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.