Those who reject Evolution, Evolution Will Reject in Turn:

As someone who objects to any organized religion or any concept of the supernatural, right off the bat I have to admit that 90% of the world is hopelessly mired in ignorance and stupidity. The fact that people take these ridiculous religions seriously and make important decisions based on what a book says 2,000 years ago or 1,400 years ago before there was any concept of science or logic is a testament to the stupidity and gullibility of mankind.

Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid. They'll believe what they want to believe.

People want to believe in some divine plan that gives meaning and direction to their life. They want to believe in some divine justice that punishes evil and rewards good. They want to believe in life after death. They want to believe in a guardian angel that protects them and their family, they want to believe in miracles that can cure illnesses, and so on. All of these things certainly would be nice if true, however, there is no evidence for any of them. There is, in fact, overwhelming evidence for the contrary.

Evidence has shown that evil men like Genghis Khan, who slaughtered tens of millions of people in his monomaniacal goal to conquer the world, is the most successful man on earth. Some large percentage of the entire earth's population is descended from his genes. He lived his entire life in wealth, splendor, fame, power, and had an enormous harem and eventually millions of descendants. His evil activities towards others were rewarded, not punished, both during his life and afterwards. 'Fortune favors the brave.' Is the old amoral reality. Perhaps today we could say 'Fortune favors the ruthless,' or 'Fortune favors the fraudulent.' If we want justice to be imposed, it has to be done through the force of government, it doesn't occur 'spontaneously' through some sort of natural law, or by the 'grace of God.' If good people are not in control of the reins of state, the people who will prosper on this earth, both in their personal lives and in their genetic footprint on the generations that follow, will be the least moral among us. This isn't some sort of hypothesis, it's the reality we are simply staring at every day. In Lynn's book, Dysgenics, we find that not only are stupid people having more children than smart people, but that criminals are having more kids than anyone else! There is a reason why evil exists, it's because in an unregulated world, it has survival value. That is, evil people really do benefit from doing evil, crime really does pay. The ability to lie, steal, cheat, rape, intimidate, and murder all gives people, or groups of people, advantages over the rest of society. Neither Karma nor God punishes them. In fact, the laws of Nature reward evil behavior, they are both the initial cause of evil, (emotions and faculties engraved in their genes) but also the payoff (more power, wealth, and fame for themselves or their group, which translates into more descendants.) Nature has no objection to evil: plants, bugs, bacteria, and animals all live in a ruthless world of parasitism, predation, rape, adultery, murder, theft, etc. Only Mankind objects to evil. Only Mankind can ever put a stop to it among men.

No one else cares or has any interest in saving us. There is no afterlife where things are finally set right. If there were, wouldn't the same people be interested in setting this life right? Wouldn't they simply start life in the afterlife where things were already right? It defies all reason that good people would sit by and watch all the evil and suffering that occurs on this earth, and somehow decide there's nothing they could possibly do to improve it in the slightest, and that somehow we have to wait until everyone's dead before we can take any effective action to improve people's lives. We condemn it as 'child abuse' when a parent neglects to take care of his children. We realize that children, being foolish, weak, and helpless beings, must be taken care of by parents who constantly intervene in their lives. And yet Gods, who are infinitely more advanced than adult humans, are not required to take care of adults, nor are they accused of neglect and abuse by abstaining from offering any help. What kind of hypocrisy is that? If it's the duty of the strong to look after the weak, where is God? Sipping a fucking tequila? If it isn't the duty of the strong to protect the weak, where is morality? Is it sipping a tequila too? Not to mention the fact that God, having created us and the entire universe, is responsible for everything that happens in it, and is thus the source of all evil that occurs anywhere. Parents take responsibility for their children, companies take responsibility for faulty products, it is only God who refuses to accept any responsibility for the diseases, natural disasters, and evil desires engraved in the genes of Man. What a fraud!

Here's what really happened: Spontaneously, as a result of the infinite size and timespan of space, a universe bubbled off from the chaotic multiverse which is the default state of reality, the event we know as the Big Bang. This bubble of self-contained reality has its own rules and a certain amount of matter and energy which both contain the rules by their nature and express them by their interactions. These rules had the infinitely unlikely chance to be amenable to life, but are infinitely likely to emerge somewhere given the infinitude of space. It's not surprising or miraculous like religion would have us believe, just mathematically inevitable to at some point occur.

These bits of matter/energy evolved into the universe we know today, through endless combinations and recombinations of a few constituent parts driven by the laws of physics. Some of these structures happened to include a penchant for self-replication, which then ensured that such structures would grow in size and number relative to their neighbors. Life evolved the moment self-replication was made possible, and soon enough was not just devouring physical nature and turning it into more 'self-replicating nature,' but had to start devouring each other, to turn into more of each other. Due to the constant stress of competition, life had to keep evolving higher and higher faculties that could defeat all the surrounding life attempting to murder it and assimilate its constituent parts into more of the alternate life form's genome copies. After billions of years, this included not just poison, stingers, claws, fangs, tusks, scales, night vision, etc, but intelligence as well. After a few million years the intelligent primates were all wiped out by homo sapiens, who in turn evolved yet further in the past 100,000 years by competing with both nature and each other to the world circa 1500 AD or so.

Then the age of discovery reconnected all the stranded parts of the earth and the sub-species that had evolved separately for the last 100,000 years were all thrown back together again. The strong flourished and the weak perished, just like what had happened when homo sapiens spread out of Africa and killed erectus, habilus, neanderthals, etc, whenever the two came together. This went on until 1800 or so, when people in the midst of their good fortune developed a sort of altruistic hubris, and abandoned the struggle for life that life had begun 3 billion years ago. Instead of out-competing our neighbors, we decided to uplift them. Instead of maximizing our own descendants, we decided to maximize their descendants. Instead of increasing our faculties, we decided to abandon them and unilaterally disarm against all of our competitors. This unique illness started slow and has been rapidly accelerating into a degenerate grand finale that will occur within this century, the death of the white race. Evolution brought us to our river of worldwide conquest and dominion, but it could not make us drink. So now instead the white race will perish, and those with a greater will to power, a greater desire of existence, will inherit the earth.

For this, we have only ourselves to blame. And why did we do it? Because in 1850 we were offered the truth, Darwin explained the whole story of life from beginning to end, Darwin and Galton explained all the racial and eugenic implications this implied for the continuation of modern civilization -- and we rejected it. We preferred a fairy tale some jew had made up along the way and imported from Palestine two thousand years previously. We preferred our fantasy miracles, guardian angels, afterlives, and creationism. We threw away the Truth for the comfort of lies -- and by rejecting the truth, we planted the seeds of our own destruction, which are all bearing fruit today. The long suffering God of Nature has finally called our number. If we will not believe in Him, He will no longer believe in Us.

It could not be any clearer that evolution exists. Ever since we discovered how traits are passed down by genes, it becomes self-evident both how evolution occurred, and why it occurs. If people have beneficial genes, like the ability to drink milk as adults, they can survive longer and have more children. If their entire tribe comes to share these genes through interbreeding, they develop an enormous advantage over their neighbors, who are less numerous due to having a lower food supply. At this point the tribe can conquer and kill their neighbors, since their good nutrition makes them healthier, bigger, stronger, more numerous and longer lived. The land is then seized by the old tribe to produce more milk and thus more milk drinking tribesmen, or the women are seized and forced to have kids, thus introducing the milk-drinking gene into their community and raising the new children into the folds of the evolved core of mankind.

Furthermore, it is impossible to believe that our genome is mostly shared with all other life forms, and we are most related to those animals that have genes most similar to our own, and yet evolution did not occur. What did God do, make all life forms to look like they were related to common ancestors branching off millions to hundreds of millions of years ago, where DNA clocks are so reliable we can tell how old life forms are simply by the mutation rates inside our genes, but cleverly actually created them all from scratch at the same time, just to trick us? Is this God or Loki? I get upset how anyone can question evolution when the concept is so damn simple, and the process so clear in our everyday life. How do diseases grow resistant to our antibodies? Through magic? Or evolution? The ones who lacked resistance to our antibodies died, the ones who had them, survived and multiplied. This is evolution, survival of the fittest, in action. In a time frame of just a few days, microbes can go through millions of generations of evolution. The statement that we've 'never seen an example of evolution,' is brazenly false. The simple fact that AIDS used to be a monkey disease but has now mutated into a disease that infects and spreads between humans is an example of evolution. HIV used to be one thing, now it's another. What happened in between? A miracle? A curse from God? What is this Dark Ages shit? We are fine with relying on modern medicine to save our lives fighting off disease, but we refuse to believe the underlying principles that fuel modern medicine's effectiveness and insist they aren't true. What hypocrisy! At least the 'Christian Scientists' refuse to get vaccinated and let their children die to any disease they catch, refusing all medical care and insisting on the power of prayer.

What makes things worse, is people who object to Darwin's theory of evolution, go on to object to every single logical followup from the truth of evolution. "Evolution isn't true, therefore eugenics is also false." "Evolution isn't true, therefore there's no such thing as ethnic genetic interests." "Evolution isn't true, therefore all races are equal." "Evolution isn't true, therefore there is no long term impact on mankind no matter what policy governments pursue." On and on, we hear about how we must reject evolution because it leads to logical conclusions like eugenics, hatred of unrelated minorities, expansionism, homophobia, anti-feminism etc. And yet, since evolution is most decidedly true, unimpeachably and unambiguously true, it follows that those very logical conclusions are also all completely true. People who reject evolution cut themselves off from their very own survival. If it's necessary for survival to adopt the logical followups of evolution, obviously the people who object to them are doomed to extinction. (Like almost all species that have ever lived on earth). We don't have the luxury of denying darwinian logic. If anyone, anywhere, is following darwinian logic, and we aren't, they are gaining a decisive advantage over us in the gene pool. The Mexicans certainly don't mind 'expansionism.' They are quite happy to have high birthrates and export their excess population to foreign lands. They are quite happy to announce they will soon conquer the USA and march around our country waving their Mexican flags.

Jews have no objection to Eugenics. The jewish authored 10,000 Year Explosion shows how jews living in Europe lived in such a way that their IQ rose 15 points in just a few hundred years through the force of culling the unintelligent of each generation and refusing to out marry and thus lose their concentrated genetic experimentation. The entire advantage jews have over whites is a recent innovation of this past millennium, the longer we dawdle, the larger a lead jews will open up over and above us. It will eventually reach a point that there are not enough smart whites to handle the instruments of a sophisticated society -- medicine, law, physics, economics, ethics, mathematics, etc, and instead of relying on jews for 1/3 to 1/2 of our positions of wealth, power, and prestige, we will have to give them 100% of the slots. At which point, we will be their servants forever, unless they choose to replace us with more tractable and even more bovinely stupid muds. ((Which of course they've already chosen to do since the immigration act of 1965. Why would they want potential competitors for their slots in the food chain? Darwinianly speaking, jews are not in biological competition with Mexicans or blacks, since they have a different 'food supply' (in modern terms jobs that secure the money that secure food.) They are only in competition with whites. Replacing all whites with blacks and mexicans will therefore increase the niches open for smart jews to occupy and thus jewish population and power. The same is true of elite whites -- eliminating all their white middle class competition frees up more space for their descendants to thrive among intellectual occupations, while no amount of blacks or mexicans will interfere with their chance at getting a high-octane job the muds are too stupid to qualify for.))

Arabs certainly don't mind 'homophobia' or 'anti-feminism.' They hang their gays and imprison their women in body bags. The result? Even though they are dirt poor, they have higher reproduction rates and are conquering all their neighbors -- Russia, Africa, India, and Europe. There is nothing more viral or successful than the muslim genetic strategy, even though they're a bunch of illiterate primitive superstitious retards. Why? Because they have adopted darwinian strategies that we refuse to believe. All around the world we see the cultures that are thriving and growing being those christians/liberals object to most! It must be hilarious to these outsiders, to watch us protesting about how immoral they are, even as we commit worldwide suicide and will disappear entirely within the century. It must be a stupendous joke to them, that we continue to harass them about their lifestyle, while completely oblivious to the destructiveness of our own. There is not a single culture or civilization worse than the white race's on earth. We are the absolute dead bottom of the barrel. Why? Because we are the only people on earth who have rejected Darwinian evolution and the logical corollaries thereof -- social Darwinism, expansionism, eugenics, traditional family roles, territoriality, and childbirth.

This is all the more tragic because we have the most latent potential of all the races on earth. It's like watching a bridge player with 25 points worth of cards fail to make game. How is it possible? How can people blessed with the innate honesty, intelligence, and creativity of whites, the very inventors of the scientific method, be so anti-scientific, so anti-logic, that we of all people fail to survive? I assume it is some sort of double-edged sword, where the same love of discovery that Darwin represents, is also represented by the utter stupidity of turning women into men and children into an endangered species simply because it 'sounds cool.' In any event, any white who rejects darwinism, and rails against the evils of eugenics, expansionism, territoriality, ingroup marriage, ingroup support, homophobia, traditional family formation, and so on -- is an auto-immune disorder we must confront. Patrick Buchanen, with his stupid new article about evolution being a fraud and social darwinism being evil, is a major disappointment. How can these idiots who don't know the first thing about reality or Truth, lead us politically into a new dawn of civilization?

There are ways to support Evolution and social darwinism (the pushing for one's own genes to succeed and pass on more copies through societal macro-planning) that harm nobody, that the most squeamish among us could adopt. I've described all sorts of them on this blog: ban immigration, pay whites to have children, screen babies for genetic errors and abort them, invest in genetic engineering science, open up space as a new colony for whites to exclusively own entire planets full of billions of additional people, institute a 'one child rule' for people with IQ below 100, and a 'three child or more' rule for people with IQ above 120, and so on. There are ways to shrewdly calculate what is to our genetic advantage, and organize our society around it, without ever leaving our borders or killing anyone. We could deny jews their upper tier niches that conflict with our own aspirations, and let them compete with blacks and mexicans for janitor and construction work -- you bet your ass they would change their pro-immigration, pro-diversity, pro-affirmative action ways in an eyeblink. Jews who wanted to stay jews would thus be excluded from any positions of wealth or power, while those who wanted to maintain their wealth and power would have to cease being jews -- ie marry into the white race and give us their special genetic powerups at the fair exchange of being accepted into our society and homeland. We could allow women to work, wear whatever they want, and so on while still requiring they marry by age 20 and have 2 children by age 25 (while their gametes are still healthy). We could let gays be gay in the privacy of their homes while banning all gay pride and gay 'recruitment' practices among our youth and schools -- and that abomination which is gay marriage/parenting, which carries with it a 10 times higher gayness among the children they raise (adoptees, and thus the entire influence is environmental -- also proving much of homosexuality is voluntary and image driven.)

We are a smart and conscientious people. There is nothing we can't do if we set our minds to it. There is a way to be impeccably moral, incredibly compassionate, and darwinianly shrewd. There is a way to promote our survival through the hard cold facts that Nature presents us with, while not impinging on the most delicate sensitivity of our most tender hearts and lace crowd. Look at the Japanese. They don't go around slaughtering minorities in the streets daily, or encasing women in body bags and beating them every night at home. From all angles, they are a civilized and modern society. And they are also in no danger of dying out, their survival is darwinianly secure for the foreseeable future. Why can't we have what they have? Why can't we be as wise as they are?

So what are 'conservatives' doing when they denounce not just the 'excesses' of Nazism, racism, social darwinism, expansionism, eugenics, anti-feminism, homophobia, and the like, but the entire core and essence of them as well? What does it mean when a conservative comes out against evolution itself, or any evolutionary framework of thought when addressing any political question? When they reject the very concept of looking after the gene pool, trying to maximize their descendants, wanting to protect their kinfolk (their race) from genocidal race replament immigration, wanting women to marry and have kids as a societal necessity, securing our own food supply by keeping jobs available exclusively for ourselves in our own homelands, and so on? These conservatives, who might happen to share some of our views through a complete coincidence, are pure poison to the cause as a whole. The Cause is a social darwinist cause. It relies entirely on the theory of evolution, the evolutionary logic that applies to human politics, and the evolutionary frame of argument and reference when questioning how best to maximize societal potential and what laws are most needed for our continued success as a sub-species.

Certainly, life is about more than just continued survival. But it's also certain that if we don't survive, we lose all those 'higher things' as well. Furthermore, the only way we can ever improve our lives in the long term, is to improve our genes. Therefore, evolution is our sole and only tool left in our quiver to get 'higher' than we are today. Rejecting it means stagnation at the level of the status quo. For the happy clappy crowd that's fine with an afterlife utopia, I suppose that's fine. But for those interested in reality and Truth, the only life we ever get is our life on earth. Therefore, if we're ever going to inhabit a utopia, we must make it ourselves. We, unlike Christians, can't afford to go extinct. We can't afford to lose.

So Christians, evolution denialists, and all assorted 'moralizers' who wish to criticize any possible darwin-based society as fundamentally unsound (instead of poorly executed in the past) and forestall any possibility of a return to social darwinism in our future -- go to hell!

More Details and Benefits of the People's Budget:

There's so much to be said on this topic. After all, Charles Murray wrote an entire book on it, titled "The Plan." So if I spend a few posts on it, I won't be showing nearly as much love for the subject as it deserves. The truth is, the citizen's dividend is the only way out of the welfare state. It marries populism with libertarianism, and the result is happiness for the entire country. There is no better answer to the needs of our people than the citizen's dividend. Nor is there any better way to unfetter our productive classes from the endless taxes, regulations, corporate welfare, government interventions, health care mandates, affirmative action, and so on that so undercuts the productivity of our businesses. The citizen's dividend is unique in its ability to help everyone at once. Rather than hurting the rich to help the poor, or the poor to help the rich, or the middle class to help the rich and poor, the citizen's dividend, combined with the fair tax and ending affirmative action, is a net benefit to everyone.

How is this possible? How can it be so easy to improve everyone's lives at once? It's not magic. The truth is, there are certain parasitic institutions that serve no productive use that have been receiving massive amounts of taxpayer money. The only people they benefited were special interests, people who made big money out of government spending and taxation laws, or people whose jobs relied on the current federal budget. These people will lose all of the parasitic bonuses they were receiving from the status quo, but they never deserved those benefits in the first place. Even though it's technically true that the millions of vampires that benefit from the current system can complain the new system makes them suffer as a group, talk about a soft landing! I'm not putting any of them in jail, or out on the street to beg -- I'm just giving them the same deal I give every citizen of the USA: 12,000 a year, no strings attached, deposited straight into their bank accounts, to take care of whatever needs they have. To be spent how they see fit. This is the ultimate of soft landings for the people who have traditionally relied on wasteful government spending for their industries -- they have nothing to complain about, and much to be thankful for.

If they won't accept the new deal of being given the same government largesse as everyone else, that says a lot more about them, than it says about the Plan. You aren't any more deserving, special, or needy than anyone else. Your basic needs are met and in addition, if anyone suffers a misfortune that does make them more needy than the average bloke, I'm prepared to step in and help on that issue as well. ((With the Universal Misfortune Insurance program)). The age of corporate welfare and rewarding bogus business to bogus ends is over. The age of endless bureaucrats collecting fat paychecks for 'administering' the welfare industries is over. They can find a real job, or rely on the same citizen's dividend as the people they used to lord over receive.

Amazingly, studies have shown that for ever dollar in taxes collected, the government ends up with 50 cents of worthwhile money spent. Money that enters the federal government seems to disappear down a black hole, then come back out in a starved out form that never meets the goal it was designed for. With all the trillions of dollars spent on inner city blacks, you'd think they would all be in mansions by now. Instead they are as poor as ever. Where did all the money go? Essentially it all went to fraud. The government wasted it funding more bureaucrats than actual recipients. The money was never designed to aid the poor in the first place, it was designed to feather nice government bureaucrat jobs for paper pushers who feel good about themselves for all the worthy 'work' they do helping the poor.

You know what would really help the poor? Money! It's a miracle, I know, but the government has never thought about it. The idea that poor people could be given money, who can then purchase what they need as they see fit, is impermissible to them. They want to manage, control, and keep their snouts in the trough the whole way through. Helping the poor is simply a means to the true end, of a cushy job and a high self-esteem. And because I am simply giving people money, instead of giving them vouchers, food stamps, section 8 housing, HUD housing, health care, Christmas presents, school lunches, and lord knows what else -- I can deliver the full dollar of tax money received, instead of the wretched 50 cents that trickles down to the poor under the current system. Another enormous advantage to the citizen's dividend is it does not respond to people's behavior. For instance, if you are on drugs, you don't get any extra money from the citizen's dividend. But under our current welfare system, you would get free medical care that would cost far more than 12,000 a year to continuously treat these walking dead. Yet again we see compassion throwing good money after bad, something my system does not do. No one who leads even a halfway decent life falls through the safety net of the citizen's dividend + misfortune insurance programs. Those who still can't afford all their woes, are precisely the degenerates we should want flushed out of the gene pool in the first place. Some people can't be saved -- for everyone else, there's the citizen's dividend.

The same for single mothers. Currently, simply giving birth gives you access to massive amounts of money -- medicaid, temporary assistance for needy families, earned income tax credits, etc, etc. The state is literally encouraging the poorest people in the country to have as many out of wedlock kids as they can. This sort of moral hazard does not exist with the citizen's dividend. You are not rewarded for bad behavior. No matter how many problems you cause for yourself, you receive no more money than anyone else. This is a great check on the bad habits of the poor, who know full well where their bread is buttered and shape up pretty marvelously when incentives to bad behavior are dried up. This is why welfare rolls shrank so precipitously when the laws were changed in 1994. The citizen's dividend does not reward bad behavior, therefore people will be careful not to get into troubles the dividend cannot solve. People will live within their means again, as no government program exists to bail them out.

The poor will benefit by receiving a) more money than ever, in a liberating and respectful way that lets them spend it how they please, and receiving no more than anyone else -- thus being treated equally and not as the scum of the earth that the current welfare state makes people feel like. B) They will no longer be taken advantage of by perverse incentives that maximize illegitimate children, single motherhood, or other self-destructive behavior. Combined with a crackdown on crime, (made more legitimate by the fact that NO ONE in America has any need to do crime to make a living from -- the citizen's dividend ensures everyone's well being. Thus ALL criminals are doing it not because they have to, but simply because they want to. Such people do not deserve any more pity or excuses from the rest of society.) we could return the life of the poor to the respectable, safe, stable lives that used to be the norm, even in black homes, in the 1950's. Right now poor neighborhoods in America are no better off than poor neighborhoods in Nigeria. The crime, AIDS rates, illegitimate children, life expectancy, and so on could simply be transposed from point A to point B. This is ridiculous, given we're a hundred times richer than Nigeria. We can solve this problem, but the status quo never will. The People's Budget can!

Here's another great part about the People's Budget. We no longer have to choose between funding 'prisons or schools.' Suppose a guy does a crime. If it's some minor crime, we could charge him a fine and simply deduct it from his citizen's dividend until the fine is paid in full. Suppose it's a major crime and we throw him in jail for twenty years. Now we can seize his citizen's dividend and use it to defray the cost of jailing him. 1,000 a month probably can't pay the full costs of jailing someone, I'm guessing, but it must be a huge relief to the taxpayer anyway. There are currently 2.3 million people in prison. Each of them are no doubt adults eligible for the citizen's dividend. This means the government could have a ready source to pay for these prisoners' expenses: 28 billion dollars a year! Not bad, not bad at all. We can crack down on crime, remove all need for crime, and fund all the prisons necessary to house our criminals, all with the citizen's dividend.

