plenty good enough arguments for their position, I may as well help out by summarizing their multitude of books into a short essay form.

The first argument of anti-IQers is that IQ doesn't exist. However, everyone can tell the difference between intelligent and stupid people. Just a few minutes in their company and most people can sort out intelligence quite quickly. It's also obvious that humans are smarter than animals, and that some animals are smarter than other animals, and so on. The idea that intelligence is unquantifiable and impossible to compare between people is therefore prima facie false.

The next argument is that IQ tests are flawed and do not measure IQ accurately. Now, this is fair enough. IQ tests are pretty inaccurate taken individually. However just like all statistics, this kind of 'noise' can be accounted for by taking a wide sample. One IQ test on its own is inaccurate, but an IQ test given to 10,000 people, or 10,000,000, will provide a very accurate appraisal of the situation. IQ tests are accurate enough, especially these days, to correctly predict scholastic success, and correlates significantly to wealth, productivity, length of life, criminality, moral behavior (like temperance, fidelity, honor, and non-violence in domestic life), and a high aesthetic sense (like the ability to understand high literature, pursue philosophical questions, enjoy still-life paintings or intricate melodies, and love and appreciation of nature, a finely made work of human craftsmanship, or the beauty of higher math equations 'balancing' or 'making sense.' Also the love of discovery and a wish to learn.)

Over the last few decades IQ tests have been so perfected that we can reduce it down to culture-free reaction-speeds to when a light lights up, or Raven's progressive matrices. We have even reached the point where we can tell the difference between an intelligent and stupid person by just giving a brain scan and looking at their brains directly. Though IQ tests are currently better at establishing someone's IQ than brain scans, MRI's already correlate to IQ by .4 and with better understanding of the brain we could eventually dispense with all tests and thus any chance of error. At that time I wonder what the liars will claim: "My brain wasn't feeling well that day re-scan it?"

Once the antis have admitted IQ exists and IQ tests accurately measure IQ, it's impossible to deny IQ varies between the races. Hundreds of years of testing using huge sample sizes of hundreds of thousands of people have invariably produced the same basic results. Jews > East Asians > Whites > South Asians/Arabs/Amerindians > Blacks. They tend to deny any importance to these IQ numbers however. The general argument is that people who are rich and well educated score highly on IQ tests. They have reversed cause and effect, as in fact those with high IQ then go on to become rich and well educated. However, wealth and education can be given to people, and is thus a source of social engineering, the joy of all liberals. IQ can not be transferred from one person to another, and thus they wish to deny it any factor in causation or value, because they would no longer be able to mold the world.

The problem is their model doesn't work. Jews, for instance, have been extremely poor but in a few years or a couple generations are back to super-rich and super-educated. The same is true of Chinese and whites who came to America with nothing but the shirt on their backs, many times escaping famine and certain death in their homelands. The only people who poverty holds back are the low IQ poor. For everyone else, it's a passing state, for the low IQ, it's their permanent fate. The same with education. High IQ people can certainly be uneducated, but when given the opportunity to learn they'll quickly gain as much knowledge as the next guy. Meanwhile low IQ people, no matter how much education you attempt to drill into them, will fail to learn any of it and eventually drop out of school. This shows the flow of causation liberals so blindly deny.

Give an idiot a world-class harvard education and a million dollars a year, he'll STILL have a low IQ and lead a wretched life. Give a high-IQ person nothing at all and he'll somehow overcome and jump from success to success. At the very least he'll lead a decent life and be the pride of his peers. How is it, then, that liberals say IQ doesn't matter and all anyone needs is money and education? Supposing birth rates were ever controlled in the third world, and supposing science were allowed to increase our productivity to 100 times what it is today (not that hard, as we've already done that compared to our pre-industrial age past), we could willingly perform the liberal experiment and give every single idiot on the planet 50,000 dollars a year and let them live exactly like the middle class, and put them all in super-well-funded schools with every bell and whistle they could desire. It wouldn't matter, they'd trash their own houses, spend it all on bling, drugs, or alcohol, beat each other and cheat on each other, and end up rioting and blaming all their woes on racism.

The next argument the antis trot out, if they admit that IQ is real, the tests are accurate, that it clearly varies between the races, and that it largely accounts for the differences in success these races have in the modern world, is that IQ is determined by nurture and can be equalized between all the races with some program or other. This is the last stand of the antis, you'd think that after this, they would have to admit there's nothing to be done and eugenics, the selective breeding of mankind for higher intelligence, with a corresponding negative pressure on low-IQ people to keep them from breeding, is the only way forward for humanity. This would largely eliminate all the mud races on earth, and with them almost all the problems on earth. So let's try and demolish this next farce of an argument:

"IQ can be raised by children being raised in a good quality home by caring and nurturing parents."

However, this can't be true because black children of rich blacks with 2 parents and a stable home environment still score lower than white children of poor whites with an unstable home environment. A dramatic difference like that simply explodes all possible help 'cultural' factors can provide.

"IQ can be raised by intensive schooling programs like the abecedarian project."

Not really. IQ is plastic during childhood but once people reach adulthood, it narrows back down to its genetic destiny. By age 18 or so, all such programs fail to have any positive affect on people's IQs -- they still score at their racial average and the same as people who never went to such schools. The antis just cite these studies involving children where the brain is still growing and developing according to its genetic template and not finished yet, thus creating fallacious numbers.

"IQ can be raised by good nutrition."

Not really. Even specifically malnourished korean children who were adopted into Belgian/Dutch homes (I forget which) still outscored their peers in school upon adulthood. Furthermore, mixed-race children and black children were both studied in the Minnesota Trans-racial Adoption study, where these children were put into high IQ rich white homes. If genes didn't matter, why did the mixed-race kids score higher on IQ tests than the black kids, both of them raised by white parents??

"People can be taught to increase their IQ scores."

Yes but such increases are not G-loaded and do not correlate to an increased life-competency like G-loaded IQ scores do. The whole point of IQ tests is to get at the truth, teaching to the test only negates the value of the IQ test -- not the value of IQ.

"IQ has been steadily rising every decade, especially among low-IQ groups, thus genes can't possibly be doing this."

These IQ gains are not G-loaded and do not correlate to increased life-competency. The same gap between blacks and whites remains, as does the gap between whites and asians, and asians and jews. The differences between the races aren't going anywhere.

In short, there is no way to raise IQ. Every way suggested only produces an insignificant bump or a temporary increase that goes away again by adulthood.

It is true that the environment can completely determine someone's IQ. If you are never talked to in your life, thrown in a closet, starved and beaten daily, your IQ probably won't be better than a dog's. Or if someone drinks while you're in the womb, shoots up crack, smokes, has you prematurely, then neglects to nurse you, yes you'll probably end up brain dead. However, once you've crossed the first few hurdles into a manageable life -- for instance if you have people to talk to, food on the table, and a primary education -- there's nothing more to be done.

The biggest proof for the ineradicability of IQ differences is not the black-white gap. In fact, it's the jew-white gap. Jews are a full Standard Deviation smarter than whites, 15 points or so. Lamely, liberals argue this is because jews 'study hard.' As though studying has anything to do with IQ (by the way it doesn't, as IQ doesn't measure knowledge, but raw intelligence.) If 'studying hard' were all it took, why don't parents pressure their white children into studying as hard as jews? Why are we such lazy fucktards? Here we have the potential to increase all of our nation's IQ's by 15 points, and correspondingly become as rich and powerful as jews are. We could get all those fancy nobel prizes jews keep getting, become professors and write books like they do, and live like kings while donating billions to our favored causes and political parties like they do. Are we to believe that all we have to do is crack open a few books and study a few more hours a day, and whites could quickly outstrip jews at intellectual prowess and raise our average IQ worldwide from 100 to 115? Everything else between whites and jews is the same. We both have stable home environments, plenty of money, classical music playing in the background, we're both read to as children, we both attend good schools, we both don't have abusive parents or fetal alcohol syndrome. There is no 'anti-white' racism or discrimination hurting our feelings, many 100 IQ whites still live in all white nations without even the possibility of racism being practiced against them. The ONLY difference between whites and jews, environmentally speaking, is jews supposedly study more in school and work harder on their homework.

This minor difference, where Schlomo cracks open a book while Jack goes out to play some catch in the yard, is apparently worth 15 IQ points and is just as important as all the differences between blacks and whites combined. Don't patronize me. Don't make my race out to be fools. We aren't a bunch of lazy fucktards who could, with the flick of our wrists, just 'apply ourselves' and start winning all the chess tournaments, nobel prizes, fields medals and billions of dollars whenever we wanted, but just don't out of spite. We try very hard and study about as much as can possibly avail us. We learn all we can, work as hard as we can, think as much as we can, and treat our children as well as we can. We strive for every advantage and opportunity we can give ourselves, but we still fall short and average out at 100 IQ. To say otherwise is an insult to every white mother and every white father on earth, as though they don't care about their children and intentionally sabotage their IQ by 15 points by dicking around and playing catch with them outside. It's also an insult to every white child on earth, who on top of all the homework and strain they're put under, have to be slapped in the face and told they're lazy because they aren't as smart as jews or east asians. What do you know about those children? How do you know how hard they work? How do you know they didn't spend hours writing that essay, just like the jews do, but still can only write it half as well? Did you ever think of that? Don't you dare blame us for that 15 point gap.

That gap was given to us by God, by evolution in action, and there's nothing any of us can do about it. We have already done everything that is humanly possible to improve our environment, and yet we're still as far away from the jewish top as blacks are from becoming whites. It is like losing a horse race to Secretariat and being told this was because we weren't trying hard during the race.

BULLSHIT. SECRETARIAT WAS FASTER. THAT'S WHY SECRETARIAT WON. END OF STORY.

Furthermore, test after test has shown a correlation between brain size, something we can't possibly affect, and intelligence. Other tests have shown, across hundreds of thousands of samples, that east asians have the largest brains, followed by whites, and that blacks have the smallest brains, well below the rest of us. With such pea-brains, blacks can never be our equals. It's obvious on the face of it. Even if black and white environments were somehow made completely equal, brain size is entirely genetic. ((after all brain size of whites is larger than blacks even as FETUSES before either has been subjected to any environment at all.)) Therefore 40% of IQ is entirely genetic via brain size alone, and brain size can never be equalized, and thus our IQ's will always be higher than theirs. Just like they always have been. This is also just as good a place to point out that men have larger brains (and yes this is all proportional to body size) than women and we generally are 5 IQ points smarter than women. This has also always been the case and the reason men run society and produce all the great accomplishments. It is also why we used such phrases as "don't worry your pretty little head about it." And "women and politics mix like oil and water." The mistake of assuming racial equality between blacks and whites is three times as bad as the mistake of assuming gender equality between women and men (15 points as opposed to 5), but since blacks are only 13% of the US's population and women are 50%, the larger error was giving women the vote, not blacks. But we can deal with that another time, for now suffice to say IQ matters just as much between the sexes as it does between the races, and when IQ science is eventually admitted to be the truth, we will have to tackle the implications in terms of the relationship between the sexes as well as that between the races. Again brain size is impossible to change so there's no way to equalize men and women's IQ either. We are fated with this gap just like we are fated with the gaps between the races. Women need to stop blaming men for their failures and demanding affirmative action to get jobs they don't merit or honors they can't earn. Don't blame us, blame yourselves or God. Everything is due to IQ and the inherent differences in ability completely explain the differences in outcome. Between the races, and between the sexes.

All the science is on our side. The opposition tends to cite isolated studies that are outliers and contradict the massive numbers of studies that point the other way. This is bad science. They then trumpet their one study that shows whatever they want to believe and prove either that environment is 100% of IQ, or that the question needs 'more study' and 'more debate', thus playing a stalling game until it is too late for whites to learn the truth. If these phony scientists, by cherry picking and distorting numbers to keep giving 'vague' and 'it's still in the air we need more time' results, can simply stop us from learning the truth for another 100 years, it won't matter anymore. Because by then, whites will all be dead and their goal will be achieved. We cannot wait until we have 100% satisfactory proof where we know every single detail about intelligence possible. By then, immigration and high birth rates will have replaced the entire white western world with 3rd world mud people and the world will have fallen into a dark age. We've already researched this issue for a century, the science is already in (just like evolution, and yet creationists continuously demand more and more evidence as though another 200 years will be necessary to figure out the truth of the matter.) What we need to do now is not more and more scientific studies on IQ, what we need to do is apply what we already know. We need to stop immigration, implement eugenics, abolish affirmative action, rewrite our history books to reflect the truth, increase the white birth rate, kick out all our minorities or retreat from them all and secede, while we still can. We can continue our IQ research safely from a white nationalist haven, with as much leisurely debate as we please from there. But as things stand, the information will be entirely useless to us, by the time everyone will 'agree' with it. I see far too many sites like Gates of Vienna arguing 'we just don't know whether genes or environment cause IQ, we must wait patiently until all the science is in and meanwhile we are going to accept as a working premise that it is environment and base our philosophy and politics off of that.' You can bet 300 years from now Gates of Vienna still 'won't be sure' if it's genes or environment, and 'to be on the safe side' will base all their thinking on the environmental side, while calling anyone else a Nazi who has long ago realized it's genes. This type of conservatism isn't any different from liberalism. They are simply cowards unwilling to face the truth, just like creationists, and their intellectual cowardice translates to a political cowardice, a complete paralysis that makes them incapable of any positive change. Like I keep saying, what we need is fanaticism, fanaticism, fanaticism. A few people can change the world. A fanatical few, who are neither intellectual nor moral cowards, can cause more real change than an endless mass of vacillators and self-deceivers. God I wish I could somehow flush all of them down some toilet where they belong. I have no use for moderates when the world is going up in flames as we speak! Vdare.com, Davidduke.com, the Occidental Observer and a few others 'get it.' As for the rest, they never will.

Nothing is ever simple, and often high IQ people are the larger forces for evil than low IQ. For instance, high IQ people have killed more whites than low IQ people -- when the jews took over and destroyed Russia, they killed tens of millions of whites, moreso than any amount of drunk driver Mexicans or black home invaders. High IQ people have also become selfish and cruel like the french aristocracy pre-french-revolution, causing famines among their own people by stealing all the wealth for themselves. High IQ people have also encouraged low-IQ immigration into our countries and are the chief financiers and propagandists for the genocide of the white race. From this point of view, it's a little senseless to be so harsh on dumb people while praising high IQ as the end-all be-all. However, there is a difference. Whereas high intelligence can be good or evil, depending on how it is used, low intelligence can only be evil. Dumb people are simply worthless trash, they can never lead a good life or be any use to the world. They lead wretched lives, leech off of others, abandon their children and rape innocent women. There are reasons to live around other smart people, or even people smarter than ourselves. There is no reason to live around dumb people. They are a purely negative force on this earth. While the relationship between IQ and the Good can be debated, the solution to dumb people is clear cut. As Queen Amedala said: Our people are dying Chancellor, we must do something quickly.

Hope from the BNP?

Whenever I want a political 'pick-me-up' I click on http://bnp.org.uk/ .

