Courage:

You know what I hate? Cowards.

There's a reason Plato discussed only four virtues, out of all the possibilities, as what makes a man. Wisdom, Temperance, Courage, and Justice. All of these words have incredibly deep meanings to a philosopher, they are not just buzz words to be thrown out on every possible occasion.

I've written a post on Justice. Perhaps it's time to write a post on Courage. I like my definition of justice -- justice is when evil doers are worse off than good people. That's all I ask. Be our lives ever so miserable, evil people should be even more miserable, they should not profit from their deeds. Punishing evil doers so that their lives are worse than good people's, is the heart and soul of justice -- the whole long and short of it. It isn't because I want to stop their behavior, though I'm certainly glad to see it stopped. It's because it isn't right for an evil person to benefit from his evil deeds towards others, or for a good person to suffer for doing good to others. This is innately wrong, and the balance books must be ledgered. The debt must be paid. If we have the power, we should always use it to punish evil and reward good, wherever we can, whenever we can. God is not just because he does not do this. For this, he can never be forgiven. In fact, from this fact alone, it's obvious no such God exists. If God existed there would be justice in the world. There is no justice, therefore, God does not exist. But if he did exist, he would never be my God. A God who allows evil to prosper and good to be punished, who rewards bad behavior and abandons the innocent, is no God of mine.

(And don't give me bullshit about the afterlife. By then it's far too late to right what's gone wrong. What about all the years in THIS life the evil thrived and the good suffered? You can't simply erase what's already happened by adding more shit on later. And don't give me bullshit about 'free will,' if it is right for police to restrain criminals by force, it is just as right for God to restrain criminals by force. The idea that we can't violate the 'free will' of rapists and thus must let them do whatever they please to the rest of us, is bullshit only religious people could possibly swallow, and only because they are quite content to use double-think and contradictions, simply to arrive at the conclusion they want, with no attempt whatsoever to remain logical or principled in making this argument.)

You'll also note that it's possible to contain all four virtues, without doing a single thing. Without being a single thing. Without owning a single thing. You can be tied up in a cellar and the four virtues are with you. You can be a king or a pauper and the four virtues are with you. Note how different the ancient philosophy is from today's values. Now it's about what you do, what you own, that determines your value. No one cares what people ARE. People want to know what job you have, how much money you make, how many sexual conquests you've made, and rush to judgment on that basis. I can't count the number of times people resort to arguments like, "You're just a loser who can't get laid," or "You're just a loser who couldn't get into law school," or "You're just a loser who makes less money than me." This is the concept of morality, of value, in the modern world. If you trot forth enough meaningless credentials and empty accomplishments, that have nothing to do with your moral fiber at all, if you boast about enough material possessions or fortunate circumstances, then you are 'superior' and your opinions are somehow sainted with the light of truth, just by the fact that they spewed out of your holy mouth.

I don't believe in this school, I despise it, I despise anyone who argues with it. They are beneath me. True good people are found out, when you sift long enough, truly valuable people, truly admirable people, when they come across a decision, a crossroads, and they make the right one. The one that demanded the most from their souls, and gave the least to their bodies. People who don't cheat. People who keep their promises. People who defend the innocent or the weak, even if it means exposing themselves to the same injuries. People who rarefy everyone and everything they meet, instead of degrading and debasing it. You know these people. They are like beings of light in a darkened world. They make you happy despite yourself. They make you contemplative, and reflective, and wondering if you couldn't be a bit better like them, every time you meet. These good people, are also the ones who honor the other good people. Who know right from wrong, and judge people by it. Simply saying you love or admire, a lovable or admirable figure, gives you more credit than a million dollars or a dozen doctorates. Mugabe has a million dollars and a dozen doctorates. It says nothing about your character. Only who you are, the choices you make, the paths you take at critical junctures, and the praise or blame you bestow on others when they make their choices, says anything about you. Until then, I don't want to hear it.

Recently, I've been disgusted with all the cowardice showing up in WN circles. Nick Griffen was a worthless coward during Question Time. He should've said "I deny your worthless Holocaust, go fuck yourself," to Jack Straw. Or, if he believes it, he should've explained why he changed his mind over the last 20 years or so. It's a knotty question, there is little evidence to work with, so obviously, without a time machine, honest people can come to very different conclusions. Both the same person over time, and different people at the same time. In my opinion, a complete lack of gassed bodies (note, tons of bodies of disease were found, but not a single body that was gassed was ever found. Are we to believe the Nazis were just extremely efficient when it came to wholly obliterating 6 million gassed bodies while leaving any bodies that died of natural causes, or even gunshot, to lay wherever they fell?), a complete lack of the apparatus needed for such gassings, like serious gas chambers with effective ventilation and serious crematories that could really melt millions of corpses to ashes in the course of a couple years, a complete lack of credible eye witnesses, video tape footage, photos, or anything else showing gas chambers, and a complete lack of documentation where anyone, anywhere said they were gassing jews within the Nazi government, is good enough for me. But I could be wrong, who knows. I could change my mind tomorrow, in light of new facts coming to the fore. I have nothing against Holocaustians who review the facts and come down on the side of the establishment. What I can't stand is a coward who thinks one thing in his heart, and says another thing to the public at large.

If Griffen were a man of honor, he had three options. He could've said "I deny your fucking Holocaust, it is the lie of the century." He could've said, "I used to deny it, but I changed my mind, because of X." Or he could've said, "This question is irrelevant, and certainly not a platform of the BNP, who I represent. Whatever I think in my private life about the holocaust, it has nothing to do with my party's platform, or the politics of today. Let's just move on." Or he could've even said something as simple as "No comment." !!! Just that! Just "No comment." ! And I would have respect for this coward. But no, he claims he never denied the Holocaust, denies his own quotes, and gives no reason whatsoever for his reversal -- with the implication that his reversal is entirely on the surface, and is just a two-faced duplicitous mask. his very manner of speaking and posture, are full of slimy, oily cowardice. Like he's afraid to believe in his own beliefs, like he feels guilty for his own views of right and wrong. Let's be simple, if you feel guilty for believing what you believe, you probably shouldn't believe it anymore! If you feel morally in the wrong for your stance on morals, it's about time to review your moral code! By God, he's worked for white nationalism all his life, but he's still ashamed of himself for doing so! He's still ashamed of his life's work, his very life code! That's cowardice, all the way down to the core.

Griffen lied when he said he is anti-David Duke. That he associates with David Duke only to 'rescue troubled youth.' What an absurd, obvious lie. He associates with David Duke because he agrees with him. At least on most issues, and closely enough, to consider him a comrade. He's friends with friends of David Duke. If he really rejected Duke, he could never accept a friend who accepted David Duke. The doer and the sanctioner of an act, or view, or statement, are one and the same. This is just elementary. But the coward says it anyway. he says it to an entire crowd, a worldwide audience, the most obvious of lies, the most bald-faced, craven excuse to ever come out of someone's mouth, just to escape the charge for the present moment. Who did he think it would sell to? Who did he think would believe it? Anything, apparently, just to escape the situation and not have to defend it. The man who is the spokesmen of a million British, who carries our one chance to stand up for our beliefs and defend our views, instead tries to escape them and run away. If that's how he feels, why didn't he let someone else go on Question Time??? Why doesn't he resign and let some other chairman who actually believes he is a good person, on the side of good, to go take these interviews?

Even the black woman was disgusted with him. He tried to somehow wheedle into her good favor, to grovel to her, to shower distinctions on her -- a black woman who is an inveterate enemy to the cause, who has no right to be in Britain, who is the very personification of ugly, stupid, sub-human inferiority, and he's trying to wag his tail, roll over, and lick her hand, as her most servile subject just looking for a pat on the head. It is possible, however unlikely, that I'd find some black I respected and honored. But it can't be her. It can't be the hitman, the liar, the affirmative action immigrant invader, trying to destroy your life's work, and everything you stand for, right in front of you. If he cannot even distinguish friend from foe, whose side is he on?

Then there's Craig Boedeker. Everyone makes a big deal out of him because he tries to make the softest, most inoffensive pro-white film possible. He is cast as this super moderate who is just trying to restore balance to the world, who would never dream of hurting a fly. I watched the film, and I was unimpressed. Sure, it was okay, but he got these people into interviews on the basis of a lie. He tricked people into thinking they were fighting racism, when in fact he was using them as spokesmen FOR racism. That already made me uncomfortable. Then there is that shameful moment where he throws all the white Americans before 1870 under the bus, saying "Sure, THEY were evil genociders and slavers, but I am descended of immigrants who came AFTER all that. Don't group ME with THOSE people." So whose side are you on, bub? The white race, or irish immigrants in America? Maybe they should be given affirmative action too, while the rest of us wasps suffer forever for our ancestors sins? Is that your position? For the record, I think the conquest of America from the Indians was one of the best events in world history. If the lost continent of Atlantis suddenly showed up in the pacific, full of another continent of savages, cannibals, hunter-gatherers, and stone-age illiterate barbarians, I'd go colonize them too. I think slavery was wrong, but hardly because of how it treated blacks. Blacks were already slaves when we purchased them, and they had a better life here than they ever could have had in Africa, both themselves, and their descendants. I object to slavery because of its impact on real people. It depresses the wages of the white working class that have to compete with them. It unleashed a barbarian, and incompetent, race on its white neighbors, who have become our perpetual albatross. It treats people as chattel and encourages the idea that humans of all sorts can be abused and used by others for purely economic advantage, without any moral concerns.

But I'd rather follow George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both slave owners, to hell and back, than say one word of praise for MLK Jr. I have more respect for these slavers, despite their mistaken attitudes and actions on this one point, than I will ever have for the contemporary, non-slave holding whites of today, who preach for their own extinction and are too craven to stand up for their own children. For Boedeker to throw George Washington and Thomas Jefferson under the bus, to condemn centuries worth of white men at the very moment of our triumph -- The enlightenment, the Age of Discovery, the Industrial Revolution, our conquest of the entire world -- is treachery and cowardice of the highest order. He is no spokesmen for whites. just another cringing coward trying to claim how non-racist he is and flinching from every imagined insult that might be thrown his way, to the point of surrender and apology before ever even being attacked. It's like making a film protesting Stalin, where the first thing you do is admit the evil Kulaks had it coming, and it was quite right to liquidate them, but, but, *I*, personally, am innocent! I shouldn't be lumped in with them! Please, comrade stalin, spare me! Forget all the others, just spare me and we'll be at total peace and equaniminity with each other's policies and views!