Currently the middle class receives very little in government aid. They are given a mortgage tax deduction if they buy a house, but all this serves to do is artificially increase the price of housing. Furthermore, the taxes have to be collected from people one way or another, so they'll just raise the income tax or impose a 'carbon' tax on the middle class to offset the difference. Middle class people who own their own business, must face the dreaded estate tax and can't pass their land or business intact to their children. The middle class might see some social security funding, but its doubtful whether it would actually be above 12,000 a year, the steady money coming in from the citizen's dividend. Furthermore, since social security will become insolvent, it's obvious both it and medicare are going to face massive cuts under the current system. The sooner we cut the two impossible to fund social programs, the sooner we can reroute the money to a more productive citizen's dividend -- which people can invest in private markets, start a business with, start a family with, buy a health care plan for their old age, or anything they want. What would you prefer? Two bankrupt old-age programs that are unlikely to ever help you, or a citizen's dividend that we can afford, and is ready to be used immediately to improve the rest of your life? Though I think the citizen's dividend helps the poor and unemployed the most, the middle class also benefit greatly. What if you're a skilled worker in a turbulent job field? You make 100,000 a year on good years, but nothing at all in bad years. So currently, the income tax hits you extremely hard during the good years, because you're supposedly 'rich.' Then in the bad years, you don't qualify for any social assistance because you still have some savings in your bank. In the end, the government will never help you. But let's look at the People's Budget. Now, whether you made 100,000 dollars this year, or 0, you weren't taxed on any of it. The taxes will be fair and equal at the moment you purchase something, it won't punish you for your successful years. Furthermore, you received 12,000 dollars on the good year and the bad, you ALWAYS qualify for government aid. It's a sure thing. This means you can wait longer for a good job to come around, you can go back to college or receive retraining -- your options are greatly expanded. You are no longer in danger of losing your house because you can't make payments -- you'll no longer get in arguments with your wife about money and get a divorce just because one of you lost a job -- that 24,000 dollar dividend will take care of your worries. Is there anything better than peace of mind for the middle class? Unemployment, divorce, unpaid debts, a stroke of misfortune like a sudden disease -- this is what leads the middle class to bankrupty and misery. The dividend takes care of ALL of this. The middle class shouldn't have to go into debt, since they have a ready source of income to call upon. They shouldn't have unpayable medical bills, since the Universal Misfortune Insurance automatically kicks in for them. They shouldn't lose everything when they lose their job -- since their health care is no longer employer connected, they can still afford their mortgage payments, and so on. Do you see how many things a simple steady influx of money solves? Worst case scenario -- neither the husband or wife ever makes a dollar for the rest of their life -- they have to live on 24,000 a year plus misfortune insurance. What can that not pay for? A personal yacht?

Now for the rich. Needless to say, the rich are also receiving 12,000 a year in straight money. They will, however, be paying far more than that in sales taxes, so I won't ask for their gratitude in that matter. The rich will be paying a lot of money in taxes, but LESS than they used to! Combine that with the 12,000 'tax rebate' the dividend essentially becomes for them, and I don't see how they can complain. Not only is their tax burden lighter, there is a horde of added advantages caused by a better business environment. Imagine you're rich, and you want to buy clothes from China. Currently there's a quota preventing American businesses from doing that, because we're afraid it will cause unemployment among American textile workers. Suddenly unemployment in America is no longer an issue, because everyone's basic necessities are being provided for, whether they are employed or not. Now the quota is gone, free trade is allowed, and the business can go about trying to make a profit. Say you're a farmer, but your rivals have massive billion dollar handouts from the government in the form of various subsidies -- now you can enter the market from a fair competition where everyone receives the same thing from the government -- 12,000 a year -- no more, no less. Say your company was full of ridiculous morons who can't write a sentence of intelligible English or add 2 + 2, but you're deathly afraid of the equal employment opportunity laws and can't fire any of them -- now you can. The nincompoops will settle for their citizen's dividend fallback 'wage,' and you can go on with actually getting things done in the office with people who are driven and qualified for their positions.

The citizen's dividend solves the problem of unemployment and the universal misfortune insurance program solves the problem of health care. Your business will no longer have to fund unemployment benefits, pensions, health care, or anything but straight wages to your employees. Not only that, but you no longer have to hide behind various tax loopholes because your wages, your employees' wages, and your corporations' wages, are not taxed. You can pay people as much as you like, make as high profits as you like, and there are no punitive taxes for doing so. The only time the tax man will call upon you, is when you purchase something with all that money. So long as you only intend to make money, no one will get in your way. :).

Capital gains income will no longer be taxed. Like I said, all taxes are being abolished, replaced solely with a sales tax. So long as people want to continuously invest their money and never spend it, they won't lose a dime in taxes the entire time. How will that help businesses? Think about it! Is your company looking for some investment money? How much would it help you if the capital gains taxes were zero and people had a steady influx of cash they were looking to invest at a profit with? Now any business that simply needs capital to start its wonderful new idea, can rely upon the citizen's dividend and the new sales tax system, to be their allies and helpers. In the end, I am hoping these changes generate trillions of dollars in profit for our nation's GDP. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the actual result -- and who will be making all those extra trillions? The rich. The business owners. The people with big ideas. This is the most business friendly environment the USA has had at least since the 1800's. Please don't look down on it!

Now let's look at another group of Americans, the unemployed. Obviously children will be better off in a country that takes care of everyone high and low. However, they're pretty well covered already. How about the elderly? It's possible, I suppose, they are better off under the current plan. In any event, they are taken care of under this system as well. Currently, around 10% of the United States is unemployed. They are surviving off unemployment benefits, welfare, savings, or something. All of this is less thorough and less secure than a citizen's dividend. For these 10%, the citizen's dividend is a life saver. Using the same tax dollars that were inefficiently routed through all these various channels, I can get a much more massive and effective response for the unemployed through the dividend. The idea that the dividend will raise unemployment should be addressed here. Suppose the dividend raises unemployment -- what of it?

Right now in America today, people have little to no safety net if they go unemployed. They even lose their health insurance. Even so, 10% of people are looking for a job, but can't find any. This means we basically have more people than there are jobs to go around. People desperate to find a job, can't find a job. This is largely due to our insane immigration policies in the last 50 years. But putting that aside, it's obvious we now have a surplus of people looking for jobs, versus the productive work they can do. Paying people a citizen's dividend will help relax the ratio of people seeking work, versus jobs that are actually available. This will in turn raise wages as employer's compete with the dividend to get people off their asses and into the workforce -- but only in truly productive jobs that can afford to pay those higher wages. Imagine everyone in productive work being given a massive wage because employers are afraid you'll quit otherwise -- and meanwhile all the people employed in expensive, but ultimately fruitless make work, being fired and told to go home. Doesn't this benefit everyone? If you are earning less than 12,000 a year, and decide to quit and just live off your dividend, who exactly are you hurting? Does anyone think this economy's GDP is due to people working for 20,000 a year or less? No. I'd say not even 10% of the GDP is due to people working for such low wages. They are essentially treading water. Subsistence farmers of the industrial age. Almost all the money made in this economy, is made by people with serious salaries: 60,000 a year, or 100,000 a year, or 20 million a year. People with that sort of money, will not have increased unemployment due to the citizen's dividend, they will simply pocket the money and go on working for much more. Under the current system, we are suffering 10% unemployment, another 1% of people in jail (thus unable to work), plenty of children and retirees not in the workforce, and another segment of people so dispirited they are no longer looking for work. Another 10%? I don't know, maybe. Let's face it, true unemployment is probably something like 30, or 40% in America today. The idea that the citizen's dividend could make the situation worse is rather silly. It's already as bad as it can get, by following the status quo's plan! Combined with all the tax law changes, the increase of free trade, and the boom in consumer spending caused by people having money in their pocket (instead of thrown down bureaucratic black holes that turn every dollar into 50 cents), I actually expect it would increase employment.

There will be a lot of people unemployed when I cut the budget of the military. But these people have highly in demand skills with above average IQ. These people are being rerouted from productive work, into unproductive work -- basically being paid to blow up mud huts half a world away. These same people could become scientists, businessmen, teachers, engineers, accountants, electricians, or commercial jet airline pilots. Or policemen, or border patrol, or anything else. When the veterans returned from WW II, something like 10 million people were suddenly out of a job. The economy quickly reabsorbed them and the 1950's was a period of economic boom. The same will occur when we cut the military this time. Have no fears for them! Or for the unemployment rate. They are a rich asset to this nation and they will always do well, wherever their talents are invested.

So much for unemployment then. There are no bad side effects of the citizen's dividend. It is a pure improvement across the board, for everyone. I challenge anyone to show otherwise.

A People's Budget for the USA:

Even though I was concentrating on ways private businesses were getting money through largely nefarious means, this would also be a good time to address the insane federal budget that comes out of Washington D.C. every year robbing the productive economy and handing the money over to unproductive or evil ends.

Currently, if money were simply 100% taxed and then distributed evenly between everyone in the United States, everyone, every year, would be given around $46 thousand dollars each. A family of 4 would therefore have $184,000 to play around with every year. It's a staggering amount of wealth. The question we have to ask ourselves, is where is it all going? This kind of money could make everyone prosperous for life, if it were properly directed. Like I said in my last post, machines have generated unimaginable wealth in our economy -- the problem of production has been solved. The problem that remains is the problem of distribution. Somehow or other, deserving families receive little to nothing of this vast wealth, while undeserving elites or pointless government programs devour it all. Though it's easy to imagine we could increase productivity yet again by, say, improving computer technologies, inventing new synthetic materials, discovering new sources of energy production, curing various diseases or breeding better strains of wheat -- the fact remains that no matter how much wealth we produce, if the government is akin to North Korea's or Nigeria's, the people will still be impoverished and suffering. A good government is a necessary precondition to the overall well being of the people. Prosperity cannot be measured by GDP or per capita GDP. So long as the government misallocates funds and the rich are the primary (or sole) beneficiaries of all this extra money, we'll be no better off than before.

First let's look at where we are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png

First we see our tax revenues. The estimate is we raked in $2.7 trillion this year. My intention is to abolish every single one of these taxes and replace it with a national sales tax. As a side effect, this will also abolish all tax loopholes, deductions, credits, so on and so forth that so plagues our tax code. These various taxes have also discouraged businesses by making economic activity uneconomic, and uneconomic activity economic. In addition, simply complying with the tax codes costs billions due to how arcane and difficult it is. The estate tax is unfair and a case of double taxation. There's nothing more natural than giving your money, land, or business intact to your children. Punishing parents who save money to give to their children and grandchildren and rewarding them for spending it all during their own lifetime for their personal enjoyment makes no ethical sense. The sales tax will be a flat tax and it will be levied on all goods equally, there will be no further manipulation of the economy through taxation. I'll worry about how high the sales tax will have to be set, after I find out just how much money I will need. Sales taxes are superior in another way, in that they discourage consumption. Income taxes discourage production. Between the two, it's obvious that one is more beneficial to the economy. People have every incentive to make as much money as they can since there is no tax penalty for doing so, but they also have every incentive to spend their money wisely and sparingly since there is a tax penalty attached to every purchase they make.


Now let's go through this budget 'line by line,' as they say. Every president when coming into office promises to eliminate wasteful budget spending, but in the end the budget only increases every year instead. It's rather miraculous. However, I actually mean what I say. The cuts will be massive.

Social Security, 644 billion: Cut.

Medicare, 408 billion: Cut.

Medicaid + Schip, 224 billion: Cut.

Unemployment Benefits/Welfare/Other, 360 billion: Cut.

Interest on the National Debt, 260 billion: Though it would be nice to simply renege on all our debts, it would probably cause a financial crisis and cost more than the benefit. Therefore instead of reneging on all our debts, I will take action to completely pay off the federal debt, thus cutting 'interest on the debt' to zero within ten years. Therefore in terms of long term planning: Cut.

How's this for a good start? We've just saved $1.89 trillion dollars. We'll worry about what to do with the money later. First, let's tackle the discretionary spending budget:

US Department of Defense, 515.4 billion: Cut.

Global War on Terror, 145.2 Billion: Cut.

Health and Human Services, 70.4 billion: Cut.

Education, 59.2 billion: Cut.

Veteran's Affairs, 44.8 Billion: Translate into a one time payoff of all veterans, then cut. We won't have many soldiers left after this budget reform and therefore veteran's affairs will be obsolete anyway.

HUD, 38.5 billion: Cut.

State Department, 38.3 billion: Cut. Henceforth diplomacy will only be conducted by our elected officials, and we can assume most diplomacy will be a cheap matter of websites, emails, phone calls and the like. There is no need for a diplomatic corps in the 21st century. Foreign aid will be abolished, same with AIDS drugs to Africa.

Department of Homeland Security, 37.6 billion: Keep and expand. We must protect our borders and fight crime and terrorism occurring within our borders. These agencies, in one form or another, our vital to our national security.

Energy, 25 billion: Keep. The department of energy includes our stockpile of nuclear weapons. It will also be useful as an investor in new energy technology, a utilities provider, and so on.

Agriculture, 20.8 billion: Cut.

Justice Department, 20.3 billion: Keep. We need these agencies to enforce the law.

NASA, 17.6 billion: Keep and expand. Space has to be a top priority for any aspirational nation.

Treasury, 12.5 billion: Keep. Someone has to manage our budget, mint coins etc.
Transportation, 11.5 billion: Keep. Public transportation is often better suited than private transportation. A good place for government investment.

Interior, 10.6 billion: Keep. We must preserve our parks, fisheries, and the beauty of nature intact to our children.

Labor, 10.5 billion: Cut.

Social Security Administration, 8.4 billion: Cut.

EPA, 7.1 billion: Keep. Possibly combine it with the Interior. The environment is priceless.

National Science Foundation, 6.9 billion: Keep and expand. Investment into scientific research can revolutionize the world into a better place. Long term benefits of research are rarely funded by private businesses. This is an ideal place for government intervention.

Judicial Branch, 6.3 billion: Keep. We have to fund our court system after all.

Legislative Branch, 4.7 billion: Keep. Congress needs to eat and all.

US Army Corps of Engineers, 4.7 billion: Cut.

Executive Office of the President, .4 billion: Keep. President's got to eat and all.

Small Business Administration, .7 billion: Cut.

Other Agencies, 7.2 billion: Cut.

Off-budget Spending, 39 billion: Cut. I'm sick of secret organizations. In a democracy, the people must know exactly what their government is doing in their name, if they don't, elections are meaningless because we don't know who or what we are voting for.

Extra hundreds of billions for Iraq and Afghanistan war: Cut. America should pull out of all our wars, then disband our military and the DoD.

Excellent, I just took around 1.5 trillion dollars, and cut it down to 112 billion dollars. That saved us 1.4 trillion dollars.

1.89 trillion saved, plus 1.4 trillion saved = $3.29 trillion dollars in spending money. I can do whatever I want with this money without raising anyone's taxes. Conservatively, simply removing government intervention via a flat tax should increase the economy's efficiency by a large degree. Let's say the savings generate increased profits so now I have 4 trillion dollars to work with. So keeping tax levels the same (though changing how I taxed people) while cutting the budget down to 112 billion has given me 4 trillion dollars to work with each year.

What should be done with this extra money? I can think of a lot of worthy causes. For the first 3 years, however, it will do only one thing: Pay off the national debt. (Another cool idea would be to sell off all our military hardware to allied nations like Europe or Japan and use that as a means to generate revenue. Let them police the world if they want to do it, I'm through.)

So for three years or so, people will receive little to no government services, as I dig our way out of a debt I didn't create and didn't want. Don't blame me, blame the past 100 years of fiscal policy in the US. People will have to suck it up and bear it, or rely on their state and local agencies, or whatever.

Subsequently, our new budget options become much rosier. Since this article's only concern is the budget, let's say we keep the entire population of the USA as is, including the illegal immigrants currently here. So we have roughly 300 million people, and 4 trillion dollars. The result is 13,333 dollars per person. However, let's rule out any money being given to minors. Parents should handle their household's budget, after all, and we don't want to pay people to endlessly reproduce. 20% of the USA's population is under 14, so now we're down to 240 million people and up to 16,666 per person. Here's what I'll do with the money. As the federal government, I have no particular interest in funding education. I'll leave that up to local and state government, where most of the funding for education already exists. Let's put aside 1% of the 16,666 per person to fund a militia (basic training but leave people in the civilian workforce unless we are invaded upon which they will be called out), sumbarines (nuclear delivery vehicles par excellance) missles and the like. Or in other words, 1% of 4 trillion, which is 40 billion dollars. This will be our new military spending. Even with this tiny amount of funding, this would make our military the 6th largest on earth, just below Japan and just above Germany.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

As you can see, our governments have been lying to us about the need for such an enormous military to defend our country. Everyone else on earth manages to defend their countries just fine, without anywhere near that kind of money. The only real use for more money than I allocated is for aggressive wars, which is reflected by the fact that the US is the only country currently engaged in aggressive wars in the world.

So now we only have 16,500 per person. What else would I like to do for people?

Universal Misfortune Insurance: Let's say you're the victim of a natural disaster, a bank failure that steals your entire life savings, a health crisis unrelated to old age, an accident at work, a car wreck you didn't cause, or the like. Wouldn't it be nice if the government intervened? There's no way a private individual of modest means can save up enough money for these disasters. That is why the government should be charitable and distribute money as needed for problems like these. I'm not certain how much money this would cost, but I suspect it would be surprisingly little. Let's start the fund at 500 billion a year and see how it goes. The best part about this is it would put all the insurance companies out of business, saving people more money, probably, than the tax dollars required to fund the agency.

That leaves us with 3.46 trillion dollars left, or 14.4 thousand per adult. Let's set basic cost of living at 12,000 per person. With that, he can save for retirement, save for health care related to old age, pay rent or make a mortgage payment, open up a business, pay for college, pay for food, pay for entertainment, pay for the kids, or pay for a vacation. I don't care how it's spent. I just want a minimum standard of living for everyone in America, such that no one has to suffer in a country so overwhelmingly rich such as ours. I also want money that meets all our country's needs, that is not connected to various practices. For instance, having children doesn't net you any more money. Nor does giving to charity. Nor does running a church. Or being unemployed. Or being old. There is no way to game the system, no one is better off than anyone else. Every month, at the first of the month, 1,000 dollars will be delivered to your bank account. You can spend it, save it, or give it away. If you waste it and end up in dire straits, you will have to ask someone else's help. The government will not save you from yourself. If you spend it all and leave nothing for retirement, tough cookies. It was your choice to die young, it seems, or else work all the way until death. You could have saved the money if you had wanted. If you want to stick all of the money into the stock market every month you get it, and thus make even more money -- good luck. It's not our fault if you lose it all, (though strictly speaking it's impossible to lose it all, since 1,000 new dollars keeps being delivered to you every month) but it's our hope it will make a lot of sound business sense, and increase the wealth of our nation and our people yet again.

Charles Murray called it 'The Plan.' I'd rather call it the 'citizen's dividend.' Money that frees everyone from their basic necessities and gives them the tools to make choices about their lives. Do they want to spend ten years in pursuing a degree? That's now possible. Do they want to start a family early? Go ahead. Do they want to save massive amounts for old age, or just enjoy their youth? Either way now they can. Incidentally, this solves all problems caused by free trade or machinery caused unemployment and the regressive nature of the sales tax. Yes, sales taxes will take heavy dents out of the working class -- no, it won't matter. The 1,000 dollar a month check will easily cover the tax for the working class. If you just lost your job because it was more efficient to outsource it, no worries. Your check in the mail can't be outsourced. You earned that by being a member of our nation, fair and square.

Will this kind of money mean lots of people laze about unemployed forever? If so, what of it? We can afford it, and there's no point in people working for less than 12,000 a year anyway. Most such jobs are makework and should be abolished anyway. If people want more money than 12,000, which honestly is a pretty bare bones existence, and far below what most people expect to have as spending money for themselves today, they will have to work. Many people also enjoy working. Furthermore, this gives millions of women the chance to contribute financially to the family (with their citizen's dividend of 12,000) while staying at home and taking care of the kids, doing chores, talking with their friends and neighbors, and all the rest of that feminine world. This is an unprecedented opportunity to save the nuclear family and restore traditional gender roles for all those who pine for them. (And yes, many women would like to be housewives if they could afford it even today). Finally the community would be recognizing the worth of the mother and housewife, and provide them with a material compensation for their effort, such that they don't have to abandon their kids simply to feed them anymore.

Over time, I would hope that with this monthly check, and the abolishment of the estate tax, and regular investments into the stock market with this extra citizen's dividend windfall, the affluence of each generation would rise above the last. From there people could enjoy even better than a minimum standard of living. Poverty and want would have to be read about in our history books, because no one in their lives will have seen them. That first little bit of capital, if saved and transferred from generation to generation, could add up to a tremendous reserve of wealth. It would be nice to be giving our children fortunes, instead of massive national debts, for their inheritances.

Amazingly, that still leaves us with 570 billion dollars left over. Lets add 70 billion dollars to the 112 billion I left in the original budget, distributed in such a way to promote worthwhile government projects or make up for oversights I neglected when initially cutting everything.

As for the remaining 500 billion? Maybe we could invest it into some amazing science project, monument, or the like. But I think the simplest solution would be to give it back to the people. Whatever money is left over after the funding I've given, I'll just cut the tax rates that amount. Everyone already has everything they need.

In addition, I hope to increase business productivity by eliminating affirmative action. Studies have shown that affirmative action presents a 4% drag on the GDP every year (In other words, 560 billion dollars!). I will abolish it and let companies hire whomever they feel is qualified. Those who no longer get their dream job? Too bad. They still have 12,000 free dollars a year to meet their basic needs with. Merit is the sole reason people should have a job. Crying about how you 'need' the job no longer works, as the citizen's dividend covers all your needs. This will generate extra revenue for everyone and yet again provide a buffer for any miscalculations in my budget.

Free trade with everyone will also increase the general wealth of the country and make businesses happy. This is a People's Budget, but it is also far more pro-capitalist than any current US party is offering. Business will do better than ever before, they have nothing to complain about.

So there you have it. No proposal for 100% taxes on everyone, in fact, I propose to cut taxes overall. No need to get rid of any under performing minority -- we can afford all of them. No stripping of people's most treasured boondoggles -- the citizen's dividend makes up for all of them. No reneging on our national debt, no deficit spending, instead I'll pay all 11 trillion dollars back in 3 years. ((When does the current government intend to pay off their debts? Ever? They can't even stop the deficit.))

It just goes to show that by properly distributing our nation's money, we could all live happily. It just goes to show that all unhappiness in America, all financial difficulties, all poverty, is due to bad government. We could end poverty in America in ten years -- the current government never will. It also goes to show that even with the human capital we currently have, 60% white America, so many problems could be solved. With a 100% white America, it would become positively embarrassing. It would be the most blessed nation in history, and the envy of the entire world.