Every day the good news keeps streaming in. "Unprecedented interest in the BNP." "More members joining the BNP every day." I see one of the busiest websites in the world at the locus of a truly organized, funded, and grassroots activized nationalist party. To make it that much sweeter, the leaders of the BNP are not stooges and are some of the brightest thinkers in the white nationalist movement, like Arthur Kemp.

It's pretty clear the BNP, in the interest of respectability, is pulling its punches. For instance at one time the leader of the party Nick Griffen was willing to go on the record denying the Holocaust (TM), but now says he is certain it happened and that he loves jews with an undying fervor. It doesn't matter. If the BNP's platform were actually implemented, it would be a miracle and the salvation of Britain. Not only do they intend to block all further immigration, they are going to repatriate as many muslims as they can. They will deport criminals, block all welfare to asylum seekers, and pay recent immigrants to leave. Instead of the UK turning into a majority mud nation with one of the highest crime and tax rates in the world, it will be one of the only stable, healthy, and prosperous nations on earth as the century proceeds.

But can it really work? A democratic election where people suddenly wake up, do a 180 degree turn, decide homogeneity is better than diversity and racism isn't truly wrong, and vote in the BNP for the new prime minister?

I can't imagine this as being possible. The numbers are against all democratic successes. Around 300,000 british people leave the UK every year because they are sick of the immigrants who are moving in. These people form the natural constituency of the BNP, and yet they have all mostly left England to its fate. Smart individually, but in the long run it means racists will never stand and fight because there's always a greener shore. Meanwhile millions of non-whites who would never vote BNP are moving in to replace them. How many more years until a BNP success is physically impossible due to demographics? Furthermore, will whites educated in public schools to hate themselves and love diversity really vote BNP? Liberalism has been in control of our schools for 40 years at least now, will anyone under the age of 40 vote BNP?? In America most young people voted for Obama, they had been properly brainwashed and the results were predictable. Why should England be any different?

There are other problems, like Tories and UKIP who attempt to hijack BNP immigration policies without any intention of actually doing anything about it. Even labor says stuff like 'no more immigration' and 'british jobs for british workers.' When everyone parrots the BNP line but only the BNP means it, it's easy for voters to be deceived and split their vote into inefficacy.

Due to the cordon sanitairre, the BNP would have to win 51% of the total vote to form a government. Practically no party can ever hope for that kind of popularity, and yet, since no other party will form a coalition with the BNP, it's easy for the BNP to rack up the plurality of the votes on election day and yet have no political power and no government position in parliament afterwards. The same happens to Vlaams Belang over and over again in Belgium, though they are the most popular party in the country. How can anyone overcome this hurdle? It's democracy turned on its head, when the largest party has the least power in government, and yet that's how Europe works.

The press, of course, is virulently anti-BNP and I can't imagine how anyone can survive that much negative press. Furthermore, it may be too late for the BNP to do anything. The people are demoralized drunkards, just like in Russia. The banking sector which formed the majority of England's wealth has vanished, unemployment is high, and somehow the BNP would be held to task for undoing all the damage the other parties did -- while being sniped at the entire time by a negative press. Who could manage such a feat? I'd much rather form an independent new nation without any debt, with moralized hand-picked people, and a press under our own control, then try to salvage some old nation mired in its own depravity. Do we even want a country like England back? Sometimes I'd rather countries like England, or states like California, would just be wiped clean by giant tsunamis and be done with it. Why should white nationalists like the BNP have to save the general public's sorry asses, who caused this mess? I'd rather we only saved ourselves -- everyone else would only drag us down and hold us back.

So politically I doubt the BNP can ever win. The conservative vote, like usual, will be split and rendered moot by a cordon sanitairre. The press will lie and smear people until everyone is too afraid to vote BNP. If they ever do succeed, just you watch the votes will be tampered with, or a court will declare the party illegal and disband it, like they did to Vlaams Blok. There is no justice in democracy. The whole thing is rigged and the election will NEVER, EVER go to a nationalist party no matter how popular they are.

But the BNP is doing something else, that is just as inspiring and hopeful, and that is, it's ORGANIZING A POLITICAL MOVEMENT OF, BY, AND FOR WHITE PEOPLE. This is an unbelievable event in America, that's just voted in a mulatto for our president. Across the atlantic, thousands, maybe millions of people will be going to the poll and voting for a white nationalist government, a white nationalist platform that not only rejects immigration and multiculturalism, but is intent on taking back all its historic soil and kicking out all foreigners!!! O.O. Can you imagine? Where is the American party offering such a platform? Where are its activists, leafletters, campaign contributors, campaign rallies, and so on? The BNP has them all, they are constantly buzzing like a healthy bee hive, the air of life is around them. People are passionate and believe they can actually make a difference, meeting people of like minds and publically standing up for their beliefs without apology, retreat or surrender. :). This type of organization is the locus of a later movement, yet more radical (as it will have to be as each passing year goes by), and an environment that insulates children of those families from outside peer pressure. Instead of being 'alone and despised' BNP children can be around other BNP children and made to feel natural, normal, loved and honored for the opinions they and their parents hold. All it would take is for these BNP campaigners to as a first step move to a single place in England and start voting in their local elections pure BNP councillors, mayors, etc. You can bet immigrants and criminals would steer clear of the areas, white history would be taught in the schools, I really can't imagine how good life would be if you could leave your home and see only white people who share your views in the streets, parks, libraries, government office, juries, and malls. The BNP can do it, because it has encouraged people to become identifiable white nationalists, and to organize politically. The sky is the limit for the BNP. If they never win an election, it won't matter, because they will have formed a permanent center for racists to orbit around, and in this manner self-sort, segregate, and start their independent lives as white-nationalist state within a state. If it prospers, more whites will seek to move into it and will add to its strength, and if the rest of the country falls apart (as its bound to do) the push factor will add to the pull factor and send yet more whites in the welcoming arms of the BNP counties. After that it wouldn't take long for the BNP to declare independence from an economically and socially ruined state, or to declare martial law and impose order on the remainder of the country, and so on. So long as the BNP remains politically organized and in communication with each other, and so long as they self-segregate into a solid portion of England's soil, it will be impossible to dislodge them. Just like how Lithuania eventually escaped from Soviet control, 'BNP-land' can exist within the UK's control indefinitely until the UK, like the USSR, finally collapses and lets them free.

Can it happen? You bet it can. There are millions of white nationalists currently actively donating and campaigning for the BNP. This is thrilling stuff, and the start of nations. What we're witnessing is the self-discovery of the ego. Suddenly, Englishmen from across the nation are discovering that they ARE. They exist, are a people, are manifold, strong, and connected. That they don't have to take this lying down, and that politics are an option for them to retake what is theirs, as well as defend what they still have.

My only fear is that some worthless Sarkozy-like rightest Tory will steal the BNP's thunder and make life somewhat manageable through some half-assed compromise. If that happens, and people trickle out of the BNP like peasants going back out of a fortified town to resume farming, I fear for them. Sarkozy did nothing to save France, all it did is put a new face on the same old genocide. He talked the talk but didn't walk the walk. The same will be done if any other party takes power, and yet, it might fool BNP members (especially new members who are merely reacting to current events instead of true believers) into lowering their guards and disintegrating as a group identity once more. I also fear the BNP, being human, will be found to have psychos, criminals, liars and other such machiavellians at the top of their party, and that it might discredit the cause as a whole. What people must understand is the cause is bigger than any personality and hold firm to their convictions. Leaving the party in disgust because someone or other is found out to be a criminal is a horrible treachery to your people and your children. We need the BNP if we are going to save even a piece of Britain for the white race, and western civilization. So whatever happens to it, stay in it and endure. The BNP must survive, it's the only party out there that can unite whites as a group, to get whites to begin thinking of themselves as a tribe, with their own interests they must protect. So keep on campaigning in the sham elections, and keep on voting BNP even if you lose every election and never get a single member of parliament, nevermind run parliament.

The BNP is not, really, a democratic path to salvation. It is a messenger, it is a vehicle, using the fireworks and pomp of an election, to continue pushing the message of white nationalism into every home, every 4 years or so we are given another chance to attract everyone we can into our bosom and change their lives forever. Keep the election fervor coming, keep distributing leaflets that say 'VOTE BNP JUNE 4th', but really mean "LIVE WHITE NATIONALISM EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR."

Now that's someting to be excited about.

For all those worried about the lack of success in the WN movement, listen to this song, lie back, and think of England:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5h4PFBuzvw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdailyreferendum.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F02%2Fsong-for-england-roots-by-show-of-hands.html&feature=player_embedded

Are elites to blame?

I had an interesting conversation with someone, in which he posits the problem is not jews, but rather, all high IQ people in general. This simply includes a higher proportion of jews because they have higher IQs.

Now, this doesn't exculpate jews, as that still means they are the leadership of the forces of darkness. But what it does do, is try to understand the world from a larger frame of reference and thus understand more clearly the truth of our modern political world. So let's go with this theory. What if the issue is not the particular racist wishes of the jews to undermine their hated rivals the aryans, but a concerted desire of all elites towards their own elitist welfare, which just so happens to not have any connection to the interests and welfare of the hoi-poloi of lesser IQ?

After all, do the elites really want competition from an upwardly mobile middle class nipping at their heels? Maybe it would be better to eliminate the middle class, and replace it with only an underclass, returning to the stratified model of Feudalism or 1700's industrialism. In that case, elites would hardly desire eugenics, as that would eliminate their advantage over the competition. Instead they would want dysgenics, so that their competition steadily recedes away and returns to serfdom.

Do high IQ people want other high IQ people to be the norm? How would they get all their laundry done? Who would clean their homes and provide daycare for their kids? For a high IQ person, what do they benefit from more, uppity middle class workers demanding high wages and safe working conditions, or a sludge of mud colored races willing to work for nothing and die in droves?

Since the elites will always be rich, they can safely assume that whatever drawbacks of diversity and a low IQ population can be avoided. Sitting safely in some sort of feudal era castle, with security guards and fences, the woes of the working class can all occur safely outside their own life experiences. Crime? Well, so what, it doesn't affect me. Unemployment? Not an issue, my high IQ is so rare there's never competition for MY job. Poverty? Impossible, so long as there's any money left at all in this continent, it will largely be in our hands. It's not like black dictators in Africa are poor, despite the poverty of their nation as a whole. This will be all the more true for elites of diversity-lands in the coming west. They will not be attacked by criminals, unemployed, or poor no matter how far you extend the timeline. Not even if they are just 1% of the population, they'll still be wealthy and well off and secure behind some sort of gated community.

In short, there is no personal drawback to America, or Europe becoming 99% mud for the elites. They will continue to dominate, or become even richer and more powerful than they are today. Sure they might lose political power, but their financial power will more than make up for it. They will bribe the politicians to support them, or threaten a financial collapse if government disturbs their plutocracy, and the poor will back down. The only fear elites might hold is that someday an irrational hatred of the elites might provoke a mass slaughter of the nation's most productive class just out of spite. This is, of course, why jews worked so hard to secure the bolthole that is Israel. "Never Again!" Never again, after elites destroy the middle class and lay ruin to their host nation, will they not have a bolthole to escape to when the going gets too hot to stay there any longer. If the heat does get too high for the elites, expect a bunch of private jets flying out of there with their cash and winnings in hand, the purchase of a new mansion elsewhere, and life 'getting along as normal' despite the annoying disruption. Do elite whites have such a bolthole set up? Perhaps the bahamas, or costa rica will suffice for now. I'm sure something can be arranged when the time of mass uprisings ala haiti approaches. For now, that's hundreds of years down the pipeline and not a priority.

The problem with these elites is they feel absolutely nothing for the rest of the nation. If the rest of the nation is impoverished, beset upon by violent criminals, or unemployed, it doesn't matter to them in the slightest. The lower world never reaches their airy heights of comfort and luxury. If the rest of the country has soaring divorce rates, illegitimate children, substance abuse problems and listens to rap music, what do they care? They still marry for life, have children in a happy home, listen to classical music and refrain from drugs and alcohol. What does it matter to them that laws could be constructed to improve the living standards of the masses? They already have all those benefits without those laws, and anything that undermines their competition is just a net plus for themselves.

This is not new, from China to Europe nobility have commonly ignored the plight of the common man to such an extent that millions died off regularly from famine and disease. Hardly any peasant stock even survives, genetically, in the white genome. Life was so incredibly tough that only the privileged nobility could regularly pass on their genes from generation to generation. Samurai in Japan cared so little for the peasantry they would regularly walk up and kill one just to test out their new swords, and the Spartans were notorious for their treatment of the helots. From whence does this utter lack of empathy for the lower classes arise? Partially it is knowledge of the innate superiority of the nobility (we are like an entirely different species from those untermenschen, smarter, more virtuous, better looking and healthier than they could ever hope to be), and partially a fear of losing their always precarious hold on power, as a small minority of the population lording over a much greater mass of servants. Only utter ruthlessness can keep them down, and they deserve to be kept down ruthlessly because they suck anyway, just look at their dirty, vulgar, and brutish lives without refinement of any kind.

The high IQ elites, which are almost half jews in America, makes it look like a jewish problem, but even without jews the exact same dynamic would play out. Whether it's greek, japanese, chinese, Indian rajahs or European Barons, the peasants always get fucked in the end. The question shouldn't really be, why are the elites selling us out and dooming our nation to irretrievable suffering and destruction? The question should really be, "What miracle preserved a middle class for so long? How could such an unnatural general equality and prosperity have ever emerged?"

I would like to think the enlightenment contributed to this miracle of elites actually caring about the commoners and promoting their welfare into a stable middle class. Such passionate reformers as Rousseau, Voltaire, Hume, Russell, Charles Dickens and Leo Tolstoy all worked diligently to show other smart, rich people how cruel their manner of life was and how truly good the commoners they ruled were. After breaking down the ruthlessness of the rich towards the poor, the poor soon emerged as a political force to be reckoned with and managed many critical reforms that ensured their place in the middle class: Labor laws, housing laws, the banning of slavery and serfdom, free public education for all, free health care for all, a minimum wage and democracy itself were all attempts to rein in the rich elites and give a voice to the common folk that would allow them an independent standard of living the rich could no longer take away. It didn't take long, however, for these institutions to be infiltrated, corrupted, and returned to the control of the rich. After all, the elites have the higher IQ, and thus in any competition over time they will win. No matter what system is used or what laws are passed to help out the middle class and commoners, the rich will eventually gain power and corrupt them to serve their own ends. Thus, at the very moment laws were being passed that would ensure a high standard of living for the middle class, the rich were finding ways to get around them.

No more slavery? I guess we'll just use illegal immigrant labor then. Democracy? I guess we'll import an electorate that will vote for us then. Labor laws? Minimum wage? Free education for all? Well then, we just need to do our work off the books, or inflate the currency to the point that the minimum wage is a joke, or dumb down the public schools so that only private school children have any chance at success in life. There is no law the elites cannot get around or gimmick in their favor, simply because they are smart and rich and we aren't. The only real protection of the common folk was the moral sense the Enlightenment gave the elites to genuinely care for us and want us to prosper alongside themselves.