If that's Boedeker's motive, and the film seems to corroborate it quite nicely, as he never mentions the 14 words, or anything else solidly in support of white people, but simply wants to 'not be called a racist,' then I say he is a coward. He knows what is right, but he won't stand up for it. He's too afraid of what people might think. He's as useless as all the rest. In corroboration to this, recently some investigator dredged up comments he'd made on youtube. I have no idea what they were, all I know is Craig Boedeker gave a weaselly answer about how they were 'out of context,' or 'spur of the moment.' It was like the full grown adult was a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. This is a coward's excuse! What he should have said is, "I stand by every damn word, and if you don't like it, show me where I'm wrong. Anywhere. Prove one damn word I wrote is wrong in any way." Or if he really was sorry he said those words, he should have said, "I was wrong and I am sorry." Or if he really was misinterpreted, he should have said, "This is what I meant. Take it or leave it."

The fact that he said none of those things, and continues to hide behind a mask of anti-racism and moderation, just marks him as one more coward. Do you see how hard it is to be a good person, how few and far between real men are? Do you start to see what courage really means?

This is just the beginning. Recently Fjordman has been saying a lot of good things, I commend him for all the progress he's been making towards the truth. But how cowardly of him to say this:

"It is perfectly possible, indeed likely, that there is a large genetic component to culture, which would mean that the continuation and preservation of European civilization can only be accomplished through the preservation of our genetic heritage."

Enough hypotheticals are in there to choke a horse. It is possible that there is a large genetic component? Which would mean, only in that 'likely possibility', that the preservation of European civilization can only be accomplished through the preservation of our genetic heritage. But of course, it's also possible, perhaps even likely, that there is no large genetic component, in which case, oh well! Thanks for that huge vote of support Fjordman!

Fjordman of course knows that twin studies have already definitively shown that genetics are not just 'possible,' but in fact, the case. And the influence is not 'large,' but 'the great majority'. Around 80% of anything that makes you who you are. That adoption studies, where blacks were raised in white homes, had blacks ending up with the same IQ and life outcomes, as their biological parents. And having, get this, a 0% correlation to their adoptive parents. No influence at all! The blacks could have been raised by machines, for all the difference it made! Furthermore, he knows that like all statistics, the larger your sample size, the more fatalistic a situation becomes. Any individual atom can quantum tunnel to who knows where, and display the strangest of traits. But a desk stays in the same place forever, operating under the most basic of newtonian laws. The same is true of societies. Genetics may fail in predicting, perfectly, what any individual will do or be in life. But you can be damn sure that they will never fail in predicting how a society will turn out. With a billion genomes sharing like traits forming an aggregated whole, the truth will out. Africans create Africa. Europeans create Europe. It's that simple. To obfuscate this truth with 'likely,' 'possibly,' 'large influence,' blah blah, is just refusing to stick your flag in the ground and stand by your own words. This way, if anyone challenges him, he can retreat with claims that he's only theorizing and doesn't really know.

It is not just this. Fjordman refuses to endorse any course of conduct. He'll say the right things, but he won't say the 14 words. If not, why not? It's a good question. Is he against securing a future for white children? Is he okay with seeing our race vanish from the face of the earth? Perhaps he is right, perhaps we are entirely powerless to prevent it. Does he not have the moral duty, even once, to at least lodge a PROTEST to this fact? To say, "If I had my way, it would not be this way. I wish something quite other, than what is going to occur." It is a simple vow. We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. You either take it or leave it. It doesn't matter if you can never act on it, though I try to act on it every day and would give my life for it the moment it would be of any use. It matters just in saying it. It matters whether you have the balls to say it, or not. Whether you will take any stand, at any point, in your life. Or if you will just let the rising tide sweep over you, with no opposition to it at all. With not a single oath against it. Or for anything.

There is also this cringing cowardice in the statement, that is very subtly put. It's not that Fjordman loves white people. It's not that Fjordman wants to protect white people. No, never! That, of course, would be evil, racist, bigoted, prejudiced, and wrong. No, he just happens to like white civilization. If only we could somehow dispense with these annoying white people, while preserving their civilization, all would be right in the world. But unfortunately, that cannot be, so we must bear with this odious tribe of cancer-cells, for the sake of the civilization they produce.

You cannot separate a people's worth from their production. If a person is beautiful, you cannot love the beauty and think nothing of the person. If a nation is beautiful, you cannot love the beauty and think nothing of the nation. Good things exist only in the people who embody them. He does a disservice to all those white people, whom he admits have produced such a wonderful society, by saying THEY are dispensable, THEY don't matter. Only the fruits of their actions are worth anything. The fruits are indispensable, but the people who produced them can all go to the ovens for all he cares! Is that just? Is that gratitude? Is that his idea of gratitude? You can't thank someone for their performance and then slap them in the face, it just doesn't work that way.

I don't give a fig about European civilization. It has changed a thousand times, and it will change a thousand more. I love white people. There is a difference. I love white people because wherever they are, whoever they are, in whatever era, they are so incredibly better than everyone and everything else. They are more beautiful, more thoughtful, more caring, more successful, more powerful, more ambitious, more everything I love and admire. The greeks, the romans, the germans, the french, the russians, the british, the americans, all of them. Every era. You just look at them and start gushing with admiration and emotion for what incredible feats they managed in their time. Feats of industry, feats of intelligence, feats of strength, sure. But even better, feats of morality, artistry, and sheer divinity.

Whites fought at the Alamo. Whites fought the battle of berlin. Whites fought in stalingrad. Whites fought the battle of britain. Whites fought at the battle of plessy. Whites fought at the battle of blood river. Whites fought at Agincourt on St. Crispin's day. They were all heroes. Their valor, their refusal to surrender, their overcoming -- or being overcome by, hopelessly superior numbers, thrills my heart. I don't care what the state of european civilization was at the time. Virtue is eternal and immutable. Every one of these whites, on every side, were some of the most courageous souls to ever walk the earth. That's courage. If you can't even stand up for your beliefs on an anonymous internet site, if you can't even forthrightly say what you mean, what's in your heart, and stand for something --anything! Any moral principle you believe! Then you aren't worth the pinky finger of a single white warrior who died on any of these battlefields. You are nothing.

Look at the difference between Galileo and Watson! Galileo said, after all his denunciations -- "and yet it moves." And yet it moves! But watson, that vile coward, that despicable cowlick of a man, said he was totally in the wrong, he never meant it, please forgive me, votes for obama, donates to black charities, and practically writhes like a worm on the ground for blacks to love him again. The despicable two-bit whore! He, a nobel prize winner, who has won more nobel prizes in science than the entire black race, has no reason to apologize to anyone! He is better than the entire black race put together! The COWARD. If anyone could have told the truth and been heard, if anyone could have spoken truth to power, it was Him. But he abandoned the truth, he abandoned what he knew was right in his heart, and betrayed all of us. The whole white race may go extinct, women might be mass raped and little children's brains might be smashed against walls, because that worthless slimy coward didn't say what needed to be said when he had the chance.

There's one other group of cowards that immediately come to mind. Anyone who supposedly cares about the white race, but makes every argument on the liberal point of view, the argumentum ad hitlerum. Basically, these moral half wits, who operate from the ENEMY'S POINT OF VIEW, the ENEMY'S MORAL STANDARDS, the very SYSTEM we are trying to demolish, make some ridiculous comparison between Muslims and Nazis, and then prove that Muslims must therefore be evil because if you are in any way, shape or form, related to Nazis in any of the most logically absurd and convoluted ways, then you must be in the wrong. The press is demonizing whites, just like Nazis demonized jews, therefore the press is Nazi and we, whites, are in the right. Africans are discriminating against whites, just like Nazis discriminated against jews, therefore blacks are wrong and whites are in the right. The government is lying, just like Nazis lied about jews, thus the government is wrong and we are in the right. It doesn't matter what the topic is about, these faux-whites will do anything to somehow relate it to the Nazis and throw in their ritualistic condemnation of that 12 year period. They somehow think that if they show they hate Nazis even more than liberals, that if they oppose road construction because Nazis once built roads too, then THEY will be given a pass for THEIR beliefs. The cowardice! The rank treachery!

Guess what, there are a fuck load of similarities between the Nazis and the racists of today! You cannot run away from them, because if you do, you betray yourself!

The nazis didn't want Europe to be flooded with non-white immigrants. Neither do we.

The nazis didn't want unbridled capitalism to leave everyone bankrupt from hyperinflation. Neither do we.

The nazis didn't want german lands occupied by foreigners. Neither do we.

The nazis wanted the german family to be stronger and have more children. So do we.

The nazis wanted to protect the environment. So do we.

The nazis wanted to weed out their simpletons and insane. So do we.

The nazis didn't want communism to turn the whole world into the same killing pens as the USSR. Neither do we.

The nazis were willing to fight for their beliefs. So are we.


So every time you make an argument that undermines the nazis, you undermine yourself. When you make a random reference, a random, hit-and-run, attack on Nazism, all you are doing is cutting the very ground from under your feet. Do you really think that by demonizing a group that has 99% of its policies in common with your own, instead of, say, attacking policies and people we have nothing in common with -- you are making great progress towards the day of liberation? Of course not. It is, rhetorically, the worst argument you could possibly make. Sure, the nazis were wrong about things, maybe even a great many things, but they were white racists. You cannot escape that. In their most fundamental beliefs, they have more in common with us, than practically any other group in history. You cannot escape that. Even bringing up the nazis just makes you wince, because it is the trump card of anti-racists, and anti-whites, everywhere. So why do white racists do it? Because they know they are safe when they vilify nazis. Because they know it is the coward's way out. Say anything you like, so long as you bash a nazi at the end, maybe the liberals will forgive you. maybe society won't ostracize you. maybe you'll earn a few pats on the head by someone, somewhere. Because at least you hate those god damn nazis! Could you pick a weaker target? Could you bully a more hopeless opponent?

In some countries, it's illegal to defend nazis! You must be a real hero, to bash them, when no one is even allowed to speak up in their defense! That takes a lot of courage, boy! In every country, it's socially indefensible, to say anything in defense of the Nazis, so the outcome is the same. You take a swipe at a defenseless, helpless group, and preen like you're some great moral crusader -- you're just a bully. Bullies are cowards. Stand up to the strong of today, oppose the most unopposable group, condemn the most uncondemnable behavior -- then you're a moral crusader. Going after the easiest target on earth, a country, and a system, that was smashed not through weakness, but only through the united force of the entire rest of the planet, who never had a chance to succeed or fail, whose leaders and spokesmen were all executed, whose soldiers died by the millions on the front for something THEY clearly believed in, say what you might, but are no longer here to defend themselves -- GAH! It's craven! Craven! Craven! Who can endure this conduct? And from white racists no less! The ones supposedly on our side!