So can we get all the minorities out of our country? Who knows. Maybe we can't. But we could still introduce a citizen's dividend while cutting the military, social security, and medicare. We can still eliminate the income tax and replace it with a flat sales tax. It's a rare opportunity to offer a policy that truly does make EVERYONE better off at the end, a policy no one in their right mind would oppose. The People's Budget is one such opportunity. I hope America doesn't waste it.

The New Elites:

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/06/nearly-a-quarter-of-a-million-colonisers-given-british-passports-this-year/

The whole article is worth reading, but I suppose I can choose out the juiciest quotes:

"Nearly a quarter of a million colonisers - mainly from the Third World - will be given British passports before the end of this year, according to new figures."

"When Labour came to power in 1997, just 37,010 people were given citizenship. In contrast, last year the total was 129,310. This means approvals have rocketed by almost 500 percent under the current Government."

So if this year 250,000 are given citizenship, that would make it a 1,000% increase from 1997? Impressive.

"The top five native countries of those gaining citizenship in the past two years have been India, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia and Zimbabwe."

We all know what wonderful countries these are too. What could be better than 4 war-torn hellholes with an average IQ ranging from 60 to 80, who practice the most barbaric and totalitarian religion (Islam in case you didn't know) on earth? I can't wait for the representatives of these countries to 'enrich' us all with their culture that has done such great things for their homelands.

It's hilarious, really. If someone wanted to construct an immigration policy with any pretense of rationality, they could have at least taken immigrants from China, or the Philippines, or Russia. Instead they intentionally seek out the worst countries on earth and deliberately import a quarter of a million of them into the UK every year. Is there any possible reason for this other than unadulterated genocidal malice? I can think of another reason, unlimited hubris. I assume the UK wanted Iraqis, Somalis, Zimbabweans and Pakistanis precisely because they were the dregs of the earth -- look how great the UK is, the moment barbarians come in contact with our culture and laws, they will be transformed into pure gold, what do-gooders we are, how kind we are to the unfortunate, we must be the most moral people in the universe, etc, etc. Another reason could be that Chinese, Filipinos and the like simply aren't low class enough to be effective sources of cheap labor. In any event, the result is the same. The worst imaginable immigration policy is being pursued in the UK at a rate that is increasing geometrically, even in a time of complete environmental and economic collapse.

The BNP won a million votes this last election. Meanwhile, 250,000 new enrichers have been imported this year alone. This means that a full quarter of the strength of nationalism in Britain, has been offset by just THIS YEAR'S immigrants. Is this a winning strategy? Is this going to save us?

Of course, even if immigration were stopped tomorrow, it's already too late. Like America, "Non-indigenous births will soon account for more than half of all the babies born in Britain;" Immigration isn't stopping, it's doubling and redoubling. But that's not enough, the British are also being bred out of existence. Like usual, crushingly high taxes and insanely high wage competition are rendering white couples incapable of affording a decent middle class existence and thus depressing the white birth rate, even as welfare, affirmative action, and special benefits are given to non-whites. In the UK today, welfare will be given to polygamous households, supporting all a man's wives and children -- but only if he is a non-white foreigner. Polygamy, and the welfare money it brings in, is still illegal for native-born white British. It's cute how direct and explicit the elite agenda is, isn't it? From two different directions, immigration and government redistribution schemes, whites are being dispossessed of an island they inhabited during the ice ages.

Whites are given few options in this brave new world. They can try their luck by becoming a member of the elite ruling class themselves, but that requires a few traits most people lack: High intelligence, intense dedication to money, a complete willingness to lie and dissimulate, and a complete lack of morals that would inhibit one from profiting off the destruction of his own nation. It's a strange world. In the past, the nobility were praised for their higher than average honesty and integrity. The nobility were expected to look down on pecuniary interests and prefer abstract ideals like honor, faith, or patriotism. The nobility was supposed to protect and provide for their subjects, not use their position to annihilate them. Everything has been inverted -- and those who would have belonged to the old nobility, find themselves completely unsuited to membership in the new nobility. The new nobility belongs to nihilist psychopaths, I don't know how else to describe them. You cannot succeed in this day and age without first abandoning all values and second climbing over others in order to advance one's self. Take advertising for instance. These people know for a fact that the product they are selling isn't worth it, that no one in their right mind would buy it. So what do they do? They use incredibly sophisticated subliminal messages, throw in some half-naked women, use the powers of repetition and name recognition, and sooner or later the 'mark' is conned out of their money, and the business thrives. Can anyone even imagine what the use of most of the products offered for sale in this world are for, or who would want or need them at any point in their lives?

Or how about this? You're a member of the new elite, the nihilist psychopathic cabal of satan, and your business model is to give people loans you know they can't repay, and then charge them interest for the mistake you just begged them into. "No money down, buy now pay later!" "Adjustable mortgage rate, it begins at the low rate of 1% and then, magically, becomes 30% a few years from now, but you'll only be told about the 1% part." "Use this credit card, don't worry how you're going to pay for it a month from now when the bill comes in the mail. Pay the minimum payment -- we're happy to collect 30% interest on the stuff you don't pay for!" "Buy our car, it only costs 50.00 a month, for the next trillion months! Look how cheap that is, only 50 dollars!"

The only people smart enough to avoid all of these money traps are other elites. With a wink and a nod, they spread their mayhem of duplicitous loans to all and sundry. They never expected these people to repay the loan, all debt for consumption, rather than production, is nothing short of drug dealing. "The first sample of heroine is free, mister. We'll talk about the price of next month's fix later, just sign the dotted line that says "For sale, one soul." People have become slaves to debt, provoked through advertisements to live beyond their means, then charged twice as much as non-indebted people through usury for what they do own. Who would want to make money like this? And yet this is a large section of the economy, and a main source of the profits banks and businesses make. "Who cares? The saps agreed to the loan, they deserve what they get." Is that what you're thinking to yourself? Congratulations, you would fit well into the new nobility.

The old nobility had a different ethos. It read more like this: "Be strong, and protect the weak." No one deserves to be tricked out of their money just because they're dumb enough to fall for it. Why not say we should beat people out of their money because they're too weak to fight back? The rationale is the exact same -- it's despicable either way.

Reality has been manipulated in even more ways to squeeze money out of people. How do the rich make their money? Let's look at some more examples: First we teach people that children shouldn't look after their parents in their twilight years. Instead, we should hand the parents over to a soulless business that keeps them out of sight and out of mind. Presto! We have 16% of our economy, generated out of thin air. High quality medical care cannot prevent death from old age, it can only prolong the misery another few gasping years -- while robbing people blind of mega, mega bucks. What do the elderly care? Most of this money comes at government expense. Which means people's money is being taken from them by force of arms, and then thrown down a black hole of trying to cure old age. Meanwhile, the forces of greed are pocketing their winnings while posing as these wonderful miracle workers saving lives day in and day out. Hospitals are where people go to die, same with nursing homes and all the rest. The elites well positioned to gain from this radical break with the past (the age where parents died in their homes surrounded by their families) are the insurance men, the government bureacrats, the doctors, nurses, lawyers, and lord knows what.

How does the real estate agency make its money? How large a section of the economy is housing? It's quite simple -- all they had to do was convince the parents to kick out their children. When it became shameful to live with your parents, instead of the expected norm, the housing industry must have boomed like never before. Now everyone was taught they had to move away, open up a whole new housing loan, and work the next 40 years to pay it off -- just in time to watch their kids leave the house and open up their loans to pay off their houses. Then when the elderly homeowner kicks the can, we can assume estate taxes come in and inherit his house, am I right? If the chidren do get the house, inscrutably, the government makes them pay half of its worth to taxes, even though there is nothing more natural than a child inheriting his parent's domicile.

Traditionally, if a house was too small to contain both the parents and the children, new additions were built into the house. At most, children moved across the street and the entire neighborhood was occupied by relatives who could form a community in times of economic need or emotional support. That's all gone now. The real estate agency reversed everything. Now if you love your family and want to live with them, you are a loser and a disgrace. Only by leaving your family and never seeing them are you a 'winner.' A man who has 'made' his way in life. Today massive homes that once contained 10 people are being occupied by just 2, or even 1 person. (say the widow or divorcee.) Instead of the family making use of the real estate that's simply sitting there empty, they all go and buy their own homes. Why? Because it would be too shameful to live with your parents. It would be better to live in debt your entire life, than feel ashamed. Who creates that culture of shame? The elites, of course. A shame that never even existed in the past, invented out of full cloth to line their pockets with. Grandmothers, daughters, and grandchildren could all take joy in each other's presence in a large but happily occupied and buzzing family -- if only the culture allowed it.

Let's see how else the elites can ding us! School! School! School! School is the biggest ripoff on earth! For one thing, twice as much genuinely useful material could be taught during a school year than is actually taught, while all the useless junk could be cut and homework discarded entirely. School overheads continue to rise even though school performance hasn't risen -- so where is all that money going? Schools are not tracked by IQ, so many of the students are trapped in classes they're too incompetent to learn anything in -- while others are trapped in classes they can learn nothing from because they're already too far advanced over it. The teachers don't mind -- the more students in class, the more money that flows into their pockets. It would be better if everyone were out of school by around 14-16. The more intelligent students could be tracked into college, while the less intelligent could be tracked into a vocational school with an assured job at the end of the line. This isn't done. Why not? Because too many people make money, producing nothing but torture (for both the dumb and smart students) by keeping them in school.

Furthermore, why does college cost such outrageous sums? Tuitions have been rising across the board every year, even though the service is the exact same as in the past. There's a simple solution, even though it's outrageous -- the moment some people started taking on debts and thus expanding their ability to pay for college, colleges starting raising their prices. Then more students had to take on debts to pay their tuitions, so the colleges could raise their prices again, and so on! The vicious circle will continue until everyone has been given a loan so crushingly high that they can never pay it off in their lifetimes.

Why are college students willing to go endlessly into debt? Because they are a trapped market. There is a monopoly on employment qualification. The government will not let companies hire based on IQ tests, and thus everyone who wants a decent job must first get a college degree. The college process, in and of itself, does not in the least improve a person's employability or on the job productivity. In fact, the Bell Curve has shown that job productivity correlates closer to IQ than any certificate or any level of education, after both candidates are given a year to get used to their jobs. What we are seeing is the incredible power of the elites to fleece people of their money. Even though there is no real reason to go to college, everyone is forced to go to college. Then, making use of this monopoly, virtue-less elites then extend loans to students that keep them indebted for decades, then raise the price of college tuition (while providing no better services), with the knowledge that people will use the inflationary power of debt-produced money to pay for the service no matter how high it goes.

It's obvious that any nation that valued its people would provide free education, including college education, for anyone with the IQ to take advantage of it. They would also allow free and fair hiring practices for employers, that could discriminate using any means they pleased, and hire anyone they pleased, for any reason or no reason at all. Such a government would also actively find jobs for its people, by teaching people skills that are in demand while they are still children and teenagers, instead of useless knowledge no one wants or cares about that is loaded on them during today's school. In this way, college tuition prices could be kept low, if by no other means than by directly using price caps. Another way government provided college education can keep prices low, is by paying for it upfront, instead of an interest-bearing loan. This would at the very least starve out the leeches taking advantage of our young and innocent who are attempting to make something out of themselves.

The fact governments do not do these things, shows that the elite have no intention of helping people via education. It is simply another method to rob people of their wealth. For a useless piece of paper, we are made to pay a 100,000 dollars or more. For lack of a simple IQ test whose quality is even better as a predictor of job success. What saps we are!

How should I describe the job of lawyers? Is there any more parasitical a class? Perhaps the moneylenders! In any event, every year our laws multiply and become more elaborate and complex. Every year things that used to be settled by basic civility and virtue, are brought to court instead. Every time an issue is disputed in court, only one person wins -- the lawyer. How do lawyers make so much God damned money off the rest of us? It's simple -- tax laws, inheritance laws, divorce courts, lawsuits against businesses, insurance claims, contract disputes, and of course crime. For every criminal, there's a lawyer who made a buck defending, or prosecuting said criminal. Crime is big business for lawyers. So is divorce. So are taxes. So are children bickering over an inheritance. So are harassment lawsuits that sue companies for serving hot coffee. Basically, lawyers have an inverse desire to the entire rest of society. While everyone else hopes to minimize crime, divorce, absurd lawsuits, taxes, and the death of their parents, lawyers hope for all these things, and use their influence and money to promote all of them. Lawyers spend their entire lives lobbying and donating to politics to increase crime, divorce, death, taxes, and absurd harassment of business. A healthy society, a peaceful society, a free society, has no need of lawyers. Therefore lawyers would prefer to throw all our lives into chaos, and make their money thereby. Are you grasping how nihilistic and psychopathic a new elite must be? Are you grasping how all men of good conscience have long ago given up on making money in this age?

Imagine a world where divorce was rare to non-existent. Imagine a flat sales tax with absolutely no deductions or subsidies or anything to complicate the law. Imagine no estate tax, with people's wills being simple and inviolate. Imagine a populace consisting of people genetically unlikely to do crime, with laws that are extremely tough on what criminals remain. Imagine 99% of all lawsuits filed against companies being summarily thrown out by judges, and the losing lawyer's firm being charged for any lawsuit they lose against a business, for the remaining 1%. How rich would lawyers be? How many lawyers would there be? If our society were run properly, the new elites would be penniless.

What about insurance salesmen? In the past, there was no need for health insurance, because health care was cheap and affordable. Premiums have risen so high now, for inscrutable reasons since lifespan hasn't risen much at all since 1950, that no one could pay out of pocket anymore. The insurance company is simply a useless middleman. They take your money on the years you're healthy and didn't need health care -- then hire lawyers and refuse to pay you, when you are in fact sick and need the money. What scum they are! The entire insurance industry is simply taking advantage of people's misfortune. If they are unlucky, it's possible for an innocent person to accumulate medical bills beyond their imagination. People who never make a million dollars in their life, are smacked with million dollar health care bills. For situations like this, the deep pockets of the government could cover these unlucky innocents without anyone else even noticing, it would cost the rest of us mere pennies to cover these costs.

Instead, everyone is forced to buy health insurance, which may or may not come through, and meanwhile makes massive profits every year for doing nothing. They literally do nothing. The entire insurance agency exists solely because it has capital -- ie it can pay for expensive procedures individuals cannot afford. The government however has far more money, and thus could off-handedly provide this service for free. Why have an insurance industry that simply mimics this asset then? Why needlessly replicate institutions? We have a deep pocket we can go to -- the government -- so why have a single insurance company? Why have auto insurance? Why have life insurance? Why have fire insurance? People shouldn't have to pay insurance on anything. Why should people have to pay for services they don't even receive? Only insurance companies have managed to sell 'nothing' for thousands of dollars every year. What phenomenal salesmen they are, preying on nothing but our fear and insecurity! They don't even rebuild our houses, cure our sick, or fix our cars. All they do is take money, and then later give people money. No insurance man has done anything but move money around his whole life. Not a single life was improved by an insurance company!

Now, people will argue that insurance companies provide a valuable service, and that is they carefully calibrate insurance payments to people's behavior. Therefore, people are discouraged from taking risky behavior, because they know it will increase their insurance costs. This, however, is bullshit. What about people who are innately safe and healthy? Why must they pay insurance premiums for cars they never crash and bodies that never get sick? Furthermore, why couldn't the government simply legislate that people who cause their own problems, receive no benefits? Why ration people's security via insurance instead of legislation? Why use a needless middleman? Why not simply give people the money they need to pay for sensible life costs, and then if their risky behavior burns through that money, leave them high and dry? Any of these solutions are better than enriching insurance salesmen, whose specialty is making money while never paying it out -- the exact opposite of a business, who is expected to actually deliver a product to make money. Insurance companies make money by NOT delivering products. Only in this era, can such Orwellian schemes go unnoticed.

As for the entertainment industry! Their relentless pursuit of copyright laws and digital rights management is a scourge to the rest of us. The miracle of modern technology has allowed free distribution and replication of some of our most treasured possessions. Music, movies, art, books, everything can now be given free of charge through electronic copies and internet hubs -- it literally costs nothing to make a billion copies of a product, once the first one has been released. So do we all celebrate this new gift? Do poor people get to equally enjoy these free products that it hurts no one to provide? No, of course not. Instead they are taken to court and ordered to pay out 2 million pounds for 20 downloaded songs. Entertainers need to stop trying to make money by depriving people of free copies of electronic media. Again we are uniquely confronted with a business model that makes money by, get this, making free things cost money through force of arms, and then selling them back to us. Why not take away our air and sell it back to us? It makes as much sense as charging people for electronic copies of games and movies.

How should entertainers make their money? Well, how about the same model as newspapers and television? They could include advertisements in the products, and then be paid by the advertisers. If you don't like that, why not include special non-distributable goods for those willing to pay for their merchandise? Plenty of fans will buy the cd, video game, or book if it comes with some sexy additions or limited edition photos, etc. Why not let singers make their money off of live tours? That can't be replicated. Or toys that are based on the movies and games, that kids can buy in physical stores? I can think of a thousand ways to translate electronic media into profit through the sale of non-electronic media. Why not trust people and ask them for donations? Just use the honor code? Let people who have the money donate to their favorite artists? How is this any different from our museums and cathedrals? In the past, the nobility donated massive funds to artists, who then entertained the entire public free of charge. It was part of a nobility's duty to support culture and the arts. So how about it rich people? Stop hounding the internet choking off content, and simply pay for the art yourselves. Show some fucking noblesse oblige for a change.

Or we could just let the Government track how successful an internet product is doing, use tracking cookies on downloaded goods, or conduct surveys, or whatever -- and then give a direct subsidy to those companies whose electronic goods are most beloved by the people. This way all artists would still be rewarded according to their merit, and everyone could enjoy their works at the free price it really takes to distribute it.

As for the military, when is the last time we've been in a legitimate war? The military budget should be cut to bare bones. Nukes and militias, as far as I'm concerned, could form our entire national defense. Every cent above that is spent on immoral wars of aggression, so let's scrap it already. Everyone making money off of the military-industrial complex -- you aren't heroes, you're a bunch of butchers. All of your money is doused in the blood of innocents. Shame on you.

What about mailmen? Why are we still spending money delivering information by mail? Everything should be made electronic. This includes all official documents. Encryption is good enough for our bank accounts, so it's good enough for our other data.

We should forbid all campaign donations and give all candidates an equal, low fund to spread their message. Nothing is really needed outside of a web address, now is it? This would also end corruption and lobbying. Once politicians can no longer be bought by the rich, we could save billions every election cycle, and trillions in truly independent politicians not beholden to any special interest. Yet again we find endless amounts of money flowing into regions that don't deserve a dime.

Brand names? I have a simple answer for that too! Sumptuary laws could simply forbid ridiculous products, like 10,000 dollar handbags or shoes. People would no longer be able to compete for status by buying intentionally expensive, but otherwise useless junk. The fashion designers and advertisers who made a living off of this arms-race of stupidity can all go out onto the street for all I care. It's materialism like this, the love of display and opulence without any love of beauty or truth, that lets people buy the respect of others, instead of earn it through good character. To hell with the entire industry.

How else is money being diverted to unproductive, but amazingly profitable industries? How about subsidies that prop up failed industries? How about tariffs and trade restrictions? How about tax loopholes that encourage people to do ridiculous stuff because it makes money by decreasing your taxes, even though it makes no business sense? How about the endless corruption and insider trading we find in our stock markets? How about the needlessly expensive energy prices we pay because we are not allowed to build nuclear power plants? How about our refusal to use offshore drilling or tap any of the natural resource wealth in our nation? Because of this, consumers are paying top dollar to countries like Saudi Arabia. What possible sense does this make? What a wretched way to steal from the populace, who have to pay for energy to simply live, but are not allowed to produce it due to endless environmental laws, creating an artificial monopoly the consumer is trapped into purchasing. Has slavery really been banned? Or has it simply been expanded to near-universal levels, to the point that we are like fish who can't notice the ocean anymore?

Social security is a ponzi scheme and should be abandoned. Why do old people deserve more money than children? Give the money back to the taxpayer and let them use it to fund families of their own. People aren't immortal! We must let the elderly go their natural course, and tend to our babies. What death-oriented culture gives more money to its old than its youth? Do we want to be the last generation born??

When you add it all up, almost all money (in America at least) goes to unproductive, predatory, or unscrupulous elites. These elites, who form a tiny thin crust of a few percent, own as much as all the rest of us combined. They don't gain their money through any legitimate means, like farming, plumbing, computer programming or manufacturing. All of these businesses are at best held by the middle class, if not the working class. They do it through manipulating people's minds, and manipulating the law. Because they are A) more intelligent and B) psychopaths, this comes quite easily to them. It's not something just anyone can do. It takes a special cast of characters to rape and annihilate a nation in just a few decades for their own profit -- and according to the law of supply and demand, of course they emerge as the most in-demand salaried folks of all.

Only by changing the business environment and the rules of our economy, can we clean out the filth that has infested our upper class. If we begin to reward people for producing actual goods or services, for having children, for being moral, or for honesty -- what a revolution there would be! The intelligent would still have the money, but it would be the intelligent of bygone days. The ones people used to admire and aspire to emulate. And many of the satanic psychopaths who form the elite of today, if a different environment rewarded different behavior, would adopt that behavior instead. IE, if we reward lies, they'll lie. If making money means being honest and considerate to others -- they'll be honest and considerate. It's that easy. Money talks.

Whites can no longer afford to be lower class -- the importation of endless cheap labor low IQ thugs has stolen that lifestyle from them. It's too dangerous to live in a city surrounded by blacks and muslims. Lower class whites are suffering from habitat destruction, which means fewer people starting new families, which means extinction. Lower class whites, as a direct result of the elite's immigration policies, are having not only their jobs, but their security, living space, and lives stolen from them. Is there really any way for a white to be lower class in this new world? So that leaves joining the evil elites, dying out as a lower class, or fighting doggedly to stay in the middle class -- even if that means having fewer kids, never marrying or marrying late, having no kids, working 80 hours a week, having both spouses work and no one stay at home, etc, etc. Even if it means making your life a living hell from dawn to dusk, so long as you can stay in the middle class, you can preserve your job and safety from the imported Somalians -- and you can preserve your morality and honor by refusing to indulge in the same thieving business practices of the upper class. But why should anyone have to undergo that? Why should we grin and bear it? Why should we just endure these privations? People of the middle class used to need only one worker, the husband, who had a stable, secure job that wasn't going anywhere, and could support not only himself, but a wife and 4 children, much less 2 children, with everything they needed. They could do all of this on a 40 hour work week! As machines continue to generate massive amounts of wealth automatically, why is it that everyone is working hard, for less, and our fertility continues to decline as though we're on the brink of starvation? Where is the money going????? Where is the money that used to enrich the middle class, vanishing???? Where is the black hole sucking away at our souls -- robbing us of wives, children, weekends, sleep, peace of mind and now even our jobs?