No one who reads the greats of the enlightenment, especially Charles Dickens, can go away feeling nothing for their fellow man. The old practices of letting starvation and disease cart away millions of their compatriots, of trying out swords on innocent bystanders to see how sharp they are, or of stacking 100 women into a room with no windows or ventilation and watching them all die helplessly in a fire, CANNOT exist in elites who are educated towards a certain moral sense of love for humanity and compassion for its weaker members. Steinbeck's accounts of the great depression should make even the most cold-hearted flint-fisted capitalist wonder why, when fellow americans were starving, people were destroying their own potato crops and guarding against vagrants hoping to forage DISCARDED FOOD. Classical liberalism has a weakness though, in that it relies on culture to be the conscience of the rich. When culture becomes depraved or nihilist, when the compassion of Christianity is replaced with a vague hedonism, authors such as Solzhenitsyn and Dostoeveskey who formed the conscious and good will towards the people at large are no longer heard. They may well be diligently writing away every day, but if they aren't published and advertised and read, their effect is diluted and ultimately stymied. The Enlightenment has to occur every generation, every single generation of the elites must read and watch new art, new music, new culture that encourages a certain softness and love inside them for their fellow man. Such a precarious requirement for truly great artists to be around, as a sort of priestly class, for the elites to confess to and learn from, is bound to collapse sooner or later as one generation drops the ball -- either a particularly coarse and hardened audience, or a particularly mediocre and unconvincing culture.

One of the strongest counters to elitist scorn for the common folk is racial solidarity. When people love their race as a whole, from top to bottom, or even their nation as a whole "we poles," "we englishmen" etc, the class divides disappear. With such a mindset, elites do not watch the commoners waste away while drinking wine and discussing the next horse races, or make ridiculous statements like "let them eat cake." Instead, they do everything in their power to save their 'brothers,' people of their own race who carry the same unique worth as they themselves have. Hitler was not from any elite heritage, and lived penniless and starving on the streets, fought on the front lines of WWI and was gassed in defense of his country. While the nobility ignored the plight of the poor, or sent them into hopeless meatgrinders like WWI, Hitler offered another way: Racial solidarity, the end of the class divide, and an equal concern for all members of the german folk. While the elites ignored the damage of the depression on the common german people, Hitler in just a few years turned everything around. By simply caring for germans because they were germans, he found a place for them all in the economy. Inflation ended, employment sprouted up, roads were built, resources retrieved from foreign occupation, versailles payments ended, and so on. The moment someone who actually cared about his people took power, the well-being of the common folk skyrocketed to giddy levels no other country could match. Racial and ethnic solidarity however had a drawback, in that they created tension and hate between members outside of the race, even as they got rid of the class divides. Ultimately Germany was consumed with a 'racism gone wild' and the resulting backlash, making them worse off than when they'd even started.

Another answer to elitist feudalism was Marx's communism. Having read Das Kapital, I believe Karl Marx genuinely meant well with his theories. Observing the utterly cruel conditions feudalism and industrial capitalism was imposing on the british people (much like his contemporary charles dickens was doing) Marx wrote in an optimistic way about how much better things would be if the elites were dethroned and money were shared evenly between everyone. This policy doesn't even work for a little while, like classical liberalism or racism, it simply falls flat immediately. Starting with the slaughter of the very elites necessary for human accomplishment and high productivity, it then muddles around in an anti-human fog of lies and violence trying to keep people from pursuing their own self interest for the sake of strangers. There is a difference between charity, the freely given love of man to his fellow man, and forcible confiscation and slavery. Communism may have the same goal as classical liberalism, but its approach is evil and spoils any hope of reaching said goal. After the loss of a hundred million people to this belief in the 20th century, we can declare it dead on arrival.

Religion has also traditionally spoken up for the poor, huddled masses. however, I have to say it has done so little to actually benefit them, that we can ignore all ancient religions as hopelessly ineffectual. In fact, religion was often used not to moderate the power and scorn elites had for their commoners, but to buttress up and secure the rule and station of the elites. The elites had the 'mandate of heaven' to go on abusing the peasantry, apparently. For thousands of years, Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims never questioned the right for their elites to hold them in serfdom, slavery, illiteracy, or keep power through a hereditary system with no upward mobility. If religion is going to moderate the avarice and ruthlessness of the nobility, it certainly hasn't been invented yet. And in our growingly skeptical world, it is unlikely a new religion can emerge or gain any adherents.

So where do we stand? We must either reclaim the culture, or rally around our race, to abolish the genocidal campaign our own elites are waging against us. Either through negligence, or an active desire to keep us down or abolish us as the greatest threat to their continued rule and wealth. I believe both are necessary. Neither one worked in isolation, and as is the case in AIDS treatments, cocktail combos are always more effective. In fact, for all we know a dash of Marxism and a dollop of Christianity could also be helpful, even though they both failed utterly on their own. But abolishing the culture of nihilism that prevails today and returning to a classical liberal love for humanity and the Good, and the teaching of this in all our media and our classrooms is absolutely necessary. Alongside that, we must rally around our race if we hope to protect the middle class, because the majority of all other races are innately underclass, untermenschen, and no decent society can be composed of them. We must remind elites that their ultimate duty is not to themselves or their children, but their genome as a whole, as expressed through the white people all around them. That we all have a share of greatness in us, and that great people can emerge from the most rustic back-alleys of the world when allowed a fair chance in life. That moreover, the elites are only slightly superior to other members of their race, that the wheel of fortune turns and someday their descendants will be worse than our descendants, and that in any event we should not be treated like rats to be thrown into hopeless wars like World War I, or left to the ravages of small pox even as they vaccine their children with the cure.

Combining racial solidarity with a eugenics movement will also remove the excuses of the elites: "what on earth do we have in common with white trash? We are intelligent, we are superior, we are completely different species than you." Oh really? Every person on earth has millions of different combinations of genes they can give their children. If we give every child the absolute best combination possible, how much inferior would our children be to your children? Is the gap really so vast? As science improves, these sorts of excuses are not just mean-spirited, they are an active attempt to suppress competition. By preventing eugenics, sure they can keep their 'separateness' alive. But what kind of excuse is that? "We're better than you, because we've actively made you all worse than ourselves." Well gee, that's a good reason to keep elites in power or reward them with great prestige and wealth!

I propose authors like Dickens, Steinbeck, Solzhenitsyn, Tolstoy, Dostoevesky, Hume, Rousseau, and Voltaire (especially Candide!) become the curriculum of our schools. I want the children of our elites crying their eyes out in sympathy with the unfortunate lower classes of the world. I want them to fall in love with characters from not-so-grand stations trying their best in a hopelessly muddled world. The tightest bond we can ever form between the classes is sympathy. Racism promotes sympathy between fellow members, as does classical liberalism. Heightening the genetic worth and carefully quarantining off genetically deficient members also creates greater equality in a country, which inevitably creates greater sympathy between the elites and the masses. Giving all members of our community the most opportunity we can will also help erase the class divides. Things like required virtue in personal life will help erase the gaps between the elites and the poor. Poor people bring about their own disasters through stupid mistakes: they divorce, have children out of wedlock they can't support, drink, do drugs, do crime, and otherwise sabotage their own lives. They can't help it, they lack the intelligence, foresight, and self control elites have over themselves. But we can help them. By banning them from making mistakes and stopping them from self-sabotage at every turn, it will be AS THOUGH these nincompoops were just as honest, rational, intelligent and temperate as the best of us. We can equalize moral behavior through legislated morality -- without it the class divide can never be bridged. We must also provide free health care and education, of the highest quality possible, for all children, so that they do not have some crippling childhood handicap that will perpetuate the class divide the rest of their lives.

I promise you, if the common folk live an honest life without crime, get a decent education at least through high school, marry young and don't divorce, if they don't drink or have children out of wedlock or use drugs, they will thrive and prosper. They will be a MIDDLE class. The miracle of a middle class can be constructed, through moral, cultural, legal, and taxation levers. If elites are given a stake in the nurturing of the middle class, through art and the promotion of love and charity, through the higher productivity of their workers, and through a love of their race and common shared biology and history with the people around them -- they can be recruited into the movement instead of the direst threat to the movement.

However, if jews are simply acting as jews, rather than as elites, they will never feel sympathy for us whites. That is why a solution such as the above will never work so long as one race is the elite, and another the common folk. Jews must become white through interbreeding, or be thrown off entirely. There can be no sympathy between such alien parts as jews and aryans. Elite whites are different. They can be softened, their hearts turned to mush, for little Oliver Twist or Pip. Jews are pitiless towards whites and have always been hired as tax collectors or pimps or usurers for their very ruthlessness towards the general populace. Such a pitiless elite will never promote equality, and to make things worse, they will never wish to lose power for fear of an 'anti-semitic' backlash. As in, for fear of racism, they will be racist towards others in perpetuum. What an unsolvable riddle that poses! Even if we treat them with the utmost love and affection, their paranoia against anti-semitism will continue to strike out against all whites for eternity. Therefore there is no amount of appeasement we can give jewish elites. The solution is to wipe them out, either through interbreeding until there is no jewish people, or mass deportations to Israel so that they never trouble us again.

How do we get from here to there? Elites will certainly not support these policies, nor will the underclass untermenschen who are too incompetent to do anything and aren't white anyway. It has to come from elites who don't care about themselves. Billionaires who have always loved the white race, or the middle class, or family values or a decent 1950's culture we see from the Norman Rockwell paintings. High IQ strategists who sacrifice their lives for the cause and support not their peers, but their employees. And alongside them must be joined the power of the remaining middle class. People who have their own lives in order must stop sabotaging themselves with the underclass designed to replace them. They must reject the nihilist culture which has betrayed them. And once the middle class has recognized its own interests and where it conflicts with the elites and the underclass, they must unite under their own political party and vote accordingly. Or if voting is no use, they must FIGHT. The middle class will certainly be where all the best soldiers reside. The interests of the white middle class must be combined. Those in danger of falling into the lower class must get their lives together and refrain from sin and self-sabotage. Those in the upper middle class must remember their roots and have compassion and sympathy for the people around them. Everyone must communicate effectively with the elites that we don't seek to displace or destroy them like the Marxists, we simply desire to defang them. To end their poisonous influence on us, the white middle class. We even hope to someday join them through the biological uplifting of our children, and we're more than happy to let them run this new era, just so long as they sympathize with us! Just so long as they care! Not so long ago, it was the role of every english lady to distribute charity to the poor in her realm, to upkeep her servants to high standards and to provide a moral example to her followers at Church, and in godliness. It is not impossible for elites to love their people, or support them, or care for them. It just requires the right tone and the right mix of superiors and slightly inferiors, instead of drastically hopeless inferiors. I love the elites of the earth, they have done almost everything important and often have the greatest virtues you could ask for. Socrates didn't just invent the socratic method of argument, he also stood up for his beliefs and drank poison rather than leave his beloved Athens. This is typical of our elites, who are great in all things both intellectual and spiritual. But I also love the people, who if cultivated, can be just as good. And furthermore, a society of pure elites is impossible (there will always be better and worse, even among people competing at the olympics), so the people will always be with us.

The 'people' have also done things we can take pride in. They settled America with a can-do pioneer spirit, amidst incredible hardship and danger. The people fought bravely in war after war for their country. The people have participated widely in wonderful cultural displays like literature, music, dance, christmas trees and religious solemnity. Without any elites at all, the people would get by. Without the people, elites are Archimedes without a lever -- no way left to move the world with the power of their ideas. The people are the audience with the ability to understand the story -- even if the elites are the only story-tellers. What is the use of art that can never be communicated? The wider the audience, the more hearts it touches and minds it inspires, the greater the maker of the art. The greatness of our elites, therefore, depends entirely on the soul of his people. Entirely! There cannot be one without the other. There is so much beauty in every white face and every loving family and every honest plainspoken man, that the people are intrinsically valuable in and of themselves. Even if we never split another atom or sent another ship into space, these common, middle class people would still be playing fiddles and kicking up their heels in synchrony, and laughing and crying and hugging and making love come nightfall. I could never disown the people or scorn them like so many elites do. There is gold waiting to be mined in all of them, and when they go wrong, we should say like Jesus: "forgive them, for they know not what they do." It is no justification for destroying them like the current order intends.

A new party must be formed for American politics. This party will represent the interests of the white middle class. It will not be averse to taxing the rich and giving itself legs up in the world through subsidized health care, college tuition, job placement programs, minimum wage laws, etc. It will not be averse to tackling social mores like divorce, promiscuity, substance abuse, corruption in the media or homosexuality. It will oppose immigration and miscegenation, and ultimately demand complete territorial separation from all untermenschen, who compete directly for their jobs and wages, prey upon their daughters sexually, rape and murder, steal and affirmative action their way to the front of all lines. The middle class is still, thank God, the majority of all Americans. They could at any time, still, unite for the sake of their own interests. Before the elites completely eradicate them with the new mud sludge republic of Elitism, before the muds genocide them and take all their jobs and houses by stacking up 8 to a room and working for 8 cents an hour. All it takes is a realization of what's truly been happening in this world, and how they have been betrayed by their 'leaders' into policies that directly go against their self-interest. It will also take the removal of the jews, as the most inveterate enemies of any such change. It could still be achieved politically and peacefully, under the current democratic system. But if that doesn't suffice, the middle class forms the majority of all gun owners in this country and the majority of the military. There will still be a way to take back what's ours. Again, all it takes is for the white middle class to realize what's been done to it. To realize its own interests and how they are not being served by the current elite. What will it take for them to wake up? The current financial crisis doesn't seem to be enough. The current crime levels aren't enough. The current 50% illegitimacy rate isn't enough. What will be enough? Lord knows. Maybe nothing. But maybe ten more years of continual decline will be enough. Who knows? It's in God's hands. But so long as it's possible, we should keep trying. What have we got to lose? A fate worse than extinction?

Libertarian Totalitarianism

If I had to sum up my political wishes, what type of government I'd like to live under, it would be this: Libertarian Totalitarianism.

I've read Hegel, and all I can really recall from him is a very impassioned argument against slavery. However, I've also read many people who talk about Hegel, and they all agree that Hegel's greatest contribution to philosophy is the idea of 'dialect.' According to Hegel, the progress of ideas comes through a certain process. At first, there is the generally accepted philosophy of the time, the 'thesis.' Then comes an 'antithesis' that rejects the thesis and supports some opposite bundle of values and ideas. As the two fight and discuss, an eventual consensus emerges between the two sides, a 'synthesis.' In time the synthesis becomes the 'thesis' of that community, a new 'antithesis' emerges, and the cycle continues indefinitely.

This is an exciting concept, because what it means is that contradictory, conflicting views are not necessarily counterproductive for one another. In fact, they can commonly be complementary to each other, a whole that is greater than its parts. The idea of synthesizing two mutually opposed and contradictory forces is then seen as the only path forward towards philosophical progress.