There is a wonderful quote from some churchman or other: "If I affirm every last position of my Church, if I argue for every single point of doctrine in my faith, save the very one that is currently under attack, I have not confessed Christ."

That's courage. That's the very meaning of courage. You don't waste your time bashing Nazis, because NAZIS AREN'T THE ONES KILLING YOUR RACE. NAZIS AREN'T INVADING AND ENSLAVING YOUR PEOPLE. If you take time to bash nazis, it isn't because nazis are so deserving of your bashing. maybe they are. But the churchman understood that any moral posture on anything, that is not currently under attack, that is not currently under dispute, which is not being threatened by a mass of authority or popularity or faddish nonsense -- is just a moral posture. If you go into the very breach, if you say, for instance, the most unpopular truth that can be possibly confessed in your society, and stand by it like a badger -- only then are you a moral being. Not a moral posture. A true, real man. A man! If the Christians can tell the difference, if Christians can tell hypocrisy from martyrdom, then so can we. By God we should not fall behind any man! We believe the truth, they believed lies, and yet they will sacrifice more for their lies than we will for the Truth! Absurd! But there it is! They will act more True to their Lies, then we will to our Truth! Chew on that, cowards! You are scum! I'm sorry to be associated with you! I hate that we have anything in common! I'd rather have a Christian martyr, a Muslim suicide bomber, or any real man than any of you! They at least follow through on their beliefs -- what is your excuse?

Frankly, I haven't even begun to discuss what true courage is. But I can say this: in all my actions, I have tried to fulfill this pillar of virtue to the last drop. What you see is what you get. I stand by every word I've ever written, even if they contradict each other, and even if they're ridiculously wrong. I stand by them, come what may! And there is nothing I haven't said, for fear of saying it, even though I knew it was true and right. If it's in my heart, it's here to see. And there are very, very few white nationalist pundits, of whom I can say the same. Virtue makes the man. Courage wins the day. What a bunch of rabble we are! As Richard Rahl said in wizard's 6th rule (or was it some other, no matter.) "DESERVE VICTORY."

DESERVE VICTORY. Be the sort of people who deserve to rule, to win, to overcome. To triumph. Be the sort of people who deserve laurel crowns, monuments, and accolades. If not, why not? If you can't deserve victory, what hope do you have of achieving it? If you will not even deserve victory, why should anyone else give it to you? We must deserve victory. We must be the sort of people, that the people can have faith in, celebrate, admire, and love. If we're to have followers, we must deserve them! We must be leaders first! How obvious is this! And yet our 'leaders,' by being cowards instead of men, continue to fail us at every turn. If you don't deserve victory, no one will give it to you. It's that simple. Deserve Victory.

Have some fucking balls.

The Shadow Elite:

Just as when Nixon relied on the opinion of the 'shadow majority' to deliver him from his woes of public gatherings and media denunciations, we must rely on the 'shadow elite' to deliver us from the world of today.

The majority are not equipped to be revolutionaries. They are not intelligent enough to see through the brainwashing their culture has set them through from day 1 in the media and the public schools. They are not courageous enough to buck the pressures of conformism and the carrot and stick of praise/ostracism. They are not idealistic enough to sacrifice present goods and comforts for a principle, a vision, a cause -- nor ruthless enough to smash anyone or anything that gets in the way. I do not blame them for their weaknesses. Everyone is born with a host of weaknesses, some have more, some have less, but we are all human, all too human. It would be nice to be born in a world of higher evolution, where everyone was intelligent, courageous, idealistic, and ruthless, but that just isn't the case. We must make do with the materials provided.

The shadow majority will not come to our aid. If they have some dim sense that something is wrong in the world, they will simply hope it all works out in heaven and pray to God for deliverance. Or they will trust the talking heads on the TV shows that everything is actually fine and improving every day. Or they will simply shut down and withdraw into themselves -- using Russia's tried and true methods of resistance -- drugs, drink, suicide and abortion. We've already seen what the majority of people do under tyrannies, under terrible living conditions, under genocides -- they shuffle along like sheep and offer no resistance at all. Not in Cambodia, not in China, not in Russia, not in South Africa.

True hope rests within the bosoms of the shadow elite. People with at least 120 IQ, who have not bought into the system, and are not being rewarded by the system. People who could be the doctors, lawyers, politicians, army generals, and everything inbetween -- people who could be the famous artists, inventors, actors, and so on -- but aren't. Just like in the UK, where the opposition party has a 'shadow' prime minister, a 'shadow' cabinet, and an entire roster of people ready to take on all of the government's roles, while not actually being the government. There is a cadre of elites, high IQ people wandering around America, (or whatever western country), who have fallen completely off the radar. Who aren't doing anything. Who either don't want to do anything, because it's all so pointless, or can't do anything, because the system is designed to stop them.

These people are the only source of power that hasn't been co-opted to serve the status quo. Therefore they must be the source of power for the revolution against the status quo. It's simply tautological. The people who aren't actively ruling, but could rule given the chance, are the only people who could cause, and win, a revolution. Who are these people? They will definitely be young people. Our society is a gerontocracy which actively denies youths the opportunity to become powerful or successful. Laws like social security, the income tax, medicare, and the banning of hiring based on IQ and reliance on credentials that take endless years of muckwork to acquire, all favor the old over the young. They will definitely be males. For one, women are too timid to fight a revolutionary war, they're too timid to even be called names or make an unpopular stand on an issue. But for another, women have it pretty nice in the world of today. They find school and college agreeable. They like not having to have children. They enjoy having a higher employment rate than men, in largely parasitic jobs like government employees who actually just live off the earning power of men who make the real money elsewhere in the economy. A shadow elite is someone who is not in the system, and not being rewarded by the system. That basically rules out women from the start.

They will be white, because whites are the only people being screwed by the system. As Old Atlantic Lighthouse has pointed out, the Slicer Coalition of jews and Asians from above, and affirmative action blacks and hispanics from below, have made whites a vanishingly thin minority in elite colleges like Harvard or Berkeley. Even though we are 60% of the population, we make up only 10% of the population of these colleges. This means an inordinate number of elite whites are currently chewing hay and staring into space without any means to get ahead while their inferiors get hired, promoted, and eventually like Obama get elected president, while never even having the grades to get into Harvard by any fair measure in the first place. This type of injustice isn't just due to the slicer coalition's displacement effect. It also has a lot to do with political correctness. A white man finds it physically impossible to succeed in the modern work environment. He is surrounded by things that offend him, but has to act like none of it does. People can trample all over him, but he can never retaliate in any way, shape, or form. Because hate speech is all one way. If a bunch of gays mock straights, that's fine. If a bunch of women mock men, that's fine. if a bunch of blacks mock whites, that's fine. If a bunch of jews mock goys, that's fine. But if a white man opens his mouth and says ANYTHING, ANYTHING at all either in defense of his self against all of these attacks, or in opposition to any other group, then the hammer comes down. He is fired, blackballed from further hiring, sent to diversity training camp and sensitivity seminars, or simply relegated to the edge of the universe with no hope of promotion.

If there is any conflict, which will inevitably occur, between a worker and his boss, or a boss and his worker, the white man cannot win. If the boss is non-white, a woman, or gay, then you cannot appeal to anyone against your boss, because you are clearly just a bigot. If your worker is non-white, a woman, or gay, then you cannot fire them or discipline them, because you are clearly doing this only because you are a bigot. There can be no good outcome for a white man in the workplace, because every time there is a conflict, the white man must give way. Consider how emasculating this process is, how soul-deadening it becomes, to always be biting your tongue, suppressing your opinions, and bowing and scraping to the inferiors all around you. Maybe the white man has to do his useless coworker's work for him, because he cannot object and say he is lazy or stupid, because the coworker is black, or gay, or a woman. Perhaps he can't object to the trashy language or dress style of a coworker, because she is a woman and that's sexual harassment. On and on and on. Since the courts of justice have set things up in such a way, that white men are always in the wrong -- that whenever a problem emerges at work, it is due to the white man and no one else -- that whenever there is a problem in a marriage, it is due to the man and no one else -- that whenever there is a problem in Africa, it is due to white men and no one else -- that whenever there is a riot in LA, it is due to white men and no one else -- it is practically impossible for white men to succeed in life.

The real men, the men with guts and a backbone, would never submit to all this groveling. They would abstain from the situation entirely, rather than be put in a position where some inferior black, woman, or gay can lord it over them. Either they will do nothing at all, or they'll found their own business, or they'll pursue some all male line of work, like computer programming, an electrician, the US special forces, or just anything that hasn't been invaded and corrupted by diversity yet. Talented white men are being choked away from elite jobs and powerful positions, by the stupid hoops of college and credentialism, the stifling political correctness of the diverse workforce, affirmative action, and an entire culture dedicated to keeping us down in the most myriad of tiny ways. Like commercials that always depict white men as the hapless and stupid clown. Or cop shows that only have white criminals, usually neo-nazis, in a country where blacks are nine times as likely to murder someone as whites. Or simply sons lacking their fathers because the mother divorced him. No doubt it's bad for a daughter to lack her father too, but I can't help but think it's particularly hard on the son. With no template for how a man should be, what can the son possibly grow up into? His mom?

There is a shadow elite, there is a group of disempowered, but high potential, young white men all over this country. Men who were born for better things, but end up on the road to nowhere, aimless and adrift.