You can choose to stay in the middle class and pay any price to keep your head above the water. Or you can choose to slay the dragon that has ruined our world -- the new elites. Instead of putting in endless effort to support a corrupt and evil system that enriches only corrupt and evil masters, why not put that effort into revolution? Revolution at the ballot box, revolution in the street, I don't care how. Just do it. For the sake of your children, for the sake of justice, for the sake of vengeance against these pond scum filth who have been engorging themselves, parasitically, upon us these last fifty years! Wouldn't that be so much more satisfying, than the slow and steady destruction of the status quo?

Debating the Holocaust

Guy White, as usual, is bashing Nazis and Holocaust Deniers. He spends around 9/10 of his articles attacking people to his right, instead of people to his left. Like usual, I have tried to balance his reporting with comments showing the exact opposite of what he claims. It's unlikely my comment will ever appear on his website, however, so I'll just post it here and people can judge the issue themselves. I think discrediting the Holocaust robs the single most effective anti-racist lie from the enemy's side. Those who support the Holocaust myth are essentially supporting the white race's genocide because whites will never defend themselves so long as they feel guilty of crimes like these. We have been brainwashed to believe that whites are uniquely evil in history and that jews are uniquely victimized. From that vantage point, it is impossible to ever argue that whites are A) good people or that jews are B) bad people. So long as the Holocaust myth is promulgated, whites will be helpless against the rising tide of color. We must defuse this pernicious lie and recover the purity and pride of the white race, the greatest blood libel ever told in history. The road to Vinland goes through Auschwitz:


First, Guy White's post: http://guywhite.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/auschwitz-pool-zyklon-b-and-brothel/

You know who’s lying based on who’s telling the half-truths. People rarely engage in outright lies because they themselves want to think they are being honest. When the truth completely won’t do, people will bring up something irrelevant. (”You stole my money”… “Oh yeah? Well, my grandmother was sick and your grandfather who was her neighbor didn’t help her.”)

On occasion, I get Holocaust denial emails. No, it’s not revisionism, it’s denial. Revisionism would be reviewing some facts, but the emails I get clearly try to prove that the Holocaust is a hoax. You can’t call something a hoax and refuse to admit that you are denying it.

So let’s review the claims:

1. Nazis were so nice that they operated a brothel in Auschwitz.

The claim implies that Hitler pimped Aryan women for the pleasure of Jewish men. The reality was the opposite. The SS and certain “special” inmates, none of whom were Jewish, were allowed to use the forced prostitutes. In fact, these women generally wound up forced to prostitute in the camps for the crime of having sexual relations with Jews in the first place.

Only 1% of Auschwitz inmates were allowed to patronize the brothels, but again, none of them Jewish.

When deniers talk about inmates visiting the brothel, they conveniently forget to mention which inmates were allowed to use it. By and large, these were Aryans who violated some Nazi law (like being a suspected Communist) and got sent to Auschwitz, where they were deemed to have repented and had become useful. It is impossible to believe that Hitler would order the abuse of Aryan women by Jewish men.


2. Auschwitz main camp had a swimming pool.

When deniers say “main camp”, they mean the first camp, which was built by the Polish military as an army base. It was, however, far smaller than the main camp. (And much nicer since it was originally meant to served the soldiers.)

Again, Jews were not allowed to use swimming pools not only in Auschwitz, but anywhere in Germany and German-occupied territories since at least 1938 and in many places since 1935.

The same applies to the Auschwitz movie theater, soccer, etc. Even outside of Auschwitz, Jews were forbidden from playing sports, riding bicycles, playing chess, reading newspapers, having pets, gardening, going to libraries, buying milk/eggs/meat, using the phone or radio, etc. Hitler didn’t forbid all of that everywhere only to build a swimming pool and a soccer field for the Jews. Some inmates were allowed to play, but again, the same rules applied as to the brothel: No Jews, useful native-Europeans only.

3. Jews were treated well.

Himmler:

Even Heinrich Himmler, the head of the dreaded SS and the concentration (extermination) camps, became ill, turned green and almost threw up while watching his men shoot civilians. Himmler decided there must be a more “humane” way of killing. Himmler was not concerned for the victims, helpless Jews, but the mental state of the Nazi soldier.


http://hnn.us/articles/14566.html

And General Eisenhower:

The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they [there] were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said that he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to “propaganda.”
^ Eisenhower, Dwight D., Dear General: Eisenhower’s Wartime Letters to Marshall, page 223, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999

4. Fred Leuchter proved that there were no functioning gas chambers.

Leuchter is a fraud and not just when it comes to the Holocaust. For years, he presented himself as an engineer, bidding for government contracts, for which he was prosecuted and convicted. In fact, he had a BA in History, and no training in engineering, biology, chemistry or toxicology.

Leuchter’s thick samples of brick would have greatly diluted the cyanide residue, which forms only an extremely fine layer on the walls and cannot penetrate.

Leuchter brought these samples back to Boston, where he presented them to Alpha Analytical Laboratories, a chemical laboratory, for testing. The lab manager stated that cyanide would have formed an extremely fine layer on the walls, to the depth of one-tenth of a human hair. Leuchter had taken samples of indeterminate thickness (he is seen on film hammering at the bricks with a rock hammer).

The entire sample was pulverized, thus severely diluting the cyanide-containing layer of each sample with an indeterminate amount of brick, varying for each sample. Lab manager later offered the analogy that the tests were like “analyzing paint on a wall by analyzing the timber that’s behind it.

5. Who else examined the gas chambers for poison?

Using proper scientific techniques (you know, the stuff you learn in school if you major in anything but History), Polish scientists found that the evidence points to the existence of cyanide.

6. But there wasn’t enough cyanide in Zyklon B to kill humans, only insects.

“Both toxicological study and practical experience demonstrate that it takes a much higher concentration of cyanide (16,000 parts per million) to kill insects than to kill humans (300 PPM), as well as an exposure time of many hours rather than only minutes.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter

Additionally, we are talking about an enclosed environment filled with people and with no air coming in. I suggest you try standing in your closet for half an hour while a toxic gas is being pumped into it.

And in any event, the amount of cyanide wasn’t small as Leuchter claimed:

tests conducted on ventilation grates immediately after the end of the war showed substantial amounts of cyanide. The chambers were demolished by the Nazis when they abandoned Auschwitz, and the facilities Leuchter examined were, in fact, partially reconstructed. Leuchter was unaware that part of the camp and chambers were reconstructed, so he had no way of knowing if the bricks he was scraping were actually part of the original gas chamber.


7. Diesel fumes used at Treblinka couldn’t kill.

Diesel fumes can’t kill: In a closed chamber, of course diesel fumes will kill. There was actually a study on this, and its results are reported in “The Toxicity of Fumes from a diesel Engine Under Four Different Running Conditions”, by Pattle et al., British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1957, Vol 14, p. 47-55. These researchers ran a few experiments in which various animals were exposed to diesel fumes, and studied the results… In all cases, the animals died… Even in cases where the CO output was low, the animals still died from other toxic components – mainly irritants and nitrogen dioxide.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/holocaust/usa/leuchter/part02/

8. What happened to the ashes of all those millions?

A person leaves just a small box of ashes. You can put the ashes of tens of thousands on one truck. Auschwitz ashes were dumped into the Vistula river.


9. Nazi confessions were coerced. Why would someone admit to a crime?

This is a standard defense against all confessions. In fact, criminals regularly confess to the police, and when not in custody, often brag about their crimes. This ranges from young men bragging about driving home the night before while being drunk/high to Lemrick Nelson bragging at his school that he committed the Crown Heights murder.

People usually want to explain their actions when arrested. Their explanation, however, is also a crime. (I didn’t rape the 12-year-old, she agreed to have sex… I murdered civilians but only because I was taking orders.)

In many cases, they just admit to it. Charles Cullen, for ex., admitted to killing 45 people. See the list of mass murdered here. Many confessed. Should we just disregard it?

Let’s also remember that the Nazis confessed to Americans. While neo-Nazis want to pretend that this country is worse than the Third Reich, it isn’t. This is a very humane country. If you confess to mass murder, child molestation or a similar horrific crime, guess what, you did it, so just shut up. No, you weren’t tortured. At most, you fell for the good/bad cop routine, but if you weren’t guilty, you wouldn’t have admitted to it.

I haven’t seen any pictures of the Nazis looking like they had their legs broken prior to their confessions. The neo-Nazis believe that torture happened because that’s the only explanation they can come up with.

10. There were just as many Jews after the Holocaust as before.

Missing Jews according to an Anglo-American commission:

Numbers of missing Jews (post-war minus pre-war):

Germany – 195,000
Austria – 53,000
Czechoslovakia – 255,000
Denmark – 1,500
France – 140,000
Belgium – 57,000
Luxemburg – 3,000
Norway – 1,000
Holland – 120,000
Italy – 20,000
Jugoslavia – 64,000
Greece – 64,000
Bulgaria – 5,000
Rumania – 530,000
Hungary – 200,000
Poland – 3,271,000
USSR – 1,050,000

Less dispersed refugees (308,000)

Total number of Jews that were exterminated = 5,721,500

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/holocaust/usa/leuchter/part02/

11. Jews are lying to defame Germans.

Germany was the Jews’ best friend before Hitler and after. In return, the Jews called themselves Ashkenazis, meaning Germans. They spoke a dialect of German (Yiddish). They still think schnitzel is traditional Jewish food. They have German names like Goldman, and even Berlin and Deutsch.

If Jews were to pick someone to defame, it might be France (Dreyfus Affair), Spain (Inquisition), Soviet Union (anti-Jewish purges in the 1930s and then again in the early 1950s) or better yet, the Arabs, considering their plans to establish the Jewish state in the Middle East.

12. Israel benefited from Holocaust claims.

West Germany did help Israel by giving it money, military and fake documents for Israeli spies. When this became known, most Israelis, left and right, strongly opposed any dealings with Germany.

Additionally, the claim was based not as reparation for the murder of Jews, but having to resettle them in Israel. Using this logic, the more Jews settled in Israel, the more money the Jewish state would get.

Thus, it was in Israel’s best interest to claim that more Jews survived and demand money for resettling them in Israel. It was, therefore, in Israel’s best interest to claim that fewer Jews died.


13. Germany was forced to help Israel because of the Holocaust lie.

Maybe, but what explains Germany helping the Jews prior to Hitler? What explains that East Germany was anti-Israel if Holocaust automatically means support for Israel?

Other Western countries also helped Israel: US being the most prominent example, but also France in the early days, as well as smaller countries like Australia, Denmark and (in the early days) Czechoslovakia.

Considering that West Germany wanted to prove its use to the Western bloc because it was on the front lines against communism and was the main beneficiary of NATO agreements, it might have wanted to show support a Western outpost in the Middle East as a sign that it’s not just using the Western bloc for its own benefit. Likewise, East Germany wanted to prove its worth to the Communist Bloc and, therefore, became the most anti-Israel country in Europe.

In any event, Germany was far too powerful to just submit to a Jewish state with half a million inhabitants.

14. Israel was established as a result of the Holocaust, which is why the lie was invented.

The League of Nations already voted to establish a Jewish state prior to Hitler coming to power. The Olympic Committee and World Federation of Soccer admitted Israel prior to Hitler. Jewish paramilitary and intelligence service in Israel was established prior to Hitler. The Belfour Declaration was issued prior to Hitler.

Zionism was almost 40 years old prior to Hitler. The Holocaust was used as yet another reason, but Israel was well on its way to getting independence when Hitler came to power in Germany.

15. The Holocaust is Soviet lie.

Holocaust was hidden from public view in the Communist bloc. See, for example, this censored story about Babi Yar.

The Black Book, which documented the Holocaust (by Russian military journalists), was suppressed and then destroyed.

There was no Holocaust education in Eastern Europe. The only East Europeans who knew about it were those who actually saw it.

Most importantly, Moscow actually forbade East Germany from paying any reparations to the Jews or even acknowledging their concerns about the Holocaust.

Post-WWII, the Soviet Union was also very hostile to Zionism, Israel and even Russian Jews, as evidenced by the Doctor’s Plot, the Night of Murdered Poets, Show Trials of the Jewish anti-Fascist Committee, and Stalin’s desire to deport the Jews right before he died.

Conspiracy theories about the Soviet Union being run by Jews even after the 1920s are false, and all research suggests that Soviet Russia was not sympathetic to Jews, in general, and Holocaust victims, in particular.

16. The Western allies wanted to put the screws on the poor Germans.

Unlikely. As soon as WWII was over, the Cold War began and Germany was the most important country in the conflict. Certainly, Germany was far more important than Israel.

Many remember the “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech by JFK and “Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down this Wall” by Ronald Reagan.

Western countries airlifted supplies into West Berlin. They could’ve abandoned West Germans to live no better than East Germans, but didn’t because Germany was vital to Western interests.

Furthermore, while NATO was meant to defend Western Europe in general, certainly Germany was in more danger and was a more immediate concern than Ireland or Portugal.

17. How do we know the exact number of dead Jews?

We don’t. The proper estimates say 5-7 million, with 6 million as the middle number. This includes those who died as a result of WWII (as soldiers or in bombing raids), not just the Holocaust. Legitimate scientists constantly engage in revisionism of those numbers and various other aspects of the Holocaust, just as people do with all wars, revolutions and major natural disasters.

18. Many people died during WWII, that doesn’t mean that they were targeted.

This is where it’s good to define the term “many”. In Poland, 6% of Catholics died and 90% of Jews. Very few people died in the Netherlands, but 75% of the Jews did. Sounds like targeting to me.

19. But others also died in concentration camps.

No doubt about that. Three million Soviet POWs being the most prominent example. That millions of others also died in concentration camps actually proves that these weren’t some vacation homes with swimming pools and brothels. But like I just said, there’s a difference between losing 6% and 90%.

20. So how come deniers believe what they believe?

I haven’t met any deniers who don’t have an obsession with Jews. They read their own stories on each other’s blogs and believe that all the information that doesn’t begin with the idea that there’s an all-encompassing Jewish conspiracy must be the product of the very Jewish conspiracy that they are afraid of.

They take partial facts (Auschwitz had a pool!) and don’t mention the rest of the information (Jews weren’t allowed to use it).

They cite “studies” by people with no expertise in the field, but consider them reliable (and beyond any criticism) only because they drew the conclusions they want.

There’s an answer to all denial claims which can be found with a simple google search.

But the deniers want proof that is so far beyond a reasonable doubt that it’s just disingenuous. It reminds me of Dave Schappell’s bit that the only way he’d ever find O.J. guilty of killing a white woman is if he was caught on video tape killing her, while holding 3 forms of ID and with Schappell’s grandmother standing right there stating that this is, in fact, O.J. Simpson.

For ex., this is a picture of bodies being burned in Auschwitz right in front of everyone after one of the crematoria was destroyed. We can’t tell from a picture how these people died, of course, nor if they were the only ones dead.

But it happens to be right after a crematorium was blown up. And it does show a large number of dead. We can use it together with German documents on their mass murder. But those documents are forgeries, according to the deniers. (They don’t mention why they believe these documents are forged other than “Jews are evil and sneaky”… but what about the evidence itself?)

There’s eye-witness testimony, but all Jews (and Russian POWs, Gypsies, Poles, etc) are liars.

There’re confessions, but those were beaten out of the poor saintly Nazis.

There are gas chambers and crematoria, but those are fakes built after the war.

There are locals, some of whom worked in the camps, but they know nothing.

Any time you want to presume that any possible explanation is the actual explanation in your case, you can always think of something.

No, you didn’t rape the 5-year-old, she just accidentally found your condom and put your semen into herself. The vaginal injuries? That’s caused by her falling while her legs were spread. Her description of sex at such an early age? She accidentally once briefly watched pornography. She said you did it? Children don’t understand anything. See, if you want to come up with an explanation and be willfully blind to reality, you can always do so, especially when your only sources of information are blogs by people who think just like you.

*********************************************************************

Next, my step by step reply:


1-2: I'm fairly certain we have records of jewish soccer leagues playing on those fields. In any event, it's trivial.

3: As for the Himmler quote: If that document is accurate, it doesn't matter as the quote says "shooting" innocent civilians, not mass gassings.

As for the Eisenhower quote: He's discussing Orff/Buchenwald, a concentration camp where no one was gassed, the people who died there were natural deaths due to disease. The allies supposedly didn't liberate a single death camp or any camp that used poison gas according to the court historians. Therefore no proof or accounts provided by the allies says anything about the Holocaust. All the death camps that used poison gas, supposedly, were in Soviet liberated zones.

4: Leuchter is only one of many people who took samples and did studies. You single him out and then pretend no other evidence exists pointing towards the same result -- no serious cyanide residues remain. Why not look at the followup reports by Rudolf and others?

5: The polish study actually backs up the Holocaust 'Denialist' position. They achieved the same low cyanide residues, then spun the data to reach the conclusion they desired. Supposedly, most of the cyanide has somehow 'worn away' in the last few decades so the tiny amount of cyanide remaining is proof of massive cyanide residues that 'must have been there' in the past. No explanation for why these high cyanide residues at the disinfestation areas have not suffered similar 'erosion' or 'wearing away.' Hell, some disinfestation buildings are still bright blue on the exterior, facing the maximum amount of erosion, with the stains that don't exist at the inside of the supposed 'gas chamber.' The Polish spin on their data therefore does not hold water.

6: No responsible Holocaust Revisionist says Cyanide can't kill humans. The question is whether it was used to kill humans, or simply as a disinfestation device.

7: The question isn't whether Diesel fumes 'can' kill. It's of course technically possible. The question is why would the Germans resort to the least lethal engine possible, something that would take tremendous effort to pull off, when both normal gasoline engines and wood-gas engines are tremendously more effective? German efficiency would never resort to diesel engines, it's ridiculous if you study the issue for ten seconds. By the way, since everyone who died in the 'death' camps outside of Aushwitz supposedly died due to diesel engine gassing, this is the most important question in the entire Holocaust and the fate of millions of jews (dead or alive) hangs on this question. Disproving the diesel engine myth = disproving the entire Holocaust, essentially.

8: The more important question is : what happened to the teeth? Can teeth be turned to ash? And more importantly, what happened to the mass graves? According to the eye-witnesses, the jews were first buried in mass graves, and then only later dug up and burnt to ash. ((In ways that defy the laws of physics, like dousing a body in gasoline and setting it on fire, and then assuming the body will subsequently turn to ash rather than get a little crispy around the edges)). The mass graves will still exist, in the form of disturbed soil layers that do not match the dirt around it. Anyone who wanted could check for these mass graves by digging them up, or using various sound equipment. If you want to prove the Holocaust, all you have to do is find the mass graves that temporarily stored the millions of jews at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka. Why haven't these graves been found? Why haven't they even been investigated?

9: Germans were tortured into confessing, even according to the interrogators themselves: http://www.rense.com/general68/hoss.htm Your objections are not scientific and besides the point -- "I don't see signs of torture so there clearly wasn't any." ???? By the way, Hoess confessed to crimes no one even believes anymore. For instance, Hoess says he gassed 2.5 million jews at Auschwitz, however, the court historians have already revised that count down to a million. The established history of the Holocaust already rejects Hoess' testimony as a bunch of baloney. Why would Hoess confess to a lie unless he were tortured? For the fun of it?

10: Why narrow in on that census? How is that the final word, instead of some other census that establishes hardly any jews died in the Holocaust?

http://christianparty.net/holocaust.htm

"American Jewish Committee Bureau of the Synagogue Council, 1939 -- 15,600,000

World Almanac, 1940, pg. 129: World Jewish Population -- 15,319,359

World Almanac, 1941, pg. 510: World Jewish Population -- 15,748,091

World Almanac, 1942, pg. 849: World Jewish Population -- 15,192,089 ("Jews include Jews by race not necessarily by religion")

World Almanac USA, 1947, pg. 748: World Jewish Population -- 15,690,000

World Almanac, 1949, pg. 289: World Jewish Population -- 15,713,638"

11: Jews were lying to defame anti-semites, racists, and the white race in general. You say they would have no motivation to prevent another Hitler rising to power, but obviously that's false. If racist anti-semite whites ever came to power, the jewish hegemony in banks, media, colleges etc would all come crashing down. There's an obvious motive to discredit the racist anti-semitic stance of Hitler's Germany by inventing horror stories about it.

12: Of course Israel benefited from the Holocaust. It's self-evident the sympathy and reparations (that are still being paid out today, hardly a one-time moving cost now was it?) helped establish the Israeli state and gain Western support it in all its wars against the Arabs.

13: Hitler supported Israel for the same reason all sensible people support Israel -- the more jews that are in Israel, the less are in Germany! There is no conflict between anti-semitism and zionism. They actually fit quite well together, both want all the jews out of the diaspora.

14: The Holocaust was invented to prevent anti-semitism and increase white guilt and hatred of whites, not for Israel's sake. (Though Israel benefited.) This is mainly for the benefit of Diaspora jews who would still suffer from a rise in anti-semitism among whites, not for Israel's sake. Isn't this obvious?

15: Nothing you point out conflicts with the idea that the soviets found the Holcoaust to be useful wartime propaganda. The fact that they'd bury the information later doesn't change the fact that they heavily promoted it earlier. Furthermore, jews are partially if not largely responsible for the Holodomor, which occurred in 1932-1933. http://desip.igc.org/HolocaustAndHolodomor.html

"Some Ukrainian accounts, and that of Muggeridge, who covered the holodomor for the Manchester Guardian, take the trouble to say that this mass starvation was imposed largely by Jews. Lazar M. Kaganovich is often identified as an architect of the policy. A photograph in Montefiore, Red Tsar, above, shows him personally searching a farm for concealed food."

Jews continued to terrorize Russia and rule the Eastern European occupied states well into the 1950's.

16: It's documented in books like After the Reich (responsible historians, hardly holocaust denial literature) that the Allies were responsible for the death of maybe a million Germans AFTER WWII ended due to insanely harsh prison camps. The Allies were merciless towards Germany during and after the war and no speech by JFK can alter this historical fact. The Allies also promoted the Holocaust as wartime propaganda and the Holocaust is a victim to the truism: "Only the victors write the history books." It was all done to make Germans look evil and the Allies look heroic, there was never any interest in truth or fairness.

17: Who defines legitimate? Holocaust Revisionists use honest facts to arrive at a 'Holocaust' of 300,000 to 1 million jews who died in the camps. These facts include censuses, the death count records the Nazis kept of their own camps, the technical feasibility of the crematorium, etc. Counting jews who died during the war as part of a genocide of jewish civilians is ridiculous, why not say the Holocaust includes 30 million dead Russians as well, if wartime losses count? But even lumping in every last jew you could find who died of any cause, it will never reach 5 million.

18: No comment, except I'm sure these facts are fabricated given they conflict with what we actually know about the Holocaust.

19: Same as above, I don't believe that 90% number.

20: There are zero, Zero documents of any nazi mass murdering of jews. The Gerstein report is a fraud. Most court historians have already admitted there is no documentation and no physical evidence left of the Holocaust -- they say it has all been covered up or destroyed. The simpler explanation is it never existed in the first place.