Let's take Hegelianism and apply it to Libertarianism and Totalitarianism then. What would we produce? An anti-matter/matter explosion that only causes logical chaos and destruction? Or a hegelian synthesis of an entirely new distinct ideology different from either original? I say the latter, and here's how:

Human nature includes a desire for freedom. People wish to be left alone to do things their own way, they don't like being bossed, bullied, or used by others. They certainly don't like to be serfs or slaves, taxed of their labor or told what they can and cannot do. In primitive societies, people were so free they could commonly get away with rape and murder, and barbarians were notorious in their unwillingness to adopt the Roman yoke and died en masse rebelling constantly against foreign rule. Various people have delimited freedoms as so important they are simply absolute, given to us by God not man, and irrevocable for any cause. These include the right to life, liberty, and property. Liberty includes freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of association and movement. The right to life includes self-defense and a justice system, as well as bans on all manner of arbitrary actions by the government that could deprive people of a fair trial for any supposed crimes. It also includes the right to defend against extra-territorial aggression by outsiders of the nation and the duty for the government to protect us in times of war or invasion. As for property, people should have the right to the fruits of their own labor and the right to an honest lifestyle that is capable of amassing wealth, supporting a family, and purposeful and rewarding work. A government which cannot grant such things is unbearable and should be thrown off without further ado. Everyone finds such freedoms, rights, and protections as enormous goods and desires to have them for themselves. The appeal of liberty and libertarianism runs deep in every soul and no one can truly be happy without this part of their human nature being taken into account and enshrined in some sort of constitutional protection.

However, this is not the whole of human nature. In fact, there is another current in our human nature that desires exactly the opposite in all things: the will to power. People are not satisfied with control over their own lives, they also seek to control the lives of everyone else. Money that can control others, laws that can control others, education and churches all meant to convert others, even our tyrannous upbringing of our kids to be and believe what we want them to believe, is a facet of our will to power. We are incensed when people do not serve us, show us proper respect and deference, do as we say, listen to our wise council, and so on. Often the will to power becomes so extreme that we are willing to exterminate entire groups of people who refuse to obey us and are utterly pitiless towards those we have already successfully enslaved and groan under their chains. But is the will to power wholly evil? Is the desire for freedom wholly good?

In a world of complete freedom, no taxes can be collected at all and no law can exist at all, because it infringes on somebody's liberty. In a world of complete freedom, no common culture can emerge and no organizations can form to tackle larger problems bigger than any individual. In a world of complete freedom, an individual could, for instance, dam up a river and destroy the livelihoods of everyone downstream of him, even though he personally had nothing to do with the creation of the river and hardly deserves all of its wealth for himself! In a world of complete freedom, people can break their words, betray each other, lie and steal, breaking the heart's of all the pure of heart, and corrupting to pitch black all the hearts of those susceptible to evil, but no longer constrained by any authority or moral climate from embracing it.

In a totalitarian world, injustices can be rooted out, privileged groups and classes can finally be dethroned and destroyed, who before hid behind the law or liberty to mask their own oppression and chicanery from the shadows. Bad habits and practices can be banned, promoting the virtue and health of the entire community. Kids can be raised in a certain way, that protects their physical, psychic, and spiritual health against the unlimited snares and pitfalls of our earthly lives. The entire community, in totality, will be behind this attitude so that your parental attempts to protect your children are not undermined the moment they leave the door of your house, or the moment they turn on their TV or open up a book. In totalitarianism, people needn't suffer their fools, crooks, liars, and incompetents and can instead demand everyone live up to the same high standards they themselves live by. No longer can drunk drivers live alongside and endanger sober drivers. No longer can druggees huddle and beg in parks and street corners, or tempt your kids into joining them. And the trains will run on time!

Can anything then be done, when human nature desires both to rule others and to not be ruled? When people desire both for everyone to be like them, and to be true to themselves? Must we always forge some continuous series of compromises that pleases neither instinct but shifts back and forth between them? Can generation after generation of people vote in an election whether today we will accept the abuses of liberty or the abuses of totalitarianism to afflict themselves with?

I say we can do something. I say there is a way everyone gets everything they want. I say compromises with evil are simply another term for surrender. Instead I offer the Hegelian Synthesis of these two halves of our nature: Libertarian Totalitarianism.

What is Libertarian Totalitarianism? You could say it is Kant's categorical imperative made flesh. (I've also read Kant, and got a lot more out of him than Hegel!) From Kant we read the categorical imperative: "Act in such a manner that your more could be a universal law." Or "Run your life as though you were the legislature of and a denizen in the ideal world."

From Kant we are given two important truths. Duty imposed is slavery. That's the libertarian part. Duty assumed is morality. That's the totalitarian part.

Or to make it more clear, no one should have any right to legislate your universe for you, you are your own End and have the right to be true to yourself no matter what.

At the same time, once you have legislated your universe, once you have chosen to live a certain way, once you have undertaken a duty, or promise, or wyrd to embrace a certain path, you have lost all right to divert from it. As a rational being, and as a moral being, you can no longer be anything than the Self you chose. You cannot be inconsistent, fickle, false, or simply oblivious to your own moral reasoning. Your law. Your sacred creed and code. This occurs in daily life when one enters into a pact of marriage. Before you married, you had the right to live however you pleased. After you married, you lost those rights, and instead had only duties. From now on for the rest of your life, you may never part again. Your fidelity is to her, you are obligated to have and support children by her, to honor and protect her, and to treat her as a second self.

There can be no morality, no Good, no virtue in anyone who refuses to undertake any duty. A man who makes no promises and stands for nothing, is himself nothing, just a devil or a beast of the fields. Amoral people do not belong in human communities and are contemptible trash. The first beginning of human worth and moral good comes not from your being born, but from your first duty you assume to fulfill. Once your soul is aligned to something greater to itself, and dedicated to something higher than your own whimsy, we can love and honor you, we can make promises in return to you, and most importantly people can have a sense of their own identity, purpose, and value. There is no shortcut to these goods. They all begin by giving away the purposeless freedom and empty amorality of some sort of cartesian nothingness of mind. And yet, no one has the right to make those decisions for you, or impose their values on you. As a rational, moral being, we cannot be slaves or puppets or robots. We must be the legislators of our own soul, the crafters of our own swords. Morality is duty assumed. It cannot be created any other way. Rape is not marriage. Fornication is not marriage. Only marriage is marriage.

So how do people, practically, marry their nation? How do we gain the freedom to live under a law of our own choosing, and yet the will to power to have everyone else live under a law of our own choosing? How do we undertake crippling constrictions of our freedom, and in return be given the benefits of all those restrictions on others? Through the social contract!

No more of this bullshit about how we 'implicitly' signed a social contract the day we were born, against our will, into one country or another. No more crap about how our staying in a country of our birth due to matters of the heart, due to economic needs, or due to practical impossibility of being accepted elsewhere, translates somehow into approval of and legitimacy for the laws of the current government.

A true social contract, one that reads like this:

"Upon entering this state and agreeing to become a citizen thereof, I hereby agree to all the laws of this nation, I agree to renounce all power or right to change them, and I agree to willingly and cheerfully enforce them on myself and all those around me, so help me God. I enter with the unanimous consent of all those who inhabit this land, as a member qualified to join the selection criteria of this Body as designated by the Constitution and reviewed and approved by the government in my particular case as factually meeting this criteria."

A spelled out constitution covering every field, and a powerful government with all the means necessary to fulfill the constitution. And an absolute unwillingness to compromise. Every citizen in the entire nation must be a true believer in it, or he must leave. This is a land of, by, and for this exact Contract, this Constitution, as unanimously entered upon by the inhabitants thereof. It has nothing and offers nothing for anyone else. No one has any rights outside the ones the Constitution has designated for its people.

Everyone is a libertarian until he enters the social contract of his choice. Everyone is a totalitarian until he leaves said social contract, and thus the community where said contract prevails. Every aspect of his life is under the control of the Constitution, there is nothing reserved to the individual.

Everyone must marry their nation. Everyone must assume a duty as sacred and immutable as the love they share with their own wife. And once this 'Great Sorting' has occurred, there will be no abuses of power or freedom, because everyone will be in total power, and no one will be in the least free. We will all be bound to our own decision, our chosen destiny.

Finally, for the first time in history, we will have the right to choose not only our wife and our friends, but our neighbors, our countrymen, our entire community. And they will all, universally, have chosen and approved of you. You will be among friends and allies from dawn to dusk. The values you most cherish, will be expressed all around you in every face you see, in every building, every street corner, every song that drifts on the wind. It will all be animated with the same spirit that animates you. Nothing will offend you, or grate on you, or pinch you, because of its total alienation from your inner core. It will be like a giant emanation of your soul, an ideal world of your own legislating -- a Kantian city in the clouds. As Rushton has shown, people prefer people like themselves. They use assortative mating over matters like education levels, religious beliefs, wealth and moral values to make sure they have united with a harmonious partner. Why would we really stop there though? If we had the power, wouldn't we prefer to sort the whole world as well? To sort it all out from top to bottom? And for those who don't like sorting, who want to be around their mirror opposites and contraries at all times -- well couldn't they all get together and sort on that very criteria? Aren't they free to be around people unlike themselves all they like, to craft any sort of constitution and acceptance criteria they please, and get their very own Tower of babel they so desire? In my world, everyone gets what they want. There is no conflict of interest, anywhere, because we can all be who we please, so long as we are in separate places. The number of creeds is only constrained by the number of square miles on this earth. And that can be solved as well -- someone, some community, is going to want to reach the stars. You can bet on that.

The main complaint people have when others suggest changes is that they themselves do not desire the change. And yet that means the people who don't desire the status quo are stuck in unjust prisons they can never escape. There is no best fit for everyone, our differences are too great and our passions are too strong. We each need a breathing space of our own, a place of our own with people like ourselves. It is no more just to constrain people to the present borders and the present law code, than it would be for a fanatical group to revolt, seize power, and impose a wholly new law only they desire on the public at large. In the name of not being brutalized by such laws, you brutalize everyone else with your own laws. Is that just? Is this the best of all possible worlds? No, no, no.

I have an idea for the contract and Constitution I would personally live under. It is very strict and includes lots of rules of behavior covering the cradle to the grave. It is totalitarian in every facet, and I would THRIVE in it because I would meet all its requirements gladly, and cheerfully, and would love nothing more than everyone around me to behave and be just as good as I am. However, I am not suggesting everyone adopt this Constitution. I'm not suggesting even 1% of people live under my totalitarian fantasy. I suggest only those who embrace it as I would, who are excited as me about it, to do so. And everyone else, I just ask to leave us alone. to not interfere. To let us be ourselves as we always wished to be, instead of in the straitjacket of the world's borders I was born into but never myself made.

But this categorical imperative, this Kantian universe made flesh, I do think is universal and the highest good. The meta-concept, the hegelian synthesis of Libertarian Totalitarianism, is in fact a universal truth and a suggestion I implore all people adopt. This is not like my wishes to ban adultery and drinking and for everyone to be married with children by age 25, the particulars of My nation. This is the code for ALL people, the one we must all abide by, because it is the most just, most natural, and most rational politics imaginable. As the crisis in the world expand and as our differences grate ever more between the various diversities of our nations, an explosion is bound to occur. If my plan isn't endorsed, something much worse will follow. Our differences are insurmountable. Differences in perception about the proper roles of the sexes, differences in racial attitudes, differences in religious outlooks, differences in scientific mindsets, differences of wealth, of class, of intelligence, of erudition, of language and history and ideology. Do you really hope to hold such powder kegs together? Create a one-world government? Don't make me laugh. You couldn't even keep Yugoslavia together, a country of a few million people. The whole world? Only violence and lies could ever perpetuate such a thing. no one desires it. No one will thrive under it. The soul of mankind will shrivel into dust. The honor bound and faithful of my world is a better representation of the ideal man. Of the heroic.

Your way can only castrate the soul of mankind, domesticate it, and eventually extirpate it like the Soviet Union did their people for the past 70 years.

My way can sharpen the swords of all our souls, until they blaze across the very heavens, everyone expressing himself as fervently and brightly as their strength can take them. It appeals to everyone and stifles none.

Libertarian Totalitarianism. Give it a whirl.

Rumor-Mongering

It's unfortunate that anyone who engages in public speaking is smeared by his opponents. In the age of the internet, thankfully, this smearing process cannot dissect people's personal lives and have ad honimems used against them. The idea that 'the person saying these words is bad, and thus the argument is bad' is a logical fallacy, as the two really have no relationship. If a bad guy says water is wet, it doesn't follow that water isn't wet. If a murderer endorses the death penalty for murder, it doesn't follow that the death penalty for murder is wrong. The argument stands or falls on its own merit, regardless of who said it. Another fallacy of ad hominems isn't simply saying the argument must be false because the person who said it is a bad guy, but runs with it in another direction:

Whoever is saying it, is trying to persuade others for the sake of his own self-interest. All we have to do is figure out this person's secret connections and desires, and we will find out his true motive for encouraging various public policies, which will always just be a matter of private enrichment, rather than whatever public good he harps on. Thus if a gay person advocates gay marriage, we can discount anything he says because "he just wants to marry a gay guy, it's all in his own self-interest." Or if a straight person advocates gay marriage, he is pilloried as "oh he must be gay and just hiding it, otherwise he wouldn't be advocating for gay marriage." Both of these are ad hominems and are still fallacies. Even if the law described would suit someone's private interest, this doesn't somehow banish all the arguments he made for its public interest, they don't just disappear. If building a dam would both be a great benefit to the community and the person advocating the dam building, how is he wrong in suggesting a dam be built? Whether it benefits him or harms him is irrelevant, the question still remains, is it a good idea? Would it help the public interest or not? Regardless of the person's motivations, if building a dam really would be good for the community, then the man by arguing for a dam building has done the public a great service. Questioning his motivations or assigning him a false, secret agenda doesn't actually address the question at hand. Was it a good idea or not? As such, all such questions are irrelevant, fallacious, and harmful, as they simply obscure our ability to debate objectively and based on the facts about the actual issue.

Another ad hominem is requiring the person have some sort of credential or authority on the topic before his words be given any weight. "Only professors can know right from wrong on these issues, everyone else is a priori false." The question isn't what degrees the person has who is saying the words, the question is whether what he said is true or false. Whether his suggestions were good or bad ones, whether they served the public interest or not. Independent of whatever degrees the man has, if he suggests we should all stop eating and just live off air, it's not a very good idea. And if an opponent with no education argues back to this person of high authority and pedigree that we must keep eating if we hope to survive and air is no substitute for food, he is not a priori wrong and his words dismissible for lack of expertise on biochemistry and anatomy and metabolism, etc etc.

It is as pointless trusting the word of an authority figure or credentialed academic over common sense on any issue as it would be to abandon eating because the Pope told us to. i don't care if ten thousand scientists got together and signed a bill insisting we all stop eating and begin the new 'age of inhalation.' I'd trust the hobo on the street's opinion ahead of all ten thousand, because the only arbiter of any argument is reason, and every man must reason for himself. That is why we are equipped with brains, so that we can come to our own conclusions based on the light of reason, not just be programmed with commands or directives from on high. The only sovereign any individual can ever serve is Reason. Every other authority is illegitimate and a logical fallacy. If Reason shows that the person speaks the truth and makes good sense, it doesn't matter if he's an illiterate madman murderer cannibal who stands to make a million dollars from the decision.