Unfortunately, they are not angry. Because they have not yet made the connection, that they don't DESERVE the life they lead. That they didn't cause it, that it is not natural, and it doesn't have to be this way. That is the fundamental difference between a 'generation X', 'beatnik' style of shadow elite, and people like our founding fathers. Our founding fathers did not remotely have the majority of the USA behind them. They had only the fact that they were elites who were out of power, and not being served by the system, because the British had monopolized it all for themselves. The government, the economy, everything was monopolized by the British and served only the British. And yet the Americans were of the same stock, and had just as many qualified men for elite positions as the British. This shadow elite joined together, realized they did not DESERVE this injustice, that it was not natural, and that it could be changed. Then they pledged their lives, their fortune, and their sacred honor, to change it. Tens of thousands of deaths later, and after many personal sacrifices by every single signer of that Declaration of Independence, America had won its freedom. And the shadow elite became the ruling elite -- the greatest rulers in American, perhaps in world history. Forged in the crucible of war and passionate heroism, they went on to become statesmen, philosophers, and leaders for all time. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Thomas Paine, my heart swells at even the mention of their names. What men! What an age! And what a wonderful 50 years America had, being ruled by the same revolutionaries who won them their freedom in the first place! Who in living memory had put everything on the line, sacrificed everything, for an ideal! There can be no corruption in such a state. Nor can there be any deception. All one needed to ask was 'where were you at the battle of valley forge?' If you said, "I was walking in the snow carrying the flag," Then you are someone who could be trusted. They couldn't get elected by giving flowery speeches while dodging drafts like Clinton, or acting like a tough guy while staying stateside like Bush. You were either there in the thick of the revolution, or you were not a natural leader, a true elite, a good person, a courageous friend of America. To think! We once had a president who wrote our constitution! By God!

For the fifty years or so after the coming revolution, we will have the finest leadership in history -- again. They will be the people who walked through fire for the sacred cause. Who were shunned, penniless, hated, even jailed before the war -- and killed and died (if that's how the cookie crumbles) during the war. Because they cared that much. Because they weren't cowards and they weren't compromisers.

What needs to be spelled out to the shadow elites of this era, is that they should be angry. Red hot angry. Seething, smoldering with anger. Murderously angry. That's the first step. That this is a demented, evil world, out to get them. That they have been abused, usurped, displaced, and dispossessed at every turn. That they are being ruled by their inferiors, by worthless scum, by liars, hypocrites, and thieves. And that it doesn't have to be this way. Then, with a group of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of intelligent, passionate, idealistic, courageous and ruthless young white men -- we will have a force to match the current elites and their cow-like simpleton masses that serve them.

One thing people must realize is that America is a paper tiger. One blow and the whole thing will collapse. Just look at 9/11. A couple buildings fall down and the whole economy collapses, trillions of dollars are lost and everyone's too afraid to ride an airplane anymore. Just imagine what a real insurgency could do! They haven't seen anything yet. And 'their' forces consist of diverse untermenschen, women, old geezers, gays, and greasy street punks who weigh 80 pounds each. If we simply make our points well enough, tell the truth strongly enough, get out the message loud enough, the real men will all be on our side. And in war, it's the real men who count. How many men would it take to bust into the white house and seize the launch codes for our nuclear missles, while meanwhile seizing a sub at sea with an internal mutiny full of said nuclear missles? In a matter of minutes we'd have the same military strength as the entire US military and could hold the entire nation hostage to meet our demands for a free and independent northwest.

Maybe it's more complicated than that, I'm no strategist, but I don't think it's as complicated as people make it out to be. I don't think America's nearly as invincible as it pretends it is. I know that no one would fight a war over secession like they did in the Civil War. The American people will never sacrifice as much to keep sovereignty as the North did against the South. They are too soft, too afraid, and too weak willed to fight that kind of war again. In that case, all WE have to do is be as hard, strong willed, and fearless as the South was when it tried. In a world completely devoid of heroism, it doesn't take much to be a hero.

Vinland could be so much better than America. Every year America gets worse, Vinland will only look that much better. A place without crime, without affirmative action, without political correctness, without immigration, without a biased media, without adultery, without illegitimacy, without sodomy, without drugs, without poverty, without corruption, without degenerates or simpletons. A place founded by and dedicated to the race that gave us Wagner, Beethoven, Newton, Dostoeveskey, Watt, Hume, Plutarch, Plato, Homer, Tacitus, Mozart, Kant, Goethe, Rousseau, Euclid, Euler, Galileo, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Titian, and everyone inbetween. A race that hands down has the most beautiful, moral, and honest genome on earth. A race that split the atom and went to the moon. And this time, a race that is aware of itself, its greatness, its moral purpose and its mission -- Truth, Beauty, and Love -- spread throughout the stars. Not praying and fasting to reach heaven. Not giving charity to mud people and having coffee colored multicultural rainbow children. Not holding hands and singing kumbayah. Not 'self-fulfillment.' Not atomized individualism. And not nihilism. Not all the phantoms that white nations have chased in the past, to their corruption and ruin. Truth, Beauty, and Love. And the living who embody them. Vinland would be the first nation of its kind, ruled by a chosen few who went through fire to achieve it, in a time of gathering darkness, squalor, and misery. It will be like night and day. And when that contrast shines bright enough, when we MAKE it shine bright enough, when even the most obtuse shadow elite can see the difference between the two, and longs with passionate intensity for that different world -- things will change.

Meanwhile, Back in Reality:

The Dow Jones is flirting with a new high, 10,000, and home sales are up compared to last year. Everyone is talking about the recovery. But there is no recovery. There is only the silent desperation of the proletariat as the waters continue to rise.

Consider: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091020/ap_on_re_us/us_poverty

"A revised formula for calculating medical costs and geographic variations show that approximately 47.4 million Americans last year lived in poverty, 7 million more than the government's official figure."

"Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher at the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said that because the revised formula factors in non-cash government aid, the amount of increase in poverty from 2007 to 2008 was generally smaller compared to the current measure.

"Food stamp participation rose during the first year of recession and appears to have softened what could have been an even greater increase in financial hardship," he said.

Sherman said the revised formula could take on greater importance in measuring poverty for 2009 as more Americans take advantage of tax credits and food stamps under the federal stimulus program. Food stamp assistance currently is at an all-time high of about 36 million."

So poverty would be even worse than 1 in 6, if we didn't include all of our current efforts to relieve poverty. Thirty Seven MILLION people on food stamps, that's around 1 in 8 people, or 12% of the population. People below the poverty line are even higher, 1 in 6 people. The unemployed are even higher, 1 in 5 people. And their unemployment benefits have run out. Who will help them now?

Consider: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091019/ap_on_bi_ge/us_vanishing_jobs

WASHINGTON – Even with an economic revival, many U.S. jobs lost during the recession may be gone forever and a weak employment market could linger for years.

Retrenching businesses will be slow in hiring back or replacing workers they laid off. Many of the 7.2 million jobs the economy has shed since the recession began in December 2007 may never come back.

Where does that leave the people? Beneath the poverty rate, and unemployable. The government tries to help, with ham fisted socialist programs like unemployment insurance, HUD housing, food stamps, medicaid, etc -- but still people fall through all the cracks, because there is no ONE program that everyone is eligible for, that cannot be taken away from you. If you are unemployed too long, have too much money left in the bank, and don't have a dependent child -- well too bad for you, you're not 'poor' yet. Go get pregnant and then get back to us. Even with social security and medicare servicing the old, they are more likely to be poor than the 18-64 year old crowd. A complete failure of those programs, who promised a wealthy retirement if you just payed a steep price all your working life in taxes. What if those 40 years had been sending them a citizen's dividend, which they could have saved, invested, or even spent, relying on the citizen's dividend in their old age to meet all their old age expenses? At the very least they would get to enjoy their purchasing power when they still had a use for it, rather than a sick, dying husk of a man gripping to a life that no longer wants or needs him. But of course, such is our socialist bureacratic jungle, that spending is discouraged and made nigh impossible by high taxes in one's youth, and then subsidized and inflated by no taxes on your old age, meaning the very time you have the least use for money, is the only time you get money to spend.

The economy is in shambles, the government programs meant to buffer people's losses, the safety net meant to help all the people capitalism doesn't reach, has failed. It did not save the elderly from poverty. It did not give people the 'incentives' they need to find jobs. ((the biggest complaint against the citizen's dividend is it provides no incentive for people to work -- and yet we are told that our 20% unemployment rate is here to stay and CANNOT be restored -- so why are we blaming the victims???)) It hasn't kept people from losing their homes. And worst of all, nothing is shielding the public from the rapacious debt collectors, who when they go bankrupt can just ask for trillions of dollars from the government, but the lone individual doesn't get a cent in relief. How is that fair? Companies are giving million dollar salaries to their workers, who were all bankrupt last year and using taxpayer money to stay afloat. But the people they made loans to, who are also bankrupt, aren't extended any money at all. This is the difference between ham-fisted socialism, that is spent on programs that don't work, don't provide a useful service, or cost more than they should, on one hand, and crony capitalism, that bails out politically favored minorities or powerful people with connections and political campaign donation clout on the other -- these are the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively! There is only one option, the citizen's dividend, that gives out money equally to all individuals, without any bureacracy inbetween, relying on the free market to make the most of the money, without any social engineering, and without any political favoritism, special interests, or corporate hog houses splurging on our nation's collective wealth.

With the citizen's dividend, the poor, the unemployed, the bankrupt, would all have a friend and a recourse. Today, if you are not a member of a favored minority, working for Goldman Sach's, old enough to receive Social Security, or poor enough to receive Medicaid -- on and on with the various restrictions -- you're just screwed. You're on your own. Despite the fact that our government takes about 50 cents on every dollar, it cannot be bothered to help the 47 million people in poverty today. What purpose does it serve? With the citizen's dividend, I could deliver real help, real relief, to everyone. Not just the poor, the unemployed, and the starving, the 37 million people on food stamps. But everyone. The children who can't afford college. The young family that can't afford a child. The working class family that can't afford to take their children on vacation to Europe, to see the beautiful architecture, museums, and streets of their ancestral homeland. The well off people who want to donate to charity. The entrepreneur with big dreams who can't secure a loan but wants to start a business. The wily investor who wants to turn the 12,000 a year he receives from the government into 24,000 a year down the road. EVERYONE. Everyone is that much better off, because the government is genuinely trying to help them, because the government represents all its people, and loves and cares about every single one of its citizens. And it can be done for cheaper, with less taxes, than we currently collect today!

It isn't because of the expense, it's because the citizen's dividend is equal. The government doesn't want to give out money equally, it wants people to be divided into quarreling factions, into parties, so that they can receive your vote, in exchange for getting your own tax dollars back. First they take half of every dollar we make, then they dangle it in front of us, as a bribe, that we might get some of it back, if we vote for them. This is outrageous. We are slaves, and our vote is just a part of the self-reinforcing slavery. A party that could purchase the loyalty of every single individual in the country, a one-party state that serves the entire people of that state, is the absolute opposite of the electoral politics of tax and bribe that democracy has gotten us to today.