The 'gas chamber' at Auschwitz is admitted by the head of the Auschwitz museum to be a 'reconstruction.' He admitted it on tape to David Cole. You can watch it yourself. http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/

What is more likely? Six million jews were diabolically murdered by diesel engines, the worst possible engine for the job, and magical zyklone B gas that leaves no residues when it kills humans but leaves massive residues when used as a lice killing agent, then buried in magical pits that we have never discovered since, then exhumed and burnt with magical fuel that destroyed millions of bodies in the open air to complete ash including the teeth with just some gasoline and a match ((crematoria exist for a reason, it's because bodies don't naturally burn to ash in the open air)) -- or that a million jews died due to natural causes inside German concentration camps during a particularly brutal war? The court historians already admit NO jews were gassed in any camp liberated by the allies, every single jew who died in the Allied liberated zone died due to natural causes. All gassed jews were supposedly in Soviet-liberated zones. Is this just some massive coincidence? If the Soviets lied about the camps they liberated, the entire Holocaust disappears. On this slender thread hangs the ENTIRE Holocaust.

You don't believe lots of people would lie about the Holocaust, but you're willing to believe everyone is lying about the non-existence of racial gaps in IQ. Since it's obviously possible for a giant conspiracy of people to lie about racial IQ gaps, why not the Holocaust, or anything else that supports the PC agenda? In the end it isn't the number of people who believe something that makes something true. No matter how many 'legitimate' psychometricians discover there are no gaps in racial IQ, or how widespread the belief in egalitarianism becomes, the truth will remain that IQ is genetic and varies between the races. The same is true in any other field.

Is the Nuclear Family Dead?

When asking this question, people must understand that cultural institutions are responsive to economic and practical realities, just like the Marxists said. If something no longer makes economic sense, it is quickly retired and made obsolescent in the culture as well. There might be a 50 to 100 year drag on the cultural reformation, but inevitably it will take place.

Human sacrifice was widely practiced so long as people thought it increased rainfall and thus crop yields in their local communities. Once people realized the economy did not improve due to human sacrifice, the cultural tradition ended rather quickly as well. The same for slavery. So long as it made economic sense, people looked the other way. But when it was discovered slavery was less profitable than wage slavery, it was quickly dumped. Not just in the Confederacy, where a war was fought to end it. But worldwide, over a course of a century, including the peaceful retirement of field slavery in Brazil.

So long as something makes a profit, there will be an endless series of rationalizations given for its perpetuation. Once it stops making a profit, there will be fewer and fewer defenders of the cultural practice, until it is quietly phased out. It's obvious that people's moral scruples over slavery do not intrude into fields where it still makes economic sense -- like prostitution. Millions of slaves all over the world, many of them white, are being bought and sold as slaves and stripped of all freedoms by their handlers, and the police largely look the other way, and public outrage is always kept at a minimum. Occasionally these organized gangs will be arrested or some journalist expose will save a prostitute here or there, but it's obvious we could be more serious about ending slavery if we wanted to be. For instance, we could increase the penalty for human trafficking to the death penalty. We could devote more police resources to catching prostitutes and their pimps. We could deploy police on the streets where prostitutes attempt to solicit their business and lock them up, making it economically impossible for the business to be carried out. We could pass sanctions on well known hubs of human trafficking and boycott their entire nation's businesses until they cracked down on their slavers. If I were given complete dictatorial power and a mandate to end the enslavement of white prostitutes, I could do so within the year.

The reason these sorts of solutions aren't done, is too many people prefer the status quo. The government is paid bribes, or feels it's too costly to stop the gangs. The gangs profit, and the public, where as many as 30% of men hire a prostitute at some point in their lives, wants access to these women. Other women might support it as a financial backstop and a way to make money or avoid unemployment when times are rough. For the few innocent women told they were moving to a foreign country to become waitresses or some-such, then raped, drugged, and controlled for the next ten years in the most degrading lifestyle imaginable, no one could give a damn. The economics of prostitution are still too profitable to get morally outraged about the suffering of the innocents involved.

However, just you wait. Once 'robo-girl' has been invented, and men can satisfy their sexual desires freely without the use of a no doubt STD infected prostitute, the economics of prostitution will collapse. With the gangs making less money, they'll have less ability to bribe the police, and fewer women will be interested in selling themselves, since the money is so bad. All of a sudden, people will realize prostitution slavery is a crime against humanity and must be uprooted from the entire face of the earth, the women liberated and the gangs executed as a public example of barbarism's intolerability. Cynical? I don't think so. Too many such moral crusades occurred only after the economy already wanted to get rid of the institution, for me to think it would occur any differently this time.

This leads naturally into the bigger question, whence Marriage? Currently the west has a stratified model. Right now, the lower classes don't marry, or marry and then divorce regularly, in a constant fizz of mental drama. One can even guess they tend to enjoy the roller coaster of emotions, they indulge in it so often, with so many partners. For them, marriage means nothing, nor does the culture condemn them or even seek to alter their ways. For the upper class, however, marriage is still a permanent, for life promise that tends to succeed through thick and thin, giving a happy home for their children who are all of the same father. It's a rather strange double life that yields statistics like 'half of marriages end up in divorce.' What this really means, though, is something like this: '1/4 of upper class marriages end in divorce and 3/4 of lower class marriages end in divorce, to a grand total of 1/2 of marriages ending in divorce.'

What has caused this cultural split? Divorce was practically non-existent in any social class in the 1800's or before then. So what changed in the lower class? Are we to believe they suddenly became innately less moral than their ancestors? Nonsense. Everything happens for a reason.

Basically, marriage stopped making economic sense for the lower class. Single women with children are given lavish benefits, precisely because they are single mothers with children. You are required to not be married to receive these fat government pay checks. Whether it is direct welfare, or the earned income tax credit (which increases dramatically if you have children), or medicaid (free health care so long as you're a single mother with a child), or some sort of head start daycare program, it all adds up. One study just showed that in the UK, a single mother with a couple of children can make as much money working 16 hours a week, than a married couple with children working 116 hours a week. (http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/work-16-hours-a-week-get-487-what-am-i-they-work-116-hours-a-week-on-min-wage-to-get-the-same-who-are-they/)What kind of idiot would bother to marry in that case? When marriage stopped making economic sense, it was soon retired culturally in the lower classes as well. Behavior follows the money. Whatever airs people put on about morality, essentially all they care about is money, and they'll do what it takes to get it. Our most powerful God is our stomach, not that fussy guy with the 10 commandments. Our stomach divinely intervenes on our behavior every single day. God is a no-show no matter how long you pray for him.

It isn't just public benefits though. Even if all public benefits to unmarried mothers were cut (a salutary act to be sure), Marriage would still make little sense in today's world. Women are capable of making enough money for themselves and their children independent of any man's help. Since education is the largest single predictor of income, and women are better at passing through the education system, (most college goers are women, for instance, and women get higher grades throughout the school system.) women are now better situated to make money than men. The fact that they don't has more to do with their lifestyle choices than their opportunities. In fact, the entire economic system is biased against men, who have higher IQ's than women but perform poorly in the stifling atmosphere of makework-conformism-academia and thus always fail out. When given an actual problem and allowed to work on it in their own way, the men will always outperform their female counterparts, but this kind of merit based system was eliminated when IQ tests were banned for hiring practices and only education certificates allowed. A coup by women against men? Or by minorities against whites? Who can even tell the difference anymore, since they're always in on it together?

Given that women can make plenty of money on their own, why should they settle for any particular man just because he's a loyal provider anymore? Suppose a woman is comfortably wealthy, a teacher or a nurse or a middle manager or something. A man proposes to her who makes less money than her, saying he will always love and cherish her, and chip in with all he can to help pay for a house and home and kids. Whupdee do. Who wants to be loved and cherished by a loser? A girl only wants the love of a man far superior to herself, that's what thrills her and keeps her up at night, pulse racing. The love of ugly, poor, or stupid guys is a dime a dozen and will probably be reported as sexual harassment to the nearest cop. For such a woman, it would be far better to attempt to hook up with alpha males for one night stands or short relationships until she's pregnant with a 'real man's' child, then raise it up herself and pay for it out of her own pocket. Genetically speaking, it simply results in more impressive kids than any compromising can manage. It's a new type of polygamy, where the man doesn't even provide for all his 'wives.' They provide for themselves, and the man just goes on to the next willing besotted fangirl.

Of course, this is further complicated by the fact of child support. Since men have to pay child support whether they are married or not, women get no increased funding from being married to the father of their child, than not being married. It's all one to them if you live in the house or across the country, so long as the check appears on time. And if some rich man is foolish enough to marry a woman, she can make a handsome sum by divorcing him the first fight or moment of pique comes around, taking half of everything he owns with her. Divorce is more profitable than ever due to ancient outdated laws that assumed divorce was rare and child support rarely used as a replacement for fatherhood. The laws stay on the books due to bureaucratic momentum and no doubt feminist lobbying, and thus men more and more avoid marriage like the plague.

What's left of marriage among the lower classes can probably be seen as the tail end of a dying culture, some old holdouts who haven't realized time has passed them by. Maybe they are deeply religious, or were brought up properly by their parents, or truly love their spouse. Who knows, but like the institution of slavery, we can see even holdouts like Brazil giving in eventually. Their number is up. It would take an entirely different set of laws and economic realities before marriage was ever restored to the lower half of the population as a serious enterprise.

What's more curious then, is the fate of marriage among the upper class. Why do we see marriage succeeding here when it's so obviously disadvantageous among the lower class? Well, let's look at the reasons the lower class don't marry:

A) Welfare makes more money than married couples working -- This of course isn't true among the upper classes. They make far more money by working than going on welfare. Therefore all the public incentives to not marry do not apply to them, their salaries are too high. For them, marriage does not cost public benefits -- they wouldn't have qualified for them anyway.

B) A woman would do better to snag an alpha male for a short time than settle on a beta -- Of course this is rendered moot when the choice is 'an alpha male for a short time or an alpha male for life.' Women are quite happy to marry and settle down with a real prize of a man. A lifetime commitment from a genetically superior man full of wealth and prestige can't be beat, so why rock the boat by divorcing such a catch?

C) Child support and divorce provide lots of money -- But they don't need the money, they're rich already. Thus the side benefits of a father in the home, someone to share your happiness and sadness with, someone who can look after the kids and be there for you, all come to the fore. Yet again, rich people are 'priced out' of the benefits of child support. A woman who loses an alpha male's love and support is unlikely to be consoled by some lowly 1,000 dollar check in the mail or what have you.

The 'pull' factors of divorce are thus gone. Combine this with the 'push' factors that are lacking among the upper classes: There is unlikely to be any domestic violence among high IQ people, who can control their emotions. Likewise, there is unlikely to be any adultery. The partners will generally respect each other and their love will be more genuine, less lustful and more foresighted. They probably took a long time to get to know each other and haven't used lies to get into bed with their partner, and thus the foundation is more stable. All of these push factors that destabilize lower class relationships and make for great drama on the soap operas are thus missing.

Does this mean the upper class is totally immune to the breakup of the nuclear family? I don't think so. Obviously, divorce even for the upper class has soared since the 1800's. It's at an 'epidemic' level from the past's point of view, even though it looks rather spiffy compared to the lower classes of today. The problem is, even for the upper class, the same economic reality occurs: A woman can take of herself and her kids just fine now. If another man takes a woman's fancy, or her current husband somehow offends her, the woman is quite willing to pull the plug. Compare this to the past where a woman and her kids would simply die if left unsupported by her husband. The economic reality of the past kept marriages together, it really was a matter of life and death. Now, marriages are based on feelings, with no real drawback if they end. Sure, the woman might feel bad, but she will survive, and so will her kids. They'll grow up and reproduce themselves, so genetically there's no negative feedback for her decisions. My guess is anyone among the upper class with a bad personality, whether male or female, will eventually end up divorcing. People will have no patience for their partner and will not forgive their transgressions, because there's really no reason to do so anymore. Out of this maelstrom, only the most hardened granite core of married couples will survive. Rich people who get along fabulously with each other who believe in marriage and children as a noble goal -- will probably survive. Of course, if economic realities changed once more, for instance if a law were passed saying married couples had to pay 100,000 dollars extra in taxes each year, or people are obligated by law to switch spouses every five years -- you can bet the cultural tradition of monogamous nuclear families will come to an end. But for the people lucky enough to have a winning personality, a fat wallet and a prestigious profession, you can probably breathe a sigh of relief.

Birth rates should reflect this fallout similarly: The poor should have tons of kids because it actually makes them money for each kid they have, due to all the public benefits they start to qualify for. Their fertility is basically unlimited even if they are penniless, and all the children will survive to adulthood and have kids themselves. The middle class, however, will have severely choked birth rates. This is because they don't qualify for any public benefits, and they don't wish to slip into poverty or for their kids to slip into poverty. Due to a crushing tax burden, a complete lack of tax benefits, job insecurity due to increased cheap labor competition, and marital insecurity due to constant worry your wife will dump you for a better prospect, children will always sound like a dicey choice. Simply affording a decent home with a decent school (remember, school is the absolute determining factor for the future income of your kids), away from the lower class with their bad schools and crime, people must go into massive debt. The lower class is then subsidized by the 'community reinvestment act,' 'section 8 housing,' and assorted liberal schemes, which means the middle class must earn even more money and go even further into debt, to escape their neighborhood's 'enrichment.' Once people are that massively in debt, it is hard to have children. The student loans necessary to get through college, a complete waste of time and money and yet necessary to get a good job (since IQ tests are banned and apprenticeships are non-existent), the housing loans needed to escape the subsidized lower class, all add up to some horrendous interest payment that keeps you poor forever, no matter how high your income is (before taxes take most of it away from you before you see a dime.) Even doctors can be left with too little money to afford children in our brave new economy!

The upper class's birth rates should not suffer, however. Since they can support any number of children handsomely and tend to be the creditors, not the debtors, of the society, they can go through all the hoops of finding a 99% white neighborhood, paying for Yale certification, using tax lawyers to avoid almost any taxes on their mostly wealth, not income based fortunes, and still have high fertility. Interestingly, this doesn't seem to play out. Rich people apparently have so much fun being single they can't bother to burden themselves with children. The men tend to be more interested in work than family chores, and the women are either also more interested in work, or are addicted to status competitions like social gatherings, charity balls and who knows what. If they do have kids, they're probably adopted from Africa as a status upper, instead of naturally born from their plastic surgeon-induced bodies. Well, it's pretty obvious I hate the rich and why shouldn't I, since they're responsible for everything that is happening to this country and in fact the world? I hate them and I hate the phony morality they live by and force on the rest of us through economic incentives and laws. Bill Gates made a nifty program and helped develop the personal computer, which has transformed the world. But what does he do with his wealth? He lobbies for more H1-B Indian immigrants to come work for his companies for cheaper labor than his fellow whites. He donates billions to fight malaria in Africa, a country where 1/4 of the black males in South Africa admitted to being rapists, where the country's population is set to triple even though they cannot feed themselves with the population they already have. A continent of subhuman scum who are destroying the planet and raping and killing the last few whites who live there, before invading the Americas and Europe -- and there is Bill Gates offering them a helping hand. How can I not hate the rich? For every dime they make doing honest and useful work that really does improve the world, they do a dollar's worth of damage donating money to Africa, or the Democratic party campaign, or calling for more legal immigration. And it's not even a given they are doing honest, useful work. In fact, it's my deeply held suspicion that most of the business in this entire country is essentially fraudulent and phony. A subject for another time, though!

The result due to these differing birth rates is massive worldwide dysgenics. According to Lynn, (following a prestigious line of scientists worried about the issue all the way back to Darwin), dysgenics is occurring worldwide as stupid people continuously have more children than intelligent people. Not only this, but people with mental and physical illnesses are not being weeded out of the gene pool, even criminals tend to have more children than law-abiding people. Dysgenics is physically reducing the morality of our people, as well as our health and intelligence. The burden will not be bearable for much longer. As the economy continues to collapse, due to a lack of good people to support all the parasites, a societal collapse is predetermined. The cost of these senseless economic patterns that ruined the nuclear family and ruined middle class affordable family formation will come back to bite us in the drooling, violent, psychopathic and mentally retarded generations to come. Just imagine a giant sea of teenagers and 20-somethings with backwards baseball caps, tattoos, heroin-busted veins, and alcoholism in a sea of constantly changing sexual relationships and no job prospects, and there's our future --

Oh wait that's already our present -- Just read Theodore Dalrymple's 'Life at the Bottom.' Thanks, liberals. Thanks, conservatives who dodged the IQ issue. Thanks, capitalists who put all the middle class into debt. Thanks, women who wanted to 'break down the male patriarchy.' You all deserve a giant prize for the amazing future you've coordinated to achieve for the 21st century. A rope and a lamppost, perhaps color-coded to match the crime, for each and every one of you. :).

The solution is obvious, a series of economic and societal incentives that help out middle class birth rates, instead of lower class birth rates. A complete stripping of any incentive for the lower class to have children, if not an outright ban. A revisiting of any law that is helping to tear apart families, and the introduction of new laws that help to keep them together. A scientific endeavor to match qualified people to useful jobs, instead of the education industry which is a giant scam from top to bottom. The solution is always obvious, but before it can be implemented, drastic steps must be taken. So the question will always be -- how bad will it have to get, before the necessary fanaticism occurs within the necessary threshold of people? We'll find out soon, probably within the century. Things are going to get worse, and worse, and worse. If fanaticism is ever going to occur, the conditions for it could not be better. Let's all hope and pray.

And meanwhile, if it's at all possible, let's all marry and have children ourselves.

Japan, the Perfect Model for a White Nation:

Japan is so unbelievably better than the rest of the world it's hard to explain.

Japan has its own religion, Shintoism, which people can seek solace in but are not ruled by or made into irrational fools with. A religion that specifically appeals to the Japanese people, and says their Emperor is directly descended from the Sun God, and that Japan is a divinely special place.

Japan has its own varieties of dress, music, plays, ceremonies, holidays, gardening -- a completely separate identity from the rest of the world. Every Japanese born is born into this unique cultural matrix that lets them feel connected to everyone around them -- and separate from all the Gaijan who live abroad.

Japan is an island and immune to illegal immigration.

Japan has its own unique and distinguished history, unrelated to the outside world. They have their own heroes, wars, monuments/architecture and cultural accomplishments they can take pride in and learn from.

Japan's crime rate is basically zero.

Japan has never been conquered/colonized/invaded in war, nor has the imperial line's descent ever been broken in recorded history.

Japan's economy is second only to the USA in size plus per capita GDP.

Japan's average IQ is 110.

Japan is around 98% Japanese, and has no intentions as of yet to invite immigrants from elsewhere to change this reality.

Japan's video games, anime, jpop music and the like are a rich and uplifting culture far better than the media Americans produce for themselves.

Japan's spoken language is mellifluous and beautiful, with a vowel between every single consonant. While preserving their own language and identity outsiders rarely can penetrate, they also learn English and can thus speak freely with the outside world.

Japan is innovative and flexible, willing to adopt the economics, technology, and politics from others that they see is adaptive. Japan in this sense is the opposite of North Korea and shows how successful a model of 'at arm's reach globalism' can be.

Japan has a socialist safety net ensuring the welfare of all Japanese, while also having one of the lowest illegitimacy rates and divorce rates in the world. Though Japanese are not sexual prudes or Victorians, their rates of STD's, adultery, and the like are all extremely low. Basic virtue and temperance is simply the norm. With few natural resources, Japan still uses the ingenuity, intelligence, education and skills of its people to export massive quantities of goods to the outside world, thus feeding and supply themselves with all the world's bounty in an eminently peaceful manner.

Japanese science is above average in many fields like electronics, robotics, fusion power, and space flight.

Japanese have practically the highest lifespan on earth.

The Japanese have not been in a war since WWII, and yet have maintained all of their foreign interests and the sovereignty of their nation just fine. The Japanese GDP spent on defense is extremely low. The Japanese point the way to a civilized and peaceful path other nations could follow; A path that does not interfere in the domestic affairs or wars of far-off places, but looks out only for itself.

Though the Japanese have a radically low birth rate, it is justified by the obvious problem that as a small island nation with three times the population of the comparably sized state of California, a little breathing room would not be such a bad thing.

Japanese public facilities are meticulously clean and impressive. Their bullet trains and subways are the best in the world.

Japanese athletes bring distinction and honor to their nation every Olympics, with impressive performances in a variety of sports.

No less a distinguished white nationalist than Jared Taylor grew up in Japan and constantly wishes we could mimic that blessed isle:

http://amren.com/ar/2007/08/index.html

Even so, there are some things Japanese don't have, that are just as precious as everything I've listed above:

The beauty of the white race. From our height, to our fair skin, to our muscular (or curvacious in the case of our women) build, to the variety of colors in our eyes and hair, the Japanese cannot hope to compete.

The legacy of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

The legacy of the Greeks and the Romans.

The courage, independence, and intrepidity of our explorers, scientists, political dissidents, revolutionaries and pioneers.

The sheer size and power of the White race, who once conquered the world.

Modern inventions and accomplishments that dwarf the rest of the world combined, from cars, to airplanes, to computers and lasers, to splitting the atom and landing on the moon.

The beauty of our Classical music, folk music, and the voices of our women.

Therefore, as we watch with envy the Japanese homeland prosper while we decline, let's all remember that if whites embraced a pro-white politics and morality in a white homeland, such a gem would be so resplendent that Japan could only hope to come in a distant second. Our potential is infinite. Theirs, is mostly spent. ;).

Diversity's 'Victims.'

No one can be both the perpetrator of a crime and the innocent victim of it. Morally speaking, anyone who supports or endorses diversity in any way, deserves whatever comes from said diversity. A memorable scene from Atlas Shrugged speaks about this phenomena. When two trains crash into each other, killing hundreds of 'innocent civilians,' Ayn Rand goes through the personal life of each and every passenger. It turns out all of them were somehow benefiting from, contributing to, or endorsing the Marxist values that led to the breakdown in civilization that inevitably led to train accidents such as those. It's a great scene, and it helps to clarify moral issues to an extent rarely seen in most people's thinking.

No one who suffers from a nation's ills, can complain if they are part and parcel of the disease. It's ridiculous to complain that a teacher who teaches children Marxism should complain that train operators should still be professionals who put merit above 'need.' You asked for an equal world, well now you get it. A world where no one is responsible, and no one takes pride in their work as train operators or technicians. A world so run down and bereft of joy, that people would rather lay low and let the inevitable happen, than sacrifice themselves to protect others. You see, everything you do eventually returns to you, like a boomerang. The effect is rarely direct. Rarely does someone pass a law lowering train security, then get on a train and die in a horrible accident. No, what they do is weaken the system somewhere, anywhere, and the system as a whole sags just that millimeter more -- until something has to give. Just like any fault line, tension can build up in places thousands of miles away, then erupt and explode at the point of least resistance. Today it's a train accident, tomorrow it's a plane crashing into a skyscraper, the day after Death comes for you. Civilization Wreckers have only themselves to blame, and though they didn't directly cause their own deaths, they indirectly caused their own deaths, and that's good enough for me.