Furthermore, if someone is wrong on one issue, that does not make him wrong on every other issue 'a priori.' If someone comes to an outlandish conclusion about one subject, it just means he's not perfect and is capable of being wrong. When he turns around and makes a sensible conclusion on another field, that conclusion is still sensible regardless of anything else they've suggested. Consider the madman again. The world has gotten together and agreed to give up food, and start on the new age of inhalation. The government has set up the program, the media has trumpeted it, and the populace have voted for it in an overwhelming referundum and staged parades of joy for its passing. Now, this madman, who says UFO's have landed and half the people on earth are actually space slugs masquerding as humans, publishes an essay in the local paper saying 'the age of inhalation is a fraud, humans must eat to live. Everyone should continue eating like their ancestors have throughout all time.'

Imagine if the response in all the outraged letters to the editor read like this: "This guy is a madman." "This madman doesn't have a college degree, what does he know?" "This is the same guy who wrote a month ago half of humanity were in fact space slugs." "This guy probably has stocks in the grain industry or owns cattle." "I'm outraged that a madman was allowed to speak in this way, he hurt the feelings of all inhalers everywhere. Speaking for the 6 billion inhalers on the earth, I demand this man be fined or imprisoned for his insensitivity." "This man is stuck in the past and doesn't realize we are all inhalers now, the march of progress can't be stopped, I pity the man for being controlled by his senseless fears and hatred of breathing." "This madman was probably abused as a child." "Next he'll be telling us to eat space slugs."

This verbal diarrhea could go on and on and on, without even once addressing his central point, his argument that is flawlessly stated and the God's own truth. People do, in fact, need to eat to live. Breathing air as a food substitute is, in fact, a bad idea. And everything else mentioned, every single accusation leveled against him, is a meaningless side issue that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. MUST MAN EAT TO LIVE OR NOT? IS BREATHING REALLY THE SOLUTION TO HUNGER? This is the power of mass distraction. Logical fallacies abound, and they are devilishly effective, because people keep on assuming that some unrelated issue, is somehow related to the truth or falsehood of the statement at hand. The answer is to ignore all the distraction and address the argument. Ignore all the rumors and concentrate on the issue at hand. Is what he is saying true or false? Is it in the public interest to adopt his policies or not? Is this argument reasonable? Does it make sense? Are the facts on his side? These are the only questions people should be asking themselves as they read an argument. Every other argument is something contrived by the losers. IE, anyone who would lose in the field of facts, logic, and reason, resorts to side issues and irrational criticism, in the hopes of obscuring the debate and replacing it with some other arbiter, so that they can still win despite being the clear losers.

If anyone addresses the man's vices or failings, or what other arguments he's made at other times, or what degrees he has, or who his friends are, or what business interests he holds, or anything of the like, he's a weasel using logical fallacies to avoid addressing the actual issue and argument at hand. Of course, one of the most oft-repeated arguments is 'don't listen to this guy, he's an idiot.' What does that matter? If an idiot speaks sense, if an idiot is reasonable and believes the truth, if an idiot makes a compelling and strong argument to adopt various policies, what would it matter how stupid he was? I'd accept wisdom from a donkey's mouth, much less an idiot's. All I care about is the truth, what would it matter if an inanimate rock said the speech instead of an idiot? Would it be any less true? And yet 99% of arguers will insist their opponent is an idiot or stupid, as though that has some relevance to the issue at hand. All they want to prove is how dumb their opponent is, and substitute the entire issue at hand, for an argument on whether their opponent is dumb or not. Or substitute 'stupid' for some other senseless statement: "this person is a loser." "this person is poor." "this person doesn't have a girlfriend." "this person is a sex-starved loser." "this person lives with his mother in a basement." So what? Who cares? Is what he said true or false? Is he right, or is he wrong? If a rock sat in a basement, and said e=mc^2, would it be any less true? So what's wrong with a human being doing it? The whole tactic is senseless, and is simply bullying and obscuration.

For those confident in their beliefs and the strength of their arguments, they never have to mention their opponent or who he might be. All they have to do is point out the flaws in the opponent's reasoning and show how the facts disagree with his conclusions, and that is that. There is really nothing left to say. Either the facts aren't true, or the reasoning that follows them is illogical and fallacious. Once either of those things have been pointed out, there's hardly any need to add in "oh and he's an ugly nincompoop." Who cares? I already agreed he was wrong before then. Learning he was an ugly nincompoop in no way strengthened the case against his argument, as it was already 100% made. All it does is add in vitriol and emotions into an otherwise cool, rational, and truth-pursuant debate. All it does is muddy the water and complicate issues and make personal that which should be completely objective. Who does that serve? The person with truth on their side, or the one without it?

Beware of false thinkers bearing ad hominems and logical fallacies. There is no point to anything they say, and there is no truth in anything they say. The more you heed them, the further from the truth you'll stray. Not because they are necessarily wrong, they may well be right. But because they are substituting reason, the touchstone of truth, for some other, different judge. That judge may be right or wrong, just as a broken clock can by pure coincidence be right at least twice a day. But it is not using a scientific system meant to produce truth, its methodology is not sound and it can never be relied upon to render a true conclusion consistently. Those who would replace the one and only sound method to reach the truth, Reason and logic, with their own pet distractions, can only make things worse in the end. Truth will recede from the listeners like tantalus trying to sip water in Hell. You'll never quite reach it, ever again.

Now going from general to specific, I'd like to deflate some of the completely irrelevant rumors floated around against me, even though it shouldn't matter one way or the other:

1. "Diamed endorses genocide and an all-white world." I never said that. It's just a lie. What I did say (and is then twisted into a ridiculous pretzel by people who hate me) is that in the event a white nationalist state came to power, it was possible the world would unite against it and try to crush it, like how monarchists all around Europe united against revolutionary France and tried to crush that new republic for upsetting the apple cart. In such a case, it would be not only justified, but necessary to defend ourselves, even to the point of destroying the entire rest of the world. I've also said that if whites are victorious, it will be necessary to secure not just our immediate future but a future for all time, by making it impossible for non-whites to threaten us again. I've also said at various times that it would be better for Africa to be inhabited by whites than blacks, and I would see no problem with evolution taking its course there and replacing inferior subhumans with superior humans via colonization. I've also said that taking America from the savages and replacing them with hundreds of millions of beautiful, brilliant white babies was one of the best things that ever happened in world history. I've also said adherents of Islam have declared universal war on all non-believers and thus should be destroyed in our own self-defense, especially considering their expansionist jihads that have left the greatest death toll in all world history and has never let up even once in their history of 1400 years. I've also said that I admire Dr. Pierce and liked the Turner Diaries, as far as a work of fiction goes. (check it out, it's a good read, and all the violence in it is also done in self-defense.) Sure, this adds up to a lot of violence, but it hardly consumes the entire non-white world. Furthermore, it's all conditional on the actions of other races, it is always a RESPONSE to their choices, if they play nice so can we. Rather than advocating we go out and destroy the world, I have always said 'so long as islam threatens world conquest, we must destroy it.' 'so long as blacks breed out of control, we must stop them,' and so on. Violence is always the solution of last resort. I believe in the 14 words: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. "Must" is an imperative to me. It means what it means. When I see a threat to the white race's very existence, what do you want me to do, play nice and advocate a bake sale in response?

And maybe most importantly, I've said, and will say again, that I'd rather the entire rest of the world die than the white race die.

I think we are more valuable than everyone else combined, and if it comes down to our annihilation or theirs, I would choose them. This doesn't mean the ideal choice is their annihilation, simply that it is better than the death of my race, the white race, the best race on earth who are responsible for almost 100% of everything good on earth, from art to science to literature to freedom to economics to military prowess to physical beauty to truly happy homes, whites stand an order above the rest of the world. Ignoring how special and valuable we are, artificially handcuffing our own willingness to defend the white race by various stuffy moral 'do nots', is not for me. I reject out of hand any moral code that would ever reach the conclusion that the white race should perish for the sake of our inferiors.

If the white race stands at the brink of destruction to the breeding of the blacks, the lies of the jews and the anthill like efficiency of the chinese, and I were given a red button that says: "push button to kill all non-whites," I would press it. If I were instead given two red buttons, one that says, "push button to kill all non-whites," and another that says, "push button to teleport whites to another dimension where non-whites can never hurt them again," I would push the second button. And if I were given three buttons, one that says, "kill all non-whites," another that says, "teleport to new dimension," and a third that says, "live in peace with all our neighbors and uplift them to a comparable level to whites," I would push the third button. But the second button is technologically unfeasible until we at least invent inter-stellar travel, and the third button requires the cooperation of the other races and their good faith. What happens if they refuse? If buttons two and three are unfeasible, all that leaves is button 1. In real life terms, it means the unleashing of the russian or american nuclear arsenals on the rest of the world, making all our worries vanish overnight. Do you think Israel wouldn't do it to stop the arabs from destroying their race? Whites are being pushed to the wall just like Israel is, we are under attack from all sides, and if we wish to live, we must be as hard and determined as they are to live. The strong survive and the weak perish. In this case, if whites make it clear that a third-world aggression on our territory (whether by jihadis using weapons or merely a camp-of-the-saints illegal immigration invasion) would be met with nuclear annihilation, and that they had better learn to live peacefully and co-exist with the white race rather than attempt our downfall from without and within, no violence will even be necessary. They will get the message and cease and desist all their pernicious deeds. If we don't make such a stand, however, we simply radiate weakness and invite catastrophe. In fact, the entire plot of Camp of the Saints was this central message: Either we resist with violence our dispossession, or the entire white race will perish from the earth. The drama played out across hundreds of pages, in one of the most poignant and true books ever written, but in the end whites didn't have the guts. They couldn't fire on the third world, and thus they were overrun and obliterated themselves. I simply take the opposite position to that of the Camp of the Saints French who gave the world away: I will fight. Don't think I won't. I'll kill every last one of you if I must, so don't make me. Or as a black would say: "Don't start nothing, won't be nothing." Genocide for genocide. YOUR call, not mine. I don't want any genocide, including the current genocide going on against my race. But if there must be one, I'm going to make sure as hell it isn't my race in the trash heap of history. I'll make sure as hell WHICH one there is going to be. And any white nationalist worth his salt, will say the same. If not they are simply crybabies who need to go home to their mommys. This is a philosophy for white warriors, not ninnies. Get a backbone and come back when you're ready.

I don't endorse violence or bloodshed. In fact, I have an entire post showing how the world could be saved without 'harming a single hair on anyone's head.' But the longer people ignore all the peaceful solutions to the white race's crisis, the more bloody the war will eventually be. The more war will have to solve in its own, violent and pitiless manner. The more that will be left to the butchers which could have been left to the surgeons, if only you had heeded us sooner. And if, God forbid, the decline of the white race to non-existence is entirely peaceful and nothing is ever done to prevent it, what have you achieved? Is this really the moral victory and a high five for the good guys? You've just destroyed the one race that brought us to outer space, the one race that brought the world individual liberty, the one race that fed the entire rest of the world, the one race that cured all the major diseases on earth, the one race that brought about world peace, the one race that carries the legacy of Greece, Rome, France, Germany, England, Russia, Spain, and America, both by culture and by blood. Are you really so proud to see such a painless, bloodless end? Is this moral? The good outcome? The ideal world we should be building towards? I flatly disagree. There are worse things than war. "Peace at any price!" is not for me. Or J.S. Mill for that matter:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

2. "Diamed wants to swamp all white communities with asians and jews and turn them into some sort of alien super-breed."

This is nonsense. What I have said is tangentially related to this paranoia, but like usual it is nothing like the statement above. I think interbreeding is the solution to the jewish problem. I say this for many reasons, 1) it is already occurring and well on its way to completion, so is an actually practical solution. 2) Jews are highly intelligent and I want their genes in our gene pool. 3) If jews interbreed with whites, they will become loyal to whites and identify themselves with us, losing their particular ethnic chauvinism and religious exclusion of the 'gentiles.' 4) Jews will cease to exist, but the white gene pool will barely be touched, as we outnumber them something like 100 to 1.

I think interbreeding with or living alongside asians is not a disaster, as both races are moral and intelligent human beings. Asians have no real vendetta against whites and usually leave us alone, which makes me comfortable living alongside them. They have no social delinquency problems, are net benefits to our economy, have made great art (like anime and video games) and technological innovations (like cell phones and tvs and cars). That being said, I would not like for a total integration of whites and asians. For one thing, east asians outnumber whites, and thus it would not really be a 'white-asian' super-race. It would be more like our annihilation and a few of our genes floating around in a predominantly chinese world. Second, I honestly believe whites are superior to asians. Even if some asian genes are better than ours, the only way to fish these genes out of the asian gene pool and into ours would be through careful and limited selection and interbreeding in a controlled and limited way. Third, I think asian-white crossbreeds aren't that attractive physically and would ruin the distinct look of both the asian and the white race, which lowers everyone's quality of life. Fourth, I think diversity is disquieting, not 'enriching,' and that people feel most at peace and happy and trustful with people like themselves. Therefore, even if there is nothing all that objectionable with asians, or white-asian hybrids, it is not fair to subject their presence on a homogeneous white community.

This is why I would desire a consent based world of communities, where those whites who don't like diversity can be allowed to celebrate their own people's lifestyle, looks, and laws in their own nation. And those who desire, could try out a pioneer's path of white-asian symbiosis and interbreeding, which would exist for only those people who want to give a go at such a project, and would not feel unhappy living in such a nation. Everyone gets their way in my world. I have no objection to either community, though I would prefer the first nation to the second, on aesthetic grounds. I do object, on moral grounds, to the interbreeding of whites with amerindians, dravidians, negroes, aborigines, and the like. Because I consider them lower links on the chain of human evolution and sex with them to simply be a defilement and rejection of everything good inside a white. Whites are halfway on their way to becoming angels, blacks are still half devils. Any mixing between the two is just a step backward, and a betrayal of the thousands of generations that worked so hard to improve you through so much hardship and effort. I despise all such race-mixers and would never wish to live alongside them, or their half-breed kids.

3. "Diamed is a jewish (or maybe asian) government agent meant to undermine all reasonable white nationalist thought and discredit us in the eyes of the populace."