This economic hemorrhaging continues even as the heedless government continues to pursue trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, expands its theater of operations into Pakistan, and threatens new wars with Iran. Does the madness ever stop? No, because the 'republican' party votes for war and the military, and in return gets employed as soldiers, or as a weapons manufacturer, or as a service provider to the troops. Everything benefits the faction, everything hurts the nation as a whole. These boondoggles at public expense will never be efficient, they have no need to be efficient, because if a small minority receives the money from a larger majority, they can afford for most of it to go to waste. But if the people simply received the same money they spent in taxes, back into their pockets, a little bit more if they are poor than they paid in taxes, a little bit less if they are rich than they paid in taxes -- there would be no waste because all the money would be in the free market, to be spent where private individuals felt it was most worthwhile. Not for wars in far off deserts. Not for health care for people who should already be dead. Not for a company that no longer makes any product of any worth but stays afloat regardless of merit. The money goes where it can do most good, as decided by each individual, and is incredibly flexible, because every month a new 1,000 check is received in the mail, and the apportioning process starts all over again. That would save the American economy and everyone who lives in it, nothing else will. Nothing.

Let's be clear, if there is some group of lowlifes who would use the citizen's dividend to buy drugs and booze, they don't matter. First off, if I had my way, alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes would be banned and people would have to enjoy life in a responsible, intellectual manner. So the issue wouldn't even come up. But second, these low lifes do not have the right to hold the rest of us hostage with their vices. They do not have the right to sabotage the true benefits the citizen's dividend could give the rest of us, the wonderful opportunities it opens up, the wonderful security it gives us, the wonderful chance to pay off our debts and thus the interest that keeps piling up in the future on them, the wonderful relief that unemployment doesn't immediately lead to the loss of your home, your family, and your pride. The immeasurable benefits the citizen's dividend gives to responsible, good people, whether they are young, old, out of luck or just never fit in to the economy, cannot be dismissed just because some people, somewhere or other, would waste or destroy their portion. To hell with them! Let them destroy it then. Meanwhile, the hundreds of millions that make up the rest of us, can get on with life, and never worry about food, heating, electricity or rent again.

It's a tragedy that someone, somewhere, would use the citizen's dividend to pay for destructive addictions instead of necessary expenses or investment opportunities -- but there's a much greater tragedy, and that's the world of today. The status quo. Right now there are 47 million people in poverty, 20% of Americans are unemployed, most are in debt, the government is running a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit and will go bankrupt itself in a few decades. Families are no longer stable because jobs are no longer stable, and income is no longer stable. More often than not, the woman is the only one employed and making more money than her husband, a condition so shameful on one hand, and disgusting on the other, that the woman sees no point in continuing the 'sham' and figures, if she's doing it all herself anyway, she may as well be single while she does it. This is the sort of societal chaos spreading forth from the bad economy. Divorce, single childhood, crime, foreign wars, corporate corruption, and debt, debt, everywhere. The citizen's dividend can solve all of these problems immediately, simultaneously, for less tax dollars than we already spend -- and harping on about people who won't work ((why should they? Even if they wanted to, no one would employ them anyway!)) or will just buy drugs ((And is that somehow worse than buying missles to shoot at innocent Iraqis a million miles away who never did a damn thing to us?)), is just that much smokescreen to hide the evil that is capitalist democracy.

If anyone cannot see the con that is capitalist democracy, even this late into its dissolution, what can I say! Have you noticed the government takeover of every role? Have you noticed how the government first takes all your money, then gives it back to you, bit by bit, by doing exactly what the government says, or voting in a block for the party that represents you? Have you noticed the implicit slavery of everyone forced to vote for a party simply to get its own tax dollars back? Have you noticed the phoniness of most employment, of almost all government employment, of corporate welfare and subsidies that hide the emptiness behind all the labor and all the 'production' in our country? Are you curious why such phony jobs are able to make so much phony money at the expense of everyone around them? Please, please open your eyes. In a world of technological supremacy, where a barrel of oil can do the work of 2500 man hours for 50 dollars, NO ONE SHOULD BE POOR ON EARTH. In the richest country in said world, with a per capita income of 46,000 -- THAT'S PER PERSON PER YEAR, no one should be poor in America! And yet here we are! Here we are! Over 1 in 10 on food stamps, over 1 in 6 in poverty, and the rest scraping to get by, full of divorce, misery, unemployment, retirement losses, and blows and buffets from all sides! Everyone should be asking themselves, where is the money going? Where is the money? We are the richest eon in world history, and America is the richest country in the world, but we're still impoverished and unemployed! Unaccountable! Unaccountable without malevolence. Unaccountable without systemic failure. Unaccountable without the democratic capitalist system, that makes things the way they are today.

Smash it. Restore the tax dollars directly to the people. Give the blessings of technological progress like increased acreage yield, increased automatization, increased internet efficiency, directly back to the people, as their portion of nature's bounty. Use it to raise a family the proper way, with a mother and a father, and both with enough time to raise their kids. Live a good life knowing nothing can go wrong, because you cannot fall through the cracks anymore. But first, you must smash the status quo. The powers that be will never give up the advantages they currently have. The wealth of the world, of its natural resources, plants, animals, and machines, due to no man but hoarded by a tiny few men, must be taken. As Convington said:

"Ex gladio libertas."

Freedom is won through the sword.

Why 90%?

There's always an urge, in the racialist community, to one up each other by being even more extreme and more devoted to the cause. There is also an urge to stay 'moderate' and 'respectable' so as to appeal to more people. Both of these urges should be suppressed, because they are not dedicated to the service of truth, which simply follows where the logic leads without bias or rebellion. There is a narrow region of thought, that is extreme enough, but not too extreme, which is the only workable path towards a white homeland, and that is -- 90%.

100% whites, no non-whites allowed, is a simple and direct solution to our problems. But it is not the best solution. In fact, it's not even a workable solution.

First, it's not the best solution. There are non-whites who are superior to whites. Genetically, they represent a valuable addition to the white gene pool. For instance, the ability to drink milk was introduced into England, if current studies are correct, by way of the Roman empire garrisoning some sarmatian cavalry there. As people are wont to do, inevitably the soldiers mixed with the native populace, and the gene had such a great natural selection value, that it soon swept all of England. The rest of the sarmatian gene pool had little going for it, and natural selection rendered it invisibly small -- but almost every single Englishman came with a lactose tolerance gene from there on. This is just one example of how interbreeding creates progress, and at a tiny, minuscule, invisible expense to the larger genome of whites. This isn't the only possibility though. It's a flat fact that jews are much smarter than whites, Asians also seem to have some capabilities we lack, for instance, they have larger brains than us. In an age dedicated to technology, every scrap of intelligence we can get is useful. Eugenics works by promoting good genes in the struggle for survival, but if we don't have access to those intelligence genes, we can never spread them to the rest of the populace, no matter how many generations of eugenics we use. Therefore we should be overjoyed to interbreed with a select group of smart people from any race -- note, I don't include blacks as human so they don't count. Again, good genes have natural selection value and spread like wildfire, whereas bad genes disappear into the giant majority or go extinct for lack of success. This means being an open country with access to good people, with their good genes, from all around the world, is the only way to continue improving. America is very wise to allow smart university students or professors to come from all over the world to study and live here. Ideally, we could contain, as a people, every intelligence gene in existence, evolved over tens of thousands of years independently in each region -- but if their powers were combined, and some lucky schmoe were to hit the jackpot with every single one? The Indian intelligence genes, the asian intelligence genes, the white intelligence genes, the jewish intelligence genes, the amerindian intelligence genes -- they would be smarter than the smartest person of any possible 'pure' breed could be. The same is true for disease resistance and health in general, it helps to widen your gene base.

It's not just genes though. Some non-whites have a superior culture to whites. If they adhere to our objective, absolute, and universal values better than we do, there is no sense in rejecting them. This is a tough act, because it requires non-whites revere white society and culture, and the white race, as much as we do. But it's entirely possible, and requiring these people miscegenate to avoid the creation of any diverse ghettos will make their descendants as white as our own. Many non-whites specifically moved here to live in a white populated and white dominated society. They like the white man's laws, the white man's ways, more than any other on earth. They know that everything good comes from whites staying in power and staying the majority, and they could be more fervent supporters of white rule than whites themselves. Famously, in Raspaille's Camp of the Saints, one of the lone holdouts to the tide of non-white invaders, one of the twenty or so people in France willing to fight for their homeland, was a black. The black loved France and didn't want to see it destroyed by non-whites. Such a person is not our enemy, he's a hero.

Furthermore, racism is so instinctual that a pure white homeland would just sub-divide again and again, nords vs. meds, italians vs. irish, croats vs. serbs, slavs vs. germans, all the way back down to 'the hatfields vs. the mccoys.' We don't need that kind of divisiveness. Tolerance and diversity are extremely valuable traits, they're the only path to peace. WW II should stand athwart any intolerant philosophy for the rest of time. The moment you mention being intolerant, everyone should pipe in -- "That's what people thought before WW II and look what happened." They are correct. They are precisely correct. We can not afford another WW II. Expanding the frontiers of tolerance helps build peace and harmony within the nation, as well as with the outside world. By pushing tolerance even past the frontier of whites, and stressing that we are a community of values, not gene-lines, we destroy all possible ethnic rivalries before they're born. No one cares whether you're Polish or French, we're all Americans -- or in the case of a future nation, we're all Vinlanders.

For economic reasons as well, it's best to keep our borders open to non-whites. Being allowed here for tourism, trade, as students, or whatever their purpose, helps improve our own economy and raises the living standards of the whites living here. We are a global economy and it's hopeless to resist this. We need to be shipping products overseas, and we need overseas products to be shipping here. That requires at least a modicum of tolerance and respect for the people of the outside world.

Graphs by La Griffe de Lion show that diversity in a neighborhood has no ill side effects, vis a vis the crime rate, until around 20% of the people are non-white. By 50% the crime becomes noticeably high, and by 90% it becomes unlivable, it becomes South Africa. Though crime and 'all other matters' probably shouldn't be conflated, I will do so anyway. A little bit of diversity never hurt anyone, it has no impact on the neighborhood or society, it has no impact on the gene pool (except a good one, since natural selection favors good genes, not bad ones.) it has no adverse impact on anything.