I don't want to hear people like Seiyo talk about jews as being 'victims' of diversity. As for his list of jews who died to black or muslim crime: I have a simple question for him -- how many of those jews helped end segregation? How many have crippled the law enforcement system by coddling criminals and letting them out early? How many have attempted to ban guns or succeeded in doing so in their area? How many have contributed money to the Democratic Party? How many have voted for a Democrat? How many of these jews have pushed for increased black or hispanic or muslim immigration into the country before dying to diverse criminals? If any of them have had any hand in destroying our civilization, in wrecking the Norman Rockwell existence America had in the 1950's, then don't claim they are victims. They are not victims, they are enablers, collaborators, perpetrators. Like someone who spreads anthrax across the country but accidentally gets sick and dies by leaving some of the powder on his own hands, these jews have virulently spread their leftist poison across America. Anything that happens to them is the direct result of their own actions. They are not victims! Don't you dare try to conflate truly innocent victims, who have no hand in the way America has been changed, who have never supported the changes that America has undergone, who have fought desperately for a return to white western civilization -- and jews who have been working diligently this whole time to destroy it.

Next Seiyo will write a piece showing the summoners of dark gods and demons are the FIRST AND FOREMOST victims of said dark gods and demons, they are like CANARIES IN THE COALMINE because the first person who always dies in those rituals tends to always be the very people who summon them, hoping for power or destruction or riches or suchlike. Let's all pity the demon summoners, after all, they suffer most of all from said demons! They lose their souls, are devoured, who knows what horrible things! Most people, even when a demon is summoned, never even meet a demon or are affected at all. But nearly 100% of demon summoners are affected in some negative way by demons! Demon Summoners are the Primary victims of demons and need our sympathy and support above all other groups!

This doesn't just mean jews though. It applies to everyone. Nationalists constantly complain about how many white women are being raped, but why should we? Since women themselves don't give a damn about it, why should we? What have these 'victimized' women been doing all their lives? Have they been voting democrat? Have they been encouraging immigration? Have they been ostracizing and insulting racists and falling all over and mating with 'anti-racists?' Have they voted for more lenient criminal codes or to ban guns because they felt they were too 'violent' and 'mean-spirited.'? I will wait before extending any sympathy to these women, until I know whether they brought it on themselves or not. Not by 'dressing like sluts,' which is ridiculous. But simply by this -- did they contribute to the dismantling of our civilization which includes increased rape rates, or did they fight against it? I have no tears to spare for the guilty.

Let me just serve notice -- anyone who supports any policy that leads to increased crime, then suffers from a crime, is not a victim. They are not innocent. They may as well be the criminal themselves. It's just like in a war. If civilians support their leader who sends them into a war, if civilians support and approve of the war, don't come crying to me when civilians die due to that war. What did you want, some sort of moral pass where it's okay to wage war but you're still innocent because you aren't directly carrying the gun? Who is paying for that gun? You, the taxpayer. Who voted for the President who started the war? You, the voter. Who cheered when he made his declaration of war speech and told all your friends this was a great and good war? You, the patriot. If bombs land on your doorstep, don't come crying to me about how innocent you were. About how you were a non-combatant or whatever. War is a war between two people, not two armies, using all the resources they have available -- you are a resource for your side and eliminating that resource is just as sensible as eliminating a soldier on the battlefield. I don't want to hear Japanese whining to us about Hiroshima, there is a phrase for this kind of situation: "For they sow the wind, and they reap the whirlwind."

Who are the innocents, then? Well, I can think of a few. Children. People who were powerless to prevent the tidal wave of other people's actions, but did nothing wrong themselves. People who opposed what was going on, but were too weak to stop it. People who were lied to and deceived into supporting something they thought was right and were told was right. People who are not aware of the facts.

For the last two categories, however, their innocence is conditional. Once someone has told you the facts or exposed the lies being told to you, you no longer have any excuses left to ignore them. Someone given a choice between truth and lies, who chooses lies, is guilty. Someone who has never had a choice and only ever been fed lies their whole life, is innocent. That is why, by telling everyone we know the truth of this world, we are performing a very important duty. We are saving the souls of the innocent, and we are condemning the souls of the guilty. We are separating the wheat from the chaff, so that when the day arrives, no one can say "But Lord, we didn't know!" Everyone who appears on judgment day, will be asked, "Were you not told of these things? Did we not display Our signs? Did our prophets not preach My coming?" And when people say "We heard, but we would not believe." Or "We heard, but we did not come." They will have no one but themselves to blame, for what happens next.

Debunking Anti-white Blood Libels:

http://backintyme.com/rawdata/walsh01.pdf

"The 90 identified African American serial killers compose 21.8%
of the sample of Black and White killers. This figure approximates
the 22% estimate made by Hickey’s (1997) sample of 337 serial
killers of all races operating in the United States across a 165-year
period. Far from being absent or severely underrepresented in the
ranks of serial killers, then, African Americans are represented among serial killers at a rate approximately twice one would
expect based on the average percentage of African Americans in
the population (approximately 10.5%) across the 58-year time
period examined."

So why all the hoopla about how whites are the only serial killers? Who is spreading this false message which tries to draw a false equivalence and moral relativism between black and white crime rates?

"A survey of more than 600 prime-time television programs
aired across 3 decades found that “nine out of 10 murders
on TV were committed by Whites. Only three in 100 murders on
TV were committed by Blacks. Blacks are about 18 times less
likely to commit homicide on TV than in real life” (Lichter, Lichter,
& Rothman, 1991, p. 198)."

Since jews control the media: (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/shadow/jewishmedia.htm) We have what amounts to a blood libel against whites narrated by jews. By making us feel ashamed and guilty, they make it easier for whites to celebrate their own genocide and praise the coming 'enrichment' of their nations. Whites, after all, are just a bunch of serial killers. Unlike those soulful, spiritually wise blacks who would never do such things. The sooner all whites on earth are replaced by blacks, the better. Then and only then will the scourge of serial killing end.

Every time I've mentioned on some forum or other, the incredibly high black murder rates: http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html "Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery."

And don't think these are just 'gang' shootings that leave innocent whites largely out of the mix: "Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black."

And don't tell me it's because they needed money from these whites and it's all about poverty. Poverty doesn't explain the need to rape a white woman:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/stix/2005/10/color-of-crime.html
"* Between 2001 and 2003, blacks committed, on average, 15,400 black-on-white rapes per year, while whites averaged only 900 white-on-black rapes per year."

(Don't be fooled by that number though, hispanics are treated as 'white' when they are the perpetrators of the crime, and 'hispanic' when they are the victim. Cute isn't it? It's just another blood libel made against white people, to blame us for the crimes of another race.)

Anyway, every time I mention black murder or black crime, some smart aleck gives the repartee -- What about serial killers? Those are all whites. Blacks only murder people in gang violence, it's because they're poor and competing economically over drug sales. They don't kill innocent people, or have any malicious or evil thoughts while they kill people. It's whites who kill for fun, whites are sadists and evil and kill innocent people -- truly heinous murder is a white male thing.

Except, it's all bullshit. Whites don't have any gangs, so you can rule out gang violence for the white victims of black crime -- 45% of all their crimes. Even if you want to believe that all black crime against hispanics and blacks is relatively harmless drug wars due to poverty, not any evil or sadistic feelings, this would only half the black murder rate. So blacks murder people 7 times as often, half of them innocent gang-related poverty-induced murders, for a total of 3.5 times as murderously and sadistically evil as whites. Blacks have twice as high a serial murder rate as whites, the most sadistic, evil, unfeeling and unwarranted murders of all. Under no circumstances, conditions, or in any field, are whites more murderous or evil than blacks. Blacks even commit twice as many 'hate crimes' as whites, a crime specifically invented to punish white racists! Amazing, but there it is:

http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html
"Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa."

The next charge will be that sure blacks are more murderous in their daily lives, but whites are more murderous when it comes to organized genocides, and that all the black murderers on earth can never make up the amount 'owed' to whites for all their genocides in the past. This is another libel. Whites didn't slaughter blacks by bringing them over in slave ships. As many whites died in the trans-Atlantic passage as blacks. Black slaves had no higher, or even a lower death rate than similar white indentured servants. In fact, the black population even after the slave trade was banned continued to grow, while enslaved, through natural domestic population growth. The death rate of black slaves was therefore low, hardly a Roman galley system of 3 years before you are overworked to death, or whatever silly crimes are commonly imputed to black slavery in North America.

Whites also didn't slaughter the Indians. The vast, near total majority of Indian deaths was due to disease. The germ theory of disease had not yet been discovered and whites had no idea they were spreading these diseases among the Indians, nor was there any way to prevent the Indians from dying by disease once whites landed on the shore. Unless whites morally should have quarantined north and south america off from the rest of the world forever, to avoid the transmission of any diseases that would kill Indians if the world ever set foot on the Americas, the plagues that swept the Indians were inevitable. They had evolved no immune response to these diseases and would have died no matter what timeline History followed. If the Chinese had landed in America, the result would be the same. If the Africans landed in America, the result would be the same. If the Ottomans had landed in America, the result would be the same. Whites are not responsible, simply for being the most intrepid explorers, of the genocide of the Indians. The Indians were doomed to die sooner or later, due to no human agency, but solely due to diseases we had no control over.

The idea that all disease was spread by intentional selling of 'small pox blankets' is another myth and libel. What we have is evidence that some English officers were considering using 'small pox blankets' as a tactic of war to kill Indians during the French-Indian war. It's not even known whether they did such an attack, but it's ludicrous to then translate that into an overarching tactic used starting in 1492 when Columbus just landed all the way to the 1900's as the main vector for all diseases Indians caught from whites.

As for whites killing Indians in war, I'm fairly certain the Indians gave as good as they got, and their merciless campaigns against civilians, women and children, and sneak attack massacres on pilgrims and settlers who had initially attempted peace and co-existence with them, gives me no sense of shame. They stole our horses and livestock, tortured their prisoners and mutilated people both living and dead, in shows of complete barbarism. The Indians wanted war, and that's what they received. When they wanted peace, we gave them peace. There are some sad stories in American history where Indians were pushed out of their land for the sake of 'greedy' farmers or 'greedy' prospectors -- but one has to understand that Indians were wasteful with their land and it's criminal to leave a continent nearly empty simply because Indians are too barbaric to switch to farming, intensive farming, or city-life and civilization.

Whites did not perform the Holocaust, it was again an accident of hunger and disease, due to war conditions and nobody's fault or intention, and it didn't result in the death of anywhere near 6 million jews -- nor are they chiefly responsible for the genocides in Russia -- these actions were primarily made possible, organized, and carried out by jews. Massive death rates occurred among whites in their constant wars like the 30 Years War, the 100 Years War, WWII, WWI, the Napoleonic Wars, the Religious Wars, etc -- but surely no one is going to claim that whites are uniquely prone to war and count all people who died during war as victims of 'murder' or 'organized genocide.' It's proven that in primitive societies, around 1/3 of all men are murdered in war. The number of whites murdered in war, even during WWII, did not approach this amazing total. This means white wars are actually more peaceful and less murderous than the wars fought in New Guinea, Africa, the Americas, and other assorted primitive stone age cultures that were occurring at the same time. Simply because we are more civilized and advanced, we have a much higher population, and thus more victims in our wars -- however this does not make whites especially murderous, evil, or sadistic like our detractors claim.

So what exactly are our genocides in the past? Our history of colonialism? We increased the native population of India, Africa, and Asia by the diffusion of our new technology and farming -- hardly a genocide there. The death rate of blacks imported to the Carribbean and South America? But now they form a large majority in those islands and have vast numbers in Brazil -- all we managed to do was increase the worldwide black population, and in places where they are vastly better off than if they had stayed in Africa -- hardly a genocide. The idea that whites have murdered so many non-whites in the past, that any amount of crime or genocides of whites is just 'karma' or 'vengeance' that we should accept willingly is another attempt at fraudulent propaganda. What exactly are they blaming us for? Spreading civilization to the far corners of the globe? Giving everyone technology like refrigeration, medicine, the green revolution, electricity, clean water, cars, airplanes, computers, satellites? Increasing the world's population from a tiny few to 7 billion directly as a result of our technological progress in food, energy, sanitation, economics and good government? The fact that whites have created stable political bodies across the world that engage so little in war, compared to the past, that it's truly an unprecedented age in history?

I suppose you could blame whites for the genocide of Iraqis starting since 1990. However, the actions of the USA against Iraq have largely been due to jews. The USA's middle east policy is completely controlled by jews and thus our decision to use sanctions, invade Iraq, and the like is all the fault of jews, not whites. Madeline Albright, our Secretary of State, famously stated she thought it was worth it to kill half a million Iraqi children, to try to deter Saddam from gaining WMD. Albright, of course, is a jew -- don't associate our kind with filth like her. Regardless, I have little sympathy for Iraqis, who started a war with Iran that killed a million people themselves. Maybe if they hadn't already invaded two separate countries, Iran and Kuwait, while amassing WMD and gassing the Kurds, the world would have dealt more sympathetically towards them. Live by the sword, die by the sword. The same for Vietnam. Though I feel sympathetic towards the million or so Vietnamese we killed during that war -- the whole thing becomes a farce when you realize the Vietnamese went on to murder millions more of their own people after we left. They hardly valued human life, and were freely murdering millions themselves -- people who have declared a total war and fight with genocidal intent like that, have no sympathy when they are killed in turn. Direclty because we lost the war in Vietnam, Cambodia fell to the Khmer Rouge and went on to slaughter 1/3 of all the people living there under Pol Pot. Are we supposed to feel sorry for fighting a war against Communism, attempting to prevent just those sorts of dictators from gaining power?

In any event, I don't count any deaths during war as 'murder', 'sadistic,' or 'evil.' War has a logic all of its own, and is not part of pathological psychosis, but is fought by completely normal, healthy, moral people for the sake of a variety of causes. Murder and war both result in death, but they are symptoms of completely different things. When blacks do murder, they are not thinking like whites on the battlefield. It is something much more degenerate, and should not be classed in the same category. Therefore this nonsense about whites make up for their peaceful natures at home with their warlike killings abroad, is just another attempt at a false equivalence, another moral relativist position which can't make distinctions between obviously different things.

Is there a single blood libel one can make against whites that actually withstands the light of day, objective reason, and a fair unbiased accounting of the ledgers? Is there even one crime we're really responsible for? As far as I can tell, it's one vast field of lies, leveraged against the best people on earth, who have spread not only wealth, power, knowledge, and peace to the rest of the world -- but also the ideas of justice, fairness, compassion, and romantic monogamous love itself, to the rest of the benighted and backwards world. The very accusations being leveled against us, would not have even been considered wrong in the past -- before western morality spread to these places. It is ludicrous to accuse us of crimes against the Incas/Aztecs, when the Incas/Aztecs were fine with human sacrifice and cannibalism against each other. This is obviously a situation where our own morality is being used against us, not because we are particularly immoral -- but because we're the only people who ever cared about morality in the first place.

I'm fine with admitting white crimes in the past, and apologizing and taking responsibility for them. I'm even fine with making amends and correcting the lasting harm they have done across the centuries that still exist in the present day. But first, prove we have done one! Prove we are actually responsible for something we should feel sorry about! Is there any substance to any of these claims? The moment you look beneath the surface to all these sensationalized accusations against whites: 'we're serial killers, we're genociders, we're warmongerers, we're Holocausters,' they all turn out to be false. And they all turn out to be presented and published by a hostile tribe in our midst, by an alien occupied media that has never had any interest in the truth. They're all simply the artillery of the jewish race in their attempt to genocide US. They are killing us with their lies, they make us feel ashamed and guilty, they make us respect and value other races above our own, they make us want to atone for crimes we never even did with the greatest crime of all, the death of the white race, the most moral and advanced people in history. The irony is overwhelming.

Gates of Vienna Skating Dangerously Close to the Truth:

As someone who gave up on Gates of Vienna as a truth-bearing vehicle years ago, I still have a fascination with what they are saying, because it is like a finger on the pulse of the 'almost racists' and which way the wind is blowing. When Gates of Vienna becomes a 'fully racist' site, like Amren or Vdare, they will symbolize the transition of millions of others like them -- Ukip voters who should have voted BNP, Mccain voters who should've voted Ron Paul, and so on. I'm always hopeful that world events will evangelize these fence sitters firmly into the 'awakened' crowd. The 'worse is better' theorem is about the only thing going for the nationalist cause currently. Since we can't control any events, and everything is sliding towards oblivion, the ONLY hope for nationalism is that continued exposure to reality and continued ruination will change people's minds. Never mind that there's no real indicator that this is working -- it could always be a threshold situation. Maybe it hasn't worked so far, but, if it only would get ten times as bad, then it would work. In fact, so long as the threshold exists anywhere on the continuum, then it could eventually save the entire white race.

Imagine things have to get so bad that only 3,000 whites are even left alive on the planet. They finally become fanatical enough to design and release an ethno-bomb that targets all non-whites and hide deep in hidden bunkers where the rest of the world cannot find them or exact vengeance upon them. In a few years they emerge to a completely empty world and repopulate it with whites -- after all, the initial colonization of the world was done by even less than 3,000 people, more like a few hundred people left Africa and peopled the entire world. If they can do it, so could we. The point is, where numbers fail, radicalization can wholly make up the difference. The formula will always be the multiplication of two factors: the number of whites remaining, times the fanaticism of the whites remaining, equals their chances of survival and success. If drastically making conditions worse means reducing the white population to 1/10 what it is today, but it makes the whites remaining 20 times as radical, then what we have there is progress. If the whites remaining are 1,000 times as few, but one million times as radical, then we're getting somewhere. Therefore, if making the situation worse spurs even a little bit of radicalization among whites, the 'worse is better' theory can always reach some ideal point where people are finally radical enough to shift the tide in our favor. It's obvious the worse is better theory does work a little -- the BNP has won the most votes for nationalism in the UK since basically World War II. South Africa just succeeded in winning the western cape for the DA, the first non-ANC provincial election victory since the end of Apartheid. Racist sites across the internet are getting more page hits than ever. Stormfront's unique page views went up when Obama was elected, and so on. There's clear proof that as conditions for whites worsen, radicalization increases. The only question, then, is whether this process is some sort of linear correlation, or an asymptotic one. If the process is linear, if people become one unit more racist per one unit less quality of life, it's hopeless. The anemic progress of the nationalist right over the last 50 years has not in the least matched the decline in welfare and population whites have so far undergone. However, what if the trend is asymptotic? That is to say, as conditions approach a limit, the difficulty of getting even one step closer to that limit approaches infinity. Translated to english, I mean that white well-being can only be depressed so far before their radicalization reaches infinity and they become absolutely unconquerable lions for their race. Is there any evidence of an asymptotic worse-is-better theory?

YES.

It's called WEIMAR GERMANY. After WWI left Germany in shambles. After the flu pandemic killed millions more Germans. After the Versailles treaty had stolen practically half of Germany's land. After the jews integrated into all the highest positions of German finance, press, and government and soaked the Germans dry. After the great depression led to Weimar Germany's hyper-inflation. After jews started buying and selling german women as prostitutes just so they could feed their kids. After everyone was unemployed -- the white race snapped, and, out of nowhere, Hitler and the Nazi party which had included all of 12 people or so in the 1920's, was democratically elected to power in 1933. And ten years from then, they were making their bid for world empire and kicking all the minorities out of their lands.

What a difference a decade makes! Suddenly, a people completely on their knees, getting kicked around by jews, french, poles, all-and-sundry, became the most powerful nation on Earth, restored their economy to full functionality, and invented the rocket which led to the moon. This is nothing if not a textbook example of worse-is-better, combined with the asymptotic, threshold theory of radicalization. For decades things can get bad, then really bad, then truly terribly bad, and only a few fringe malcontents will ever complain or organize against it. Then, all of a sudden, a tidal wave of the common folk, of the 'sane and mainstream,' of the 'responsible and moderate' thinkers all join in -- a straw that breaks the camel's back. Suddenly you're no longer a pariah for raving against the jews, for advocating a nationalization of the money supply, for calling for war against your neighbors -- suddenly that's the view of the ENTIRE country and you can hear nothing but loud assertions and approval of just that. Hitler wasn't pelted with eggs when he tried to make a speech, like our beloved Nick Griffin was. No, every last person down on the street was screaming with joy and best wishes for him. As he drove through endless motorcades at a slow crawl, shook hands and kissed babies, nobody assassinated him like they did Benazir Butto or JFK. There were endless opportunities, don't say there weren't. There simply wasn't any will to do so. The vast, vast, vast majority of Germans were in complete agreement with him. They loved Hitler and though they couldn't give the speeches he gave, lacking the temperament, they could certainly cheer after he was done. These were no Stalinist cheer sessions, where those who stopped clapping first were dragged off to execution. This was the real deal. Go look at the footage clips and just tell me the looks on those women's faces are feigned or forced by fear of death. In fact, before the war, only a few thousand political prisoners existed in Germany, (unlike the tens of millions who had somehow offended Lenin or Stalin and ended up in Siberia or a shallow grave.) most of them violent communist revolutionaries who had it coming.

I'm sure most Germans in Weimar Germany were like the whites of today. "We are the world," "Love your neighbor," "Charity begins abroad," "Kumbayah," "Give peace a chance," "Make love not war," etc. I can imagine the nauseating hippy campfire rings already as they tearfully apologized to the French while handing out reparations for a war they didn't even begin. Our genetics have not had much time to change since then. The difference is solely circumstances. Weimar Germany faced all out Hell, they hit rock bottom -- and then and only then did they transform into Nazi Germany. If it happened for them, it could happen for us too. If the non-whites dare to send our countries to Hell, they will discover something much worse than those Nazi pussycats. In size, weapons technology, economic production, population -- everything -- we are a hundred times as strong as they ever were.

So it was with great disbelief and fascination when I watched the 'peasant's rebellion' on GoV on this thread: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/06/road-rage.html#readfurther

A typical puff piece, the 'oy vei' bewailing of a jew about how evil whites first persecuted innocent jews out of Russia, even though jews all secretly knew Russia could do nothing without them and were entirely dependent on jewish charity for what meager prosperity they had ((Fascinating, given plenty of European countries seemed to outcompete the Soviet Union economically without any jewish 'help' at all. . .)) -- then the evil American whites corrupted their innocent jewish children into becoming Marxists. Who then, of course, are going to destroy America, all because the evil whites forced them to do so -- and now of course the jews who finally thought they could stop moving (why? they haven't stopped moving in 2,000 years. Isn't doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results the definition of insanity?) are going to be forced to move again! How horrible for those poor jews, they're going to have to move! Let's ignore how horrible this tale of woe is for white gentile Americans, who have nowhere to go and cannot possibly all 'move' or 'escape' to some other land. It's pretty easy to take in a few million super-rich, super-educated jews into any country. But hundreds of millions of poor, lower class white peasants? Psh. Tell it to the South Africans. How long do you think they've been trying to escape? There are only 4 million whites remaining in South Africa -- most of them stuck for life and with no escape. What of the 100 million whites who will be stuck on the sinking ship of America when they are put in the exact same position? Does this author think for two seconds about how unfortunate their fate will be? No, instead he whines and grouses about how sad it is that his family and race will have to move again. Knowing full well they will be accepted. Knowing full well they have an escape plan. Knowing full well that Israel is an exclusively jewish state that will protect them from any harm from non-whites. This man makes me sick and is a wonderful representation of the Chutzpah of the jewish race, always the victim and never the victimizer.