^_^. I'm just an ordinary guy. I don't really care if I'm unpopular, because the populace is rarely (if ever) right about anything. I'm white, and I don't work for the government. As to the charge that I'm doing more harm than good:

There has to be a sea change in opinion before white nationalism gets off the ground. A paradigm shift much like lifting mt. everest from the bottom of the sea to the top of the world. This sea change either won't occur, so nothing we do matters. Or it will occur, in which case it will need a philosophy to lead it into humanity's new dawn. I'm not writing for the current public's opinion, but for that future one. The one I hope for, the community I consider myself a member of. I write for all time, not just the present, and I hope to appeal to those who come millenia later, or who lived millenia ago, not just the current brainwashed masses. If the paradigm shift occurs, the standards of judgment will be completely different then than now. If what I write currently drives people away, who's to say it won't do the reverse and attract people after the paradigm shift? The only way whites will survive this coming century is a paradigm shift, something that completely re-orders all our current values and replaces them with wholly new ones. At that time, I might be a very appealing voice, who's to say? Nietzsche was never appreciated in his lifetime. I can just imagine all the people urging Nietzsche to tone down his rhetoric to be more accommodating to the people of the age, so that he could be more 'popular' and have more 'influence.' Nietzsche refused and wrote in a completely rebellious and devil-may-care attitude, exactly what he felt and thought. Now he has phenomenal influence across the world, and is recognized as one of the top ten philosophers of all time. By not compromising, he has had more impact than if he had compromised. The Truth is something we write for all time, not just this time. Those who wish to write propaganda for their time alone, can find some party hack to churn it out.

I also find it comical when people council moderation and outright lying to further our revolution. Moderates never change the world. Moderates never seize power. Moderates are worthless weak losers, just like the republican party in America which has done nothing but watch as liberalism swept across and conquered America piece by piece, decade after decade. People are attracted to clarity, focus, and strength. In times of chaos and tumult, they look to something powerful, self-assured, and drastic. Not to moderates, waverers, weasels and softies. Since the world is heading into a period of chaos and tumult, we need to be more fanatical with each passing day, not less. When the shit hits the fan, do we want to be a lot of women's lib, gay right's, hug-your-brother Jesus worshipers? Or something much cleaner, sharper, and more serious? My politics is not designed to appeal to people in times of peace and plenty, but in times of rack and ruin. Since the end times are coming, you do the math.

Eugenics or Dysgenics?

Commonly I hear people declaiming against eugenics as this great evil ideal that leads to a totalitarian dystopian genocidal nightmare. This is a strawman attack on eugenics, as a eugenics program can be set up in any number of ways, from totalitarian to completely libertarian, from genocidal to not harming a single hair on anyone's head, and from nightmare to daydream. But putting that aside for a second, a question aggravates me even more over these preachers against eugenics, who are worried about the improvement of our genes as though it's some sort of bubonic plague:

Did it ever occur to you that if the genetic stock of mankind is not improving, it must therefore be degrading? That out of the 6.7 billion people in the world, it is rather unlikely that an exact even keel is being kept and every single child born is exactly as good as the generation before them? That there is no 'alternate' to eugenics except dysgenics? Seriously, the idea that we should just be 'neutral' and be content with 'keeping the status quo' is one of the most naive and ridiculous beliefs imaginable. Look at the various IQ's of the world, multiply it by the various birth rates of the world, and then tell me that the 'status quo' is being maintained. The alternative to eugenics is not 1950's America stretched infinitely into the future, like some sort of white picket fence of happiness. The alternative, if we refuse to improve the racial stock in any way, if we intend to actually sit around and do nothing, is not the status quo, but a horrendous descent into a dysgenic Idiocracy. This is true not only of the world at large, but within every nation on earth. The lower IQ populace in every country on earth is having more children than the higher IQ populace. Even without any immigration at all, the natural birth rates of these two different segments of the population would eventually degrade the genetic stock of even the finest countries on earth.

Don't believe me?

http://w-uh.com/articles/030831-IQ_and_populations.html

See that blue line tanking to a world average IQ of 84 by 2100? (That's right, the average IQ of african americans, who have made such a splendid civilization out of Detroit, New Orleans, and Washington D.C. . .) It doesn't stop there. If nothing is done, if eugenics is not implemented, there is no end to that line. It just tanks and tanks and tanks and tanks and TANKS. Do you get it yet? Do you want the world's IQ to be 60? 50? At what point are you willing to concede eugenics is necessary? When would the 'nightmare dystopian genocide' of eugenics become a preferable result to baboon-world? If you are willing to accept even the most terrifying eugenic world imaginable would be better than allowing the status quo to continue indefinitely, then there is no sense in waiting until yet more damage is done before implementing said programs. If we do nothing, the world will descend into a giant Haiti (who am I kidding? it will be far worse than Haiti!). Low IQ people on every country will continue to out breed high IQ people, while the super low IQ's of Africa will meanwhile be tripling even as high IQ countries like China and Japan's populations half. This double whammy must be addressed at some point, or never. Those are your two options. If the issue is never addressed, there is no end to our dysgenic descent -- until a calamity of some massive proportion manages to kill, say, 90% of humans and finally intelligence is a more worthwhile survival trait than promiscuity. I suppose this, hoping for some miraculous natural disaster that disproportionately kills dumb people, is the excuse our self-righteous moralists will be using to keep their own 'hands clean?' If so, they are not only cowards who refuse to do what even they realize is necessary, but bastards who care nothing for the suffering and destruction inherent in such a position, a thousand times worse than the very 'eugenic dystopia' they so whine about.

What's sad is even dumb people are better off in a eugenic world, because it means they will be surrounded by intelligent people instead of dumb people. The more intelligent people, the better the economy, the lower the crime, the cleaner the streets, the more beautiful the architecture, the cleaner the water, and so on. Even dumb people would surely prefer this sort of lifestyle to a return to darkest africa, with their female circumcision, mass rape, chopping off of limbs with machetes, fly-blown malaria, AIDS, poverty, civil war and famine? The genetic quality of humanity is an issue that affects all people. If they have any love for mankind, or care about any Good on earth, they would be glad to endorse the policies necessary to avert this future, even at the expense of their own reproduction. If, however, dumb people are simply intent on reproducing maniacally with no concern for morality or the effects of their actions on others, they are not 'victims' but the aggressors, any group of smart people who take up measures to defend themselves against this nightmare world dumb people have consciously chosen for them are not 'attacking' innocents but simply defending themselves, their children, and ultimately Good itself, which can only be expressed through Good people, who can only exist if they are coded with Good genes.

I have no compunction or pity for people who say they know their actions will result in a worldwide haiti, and they don't care. They just want to enjoy themselves sexually, or love the thrill of power having so many children and grandchildren brings them, or are simply coldly calculating darwinists who understand that the name of the game is children and they intend to win --- these people are NOT the 'victims' of eugenics programs, they are the PERPETRATORS of DYSGENICS programs on the rest of us. It is absurd to call child birth a 'victimless crime.' Every child is a burden on mother earth, a place of finite resources than cannot contain an endless exponential horde of consumers and in fact already contains far too many for any sustainable environment or any high quality of life, and every child has some sort of impact on the humans around them. If that impact is negative, then there's your victim. And who is responsible? You are. Irresponsible breeding of inferior types bound to bring about horrendous negative results is not moral, or neutral, it is an attack on everyone, it is an act of aggression, and should be responded to with the full fury of the aggrieved in completely justified self-defense.

As far as I'm concerned, any measure at all that protects humanity from a dysgenic tide is moral. There is no limit to what is permissible, when we are speaking about protecting 100,000 years, millions of years of evolution. When we are protecting the ability to love, the ability to appreciate beauty, the ability to understand truth. Intelligence is necessary, sentience is necessary, for any Good at all to exist in the world. The higher one's intelligence, the better off people are. This has been shown over and over again through a variety of correlations, but a simple one is the human development index:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality

There are two pictures here. The first one is a map of the world colored in with high to low scores on the human development index. The second is a map of the world colored in by IQ. As you can see, the two are nearly identical. As in, everything 'good' we value in this world, is utterly locked up with high intelligence. Without intelligence, we have nothing. We are no better than animals. Everything people want, from security to freedom to comfort to long life to palaces and gourmet meals, requires high intelligence to maintain and produce.

Now for all I know there is an upper limit to intelligence where if we gain any more, everyone becomes suicidally depressive and life loses all value, but we sure as hell haven't reached that upper limit yet. So far, every IQ point a population gains, the better off the country becomes. By any known measure, by any objective rating system at all, the people in that country are happier in every way. Until that point, eugenics, which means the selective breeding of mankind in order to improve the racial stock, will always include selecting for higher intelligence. Alongside this will be selecting for other traits we desire: integrity, temperance, health, beauty, strength, conscience, sociability, whatever floats your boat. Any trait we desire can be bred for, as everything is at least partially, if not wholly determined by our genes. Tired of all the mental illnesses on earth? Breed them out of the gene pool. Tired of all the stunted, deformed, or crippled? Breed them out of the gene pool. Criminals? Breed them out. Psychopaths and sociopaths? Breed them out of the gene pool. Hemophiliacs and Huntington's Disease sufferers? Breed them out of the gene pool. Gays? Breed them out of the gene pool. Without the genes for these traits, naturally the traits themselves will no longer exist. If we have any wish to combat evil in this world, it has to start at the source, in our genes, not combat the symptoms which is always too late. Incarcerating criminals, locking up schizophrenics in mental asylums, spending endless welfare on retards and remedial school children, using plastic surgery to improve our looks or high-tech health care to offset horrible inborn health problems like the 'bubble boy', are all too-little too-late, super-expensive band-aids. We cannot be a world of band-aids covering a world of scars and open sores. People should be beacons of lights, torches, wellsprings of joy and benefit to everyone around them. Not threats, costs, or sorrowful mistakes brought into this world to serve no purpose but the world's destruction!

I don't care how eugenics is done, I just care that it be done. It is an object of such necessity, such pressing urgency, that the benefits outweigh any cost and I assure you the people of the future will thank us on their knees for having done it, no matter what it took to perform. "Nightmare dystopia" or not, ANYTHING is better than the dysgenic loss of our very humanity and a descent back into the stone age. However, for the bleeding hearts who refuse to hurt anyone, ever, for any reason, or do anything that might rob them of any choice, however vile and evil the choice may be, or whatever reason someone has against Eugenics, may I offer some eugenic solutions even you would find palatable?

1. How about this? The developed nations on earth give, freely, out of the goodness of their hearts, free birth control and abortion to any woman anywhere on earth who wishes to use it? Most women in the third world do not desire to bear so many children, but due to lack of birth control and abortion, or forced into this unwanted role. Would it be so cruel and heartless, is it a nightmare dystopia, to at least give them the option of preventing their own pregnancies and giving them a future of their own choosing, as a liberated woman with the same choices as the women of the free world enjoy for themselves? Where this policy has been implemented, for instance in Turkey and Iran, birth rates have fallen precipitously and horrible crisis averted, all without any compulsion but simply by giving women a choice in their own reproduction.

2. Or how about this? While every baby is still just a few weeks old, we allow free medical scans to check to see if it has any known genetic errors, like say, down's syndrome, and allow women the choice to abort for free if they do not wish to carry such a child into the world?

3. What about this? When we use fertility treatments to impregnate eggs in petri dishes, we take special care to select only those children with the healthiest genes out of all the possible combinations that have occurred? This way, parents will have not just any child, but the brightest, healthiest, most mentally stable children who represent the very best in their parent's?

4. Why not allow people to impregnate themselves with, say, sperm from well known brilliant, beautiful, successful men who any girl would be lucky to have as the father of their children? Sperm banks of such men could become a thriving business if advertising were done and proper screening measures used. Just imagine if every single mother on earth were paired up with Hugh Jackman instead of street hobo #3. How much better off would their children be?

5. Why not forbid all immigration of low IQ people into still open, rich lands that could support many more people? By doing this, we would have plenty of resources available for smart people to fill up with their smart children, creating a local eugenic boom simply by choosing our neighbors and co-citizens carefully instead of eeny-meeny-miney-moe?

6. Why not cut all welfare programs across the board, letting people sink or swim, and thus not subsidizing the endless irresponsible behavior of the lower classes? If they can support their own children, well and good. If they have five kids and they all die due to starvation and disease, Well whose fault was that? Maybe next time they'll think better of it and put on a condom.

7. Or how about this? Simply cut taxes. Cut taxes, especially, on the rich. Cut taxes so low that any woman who wants can drop out of the workforce, have a child with her husband, and support that child in a sumptuous way -- WITHOUT losing all the amenities of luxury and security she is used to while both the husband and the wife worked. Double every middle class and wealthy income simply by eliminating their taxes, and thus allow them to CHOOSE to have kids if they so desire. Is this too much to ask? Letting families of intelligent, caring, hard-working, and moral parents to have the funds necessary to bear a prince and a princess, in a nice home, with enough set aside for their college tuition?

8. Why not give a subsidy for all homes that meet a certain standard, for instance married, above the poverty line, no criminal record, no record of substance abuse, etc, to have children? With rewards and honors for any who have 3, 5, or 7 kids, however many they please, so that the cost of such heroic mothers and fathers is shared by all society for the wonderful gift of such well-adjusted, high genetic quality kids to our collective future?

9. Why not tie all charity to birth control measures, and require women on the dole to also be on the pill?

10. Would people be averse to vasectomizing all felons, for instance? It would be a simple way to reduce the likelihood of criminal children, without in any way preventing them from enjoying sex as normal. Do even felons have the human right to breed uncontrollably, even after all the harm they willingly chose to do to the rest of us? Or can we take some measure against them?

11. What would be so bad about requiring people with IQ below 100, say, to have only one child, while those with IQ above 100 can have 2, and those above 130 IQ 3, and so forth? Everyone could still enjoy a family life, no one would be killed or sterilized, but gently and softly, the gene pool would improve, and without anyone even noticing, the goal would be completed. What could be more humane and yet more successful? What could be a more environmentally friendly policy on this overcrowded spaceship Earth?

12. Recently a fertility clinic said it could give your children blue eyes to anyone who wanted them. Soon a time will come where the genes for intelligence, sociability, honesty, beautiful bodies, and health all become well known. What would be so nightmarish about parents freely choosing such good things for their own kids, out of love for them and a wish to see them succeed and be happy in life? It's their child, are you going to REQUIRE them to load it down with a bundle of unnecessary diseases, malformations, and dullness, hurting both the child and the parents, and the entire world just to suit your moral aesthetics?

13. As a corollary, why not require as a matter of human rights that parents DON'T make their children stupid, diseased, insane, or intentionally ugly? Don't children have a right to be born into this world with every advantage we can give them? If so, how criminal, how evil is it for parents to intentionally force onto them all these handicaps when the cure was available and freely paid for by the government?

14. Is it okay to at least teach people about genetics and the importance of good breeding, so that at least in their own personal lives they will avoid gang-bangers and ex-cons, in the desire to see their kids be admirable and successful people? Can we teach white girls, for instance, that breeding with stupid people will yield stupid children? Can we teach young girls about regression to the mean, and how even equally intelligent people will have either more intelligent or less intelligent kids, based on the average of their race? Regression to the mean is a huge factor in the genetic quality of your child, miscegenate even with a 100 IQ black, and the child is not going to have 100 IQ, but more like 90, all due to regression to the mean. Can we at least point this out and warn against miscegenation with lower IQ races, and then leave it to the individual to decide?