Second, 100% homogeneity, even if it were desirable, is unworkable. This is because America has become so mixed that the laws of entropy do not allow the blended to ever unblend. Millions of whites, if not the majority of them, have non-white friends, lovers, or relatives. They have grown up with these non-whites, they went to each other's weddings, they have formed inseparable bonds. They would rather the white race went extinct, some abstract theoretical worry, over losing the real and concrete bonds they have formed with friends and family. It isn't just the race-mixers, it is everyone involved with the race mixer. There is now such a 'frission' of integration that you would have to pry people from their particular non-white 'best friend' with a crowbar. When you back people into a corner, they have no choice but to fight. But if you tell them, "don't worry, if your non-white friend, family member, or lover, really is as great as you say he is, he'd be welcome to come live with us, just like you are." Suddenly, a gasp of relief -- "I don't have to disrupt my personal life to join the cause!" And "There are no personal costs and there are huge societal gains, sign me up!" Everyone is relieved that somebody ELSE'S non-white friend, lover, or family member is being kicked out, but not their own. Their non-white friend, lover, or family member, is obviously in that 'top 10%' bracket that relieves them of all worries, and disarms all opposition. Whites will never rally behind an all-white ethno-state, because too many whites have lived, for generations now, a diverse experience for so long, that they have adapted to it. There's no use proposing all the benefits of a white homeland, if it starts with, like Jesus said, "he who does not hate his father, his mother, his wife, and his children, can not love me." I don't know how Christianity did it, but they really did sell that message. We cannot. We cannot sell the message, "Join the revolution, lose all your family and friends!" Join the revolution, and show all those illiterate non-english speaking strangers the door --> that sells. Join the revolution, and wash the depravity out of hollywood and restore our education to pro-white history and literature classes --> that's appealing to a huge number of people. Join the revolution, and gain for the first time a minimum standard of living and a wife and children, to have and to hold, forever and ever --> that's something worth fighting for.

If whites are in sufficient power to pass the laws that need to be passed to improve our lives, I don't really give a damn who lives five blocks down the way. The important thing is the law code, the way society is structured. Once power is given only to those who deserve it, a custodial class of nobility who defends our law code like the Spartans and Athenians did ages ago, it will be impossible for non-whites to sabotage our country from within like they did this time. It was democracy's fault, not jews, that allowed them to donate over 50% of campaign funds to the democratic party. It is the first amendment's fault, not jews, that allowed them to control our TV, newspapers, and movie screens and fill us with lies. It is capitalism's fault, not hispanics, that made the importation of low wage workers the burning desire of all employers. Set up the correct system, the correct law code, and non-whites have no way to take advantage of it or to harm us. If non-whites are harming you, it is because there is still a chink in your law code's armor, and rather than be angry at the non-whites, we should be thanking them for pointing out such a huge flaw in our system so that we could correct it. Whatever abuses non-whites can make of our system, whites can make of it too. A system that is flawed is flawed. Correct the system, and the people will be incapable of doing evil, no matter what they desire. Just as good crime prevention can lower the murder rate to 1/10 what it used to be in New York City, without changing any of the demographics, a lack of crime prevention can create anarchy and looting in the streets overnight, where people who abided by the law their entire lives are suddenly ravening monsters.

This elasticity of the human psyche is phenomenal, but what it means, is that everything is about System. System, System, System, is the absolute focus of people's decisions. If the system is out of order, the people become dissolute and violent, immoral and evil. If the system is in order, the people become wise, courageous, temperate, and pious. Everyone is born a helpless child, they look to the SYSTEM to raise them into adulthood. With the right system, they will be raised correctly. Without it, they will look like Theodore Dalrymple's "Life at the Bottom." The british night life. Who cares that they're white? They're scum. Pure scum. And they're scum because the system failed them, there's nothing wrong with their genes. It's a cancer in their laws, devouring them from the inside out.

Whites need a nation of their own, not to just have a smorgasbord of whites so they can hang out and swap tales, but so that whites who want a certain SYSTEM put in place can have a nation of their own. There are certain laws that need passing, for the betterment of all people living within our borders. The possibility of a better life than this is so blatantly obvious, given how swiftly life has gone from Norman Rockwell America, to Dalrymple Britain. We are in desperate need of the power of sovereignty, so that a few desperately needed laws can be passed into our society, and save us from ourselves: The citizen's dividend replacing all unworkable and unjust social systems, mandatory marriage, the death penalty for crime, a new education, abolishing consumption-oriented debt and the Federal Reserve, a virtuous leadership, eugenics and space flight. A few brown or yellow or red or even black faces (if that's what it takes!), intermixed and intermixing with all the whites around us, is a small price to pay for ANY of those laws being advanced. Jews are the enemy not because of who they are, but because they won't let us pass these laws. If jews tomorrow became the biggest supporters and campaigners for these changes, I would cease to be an anti-semite the day after. it's the same for all the other racial groups, if they want to help create a better society, I have no objection to them either. I set the limit to non-whites at 90% so that I can be doubly, super sure that whites will never lose power to non-whites and the laws be changed again. I set it so that the white genome can't be flooded to extinction. I set it so that white culture can't be flooded to extinction. I also suspect that 10% of the population is about all one can expect to harvest from the outside world, that would have sufficient qualifications anyway. But I don't need 100% to accomplish any of those goals.

The BNP recently said it no longer aims for an all-white England, that this was simply not possible, it was a pipe dream, given how integrated England has become. The best they could manage is to limit immigration, deport troublemakers, and try to create a new law code that favors their white populace in general, and improves their lives. The BNP keeps stressing that it has more plans than just 'greater homogeneity,' it wants to improve the welfare laws, change the schools, get out of foreign wars, and so on. The BNP is right. That is the mature, responsible way to push for a white homeland. America is even more mixed than England, if it's no longer possible to convince whites in England to abandon their non-white friends, coworkers, lovers, and family members, then just consider the case of America! Hopeless! It will never happen. The sooner we reassure people they won't lose anyone dear to them, the better. The sooner we shoot for 90% instead of 100%, the better. The BNP got one million votes, there were one million people willing to set up the society the BNP wished for. There aren't a million people who want a 100% white country, or if there are, they sure aren't very vocal or active. It's simply a non-starter.

We shouldn't waste our effort pursuing non-starters with only 30 years left in our country's life. We just don't have that luxury.

EU: Pros and Cons

I am a firm believer in Wilsonian self determination. I think a homogeneous country is the best country, and I would be willing to shrink a country down to 10,000 members just for the sake of homogeneity. A country where everyone feels and thinks alike, will have a sense of community, identity, and purpose completely absent from the modern state. It would be easier to make friends and families, it would be easier to get laws passed and followed, and it would be easier to embark on grand projects that span decades or centuries -- like the ancient Cathedrals of Europe. Unity is strength. Aside from intelligence, it is the most fundamental factor in the strength or decay of your people. It is better to reduce your numbers to 1/1,000,000th what they were, if in return you can gain an all-precious unity of purpose and ideals.

If one million atoms are thrown together with differing vectors such that all of their momentum cancels each other, no movement occurs, no work is done.

If a single atom simply floats forward in empty space without opposition, things move and work is done. In this case it's obvious numbers do not translate into power. True power comes from a single vector being force multiplied by a gigantic mass, smashing everything in its way. That is what a country, a community should be like. Debate and dissent about how best to achieve a community's goals are valuable, the best method of deciding these questions would just be experimentation. Implement both policies in separate areas and see what happens. In any case, at some point the authorities must decide on the course and the debate and dissent should end. Even if it wasn't the best idea, people should support it and chip in their effort to make it succeed, because we are all on the same side and we all wish to see the method succeed, wise or foolish as it was. If we put in a good faith effort and the method still fails, we should be willing to revisit the issue and listen to the people who predicted it would fail in the first place, and reform or end the policy. Dissent in this case helped us avoid falling into a bad rut, or losing our way -- it got us to our objective. But debate and dissent over what goals we should achieve are not valuable -- they are pernicious. They destroy a country and render it ineffective and weak, because now half the people are pushing on one side of a rock, and half the people on another, and no work is achieved by either. If people feel their goals cannot be fulfilled in the country they were born and raised in, they should leave. If there are millions of them who feel the same way, they should be allowed to peacefully secede. It is better to lose land and citizens, than to lose unity and purpose.

A white homeland in America, however few people there are, even if it were only a single state in size, would be the greatest blessing on Earth. It would secure the existence of our people, which is currently in doubt given every white country on earth is being flooded with non-white immigrants. Preserving the white race, the pinnacle of evolution and the source of all human progress, is worth any price. Secession is the root to progress. Not only would it give us freedom from alien invaders, but it would give us a chance to set up a new law code meant only for us, a new law code adjusted to the reality of the technological age, a new law code that promotes our goals, not Jesus's, Muhammed's, Marx's or Aynd Rand's. In this cocoon of a white homeland, we could restore the nuclear family, virtue, honor, identity and community. We could give everyone a wholesome family, good rulers, good education, a minimum standard of living, peace, and security -- it will be a crime free country, period. Eventually, being the white intelligent and science-minded people we are, we would gift our country with tremendous innovations the world cannot match, as they degenerate and decay all around us into the dark ages: genetic engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Fusion Power, Space Flight.

Because America is hopelessly fragmented and infested with jews whose hyper-intelligence and hyper-liberalism makes them the most dangerous destroyers on earth, ditching 90% of our population and 90% (if necessary) of our territory would be the first step towards righting our ship of state.

I don't think the same is true of Europe, though. Europe has a ton of advantages America lacks. For one thing, they have a claim to their land that goes back tens of thousands of years, not just centuries like us. Even though the true 'right' to one's land is the ability to make something good out of it, the commonly accepted morality is 'whoever got their first deserves it for all time.' This plays against us in America, but is a huge bonus for whites in Europe. Furthermore, America's minorities are our own fault. Hispanics wouldn't have existed if we didn't invade the Indians lands and interbreed with them. They are the natural heirs to America, not us, according to the prevailing morality. Blacks wouldn't be here if we hadn't enslaved them, shipped them across an ocean, and forced them to work for us in the most degrading of circumstances. Americans have a very hard time making a moral argument for why they can deport their minorities or claim this is a 'white' country. With a sufficiently muscular ideology, a Nietzschean will to power, we could just say it's ours because we are the chosen people and God help anyone who gets in our way. Absent that, the best we can hope for a is a small successor state that is ours because we have a right to self determination just like everyone else, neither harmed nor harming anyone else on Earth. Europe however, can rightfully say that Europe has always been white, that they've never forced anyone to become a minority in Europe, and that the same people who immigrated here, can be told its time to emigrate again. They have no roots in the land, are mere migrant guest workers, and when Europe feels like it, can tell them to go make money elsewhere because the deal was not as mutually beneficial as they had imagined it would be. It's not as though immigrants to Europe have suffered for their stay in Europe. They are vastly richer and freer than they ever could have been staying in their native land. Therefore the balance on the ledger is on the side of the immigrants, and Europe, by simply refusing to give yet more to non-Europeans, is not exploiting or harming them in any way.