It's not surprising that I disagreed with the writer of the piece at GoV. What's surprising is that virtually every commentor on the thread ALSO disagreed. And not in smarmy, terrified, half-flinching ways either. They were dripping with sarcasm and disgust for the guy's opinions, and full of facts showing just how slimy jews have been across the centuries. The collective will of the comments was basically asking for one simple thing: an apology from the Jews to whites for what they have done. For once, for jews to stop dodging, and sidestepping, their collective responsibility for their atrocities against Europe, Russia, and the United States. As they said: "Germans, Russians, Americans, Australians, we have all apologized for what our ancestors have done in the past. The only people who have never apologized, who have never accepted guilt, who have never expressed shame for anything they have ever done -- are the Jews! These shameless monsters who have more blood on their hands than any of us then turn around and call on US to feel sorry for THEM. It's quite backwards! We're waiting for THEM to apologize to US."

Of course, this apology was never given, nor guilt ever accepted, by the jewish author. Instead he asked for the thread's comments to be locked so that he could stop hearing the awful mean-spirited words directed his way. Jews will never take collective responsibility for their actions. Despite the fact that they are a self-recognized tribe who act as a tribe at all times and refer to themselves as a tribe in all cases and even created a tribal ethno-state exclusively for themselves, they refuse to feel collective guilt for anything any of the members of their tribe have done. This is not some sort of Randian steadfast belief in individualism -- if so he never would've written a piece about 'the poor wandering jews' asking for sympathy for jews AS A GROUP, jews AS JEWS. It is the same psychopathic jewish behavior we see in the Talmud. Basically, jews can never feel guilty for what they do to gentiles, because we are subhuman animals and anything they do to us, as God's chosen people, is a priori justified. If a jew needs a liver and a gentile has a match, it is moral to seize and kill the gentile, rip out his liver, and use it to heal the jew with. (A ridiculous story? No, a fatwa decree by a Rabbi belonging to Chabbad Lubavitch) http://news.ronatvan.com/2008/06/14/on-chabad-lubavitch-jewish-extremism-exposed/ The full quote: "If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value,” he explained. “There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life."

We are nothing more than refrigeration tanks for jewish surgeons, mobile body part reserves for when they get sick. This is how jews think, and though they mostly keep it concealed, their distinct refusal to ever apologize for anything they have ever done to gentiles in history -- is the light that shines on their darkest core. Is the wedge that helps reveal the entire squirming mass that is the jewish psychopathic mentality. The fact that this 'conservative' jew still couldn't bear to bring himself to apologize for the misdeeds of his tribe in the past, says it all.

Now GoV's admins are in full panic mode, trying to 're-educate' their rioting commentariat back into the fold of 'kosher' political incorrectness. Enter Takuyan Seiyo, a half-jew, who is supposed to be a non-biased judge on what people should properly feel about jews. He then writes this next post:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/06/critique-of-culture-of-kevin-macdonald.html#readfurther

Wherein he delimits for the readership the 'acceptable' views one can have about jews. You can hate jews 'so far,' he explains, and 'no further.' Anything beyond these granted points is 'anti-semitism' and 'irrational.' Of course, on his 'don't' list is Holocaust Denial, which is simply a question of fact, not moral judgment. Another ridiculous bullshit lie he makes, is that jews, whenever they did anything wrong, were simply RESPONDING to previous anti-semitism that justified their actions. One hilarious line following this reasoning:

"From the time the Jews arrived in chains and en masse in Rome, the one constant in Jewish history has been persecution, much of it of the cruelest and most murderous kind"

What a CONVENIENT place to start your timeline, Mr. Seiyo! Unbelievable. As though the Romans one day just woke up and said, "you know what, I think it's time to gather up the jews en masse and drag them in chains to Rome." Of course Seiyo neglects to mention that before his arbitrary beginning of the timeline, the jews had REVOLTED against the Romans and massacred the Roman garrisons/citizens under their supposed Messiah Bar Kockhba whose stated goal in the Torah is to achieve total earthly dominion. There is no mention of how jews even got to Palestine in the first place, by murdering and enslaving every last inhabitant who had been there before them. There is no mention of the large favors Rome gave the jews or the religious tolerance Rome extended to the jews. No, of course not, all Seiyo cares about is the horrible nasty evil Romans who oppressed the jews for NO REASON, ALL OF A SUDDEN deciding to make them slaves.

He speaks of Tzarist oppression of jews before the communist revolution, but completely neglects the political terrorism and assassinations the jews were causing even early in the 1800's against the tzars, as documented by Dostoevesky's 'Demons.' (One of the finest books in human literature by THE finest writer of all time.) No mention of the fact that Stolypin, who was trying to reform Russia into a more just and equal society, was assassinated by these revolutionary jews. Like usual, the jews are purely the victims, there is never any reason for the oppression and persecution waged against them. It couldn't possibly be that jews become hated due to their usurious lending rates of 40% or 50% to peasants who go bankrupt the first time the weather turns bad and ruins their crop. No, the jews are just persecuted 'middlemen minorities,' that wonderful class that facilitates commerce and helps the whole country prosper through buying and selling.

Then comes the astonishing conclusion, almost laughable as to 'why jews seem to always be hard at working destroying their host nations.' Seiyo has already ruled out malice, evolutionary strategy, envy, rootless cosmopolitanism, or any of the 'anit-semitic' explanations. So he lands upon this one, which just so happens to shine on the jews in the best possible fashion:

"Alas, careful observation might point to a Jewish pathology stranger even than the MacDonald biological reductionist theory, if without the malignancy MacDonald attributes. Actually, it could be labeled as “much too much of a good thing” "

Yeah! That must be it! The jews are simply TOO GOOD FOR THIS WORLD. Their GOODNESS JUST OVERFLOWS, MY CUP RUNNETH OVER STYLE, and becomes so purely, wholly good that it's just an explosion of goodness rainbows and light that infects the host country.

"The “good thing” stems from what Thomas Cahill described in The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels. It’s the momentous and singular Biblical ideas of the equality and dignity of each individual, universal moral obligations, and great value placed on peace and justice. This, coupled with the Jewish arch-tradition of tikun olam, repairing the world."

Equality! What a grand ideal! Peace and justice! Who could be against that? Repairing the world -- well everyone should want to save the world! Those poor, misunderstood jews. If only we could understand how hard they are constantly trying for our sake, as they rake in trillions for themselves during financial bailouts or patrol their gulags where millions of innocent Russians rot and die or torture Palestinians by the thousands deep in their jail cells. All they ever wanted was peace and justice, universal moral values, and to repair the world!

The loathsome shilling and lies for jewry continues a bit further down:

"The Jewish weight applied on the side of open borders and amnesty, affirmative action and endless coddling of undeserving minorities, legal activism, pacifism and world government, punitive taxation and income redistribution, is harmful, first and foremost, to the Jews themselves"

Did you hear that correctly? Jewish leftism is harmful, first and foremost, to the JEWS THEMSELVES! What does this sound like?? Oi Vey! Oi Vey! Jews, after destroying America, will have to MOVE AGAIN. In fact, after a long discourse full of half-truths and pedantic lecturing, Seiyo is right back where we started! Get this through your God damned heads Jews, you are NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. The petty suffering of your few millions doesn't amount to a HILL OF BEANS compared to the cataclysm affecting the white race. The people who suffer FIRST AND FOREMOST from Jewish activism aren't jews -- it's the WHITE WORKING CLASS who has to live alongside blacks, hispanics, and assorted enrichers. It's the foolish white women who grow up surrounded by diversity and fed constant drivel about how great it is to have a black boyfriend -- and decide to go slumming themselves. It's the broken hearted feminists who realize at age 40 they've driven away every last mate while pursuing their career and waiting for the 'right guy.' It's the white males who are average 100 IQ, not average 115 IQ, and so are on the FRONT LINE of affirmative action. The arrogance, the sheer nerve, the CHUTZPAH of this Jew Seiyo to claim JEWS are the ones suffering most from Jewish activism. Jews will prosper from the new world order, for God's sake they run the new world order. What kind of insane propaganda is it to say jews will hurt most of all? How? In what way will elites suffer MOST? They'll suffer the LEAST, if any, from these changes. They will always be safe, in some secure gated segregated community. They will always be rich, as the owners of the government and industries. They will always be proud, as the owners of the media and the definers of the public discourse. They will always have the bolthole of Israel to escape to, if the going gets hot. What have they got to worry about?? It's whites dying in Iraq who are suffering most from jewish activism, not the neocons who sent them there! Here we have it again folks, the BIG LIE. Say something so insane, so extraordinary, so impossible, that people are simply dumbfounded into submission. They don't even know how to respond to such a claim, it's beyond all bounds of reason and no longer even translates into human sense. And this is our premier 'jewish-relations' expert?? Is this his sage advice for all those nasty anti-semites who befouled the previous thread?

Then he goes on about how Christians are pushing immigration just as thoroughly as jews -- while ignoring cause and effect. Who are Christians? Oh I know, judaized whites, whites who worship a jew as their God and sovereign! Meanwhile let's ignore that Christianity didn't used to think like this until jews gained control of the media. Let's ignore that in 1950's America protestants and catholics never called for increased hispanic immigration. Let's just say everyone is equally to blame and ignore which member of the group is the 'head' and which the 'tail.' That would be oh so convenient for Sieyo, who refuses to ever take responsibility for himself and always prefers to point his finger elsewhere.

Lastly there is this:

"There isn’t a day that I don’t hear someone I know as cultivated and reasonable, Gentile and Jew alike, express bitter frustration with the Jewish community because of its leftist-multicultural thrust and the damage it’s doing to America. If the Jewish community won’t wake up to criticism from friendly parties, it will eventually face criticism from the growing number of unfriendly parties.

It’s not gratuitous to mention that America is now treading the same economic path where Weimar Republic once trod. Jews were the most prominent in the left’s leadership in Weimar too, with sorry consequences. Maybe a beacon of truth shined on all that can do some good both for America and for its Jews."

At last something I can agree with. Jews caused Weimar Germany and they caused the America of today -- do you really want to go down this same road again? Do you really, jews? Do you really, really want to go down this road again? Do you?

Of course, Baron has closed all comments on the thread and told people to 'reflect on this' (their re-education session due to their bad behavior on the last thread) and 'maybe if you're good and civil (and say the right things) we can open up this thread tomorrow -- we'll see how it goes (ie it had better say the right things, you commentators are on notice.)'

Can anything be more condescending? The commentators are fully lucid adults, they say what they think based on factual, concrete reasoning after studying the issue in great detail. But because they keep saying the wrong things, they will have to 'think on it' and 'try harder' until they get it right. The arrogance is unbounded. Do they even stop for a second to wonder if the other side is right? Have they ever, for instance, read Dissecting the Holocaust, or watched '1/3 of the Holocaust', before condemning Holocaust Denial? No, there is no sense of fair play. No exchange of ideas -- just a one way street. We feed you kosher propoganda, you kneejerk respond with 'yeah!' 'you said it boss!' and 'We need to wage more wars for Israel, let's bomb Iran forthwith!'

Meanwhile, in another thread, Fjordman admits that IQ is genetic and that white/asian IQ is vastly higher than the mud people -- then goes on to admit that whites are the source of nearly all human accomplishment and this is probably linked to our higher preponderance of high IQ geniuses than asians have. Thus stating lucidly and quickly that whites are innately superior as a race -- something I could have told him years ago. He then speaks glowingly of Hart's Understanding Human History -- a book I read years ago and told others to read years ago. This dishonest, creeping racism -- it's torture. Like watching glass flow down a windowpane. Why are you saying this just now Fjordman? Understanding Human History came out long ago. Why are you neglecting the new data we learned from the 10,000 Year Explosion Seiyo? If you had read that, you would know that the genetic diseases jews suffer are not due to a bottleneck, but due to natural selection pressures. As the authors of 10,000 Year Explosion showed (jews themselves), the majority of the genetic disorders are focused on genes related to intelligence and mental functions. If the disorders were due to a bottleneck, they should be randomly distributed across the entire genome -- not all clustered towards increasing IQ at any cost. Like usual GoV prefers whatever truth is convenient at the time -- "Oi Vey, the evil Europeans forced our population into a bottleneck, and then we got all these horrible genetic disorders, it's all their fault." Instead of "Jews underwent a eugenics program where they bred for intelligence for around 1,000 years in the middle of Europe, they gained a great deal of IQ but paid a price in terms of various mental disorders." No, that would mean jews are actually responsible for their own problems -- can't have that.

Having realized that IQ is genetic and that whites are the most intelligent when it comes to what matters -- what La Griffe du Lion calls the '% belonging to the smart fraction' as the leading indicator of societal success and human excellence -- does GoV then call for any pro-white measures? Any use of eugenics to forestall the loss of this infinitely precious gem, our intelligence that has illumined the world? No, no calls for anything. Maybe in twenty years Fjordman will finally call for IQ screening of immigrants. Maybe? If we're lucky? Of course by then Europe and the USA will already be majority non-white. But that's okay, Fjordman got where he needed to be eventually.

As God says:

Revelation 3-16:
King James Bible
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.

Who Will Save Our Environment?

http://www.youtube.com/homeproject

Apparently this link will only work until june 14th, but the movie should be findable with a few brief clicks on the internet regardless, from independent venues. I encourage everyone to watch this movie, then come back and read my article and think on these weighty issues.

I am a global warming skeptic. It's been proven that the Earth's temperature correlates more closely to solar activity than the amount of CO2 in the air. Therefore, if the earth is warming, that probably has a lot more to do with what the sun is doing (something we surely can't be blamed for) than our own industrial activities. However, this doesn't stop us from asking what will become of this planet if it continues to heat and heat? Nor does it stop the scientific reality of the greenhouse effect. Venus is not much closer to the sun than we are, but its surface temperature is 90 times as high as the Earth's. (http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/lectures/venus.htm)

The sun is clearly not to blame for a disparity of that level. It has much more to do with the fact that Venus' atmosphere is 96.5% CO2. So there we have a base reality check. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the hotter Venus gets. Venus is often hotter than Mercury, which bakes only a few miles away from the Sun. Obviously the Sun has a lot to do with the heat of each planet, but obviously the greenhouse effect has a lot to do with it too. Simply ignoring the contribution our greenhouse gases are making to the temperature of the earth is anti-scientific. The question isn't 'do CO2 emissions raise the Earth's temperature?' The question is 'How much do human CO2 emissions contribute to the rising of Earth's temperature?' How dangerous is a hotter earth, what are the net negatives of a higher world temperature versus the possible positives? How drastic would our actions have to be to lower the Earth's temperature to some more ideal point through the manipulation of greenhouse gases alone? Is there some other way to affect the surface temperature of the earth than lowering CO2 emissions? On and on, the questions remain unanswered. As far as I'm concerned, Global Warming science is in its infancy and doesn't have the data necessary to make any practical conclusions, nor is it even asking the correct questions in the first place. Everyone knows how difficult it is to predict the weather, in that case the climate is even more difficult, since it requires understanding of the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, greenhouse gases, albedo levels, plant activity, and God knows what else. Scientists should stop advocating fossil fuel witch hunts when they haven't even done the basic research necessary to come to any accurate conclusions about the matter. And as for the sensationalism that if we don't act 'now' or 'within 10 years' all will be lost -- well then all is lost. Because there is no way in hell fossil fuel emissions are going to be stopped now, or within the next ten years, no matter what environmentalists say. Too many billions of people rely on the cheap energy of coal and oil to improve their daily lives. In 100 years, perhaps we can wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, and scientists should be diligently working on the technological improvements we need to make this happen. But ten? Come on. That's a dream world.

This movie isn't about Global Warming though. It only mentions global warming in passing, as part of a much larger picture of worldwide environmental meltdown. Pick an environmental crisis -- the movie has it, documented and proven. We are attacking the earth from so many different angles, destroying our environment in so many different ways, that global warming is practically a footnote. Our crisis is far more dire than rising sea levels. Our true crisis comes from rising population levels: Since 1950, the population of the earth has TRIPLED. Growth continues EXPONENTIALLY and millions more are born each year than die, compounding the problem with each passing day. The planet cannot hold us all, and is breaking apart at the seams!

Our freshwater supplies are running out, as fossil aquifers are drained of water that took billions of years to accumulate, and will take another billion years to refill. Rivers are running dry and no longer even reaching the oceans. Even as we are faced with these shrinking water supplies, the rise of population and rise in living standards continues to increase the demand on what water is left, an explosive situation that can only end in widespread famine and death.

Our precious topsoil, needed to grow crops with, is being eroded by poor land management and dumped into the sea, where it can help no one. What's left are barren deserts and, of course, starvation.

Almost all of our rare metals are facing shortages and despite massive mining programs will be exhausted within the century. I can only assume recycling will then be the main and only source for these minerals, a solution that cannot sustain a continuously rising population!

Two billion people on this planet still use wood or dung as their main source of fuel, they live wretched, short, diseased lives and tend to small subsistence farms by hand. The technology already exists that could make every part of their production and consumption more efficient, but it is impossible to transfer because the people are too stupid and barbaric to implement them. What can be done with this lower third of humanity? How can the earth bear their ever-increasing load and how can morality bear their ever-increasing suffering?

What will we do when the third world begins to starve on a massive scale?

Even as we speak, new technologies, vastly destructive to the environment, have been required to continue feeding our oil-addicted world. As oil becomes scarcer, our extraction methods become more inventive, thorough, and expensive as we hunt down every last nook and cranny of this non-renewable energy. How long can this be sustained? Our entire economy and the livelihood of much of the world's population relies on cheap oil -- this cannot even last until the end of the century. Why aren't we switching to nuclear power while we still have the chance?

What will we do when the third world, having completely destroyed their own homelands through environmental degradation, comes surging across our borders to find a new and better life in our midst? If we don't protect the environment of the third world, the people who live there will not just lay down and die -- they will come, with fire and war, to carve out a new life in the places still capable of supporting life.

The coral reefs of the world are being destroyed. The forests of the world are being rapidly cut down, by the end of the century what will remain of them?

The fisheries of the world are completely depleted. If we continue harvesting the fish in our vast oceans, they will simply die out entirely. Around 1/5 of people on earth rely on fish as a staple of their diet. When the fish go, so goes the death of a couple billion people. Will we sit and watch this precious resource be destroyed forever? Will our kids ever have access to this cheap, plentiful, and tasty fruit of the oceans? Only if we act now to secure fishing laws and create private fish farms. The oceans are one giant tragedy of the commons, everyone is taking as much profit as they can without any notice of the long term, public good. This has to be stopped immediately, it's almost too late as it is.

Species are dying out at a rate 1,000 times as high as the norm. It is obvious that our imprint on the earth is the driving force behind this massive extinction. How many of these species were intrinsically beautiful? How many held a beautiful illustration of how evolution and biology works, that we could have learned from? How many were necessary to the ecosystem and eventually, to the quality of our water, air, food, and aesthetics? A strange syndrome is destroying our bee populations -- without bees, we cannot fertilize many of our crops. This is the sort of interdependency all the species of the earth have with one another. If practically every species on earth goes extinct, it is like a skyscraper with all but one column cut trying to uphold its massive weight by a single thread. Let's not try this experiment if we don't need to! Saving the biodiversity of the planet probably has a direct connection to our own health and the sustainability of the environment we have evolved to live in and thrive amongst. I don't want a city-planet where only two species exist -- blue-green algae for eating and burning, and humans for eating the algae and burning the algae in our factories for energy. As the extinctions continue, ask yourself, where should it stop? Where do we draw the line?

Sperm counts among mankind have lowered drastically over the century. More people are infertile today than at any point in our history. Could this be related to the number of chemicals, pesticides, and God knows what we've strewn about our water, air, living spaces, and everywhere else? Mental illnesses have skyrocketed, could this be because we are living in metal jungles instead of married to the land like we have evolved to be over the course of millions of years? Auto-immune diseases and allergies stalk the developed world -- is this because of the artificially clean environments we must keep in cities to avoid the otherwise plague pandemics of an artificially dirty high population density? City living is in itself pollution, and yet as we speak people continue to move into cities. Around 50% of people alive today, live in a city, and as subsistence farming becomes increasingly impossible and population continues to grow, this proportion will also expand to 60, 70, 90, 97% of people living in these monstrous unnatural hellholes. Could this have something to do with the high suicide rates -- not among the poor and diseased of the world -- but among the rich, healthy, and sheltered? Could all the woes of bare-bones existence be less than the mental trauma of modern life? How can that be? And yet, the suicide statistics don't lie. They speak for themselves.

All of this has to do with the environment, and mankind's collective decision to turn our backs on our own planet. In doing so, we deny our own nature, sabotage our children's future, and eradicate all the innocent life forms on this planet who should never bear the sins of our own mistakes. If we want to kill ourselves, fine, but don't drag the wolves and dolphins into it! If we are not willing to inherit the stars, then we should at the very least, preserve the right for the other species to evolve and inherit it themselves. A perusal of David Brin's Startide Rising paints a beautiful picture of how sentient dolphins would do in the great beyond -- let's not eliminate that chance on our watch.

I don't even think this is a comprehensive listing of the current environmental woes afflicting our Green Mother. Overuse of anti-biotics are making once-defeated diseases resurge as incurable mutant monsters. Feeding cow brains to other cows is causing unique new brain diseases that could sweep into humanity at a moment's notice. Whole forests are dying to mysterious diseases or beetles we stupidly imported. Crop diversity is reaching all-time lows, which exposes us to famine if any disease or insect zeroes in on our last strain of wheat, corn, or what have you. The problems go on and on, and they are all based on a complete disregard for our environment. A devil-may-care attitude that says the Earth will take care of itself. That we can do anything we like to it, and no changes will ever occur to it or us. Like usual, this sort of short-term thinking is adopted by greedy corporations, stupid mud people, and various special interests. And like usual, it is brave white people who, alone, stand up for the public good. The original environmentalists, and still the only real environmentalists on earth, are white people. Europeans especially! We are the one and only race that pays attention to these issues, or tries to avert them. Even as we speak, the chinese are killing off thousands of their own with coal power plants with absolutely no clean technology. As we speak, japanese are over-fishing the sea and slaughtering dolphins for 'competing over the fish crop.' Dolphins! Sentient life with brains larger than our own! It's outrageous. Even as we speak, the third-worlders breed and breed and breed, using up their last remaining resources all at once, instead of spacing them healthily and sustainably across the generations.

The only people who have ever cared about preserving our environment, the only people with environmental laws, are white people. In so far as the rest of the world respects the environment, it is at our prompting, our moral example, our financial incentives, our pressing on them. Without us, our Mother would be defenseless. Just as we are the champions of the Princess that is Evolution, we are the protector of the entire realm -- of Life itself and the very ground we walk across depends entirely on us. While the rest, ant-like, simply breed uncontrollably and devour, thoughtlessly with no plans for the future, every resource they can find -- we alone set aside national parks, plant new trees, recycle, scrub the towers on our chemical factories, use windmills and solar panels, and all the rest. Our scientists are leading the way to ecological life-savers like algae that eats trash, clean fusion power that leaves no radioactive waste, an end to global warming, and private fish farms where we feed and kill our own fish instead of stealing from the collective oceans.