15. Would it be okay to give everyone a mandatory IQ test (or several, however many are necessary for accuracy) and require everyone tell their sexual partner their IQ and show the ID card proving it, thus giving people a sense of the genetic quality kids with such a lover would create? Can we at least give people the tools necessary to choose for themselves how stupid they want their kids to be?

As you can see, there are endless measures that enable eugenics. There are a million choices for a society to take, any one of which would be a drastic improvement of our future and a priceless gift to our children, grandchildren, and mankind. For those who reject every single proposal offered, I am certain they could come up with some other one, that meets every moral criteria they can possibly imagine, that would STILL yield some eugenic benefit to the next generation. I am open to any! Any will do, so long as it is done. Eugenics must be implemented, or dysgenics will devour us all. So please, come up with any plan you please. Make it as humane as you want. Give a million dollars to any dumb person who offers not to have children! I'll gladly pay! I don't care how humane, gentle, free, voluntary, slow, or gradual the process is. Just please implement eugenics before it is too late. I don't care if it is local, or universal. I don't care if it is aimed at all races, or just our own race. I don't care if the ax falls on every dumb white just as heavily as on every dumb black. I don't care if it's equal, fair, or color-blind. Just please let us do this, stop making senseless objections, and see the abyss we are about to plummet into if we do nothing.

The world is not perfect. Things are not proceeding swimmingly. The idea that everything would be great if only the evil eugenicists would stop scheming to genocide the world, and install their metal-grey totalitarian dystopia where somehow the sun never rises and clouds perpetually darken the sky -- is absurdly off. We are not the threat. We have no power. We have no voice. It is the other side of the coin, the dysgenic world, that truly threatens our civilization, our peace, our prosperity, and our freedom. They will not come in sleek uniforms and manicured nails, they will not wield laser guns and be smooth shaven with blue eyes and hard jaws. No, it will not be so happy a world! The dystopia that's really coming, the threat the world really faces, is an ugly, brutal, awful one. It will be people squatting and shitting in the streets, as toilets are no longer used. It will be people rutting in the streets, as decency is no longer heard of. It will be gunfire constantly heard in the streets, as crime becomes a way of life. It will be houses crumbling as no one cares enough to repair them. It will mean planes crashing, then going out of service. It will be epidemics, and famines, as all infrastructure breaks down. It will be soulless, vacant eyes who never spent a day in school and don't even know how to read staring at an incomprehensible and joyless world, perhaps occasionally swatting at flies that devour them while they sit with bone-bare limbs and grossly inflated bellies. This is the real dystopia, coming to a city near you! This is the real nightmare, the one approaching us every day and every night as we fiddle our future away.

If anyone truly cares about others, if anyone truly is concerned with the well-being of their fellow man, or the freedom of the individual, or the glory of western civilization, or the equality of mankind (HOW ELSE WILL WE EVER BE EQUAL WHILE OUR GENES ARE SO UNEQUAL????), he must discard all of his objections to eugenics, which are mere strawmen and obnoxious bromides. He must start objecting to dysgenics, the terror that has gripped our world by the hair and is about to slit our collective throats. He must find some eugenic path he deems moral and acceptable, and he must SUPPORT us. I don't care what process this takes. I don't care if first you must clear it with Jesus, or if this requires not hurting a single man on earth, or if a teddy bear must be provided to every affected family. Just wake up. Wake up and stop marching against the very future of your children. Stop destroying the very foundation our civilization stands upon. Stop betraying the human race and ultimately God, who spent so many millions of years developing us into the beautiful, brilliant beings we are and are meant to be. At the very least, step out of the way! Let some portion of our people save themselves. Don't force us to undergo the same dysgenics as everyone else. Give us a choice! Let us opt out. Let us define our own futures, without passing some law against it, or invading and conquering us, or refusing to let us secede! Can you even do that? Can you even allow a single group of people, just 50,000 people say, to leave and practice the eugenics you so deplore? No one is forcing it on you or anyone else. Just let us, at the very least, live our lives the way we please?

There is no moral highground among the 'status quoers.' They are morally bankrupt. They hold no values and no principles. If they held any, they would do anything to protect that which they love, and that includes maintaining a genome healthy enough it can express such things as love, beauty, and truth. If they have the absolute value of liberty, they would allow people to voluntarily form their own nation and practice whatever breeding behaviors they pleased. If they value happiness, they would want as many genetic improvements as possible be made for all mankind, so not just the privileged few but all mankind can share in the gifts of intelligence and beauty, and the riches and joys they bring. There is no moral system on earth that can, through any logical argument, oppose eugenics. There is only Satan and his friend the LIE, which attempts at all times to tear down anything good anyone, anywhere tries to erect. Eugenics is the abode of every good soul, from the most caring 18 year old college girl liberal who hopes to end world hunger, to the most grim and determined soldier who intends to protect his country. Outside eugenics, there is only dysgenics, and the only people who could ever wish for every generation to be stupider, less healthy, less mentally stable, and uglier than the last, are Satan worshippers. I don't see how they can be viewed as anything else. Haters of mankind and haters of God. That's the only group that could ever wish for such a thing.

We are the moral high ground. They are the utter moral base, they cannot crawl any lower. I am proud to be a eugenicist, they should be ashamed to be dysgenicists. It's one or the other. The choice is yours.

The True History of WWII:

The current version of WWII historiography is that after WWI, the Versailles treaty unfairly singled out and punished Germany. The German people resented this, and when the Great Depression came in the 1930's, the Versailles treaty went from irksome to unbearable for the poverty-stricken people. At that moment a fiery demagogue promising a socialist solution to poverty and a nationalist solution to the unfair Versailles treaty gained the hearts of many. When combined with the thuggish terror tactics of the Stormtroopers, Hitler somehow managed to seize power and become a dictator. Unbeknownst to the German public and German army, this madman's true goal was to kill all jews and conquer the world. He then spent the next six years from 1933 to 1939 re-arming and expanding the German Reich, until he invaded Poland and thus started WWII. From there the expansionist madman while still at war with Britain decided to declare war on Russia and the USA and conquer them both as well. Believing in the power of his secret weapons and invisible divisions that only existed in his head, he continued waging this hopeless war against the entire world, not even caring for the costs to the german people he led. By 1944 everyone was against him and the German army almost managed to assassinate him, but protected by some devilish power it failed and so the war went on until the bitter end. Not before Hitler managed to exterminate six million jews in secret gas chambers and fifty million innocent people all across Europe however, a testament to the power of the most evil madman ever to walk upon the earth.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ok now let's take a breather. This story is absurd, and it's sad that just a few decades after the war, with most people still alive and eye witness to the events that transpired, such a warped web of lies could be constructed and pushed on the subsequent generations. Let's have another stab at WWII through a more balanced eye:

After WWI, the Versailles treaty unfairly singled out and punished Germany. The German people resented this, and when the Great Depression came in the 1930's, the Versailles treaty went from irksome to unbearable for the poverty-stricken people. At that moment a fiery demagogue promising a socialist solution to poverty and a nationalist solution to the unfair Versailles treaty gained the hearts of all Germany, men, women and children rallied to his leadership. Hitler, by throwing out the Versailles treaty, rearming his forces, reclaiming German territory like the Ruhr valley, refusing to pay any further reparations, and employing people in massive road-building projects regained Germany's economy and its pride. Finally Germany was no longer a broken, defeated people but a resurgent power on the move with hope on the horizon. Hitler, like most Germans, blamed jews and communists for the defeat of WWI, and insisted they were still sabotaging Germany even in to the present day. Because of this, a crackdown on jews and communists started pushing back against this inner threat to Germany's new prosperity and power. Many communists were put in prison camps and jews were kicked out of sensitive industries like the press and encouraged to emigrate out of Germany.

Through use of political brinksmanship, Hitler managed more amazing diplomatic successes in the return of ethnic German land to what had been the WWI borders of Germany. He even achieved an anschluss with Austria, with a wildly popular referendum of 90%+ voters agreeing to the combination of the two german nations. Hitler then gobbled up Czechoslovakia, another state created by Versailles with illogical borders. Originally belonging to the Austrian (a German empire) Empire and consisting of large numbers of Germans, Germany felt this nation should also belong to 'the Reich.' Czechs at first bitterly resented this intrusion, but did not resist and soon found the socialist measures of the Nazi state like pensions, social security and labor laws an actual joy to live under. No one was murdered and nothing was looted. Hitler's goal was not just the return of WWI's Germany/Austrian Empire however, it was simply a first step in his plan to conquer massive lands in the east, 'all of Russia to the Urals.' With this territory, Germans could have all the natural resources and farmland necessary to create a great Empire like the British or the Americans. They would finally have the imperialist mercantilism system that had so enriched other European states Germany had failed to achieve.

Natural resources would flow into the Reich from all corners of their empire, and finished goods would flow back out, sold to the far corners of the Empire at a handsome profit. With ensured materials and an ensured market, Germany would be an economic cornucopia and the German population could grow indefinitely into the new hearty soil of the Ukraine, etc. This also would ensure Germany's military might. Germany itself lacked crucial wartime resources like steel, nickel, coal, oil, bauxite, etc, etc. All of it had to come from abroad. This of course was a national security risk because should war break out, none of these supplies necessary to upkeep your war machine can be secured. If the rest of the countries refuse to trade with you, Germany's military would be supine to any invasion or enemy who wished to abuse them. With so many enemies to Germany's left and right, including the French who always hate Germany, the Russian Bolshevists who made it clear they intended to conquer and communize all of Europe, and the British Empire always leery of any continental power, Germany would only ever be safe after winning these lands in the east and thus supplying their military with an unbeatable resource base. War was inevitable with Russia due to the need for their land and due to the poisonous and aggressive nature of Stalin and bolshevism, and it was inevitable with France due to their fear and resentment of Germany whenever Germany attempted to become preeminent (just look at how France declared war on Germany in 1870 to try and keep bavaria from uniting with Prussia to form Germany), but Hitler hoped to stay at peace with Britain and America, who he felt had no horse in these conflicts and would be better served with a Greater Germany than a USSR anyway.

Meanwhile, Hitler hoped to gain as much power and land as possible without war, so that when war came he would be in the best position possible. His old tactic of brinksmanship was used to regain Memel, old WWI German land, and was after Danzig next. When the Poles refused Hitler decided to invade, taking not just Danzig but all of western Poland back, which still was part of old WWI Germany and simply a reattachment of German people to their motherland. To his surprise however, Britain and France declared war on him over a purely local conflict of no importance to their interests. After this, events began to snowball out of Hitler's control. Now that war had begun with France and Britain, it was imperative to secure all the natural resources in Europe that were outside Germany's borders, so that his army could stay equipped and supplied. Furthermore, it was imperative to keep Britain from gaining any toehold in the continent anywhere because they could use it as an airbase and bomb German cities or oil refineries and the like that supply the German army. When Britain made a move for Norway, Germany responded by invading and conquering Denmark and Norway for itself. Germany invaded the neutral Belgium and Netherlands, refusing to leave such a weak point for the British to make use of in the future, and conquered France in a miraculous couple of weeks. France was then given extremely lenient peace terms and effectively removed itself from this war, happy to not suffer the same losses as in WWI. When Britain made a move on Greece, Hitler invaded and conquered the entire balkans. And when Britain made progress in North Africa, Germany sent in troops to repulse that and conquer Egypt. Germany could not afford british occupied European territory anywhere because the air and sea power significance of a british outpost was simply too threatening, and every country Britain occupied would mean one less trading partner giving Germany her necessary raw materials. Aside from Poland, who Germany particularly resented and despised, none of these occupied territories were mistreated either. Seeing the way the wind was blowing, and given the obviously aggressive intentions of Russia who had at this time just conquered parts of Finland, the Baltics, and Besserabia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria all joined the axis powers.

At this point Hitler decided it was time to invade and defeat Russia, before they were fully prepared for war and as a means to isolate Britain and force her to surrender for lack of any further allies. Seeing as how Stalin was simultaneously making speeches to his central committee that the USSR was almost ready to invade and defeat Germany, Hitler's decision was simply a wise military move, a preemptive strike in self-defense not only of Germany but now all of Europe the USSR was so obviously gunning for. Of course, Germany's intentions were hardly so noble as that. They intended not just to defeat the USSR, but annex western Russia into a vast German empire and use it as an economic base to form a German Empire that, as Hitler hoped, would soon become the foremost power on earth and the 'center of the world.' They did not intend to kill or enslave all the slavs who happened to already live there, but simply to ignore them and use them, like the British did to India, while colonizing the farmland with Germans and making the steppe 'bloom' with German culture and industry. Given the fate of eastern Europe and the USSR before and after WWII, who can say this was a worse alternative than the one they actually endured? Was Europe, the Ukraine, Belarus and the rest really better off as part of the USSR than Greater Germany? We'll never know, since Germany never managed to implement its goals. But it's hard to believe anything could have been worse than the ravages of communism during the 20th century.

The war with Russia originally went well, but Germany soon began to learn that they had tackled an enemy far stronger than they imagined. Russia had more tanks, planes, and troops than Germany. The only thing saving Germany was the superior strategy, tactics, and bravery of the German army. Even this 'aplomb' and 'elan' could not defeat the Russian winter, however, and soon Germany's blitzkrieg ground to a halt. The attempt to knock Russia out of the war in a few months was dashed, and it was only through the miraculous tenacity of both Hitler's leadership and the German army that prevented a rout all the way back to Germany's borders during that first ill-fated winter. Meanwhile, the USA had been posturing more and more aggressively against Germany. They were attacking german U-boats, supplying Britain with war materials, and letting volunteers fight for the British air force. Germany, seeing that FDR's government was intent on war with Germany even though the American people were against it, decided the best he could do would be to divert the US military's strength by sicking Japan on them. He therefore promised Japan aid against the USA if they would declare war on the USA. Japan, nursing its own grievances with the US, agreed and attacked Pearl Harbor. Germany followed up with its own declaration of war, ruefully noting the two nations had already been at war for months considering US belligerency up until this point.

The situation continued to worsen for Germany. At first the u-boat campaign against british and american shipping was succeeding, but after the US/UK broke the german codes, they could easily find and destroy any u-boat that moved. Furthermore, the US and UK pursued an aggressive strategic bombing campaign on Germany's cities. And in Russia, the assault on Leningrad made no progress and that on Stalingrad was over-extended. A Russian counter-attack aimed at the unreliable German allies, Romanians, Italians, Hungarians and the like quickly broke through the German line and surrounded the 6th army at Stalingrad. An assault was made to relieve them but it failed, and soon the entire German army had to retreat to avoid being encircled yet again. In North Africa, Rommel's troops were no longer being reliably supplied due to air interference based out of Malta (proving that even the tiniest speck of british controlled territory had huge military significance, the very reason Germany had wanted to conquer all of Europe simply to deny Britain such opportunities.) Without the necessary fuel and ammunition, Montgomery made short work of the enemy and drove them out of North Africa. After this the story can be abbreviated, as Germany had no hope of victory. Hitler, believing in various factors that he felt favored Germany, continued to fight on. He felt that German production was increasing not decreasing, that Stalin's armies were taking too many casualties and would eventually peter out, and that the West would eventually lose air and sea superiority once his super submarines and jet fighters joined the battle. All of this was simply wishful thinking. There was no way Germany, even with jet fighters, could achieve air superiority against a United States with an industrial capacity 10 times that of Germany's. The U-boats were no good since the allies had planes, radar, and code-breakers available to sink any and all opposition, and the Russian army was vaster than anything Hitler could hope to destroy. It grew every year, rather than shrinking like he supposed.