Obviously, it takes moral fortitude to deport millions of immigrants. But far less than it takes to deport millions of former slaves who have been here for 500 years, or the native inhabitants of the land before we even got here, who have been here for 10,000 years. Europe could still take back all of its land for Europe, without Nietschean willpower, but just a tiny bit of backbone.

Europe has other advantages, there are far fewer jews in Europe than America. This from the very start gives them a freer atmosphere where white intellectuals can actually discuss things between each other and forge their own path. Where all the highest status jobs and all the highest income jobs have not already been monopolized by jews, a white nobility and a white ethos can emerge -- unlike in America where all whites can ever be is the sycophants and servants of jews. Our presidency and our congress has been at the beck and call of their jewish handlers for nearly a century now, it is embarrassing, it is humiliating how little control whites have over their own lives. Nixon even said in secret, that the jews had complete control of our country, but that he could never say that in public. It's probable a lot of other white 'elites' feel the same way, but duck and bow to keep their positions too. Our entire culture is distorted and servile due to the presence of jews. Recently, a study was done called the 'Atlantic 50,' showing the 50 most important columnists and media men who shape politics and public discourse in America. Over half of them were jews. With statistics like that, it is completely impossible to make America into a racialist state. A jew free successor state is all we can hope for. But Europe is already free of jews, and if it would ever just throw out its American influence (thus jewish influence), it really could be a continent for, of, and by whites.

Europe also has, at least currently, straight fewer non-whites in their country than America. Ignoring their origins and sob stories entirely, 5% non-white is a lot more manageable than 40% non-white.

There are still many European countries that are 100% white. Some are even so well sorted, that they are 95% of their own tiny ethnicity. Not that this sort of hyper-homogeneity translates to economic or cultural success. Most of these countries are in Eastern Europe and are remarkable for their poverty and corruption. Even though unity is a great strength, it doesn't seem to be doing these countries much good. Why is that? The lingering effects of communism? The lower IQ of southeast Europe in general? Southeastern Europe is dying. The median age of some of these countries is 41. The birth rate is like 1.2 per woman. The GDP is around 10,000 per capita. Even though they have what whites in America so desperately need, they have squandered it all with nothing to show for it. Without the proper ideology and laws motivating your people, and without the proper IQ to power them, unity is just so much cheap cloth. Eastern Europe would do better to trade their unity for connection to a much healthier, stronger partner. Rich people willing to invest in their economy, willing to hire their workers all across Europe, willing to buy all of their exports, is a godsend for Eastern Europe. It is the only way they can get out of the mess they are in. Expansion into the EU was the best thing that ever happened to communist-dominated Eastern Europe. A responsible currency like the Euro watched over by hawk-eyed German bankers is just the sort of economic stability you need in emerging countries. Furthermore, the larger the population and economy, the more stable your currency is. Business is always better off with a stable currency. Size creates stability. A small market can have rapid and inexplicable swings when say, no one wants fish that year, or the price of oil has tanked. A basket of nations like the EU helps neutralize all these swings by averaging the worth of European production in general. This moderating force is good for everyone. The Euro was a great idea. Iceland learned its mistakes last year when its currency suddenly tanked to near worthlessness: 300,000 people cannot maintain a stable currency, they are entirely at the mercy of their trading partners and the outside world. Iceland issuing its own unique currency simply cannot support Icelandic business and trade as well as the Euro could. Iceland, with a per capita GDP of 42,000 a piece, is hardly a banana republic. But over the course of a year, all of their banks collapsed and suddenly Iceland owed 10 times its GDP in debt overnight. Only a massive economy like the EU can prevent these sorts of ridiculous economic perturbations. Iceland would be wise to join it.

Not only that, but someday, America will stop protecting the world. Countries like Iceland, Bulgaria, and Luxembourg, can't possibly defend themselves. Wilsonian self-determination was all well and good, but after WWI Europe had been given a map of dozens of tiny countries that could never be defended against a major power. Sure enough, in just three decades, Russia had conquered half of them and Germany the other half. Small countries have no right to exist, because they cannot defend their borders. They exist at the sufferance of their neighbors, or due to the charity of some world power far away. Just like a country that survives only due to endless foreign aid, a small nation which has no means to defend itself, is a parasite. Peace is maintained via strength, strength comes from large numbers of people, lots of money, and a lot of land that is hard to conquer all at once. Only the EU can offer this to its member nations. Countries the size of Conneticut and smaller, all clutching to their 100% ethnic homogeneity, all with populations below a million, are not real countries. They would work fine as members of the EU though. As members of a common defense, as states of a union, they are part of the united strength of Europe -- a force not to be trifled with.

There is another advantage to the EU concerning peace. How many wars have been fought over whether this region, or this city, should belong to one empire or another? One nation or another? All of these senseless bloody wars can be solved if every region and every city in Europe belongs to both. Hungary, for instance, belongs to the Austrian Empire, the Polish Empire, the German Empire, the French Empire, and the British Empire now. Because it's a part of the EU, as is every other nation listed. If there are ethnic Hungarians living in Poland, they're free to move to Hungary now, and vice versa. The irredentism that sparked World War II is meaningless now. There are no Germans being abused outside the protection of Germany's borders, because Germans are free to move anywhere in Europe, including back to Germany -- and besides: 'Germany's' borders, its power and protection, as a member of the EU, extend to the four corners of Europe. All wars in Europe cease to make any sense in the EU. Irish seek to be free of the brutal hand of the UK? Nonsense, Ireland and the UK are equals in the EU, one can't brutalize the other.

This would be a godsend for the most troubled region on earth, the balkans. In the balkans you have a hopeless mix of quarreling parties -- albanians, serbs, bosnians, croats, Macedonians. None of them are safe or comfortable when ruled by another ethnicity, all of them feel legitimately threatened or oppressed when they are not united to their ethnic kin, who will protect them. War after war, secession after secession, keeps occurring in the balkans due to this problem. But if the EU were to equally rule over all of them, if no ethnic group had any advantage over any other, if the borders were opened up between the balkan states so that everyone could self-migrate and self-sort to their preferred location, if peace were maintained by the overwhelming strength of the EU, the balkans could quickly be sorted out. Yugoslavia was an artificial state where peace was maintained by force, but the EU is not quite the same. The EU does not suppress the native cultures of its constituent members, or attempt to amalgamate all the various ethnicities of Europe. What it does do, is create a peaceful alliance between all the members, where no group has an ethnic advantage over any other, and thus the causes of disturbance and war are soaked away.

Another benefit of the EU would be if everyone in Europe shared a common language. It doesn't have to be their native tongue, just a lingua franca. How many wars were fought in Europe simply because they didn't speak the same language, and thus couldn't understood how close they really were? Genetically, there is little difference between all Europeans, their dots are scattered all over each other. Artificial barriers like language and religion were the cause of all our problems. With religion in Europe waning to an agreed upon atheism, and language all settling on hopefully English, trade, cultural exchanges, and peace are much more possible than before the EU.

No one can dispute the economic benefits of free trade within Europe, or the peace the EU has brought to the most warlike corner of the world for the last 50 years. I don't think there is a single time in history where such a large area of Europe has gone without any intra-European war. At long last, the bloodshed is over, and people can seek a meaning in life other than hating, looting, or destroying their neighbors. There is also a great deal of pride Europe should feel in its expansion. In my experience, any Empire that is expanding, is healthy. America expanded all the way to 1950 or so, when it incorporated Alaska and Hawaii into states. We've been in decline ever since, precisely the same time we stopped expanding. The British Empire was the same. When it stopped expanding, it started shrinking, and its fortunes declined right alongside its landmass. The EU has steadily expanded for the last 50 years, until an aura of manifest destiny has surrounded it. Holdouts like Norway and Switzerland, nevertheless largely participate in the EU through other means, and the balkans are completely surrounded by EU territories now, which from any economic or military perspective makes it clear they must join the EU too. Europeans can take a lot of pride in surpassing America in terms of population, economy, and military strength, by pointing at how vast the EU has become. Who doesn't like to point at their nation on the globe and not get out a magnifying glass? Who doesn't want a third of the earth to belong to them, like the USA, China, and Russia can claim? Europe is better this way, it is healthier, as an enormous empire, than as a hundred squabbling states.

The greatest danger with the EU is twofold -- it allows in immigrants from abroad, and it might centralize government so far that small nations, that would have passed better laws, are prevented from doing so. As to the first problem, this is a non-issue. Switzerland, Norway and Iceland aren't part of the EU, but they let in immigrants too. Letting in immigrants is part of the zeitgeist, it isn't the EU's fault. The people want the immigrants, they clamor for them, the EU simply provides.

As for the fear of centralized government performing worse than smaller nations, the EU as it stands permits any nation that wants to secede. So long as that is true, there is no danger in joining with the EU. You can always leave again if you find it going against your interest -- so far it has always been in the interest of Europe to be in the EU. Like I say, its free trade, free movement of people, and intra-European peace, its continental currency and economic standardization, have been a boon to everyone living in it. But one must also point out a small country in Europe that isn't in the EU, out performing it so much. Who? Albania? Kosovo? Moldova? Belarus? Absurd. All the non-EU countries in Europe are losers and couldn't run a Burger King, much less their own countries. Norway and Switzerland aside -- one has oil, the other has all the banks of the world, and both have free trade agreements with the EU! Let's see some puny 3 million man nation break off from the EU and double its economy in five years, get rid of all illegitimacy and divorce, flush out all their immigrants, and create a new scientific invention on the level of the CERN lab. Then I might admit the EU is 'holding small nations back' through bureaucratic centralization. Until then, I'm skeptical.