For anyone who cares about the future of humanity, or life on earth, the inevitable conclusion follows: without whites to protect the earth, the earth is doomed. Without whites to defend the Earth, to speak for the Earth, she will go silent. We will float lifelessly through the void, all the green and blue turned to a mud-sludge, burnt and arid brown. That is the only conclusion we can reach from the track records of the rest of mankind. As shamefully as our own tycoons have treated the environment, it is nothing compared to what the communists did in the Soviet Union. The Ara Sea was dried to a salt flat, and Chernobyl irradiated half of the Ukraine. It is nothing compared to the desertification of the Sahel into the Sahara, by arab/negro herders intent on feeding their flocks of cattle instead of saving what precious grass remains. It is nothing to the litter and trash that is allowed to build up in all the cities and all the beaches of South America and South Africa, treating the natural beauty of the sea like a collective landfill. We inherited such a beautiful planet. There is nothing like it in the universe. We have a duty to pass it on, untouched, virgin and pure, to the next generation, just like we received it -- or better. If this means drastically reducing the human population, then so be it. As I just said, mankind's population has TRIPLED since 1950. Nobody in 1950 complained about how few people there were on earth and how empty and desolate life was. No, 1950 was a happy time, a prosperous time, a good time to be alive. If we third the population of the earth, we'll simply be returning to the population of the planet 60 years ago -- A TIME MANY OF US WERE ACTUALLY ALIVE ON THIS PLANET AND ARE STILL ALIVE TODAY!!! That's how short a span it has been since we inherited a mostly clean, a mostly pure earth -- and turned it into a human metal anthill perhaps fitting for bug-people but never for homo sapiens.

I also have a great idea on who we can target for this drastic population reduction. The most marginal, poor, starving, stupid, beknighted, barbaric classes wouldn't be a loss to anyone. They have like 10% of GDP and 1% of global trade to their name, with all 2 billion of them gone, we wouldn't even notice the difference. It wouldn't make a bit of difference to our economy or our standard of living. Nor do we have to kill them directly. All it takes is birth control! A linkage of birth control to foreign aid could reverse their birth rates and, without harming a single living being, save our planet from ecological disaster. Not only would we be saving ourselves, and our Earth, and the future -- we would also be saving all those children who, if they had been born, would known a life of only pain, disease, starvation, horror, stupidity, ignorance, and death. What kind of future do African children have? What kind of life do they lead? Is it even a human existence? Should anyone be cursed to be born into this world with AIDS, given polluted water, insufficient food, and be eaten alive by worms and flies until they die or are raped by crazed witchcraft believers who believe a child's virginity is the cure to AIDS? I can't comprehend how love, or pity means bringing as many of these types of children into existence as possible. To me, it is just the opposite. We should make sure as few children are ever born into these circumstances as possible. It should be a human rights violation to have a child with a future of this sort. It should be child abuse to give birth to a child in Africa, and the prosecution of such a crime is completely moral and just. To people with their heads screwed on straight, the crime isn't stopping Africa's implosion -- it's not stopping its explosion on the world at large.

In any event, environmentalism is more than just overpopulation or the woes of Africa. It indeed calls for a new way of life for all people on this planet, and it should be involved in all of our economic and lifestyle decisions from the bottom up. I don't want to hijack environmentalism for the cause of racism, what I want to do is integrate the two causes into an overarching whole. These two truths, these twin dangers, mud people and the destruction of our last natural resources, must both be dealt with in the coming century. It's obvious that the two solutions will also overlap. It's obvious that the Green party should be our natural allies and love the white race above all others -- it's obvious that Green parties only exist in majority white nations!!! It's time to take care of our planet which gave us birth, it's a cause whose time has come. It's time we acknowledge the natural differences between the races and assert that the superior should inherit the earth, it's a cause whose time has come. There is no friction between them.

Who will save our Environment? Whites, and whites alone. We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. We must secure the survival of our Planet and a future for white children. What could be more obvious than that the two go hand in hand?

On Free Trade

I know nationalists are supposed to oppose free trade and the 'globalist corporate' agenda. But I don't agree. Free trade benefits everybody, unlike immigration, and doesn't pose any threat to our genes or way of life.

Free trade is this great system where countries agree to trade fairly with each other, without government interference. Due to this, people are allowed to shop for the highest quality at the lowest price in the world. All consumers benefit from the increased competition and avoidance of any national monopoly business that hides behind local subsidies and tariffs to push its worthless goods on the imprisoned consumer who has to buy it no matter how bad it is. There was a time when Americans had to buy from their own car companies, who made a bunch of crappy cars nobody wanted. Now we all buy hondas and toyotas, because they are better cars, and the American companies are going out of business. This means everyone employed making cars in America is out of a job -- or does it? In fact, Americans are employed making Toyotas right here in America. Besides, for every car Japan sells us, they must someday use those dollars to buy something back from America. If they decided to never buy from us and only 'sell' us their cars, we have essentially traded trillions of dollars of actual goods for paper -- certainly a good deal for our side. If, however, Japan wishes something in return, they will have to buy from one of our companies something or other -- and that will employ someone or other in America. The more free trade, the better and cheaper our goods, and the more people we have employed. Think about it, most of the world (and thus the marketplace) exists outside our borders. Therefore most demand for goods and services is overseas, thus, the largest source of employment is overseas for our own people. By engaging in free trade, we tap into the largest source of employment possible, the best way to keep our people employed is to have them working for the demand of outsiders, that's where the demand is.

Furthermore, American companies competing with each other have little competitive advantage. It doesn't make much of a difference whether we buy wheat from Kansas or Nebraska, both companies will produce the wheat at about the same price. However, we have an enormous advantage over farmers in Saudi Arabia. Therefore free trade offers us another boon -- allowing our companies access to markets where they have a competitive advantage, and thus can make enormous profits and serve a large demand, thus employing tons of people back home. Saudi Arabia can only produce wheat at insanely high prices, using what little freshwater they have in the middle of a desert that dries up the water the moment it reaches the surface. Meanwhile Kansas farmers can offer wheat at 1/10 the price. So instead of Kansans trying to dig up oil wells and Saudi Arabia trying to dig up water wells, we simply both specialize in what we have available, then trade between us. This way we have as much oil as Saudi Arabia, and they have as much water, and thus as much wheat, as Kansas. Everyone's better off. It's called comparative advantage and is the largest reason trade makes money, rather than being a zero-sum game. Barriers to free trade decrease trade, and thus decrease the profit-making potential of comparative advantage. Without free trade, what would become of desert countries? What would become of our energy grid? What of all the precious metals that lay outside our borders, necessary to our economy? In WWII Germany and Japan had a simple solution, conquer large empires so they could simply seize whatever natural resources they needed. That sort of thinking is insane and destructive, it didn't work then and it especially won't now that we all have nukes. The only remaining option is free trade, where everyone can make use of everyone's comparative advantages, as though we all belonged to the same country. A completely linked economy where the water in the US, the oil in Saudi Arabia, the phosphate in Morocco and the tin in Bolivia are just as available to each other as they are to themselves. Free trade is necessary for both peace and prosperity -- no one can do without these goods in a modern economy, and if we did not trade for them, the only other solution would be to war over them. Who does that help? Even if we did conquer the entire world so as to have access to all the natural resources on earth, what's the first thing we would do? Create a free trade zone just like the one we have within the boundaries of the USA and buy and sell those resources without tariffs or regulatory barriers impeding their worldwide flow. Ironic.

Free trade already has all these benefits: massive additional employment by tapping the 6.4 billion people's demand outside the borders of the USA, lower consumer prices on all our goods manufactured in poorer areas, the increase of the economy of scale and the ability to specialize in the manufacture of a few selected goods -- Let me explain this further. If every single county decided to set up a brewery, or a tobacco plant, or a gun manufactury, each a small business that supplied a few customers, the infrastructure costs would be enormous. Many buildings and machines would have to be replicated in each county in order to manufacture the good, creating needless waste and redundancy. Instead, it is better to build just one plant that can supply hundreds of counties with their beer, tobacco, and firearms. This way the specialists who are best qualified to make such goods, are the ones supplying everyone, instead of just one lucky county. Furthermore, the machinery only has to be built once instead of a hundred times, one in ever county, and so on and so forth. Now expand this worldwide. Is there really any reason for an office chair business to exist in every country? Wouldn't it be better for a few companies to be competing across the whole world, making all the office chairs the world needs? Remember shipping costs are lower than overland costs, so an office chair made anywhere on earth is basically as nearby as one made a few states away on dry land. With that in mind, it is better to only have to build the infrastructure and hire the specialists in office-chair-production only once and have them handle the entire business, than to endlessly replicate the process in various small and imperfect forms all around the world.

Anyway, as I was saying, free trade also creates world peace and a just solution to the uneven distribution of natural resources across the world. It also lets people specialize in a field that the weather, soil, and geographic area best supports. For instance Singapore is a port, because it borders the sea -- while it can't produce its own food, it lets other people do that for it, while it does port-business for them. This gives everyone the chance to specialize in what makes logical sense given their geography. Everyone is more productive when they can specialize in something the land supports instead of rejects.

The detractors to free trade will complain that it lowers wages or drives up unemployment for certain groups who would lose in a worldwide competition. To this I have a simple answer: a universal dividend paid out monthly to all citizens that can cover their basic needs. This way we do not interfere with free trade, while also providing a safety net for anyone it could adversely affect. I want to take care of everyone, but not at the price of reduced productivity or sabotaging our machines (after all, machinery reduces wages and destroys jobs far more than trade!). This is a compromise everyone should be happy with. We must take care of our own, but we must also move forward and act in an economically rational and productive manner. Another complaint is that free trade despoils the environment. I agree this has to stop. All free trade agreements should include with them strict rules for protecting the environment from negative impacts. The earth does not only belong to us, it is also the common inheritance of all of our children. Our descendants cannot be robbed blind for the sake of our present welfare, this is a losing strategy that can only end in extinction. In my next post, I'm going to talk about the dangers of environmental degradation going on all around us and it is an extremely worrying situation, in part driven by globalist slash-and-burn, strip-mine, mono-crop greed. Free trade can work hand-in-hand with bilateral agreements to protect the environment, I really see no conflict between them. Ultimately, we will need worldwide agreements to protect the environment, because our water and air know no boundaries. Pollution in one area will float halfway across the world to plague another, completely innocent area. The earth knows nothing about our political boundaries and therefore when it comes to protecting the earth, we cannot afford to worry about political boundaries either. If preserving our race is essential, so is preserving our planet, at least until we achieve space flight. I don't see how any nationalist cannot also be an environmentalist at heart. It's a shame the ultra-liberal, pro-immigrant Green party can't seem to get this through their head: we are a part of life's wonders, and deserve to survive just like the snowy owl or the two-toed frog! Sheesh. Save the whales? Sure. Just so long as you agree to save the whites!

There are also some arcane arguments for why we should avoid free trade when it comes to protecting infant industries or building up new technologies. These can be seen as the exceptions that prove the rule. I am willing to believe there are plenty of times an industry needs protection from outside competition until it's ready, but the idea that it deserve indefinite protection simply admits it will always be subpar and a white whale -- why should consumers have to put up with that? Any justification for abridging free trade must always be on a local and temporary basis -- free trade must be the norm and the default state one always returns to after the government goal is achieved.

Another argument against free trade is we need the ability to support our own military with our own productive capacity. I disagree. All we need these days militarily is nukes. They can protect our country just fine. Every other weapon is an offensive tool meant to bully others, and should be scrapped anyway. We can build plenty of nukes using the resources within our national borders, and thus the point is moot. In an age of nearly universal world peace, it's strange to be worrying about our domestic ability to produce tanks and planes anyway. In what scenario are we going to be attacked by the entire world and have no allies in the next few decades? What kind of foreign policy pursuit would make such a thing possible? No doubt if such an alliance did occur, it's because we deserved it! Therefore allowing others to be involved in the building of our tanks and planes does not undermine legitimate military needs -- only illegitimate ones.

Free trade and globalism is a great thing. In the last few decades trade has doubled and redoubled, meanwhile the living standards of the whole world have increased to unimagined new levels. Free trade, and global trade in general, has been a large part of this great economic success. We cannot afford to stop trading, and trading freely, with the world. We also can't afford to lose the white race for the sake of a cheap burger flipper or nurse down the road. For situations like this, common sense must prevail, not dogmatic libertarianism or dogmatic socialism. The third way is the reality-focused path.

Yay For Those Other Guys:

After a little research, I'm going to list the rest of the EU election and which parties we should be glad won some seats for our side.

Beggars can't be choosers, so I basically went for anyone who wanted to restrict immigration, had a slogan like 'X for X-ians', or was demonized as far-right. Anyone demonized as far-right can't be bad:

Party: Percentage of Vote: # of EU MEPS Won Country

BNP: 6.5% 2 UK
Vlaams Belang: 10.28% 2 Belgium
Ataka: 11.43% 2 Bulgaria
Danish People's Party: 15.2% 2 Denmark
LA. O.S. 7.13% 2 Greece
Front Nationale: 6.5% 3 France
Northern League: 9.5% 8 Italy
Jobbick: 14.77% 3 Hungary
Freedom Party: 17% 4 Netherlands
FPO: 13.1% 2 Austria
Greater Romania Party: 7.2% 2 Romania
SNS: 5.56% 1 Slovakia

If seats are given proportionately throughout the EU, we can also find out the number of White Nationalists (or something close to White Nationalists) voted in the EU elections this weekend, by knowing how many voted for the BNP. Since the BNP got a million votes and 2 seats, each seat = 500,000 voters.

33 seats * 500,000 votes = 16,500,000 voters. Or, roughly, the population of Chile voted for White Nationalism. That's a decent sized country. Lump in the kids and the like who couldn't vote but would like to have, and we're talking the population of Australia. (or Taiwan, funny how size doesn't matter much.) Good luck getting all these people to move in together and form a new nation though. As a bunch of anti-immigrant nationalists, they'd probably end up warring with each other and would never get along. Just imagine trying to force a common language on these guys. The idea of a pro-white European alliance is fine, but it will always be at arm's reach. Europeans are more interested in their ethnic rivalries (like vlaams belang being anti-wallonian, or the northern league's desire to secede from southern Italy.) than the death of their race as a whole.

33 seats out of 736 = around 5% of the EU parliament will be nationalist. That's not going to make much of a difference, if any. They will perhaps be allowed to make some nationalist speeches that reach a wide audience, but that's about the limit of their power. Everything important will be done without their involvement and certainly without their ability to stop it.

Comparing the overall European nationalist movement to the BNP's success (2/69) we get 5% EU wide, 3% in the UK. So as I was hoping, nationalism is stronger outside of the UK, than inside the UK. But the difference is negligible. Compared to the real political parties of Europe, 3 or 5%, is still just a gnat.

In sum, the worldwide economic depression, soaring immigration rates, soaring crime rates, soaring unemployment rates, and soaring everything else, has done nothing for white nationalism. When will whites learn? By the time we do, will it be too late? Have even South African whites learned their lesson yet? Meanwhile virtually every Japanese member of parliament is anti-immigrant and immigration is basically 0 in the country. That's the model a civilized, common sense, healthy country takes. And yet Europe, more racially aware than the US is by far (hell we elected a black muslim communist. . .), is still flopping around at 5%.

Perhaps it isn't about conditions worsening so that people learn the 'hard way' that nationalism is the equivalent to survivalism. Perhaps the people are simply waiting for a convincing leader to give a good argument for why they should preserve themselves and their people. Or perhaps the vast majority of people simply lack that genetic combination of paranoia, foresight, and ethno-centrism that sells so well for white nationalists. Arguments that make perfect sense to us, may fall on deaf ears to those genetically different from us. Perhaps nationalism will always be a minority viewpoint, shared only by a few 'eccentrics' on the fringe. But then, why did it gain power in Nazi Germany not so long ago? Why all the nationalist independence movements that broke up the world empires and replaced with dozens of states drawn along ethnic borders? It just doesn't add up. People are attracted to nationalism, and they have been historically. Regionalism has always prospered over gigantic, out of touch Empires ruled by genetic strangers. So why such lousy results? Economic conditions? The power of the media and television? It's so hard to know.

In the coming days we should see the nationalist block emerge in the EU parliament, it will be interesting to see how cooperative they are with each other, or if they fall to back-biting and finger-pointing without ever even addressing issues like Turkey or immigration or muslims, things they can all agree on. We have to continue to hope that someday, whites will wake up and smell the coffee, and these dismal election results suddenly skyrocket to 50%. What else can we do? Without the people behind us, violent separatism never works out. Ask the Basques or the Tamil Tigers. All we can do is keep slogging to the polls and keep propagandizing the people about the threats of non-whites swamping our homelands and taking everything from us, our money pride freedom and even our genes. 16 million people with their heads on straight is a start. Now we just need to make this 500 million and we're good to go. Keep fighting. After all, we can't afford to lose this one.

Yay BNP!

Finally the Euro-election results are in. The BNP has won 3 local county council seats and 2 Euro MEP's. It was a close call but Nick Griffin barely squeezed in to the last seat of the northwest. This is great news, a big step forward from the BNP's previous performance of 0 councilors and 0 MEP's.

I give my heartfelt congratulations to the BNP and their activists and voters, and the proportional democratic voting system that allowed the BNP to gain seats in districts they were never the majority in. Nick Griffin got his seat polling at only 8% for instance. This kind of electoral victory could never occur in America, where one must win the plurality outright to ever get any representation.

However, 2 MEP's is nothing in the large scheme of things. Here we are in a worldwide depression, immigration is out of control, all the ruling parties are caught red handed in corruption scandals, and the sleepwalking public decides to elect 2 nationalists to office. What does it take? What will it take, how bad must it get, before people stop sleepwalking and start realizing what's at stake each and every election?

What troubles me is no democracy has actually forestalled an immigration takeover in the past. Rhodesia didn't save itself, South Africa didn't save itself, Serbia lost Kosovo to demographic change, and Brazil is barely above 50% white, but none ever forestalled their demographic defeat. Why do we imagine that if things simply get worse, if the percentages of non-whites get higher, if crime goes up or the per capita GDP goes down, that nationalists will eventually gain the approval of the voters? We just aren't seeing that reflected in the elections.

"Worse is better?" Things have gotten much worse, the nationalists have done slightly better. This kind of correlation does seem to exist, the question is, is it a strong correlation? Or is it too weak to stop the coming juggernaut? The beast slouching towards Gemorrah, as it were. I am unhappy with these results, just as I'm pessimistic about the future of nationalism and whites everywhere. The election has done nothing to stop the coming death of the UK or the death of the white race. The token resistance of 2 BNP MEP's out of 69, around 1 million votes for the BNP, polling even below the Green party (8.7%) at just 6.5% of the overall vote. 6.5%? 6.5% is not enough to save the UK. So now we wait for the next election, 5 years down the line. And in those five years, another million foreigners will have entered the UK, and another million englishmen will have left it. IE, as many foreigners will have entered in the next five years, dead set against the BNP's rise to power, as the entire BNP vote this year! The entire accumulated power of UK nationalism is equivalent to a few years of boat people continuing to flow in. Worse is better? Only if the remaining british whites wise up really, really quickly.

With 20%, or 40% of the vote, the BNP could have enacted some real changes for Britain's good. They could have stopped immigration and cracked down on crime, stopped the handouts to the banksters and gotten the British army out of its quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, not so much. The only thing we can hope for is that in the coming five years, things will continue to get worse, and wider publicity and propoganda will continue to spread the BNP message. It could be even now that most people in the UK have never heard of the BNP or even thought about the issues the BNP stands for. After all, around 70% of British people didn't even vote this Euro-Election. That kind of apathy has to stop. The vote is one of the only forces the common people have against the money-elites, who otherwise control everything -- funding, media, jobs, fashion, you name it. The one time everyone has an equal say in the fate of the country, and 70% don't even bother. You can bet the elites bothered, they probably marched out in force to vote for the status quo and the continuation of their unchallenged reign. The commoners have to wise up and do the same. Even if elections never deliver a real victory for the british people, even standing up and being heard can make a difference. A shame no such democratic system exists in the US, or maybe my vote could count for something. Instead, all the third parties in the US poll at around 1% at best. Who cares who you vote for? A vote for any of them is just a wasted vote. The Republicans and Democrats are the only game in town, and they're the exact same party either way you vote. Both are pro-immigration, anti-white, jew-funded status-quoers. I'm so envious of the European democracy, and yet 70% of people in the UK, with the actual chance to make a difference, still don't bother! Sheesh. The sheeple baah again.

As more results come in, I'll take a look at the European nationalists across Europe. Since I speak English and am half english by descent, obviously the UK held the most interest for me. But every nationalist in the European Parliament helps. (Not that I'm really opposed to the EU like most of these Euro-skeptic parties are. I'd be fine with the EU if the EU was anti-immigrant, anti-communist, and pro-white. But that's neither here nor there. The point is the euro-skeptic parties are also racialist parties, and that's the only decisive issue for who gets my approval, the rest is just petty in the long view.)

The overall Euro-nationalist picture promises to be a lot larger than 6.5%. . .I hope! Especially from Eastern Europe, which is odd since they have some of the smallest proportions of foreigners. It could be economics, not the mere number of foreigners, is the largest driving factor behind nationalist thinking. In any event, the numbers simply aren't in yet, hopefully tomorrow we'll know the full story.

Geert Wilders is sending 4 euro-skeptic seats to the EU, but I hardly count their party as nationalist. More like anti-islamist. If a bunch of Christian lebanese or voodoo Africans wanted to immigrate to Holland, I assume Geert Wilders would be glowingly for it and his party would support it full throttle. such are the contortions of these faux-nationalist parties that strive for respectability while also competing for the anti-immigrant and racist vote. I count the victory of 2 BNP MEP's as worth a 1,000 victories of the 4 PVV MEP's. One actually stands, exclusively, and openly, for white people. The other stands for nothing -- basically it stands for opposition to Islam and the celebrityhood of Geert himself. That is pro-nothing, it defends nothing, and it certainly conserves nothing. The dutch people would still die with Geert as prime minister, so who cares if he wins? Oh well, I am being too harsh -- it is, of course, a step in the right direction. The majority of EU immigration is from Islamic areas, and thus Geert by pure coincidence is a pretty strong vote for anti-immigration and demographic preservation. I just think we should beware Greeks bearing gifts, that's all.

Yay BNP, boo for voter apathy and status-quo support, boo for pretend nationalists who will do nothing to save us in the end (like UKIP, who sent a whopping 10 MEP's to the EU but stand for absolutely nothing at all, the most ridiculous party one can imagine, their purpose is solely their own enrichment at taxpayer expense -- but did we learn from their last 5 years of scandals and councilors under arrest? Nope. Not one bit. La sigh.)

If you're interested in following the results more closely, check out this link (where I got most of my info):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/elections/euro/09/flash/html/eu.stm