After 1943, Italy abandoned Germany and had to be occupied to deny the Allie's such a lucrative gain in Europe. In 1944, Romania and Hungary followed and also had to be occupied to prevent their loss of territory, natural resources, and the like. A handful of treacherous officers who had never liked Hitler and saw that defeat was near attempted his assassination, but most of Germany's army and the German people were still 100% with him. Due to the ineptitude and cowardice of the bomber (he ran away instead of suicide bombing to make sure it killed Hitler), the whole thing fell apart. As 1945 closed the vice on Germany on all fronts and entire cities were being firebombed into smoke, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, Hitler shifted his goal from victory to simply making a statement and going out in glory. He decided to stay in Berlin and commit suicide rather than retreat any further or surrender and admit defeat. After a noble and fanatical resistance, the Soviets finally claimed Berlin and Germany surrendered soon after. However, Hitler had never surrendered his beliefs or his convictions that eventually History would prove him right and support his cause.

After the war, a brutal occupation set in by both the allies and the Soviets. Though Germany had never mistreated any of its conquered territories, even sparing cultural icons from war damage like Rome and Paris, the allies had no such compunctions. They took massive numbers of prisoners and let them starve to death without any food, medical care or shelter even though the war was over. On the soviet side, practically no german prisoner of war survived to return to Germany. Of the 300,000 taken prisoner at Stalingrad, a mere 6,000 survived. And in Eastern Europe, the soviet army had gone berserk, raping, looting, and murdering every German they saw. At this time every German ethnic who had lived outside of Germany's borders was rounded up and ethnic cleansed, in the midst of winter and with no food. Millions more died on this trail of tears back into the political borders of Germany. However, this barbaric treatment by all sides, which Germany had never done to the territories it occupied DURING the war, much less AFTER the war, escaped down the memory hole and is never spoken of by anyone. Despite these atrocities being well documented and proven beyond a doubt, all we ever hear about is the undocumented, unproven Holocaust which attempts to cast the Nazis as villains. For forty years Germany was split in half and the communist run East Germany suffered economic collapse, demographic decline and totalitarian rule. Even with Germany re-united, it is still stuck paying reparations to jews for the 'Holocaust,' it has banned any free speech defending or supporting the Nazis, and is still occupied by US troops who stay in bases all over Germany for no legitimate cause. The after-effects of WWII just keep on reverberating, and Germany has yet to pay its final fee for losing its bid for empire.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The greatest fault I find with Germany's conduct prior to and during the war, is not the Holocaust or the massive number of slavs it killed in its war with Bolshevism, but simply this:

Germany was living in the past. The age of empires was just a decade away from disappearing entirely at the time of 1940. By the 1970's the French, British, Netherlands, Americans, Japanese, and everyone else had retreated to their national boundaries. Germany, meanwhile, was paradoxically trying to make a new empire at the very time Imperialism was waning in support and making less economic sense than ever. A reactionary policy like trying to revive the 1600-1800's policy of colonialism, imperialism, and mercantilism in 1940 shows they were on the wrong historical trajectory. The real future of the economy was not based on claiming monopolies or natural resources, but on information technologies, automation, computers, free trade and world peace. In a couple short decades the EU had been formed, burying all old animosities and allowing a free enterprise zone where resources flowed freely across Europe -- the very goal Germany had sought for its economic and national security through war! The middle east oil supplies opened up, making places like Romania complete sidenotes, and a war to secure said oil supplies utterly senseless. And due to Germany aggravating tensions with Britain and France, it managed to drive them over to the USSR's side when they could have all allied against bolshevism and protected eastern europe (and east germany) from the iron curtain. Germany was a wasteland of missed opportunities. Why didn't Germany throw off the Versailles treaty but not invade other lands? Why didn't Germany make a defensive alliance against Russia? Why didn't Germany open up a free trade zone and demand all countries renounce imperialism, instead of trying to join in on the game? By the time the war began, most of Germany's jews had already left Germany. Germany could have avoided the entire holocaust smear by simply staying inside its borders, thus never abusing jews because no more even existed on German soil. Why wasn't Germany content with the deportation of jews from Germany?

If Nazi Germany had been a revolutionary instead of a reactionary nation, it would have done so much good. As a revolutionary, they could have established national socialism as the guiding philosophy of a new age. The idea of labor being treated fairly and well, of the middle class being nurtured and not preyed upon by feudal or corporate masters, and of a united Germany that had no racial or class or language or religious divisions -- without democratic party infighting but a tried and true dictator who kept the peace and stayed with a long-term plan. . .there's really no telling where Nazi Germany could have ended up. As shown during the war, German Scientists invented both the jet and the rocket. Could Germany have used that same brilliance and unity to reach the moon? To become a leader in computer technology? Could it have invented the nuke during peacetime and ensured their security against Russia in a non-violent, peaceful standoff like the Cold War? As the only people unwilling to betray the people by importing low-wage non-white serfs, as the only people unwilling to allow usury and fractional reserve banking, national socialism would have over time proven itself the most secure, prosperous, and culturally 'vibrant' region on earth. With Hitler's defeat, no bulwark was left to prevent the influx of crony capitalism, non-white cheap labor, racial nonsense about equality and communism sweeping across the world.

Instead Germany, with no view towards the future and no idea it could lose, without any interest in changing the rules of the game instead of bullheadedly trying to win a zero-sum game that is imperialism, simply armed itself and marshaled itself for war so it could finally become an Empire like 'all the other cool kids in Europe' and through the old system of mercantilism soon 'rule the world.' This was probably a good idea in the 1600's, but not 1940. If Germany had realized we were on the cusp of revolutionary change in all sectors of life, it could have preserved itself and become the leader of those changes. Now the racial and cultural cause of Europe has no leader. We are adrift and helpless because the bulk of our power and our ideology was sacrificed in pursuit of Empire. Whenever anyone wants, they could attempt a new nation on the model of Nazi Germany: racially pure, economically socialist with no class divisions, with a dictator who brooked no dissent and kept the media firmly in favor of the State and its ideology. It could have the hitler youth/boy scouts, the indoctrination in the schools, and the parades and movies that constantly harped on how great the Reich was and how proud everyone should be to belong to it. The environment would be protected, vacations and outdoor life promoted, families encouraged and giant monuments built meant to last 1,000 years. Dangerous fiscal policies could be avoided and only slow and steady progress through infrastructure and technological research would be allowed, instead of speculating and fractional reserve monetary inflations. These ideas are so unpopular, however, because last time they led to World War. How annoying, given it was not these revolutionary ideas, but the reactionary imperialist/mercantilist ones, that led Germany to war! Insofar as Germany was eager to occupy other states, it was not due to their nationalism or socialism, but their imperialism! Their mimicry of America, Britain, France, Netherlands, and every other state of the past. But like usual, the Nazis had their foot in two different worlds, the past and the future, and could not in such a short time transform themselves into what they truly should have been.

Next time, we will not make the same mistakes. Internal, not external, development will be the name of the game. And science, not 'raw materials,' will be our goal. In space, all the land we could ever wish and all the population we could ever dream of, is waiting, at the expense of no one else. And though we will free ourselves of both elitist minorities who exploit the middle class and hapless serf-like minorities who drag down the middle class, we will not abuse them or incarcerate them, and instead of annexing territory we feel belongs to us, we will simply fission off territory that does NOT belong to us -- that we want no part in. Taking cognizance of the changed world we live in, one of internet, computers, the green farming revolution, nuclear weapons and energy, automated factories and space stations, we will be the first people on earth who embrace the truth and model our society after it, instead of wishful thinking or reactionary dogma. But first there must be people with the courage to embrace that truth, and reject the lies that rule our world. If this doesn't occur, Nazi Germany, sadly, was the white West's last chance. Because one hundred years from now, we will have no choices left to us at all. At that time, we will all have wished the Nazis had won.

'1/3 of the Holocaust.'

For fence-sitters who have doubts about the Holocaust but don't want to read an entire book on the issue, I offer a rather entertaining (the dry sarcasm as the narrator exposes lie after lie can't be beat) and informative expose of it.

It's called '1/3 of the Holocaust,' and deals with the alleged atrocities in Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec.

http://www.codoh.com/video/onethird.html

It comes in 30 'episodes.' My favorite is episode 23, 'lamb.' It shows the impossibility of cremating piles of humans in an open-air fire like the eye-witnesses claim. And thus, the impossibility of massive millions of jews simply disappearing into thin air and leaving no trace of evidence behind as claimed by the Holocaust 'experts.'

After watching this video, the contempt I have for all holohoaxers or 'holohiders' (those who know the holocaust is a hoax but wish to censor this from the rest of the world) should make perfect sense to everyone.

There seems to be massive evidence that jews were summarily executed (ie shot) on the eastern front as troublemakers and partisans, and also as a reprisal for the atrocities committed against Germans by Russian and Allied forces. Many jews were also killed by the natives of eastern occupied areas who hated Jews with a passion for their collaboration and carrying out of the Soviet atrocities in their lands. Lithuanians, Poles, etc, had all had enough with jews at that time, and liked to personally get back at them. But that is hardly the fault of Germans. Perhaps some rogue German officials took matters in their own hands and massacred unpopular and defenseless jews in the hundreds and thousands, here and there, but the high command always put a stop to it when it reached their attention. This might shine poorly on 'anti-semitism' but says nothing about Nazism, eugenics, or Hitler. A great deal of jews also died due to hunger and disease in the concentration camps, but that was not intentional and again is no fault of Germany. The death toll of jews, even if it were 6 million, instead of the more likely 1 million, is a pitiful number compared to the estimated 30 million Russians who died during WWII. No one criticizes Germany for its slaughter of 30 million russians, because they realize that was part of the exigencies of war. The unique evil of the Holocaust was that it was an intentional attempt to genocide a subgroup of civilians, and that it was done in a 'cold and scientifically devilish manner.' Random pogroms of jews by angry villagers is not as evil as gas chambers, just as 2nd degree murder is not as bad as 1st degree murder. Killing jews as suspected or actual partisans during wartime may be considered a war crime, but is hardly different from their treatment of Serbian partisans and civilians during the war, or for that matter the Allie's deliberate targeting of civilians in their bombing campaigns. Jews dying of disease is practically out of the control of anyone, in fact Germans tried everything they could to combat the typhus epidemics and control the lice infestations by cutting jews' hair, gassing their clothes and mattresses with the delousing agent of zyklon B, and even using microwave ovens and steam to kill lice. After WWI something like 30 million people died to influenza, but that is never labeled a Holocaust. Why? It's as reasonable to classify that a deliberate genocide as to classify typhus or cholera or dysentery in prison camps one!

If the loss of 1 million jews was to a process that was not an intentional cold-blooded attempt at genocide using scientifically designed and carried out death machines, what is left of the unique evil of the Holocaust? Is a jew's life worth more than 30 russian lives? More than 30 chinese lives? Therefore, the argument is not so simple as numbers. Even if ten million jews had been killed, if you cannot prove they were killed via gas chambers in a targeted manner with a genocidal plan designed by Hitler himself with the full sanction of the Nazi state, the Holocaust is no longer uniquely evil. It's not even exceptional. WWII produced plenty of people who lost 10 million. One was Germany herself. The more reasonable death toll of 1 million is almost a sidenote. The real question is, was there a plan? Were there scientific cold blooded death machines designed for jews? No evidence exists of either, neither a homicidal gas chamber nor a document stating the plan to gas all jews to death, or kill them in any way for that manner. Jews dying due to guerrilla violence, local acts of hate and revenge, and the perilous conditions for civilians all wars create, including epidemics and famine, is simply not evil. It is unfortunate, but it is not evil. And if it wasn't evil, then Nazis weren't evil. And if Nazis weren't evil, then racists aren't evil. And if racists aren't evil, then racist policies are not evil. And if racist policies aren't evil, then we can finally go about implementing tough border controls, deportations of recent immigrants back to their lands of origin, and secession from those areas that for whatever reason don't reflect our values. It all starts with the Holocaust and WWII. None of this happened until then. Until then whites proudly ruled the entire world and had no thought of treating non-whites in their land as equal or importing massive numbers of non-whites to become minorities in their own homelands. Therefore, as CS Lewis would say, (or was it Dante? Or kierkegaard? I think Lewis though): Sometimes the only way forward is to admit you have gone the wrong way, and to simply retrace your steps in exact reverse until you are back on the path. Anything but backtracking only leads to further confusion and wasted energy further and further away from the origin. We need a complete reversal of history that reverses the story of WWII, slavery, colonialism, imperialism, segregation etc to our last known healthy point. Those who don't wish to live with the consequences of history, but are unwilling to refute the chain of logic our current historical narrative has caused, are simply naive. 'He who controls the past, controls the future.' This all important insight was made by Orwell in 1984. We CANNOT change our future until we change our past. Not by fudging reality into something that favors us, but by simply exposing the Truth, which always has favored whites, because we truly are a good people. I believe a true history of the western world, including a true account of WWII, would completely vindicate all of our supposed 'crimes.' And at that time, people would not only wish to return to the good old days, they'd have the self-confidence to do so.

p.s: A recent article http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20090501_Genome_study_gets_insights_in_Africa.html shows african americans are only 13% (barely 1/8) white, lower than previously claimed. African Americans have an IQ of 85, whereas Africans have an IQ of 70. Does this show the environment is causing a massive, though not infinite impact on IQ? ((after all, 85 still isn't 100)). Not necessarily. Most African Americans were hand-picked to be enslaved or bred with quality in mind, or have immigrated here more recently with at least some screening mechanisms that would only accept higher IQ blacks. Also, sometimes genes that carry natural selection advantage can survive and spread rapidly even when all the rest of that race disappears and leaves no other genetic trace. The sarmatians who brought England lactose-tolerance is one example. Mediterraneans with the sickle-cell anemia gene that defends against malaria are another. Therefore, a black with just 13% white genes might have found most white genes uninteresting and unimportant, but latched onto all the white intelligence genes it could get because of its natural selection value. Therefore african americans even with 1% white genes could have snatched all the white intelligence genes and simply discarded the rest, becoming far superior to the africans who have 0% white admixture. These questions are clearly knotty and the only answer is more and more research. The very research no one is willing to do, because they don't want to know the answers, or to realize the obvious implications the answers hold. A worldwide genotyping of everyone on earth (like has been done for Watson's unique DNA pattern) together with IQ tests and other statistical studies like wealth, accomplishment, virtue, etc is surely hiding pivotal and invaluable secrets about mankind. It could unlock technologies like genetic engineering and finally establish politically the fairness of unequal results, thus preserving the free market system, the right to free association, and the end to affirmative action.