If the EU could be convinced to treasure its European heritage and, as a block, cease importing immigrants, it would save all of Europe. If Croatia decides to become ultra-nationalist and ban all immigrants and stay homogeneous, while the rest of Europe goes on importing immigrants for the next fifty years, what do you think will happen? Would Croatia really be able to defend itself against the rest of Islamic Europe? Would their nationalism, their petty small scale state, mean anything once the rest of Europe has fallen? Europe stands or falls together. Turning into a little xenophobic enclave in Europe does not save Europe, it only delays the inevitable. Europe needs to stay Europe, so that every European has the benefits of a strong economy, a strong military, and a stable future. The EU is as good a vehicle to set up a true European empire as any other. The Lisbon treaty makes the EU more effective, it does not make the EU more evil, or more destructive. That is up to the European people and the European zeitgeist. If they wanted to use the EU to save the world and advance mankind, the Lisbon treaty would be a great progress towards that goal. If they want to use the EU to inundate Europe with non-whites and genocide its people, then the Lisbon treaty will help accomplish THAT. It is not the EU's fault how it is used. It is the people who keep voting for these choices to be made. If the people continuously clamor for and vote for death, then that is what they will receive. Don't blame it on the organization that has delivered peace and prosperity to Europe for the last 50 years. Don't blame it on the vehicle that more than anything else, has the chance to protect and serve the white race in the future. A united, white Europe, with wholesome universal goals -- who could ask for better? Unity is strength -- the EU has helped forge unity in Europe. Therefore, the EU is strength.

Europe and Russia have a much better shot at the future, than America does. While all we can shoot for is a tiny ethno-state, they can shoot for entire continents and billions of white children supported by enormous economies and half the landmass of the world. Let's not resent them their success, and try to tear them down to a bunch of petty, squabbling ethnic rivalries. I wish them well. I loved the united America from sea to shining sea -- I would love a united Europe too. It was our blessing to be large, powerful, and united. It could be theirs too. So, keep expanding, EU! Devour the whole continent -- incorporate Russia and spread to the Pacific! How amazing would that be? And when you're done, declare that Europe is the ancient homeland of the white race, and every other race has their lands already, and thus Europe-Russia is closed to immigration. With that most peaceful and reasonable of claims, the crisis of the white race is averted -- whatever happens in America.

Any country whose national anthem is Beethoven's Ode to Joy can't be bad.

9/11 Still a Mystery

I still don't know what happened on 9/11. On one side, we have the NIST report, which has finally in 2008 or so decided what happened to WTC 1, 2, and 7. They say fires are sufficient to bring down skyscrapers when combined with various coincidences -- the damage from the planes, the damage from falling debris, etc. I'm not an engineer so there's no way I can verify whether they are telling the truth or not. It could well be that they're the experts and they know best. We also have seismographic data showing no loud noises, such as explosions, took place during the event.

Furthermore, there are two additional arguments in favor of the 'fires' theory -- If it were a conspiracy, how come no one has confessed to their part in the conspiracy yet? Second, if it was demolished, why is there no evidence of this?

But there is an answer for all of these arguments on the Truther side. Opposing the NIST experts, are other engineering experts, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. They quote their engineering expertise and say the exact opposite, that fire could not bring these buildings down, and only demolition devices could have done it. As for the lack of explosions, they counter this with the mysterious nano-thermite, which can (they claim) quietly cut huge beams and bring down buildings. This same nano-thermite is found on dust all around the WTC wreckage, providing evidence for the building's method of destruction. Only, no one else will verify that the dust samples they have really is nano-thermite, or really are from the WTC. The truthers argue, quite reasonably, that fires cannot create pools of molten metal that burn for weeks after the buildings had collapsed, and that only nano-thermite could account for this. Unfortunately, we have only anecdotal evidence that these pools of molten metal existed. The truthers counter that the crime scene was deliberately hidden by not allowing cameras and video tape, which would have revealed these pools of molten metal. The same is true of the steel. We could have easily seen if the steel was 'warped' like the NIST report says, or 'cut' like the Truthers say, but unfortunately all of the steel from the WTC was quickly removed, scrapped, melted down and recycled. There are only 236 isolated pieces of steel left of the entire WTC, which Truthers either can't get access to, or can't learn anything from anyway. The evidence which could have told us what happened that day has all been restricted, hidden, or destroyed. Bureaucratic negligence? Or perhaps the government felt that '9/11 was an inside job' was such a ridiculous hypothesis, that they never even imagined they would have to preserve evidence from the WTC to prove their innocence. Or perhaps it's a cover up and they're guilty, guilty, guilty.

As for no one revealing his role in the conspiracy, this isn't surprising, as many conspiracies have been successfully kept for decades, centuries, or forever. Many conspiracies of the Soviet Union were only revealed after its fall. We still don't know the full details of the JFK assassination. Only recently has the Pentagon declassified a conspiracy they were cooking up in the 1960's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods, where they planned out a false-flag terrorist attack the US would conduct on itself, in order to go to war with Cuba. Bernie Madoff was certainly part of a conspiracy, and it was kept hidden for years, as are tons of criminal conspiracies. It's absurd to say that every conspiracy is eventually betrayed by members of the conspiracy to the public. If conspiracies weren't effective, no one would do them. If every secret on earth were instantly discovered and revealed, there would be no such concept as a secret, or even the word 'secret' in the English language. Conspiracies surround the events of Pearl Harbor, the Maine, the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin, the USS Liberty, the Lavon Affair, and many more events that the US public has been deceived about ever since. A few lonely historians have exposed these lies in well documented books, but the media does not pick up on it and it never pierces public ignorance and indifference. If every past conspiracy has succeeded so well with no consequences for the perpetrators, why wouldn't the US or Israel decide to try another, and why wouldn't they get away with it these last 8 years? It is obvious that America has an enormous tradition about deceiving its people into war, and covering up for Israel's outrageous actions in the past. The idea that they've done so again is therefore hardly startling or implausible.

What about Al Qaeda? Mystery surrounds this group as well. The traditional narrative is Al Qaeda are a bunch of crazy muslims who want to conquer the world, establish a Caliphate, or at the very least destroy Israel and push America out of the middle east. But there are plenty of alternatives to this supposition. Al Qaeda may not even exist, it may be a complete fabrication of the media. Or it could be a wing of the CIA! After all, the CIA funded Bin Laden during the Afghan war with the Soviets. And Sibel Edmonds says Al Qaeda worked for the CIA all the way up to 9/11. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7332 The fact that we missed multiple opportunities to arrest Bin Laden in the 1990's under Clinton, and another golden opportunity to capture him at Tora Bora in 2001, and still haven't captured him 8 years after 9/11, lends credence to the idea that maybe we have no intention of capturing him and the whole thing is a farce.

There is another burning question, why has Al Qaeda failed to carry out any further attacks on America, if it is so competent that it could carry out 9/11? It's been eight years of total war with that organization, but not a single attack, not a pipsqueak from our enemies. It should not be difficult to cause major damage against the USA. Our borders are completely uncontrolled. Even school children manage to kill 10 to 20 people with just a few guns. If the terrorists wanted, couldn't they infiltrate, say, a thousand men, who each walk into a public square and open up with a simple pistol? They could kill 10,000 people like that easy. It requires no bombs, no funding, no 'planning,' it would be as easy as 1, 2, 3. You would think at least one Al Qaeda 'cell' in America would get bored with doing nothing for the last 8 years and at least kill someone, somewhere. All of the 'terrorists' we have caught 'plotting' against the USA were hopelessly incompetent or entrapped by our intelligence agencies into terrorist attacks our own intelligence agents proposed, funded, and planned for the hapless dupes. No one can possibly believe these are the same people who performed 9/11.

The Madrid, London, and Bali bombings were all done by local muslims, not foreign Al Qaeda members, so that hardly proves Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization that can carry out overseas attacks. The disparity between the present effectiveness of Al Qaeda and the effectiveness of the people who did 9/11 must raise eyebrows!

Why did Al Qaeda first deny having done 9/11, then claim credit for it later? How can we verify the video tapes and audio tapes released by 'al Qaeda' aren't just disinformation spread by our own government?

Even more confusing, Al Qaeda could easily believe it did 9/11, but was actually led by the nose, aided, abetted, and not stopped by willing helpers inside the US or Mossad. Another possibility is the US or Israel learned of the impending 9/11 attacks, and strung up their buildings with bombs to coincide with the plane impacts. Or they knew of them, let them happen as a way to get us into war, and the fires of the impacts really did bring down the towers. There are infinite speculations one can draw from the tiny amount of information we do know about these events. For some reason there were Mossad agents dancing on top of a white van, filming the buildings coming down that day. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html There were also Mossad agents crawling all over America at the time, many tailing the hijackers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/2294487.stm Were they watching them, working with them, using them to their own advantage, or what?

The fact that fires have never before brought down a skyscraper can be countered by the special factors of the plane impact, or the falling debris, or the unique construction of the WTC, or just blind chance. Or it could be proof positive that demolition agents had to have helped bring the buildings down. Who can say?

It may be impossible to ever discover the truth of that day. But it is obvious that our government is so secretive and opaque, that it is impossible to ever know the truth about anything that happens. This in itself is a crime against the people. How can a democracy possibly function when the people are not informed enough to even know who we are at war with, or why? At a certain point Bush had 70% of Americans believing SADDAM did 9/11!

The next time we found a nation and write a constitution, we must ban all secrets, everything must be public knowledge. If this hurts our ability to fight wars or do clandestine activities overseas, then so be it. That's a far lower price to pay, than never knowing the truth about what your own government is plotting and doing. I don't intend to have secret agencies doing anything overseas, or fighting any wars, anyway. The nobility will have nothing to hide, because we will all be good people, doing the jobs they were assigned to do, without corruption or deceit. And if they aren't, they'll be tossed out by their peers. The culture won't allow it, our education will not permit it, the people will not sit for it.

In other news, the Irish voted for the Lisbon Treaty -- but treaty or not, immigration was happening anyway, so what does it really matter? And jews really showed their true colors this last week, by all jumping to the defense of fellow jew Roman Polanski, a fugitive child rapist who drugged and sodomized a 13 year old girl. Typically, this scumbag also made a Holocaust movie which automatically won an Oscar. But let's be serious, what is this in the face of the white prostitution ring Israel runs, enslaving and raping millions of white women from around the world? Or the Israeli organ harvesting rings broken up in New Jersey and elsewhere? They are a despicable people, who perform all the lowest acts imaginable, from the Holodomor on down, and they will always excuse themselves and they will never, ever accept responsibility or feel any guilt for any of it. This is the story of Roman Polanski's defenders, and the story of jews in general across all space and time. They are a bunch of psychopaths.