jenab6

Let's say that you know the position of your spaceship in heliocentric ecliptic coordinates at two different times.

At time t₁, the spaceship is at position 1: x₁, y₁, z₁
At time t₂, the spaceship is at position 2: x₂, y₂, z₂
t₂ is greater than t₁

Example A.
t₁ = JD 2456317.0 = time of perihelion passage
x₁ = +1.262310597
y₁ = −0.559230364
z₁ = −0.042736537
x₂ = +1.377907342
y₂ = +0.259659022
z₂ = −0.028416589

Example B.
t₁ = JD 2456625.28 = time of perihelion passage
x₁ = +0.003927222
y₁ = −0.011543726
z₁ = −0.002758467
x₂ = −0.084737466
y₂ = +0.500044286
z₂ = +0.263324058

Where the distances are expressed in astronomical units. Although you know both of the positions, you initially know only one of the times. The other time must be calculated. Furthermore, we insist that one or the other of those positions, but not both of them, occurs at an apside of the orbit, either at perihelion or at aphelion.

The heliocentric distances are
r₁ = √(x₁² + y₁² + z₁²)
r₂ = √(x₂² + y₂² + z₂²)

Example A.
r₁ = 1.381301218
r₂ = 1.402447487

Example B.
r₁ = 0.012501593
r₂ = 0.571458035

The distance between those two positions is
d = √[(x₂−x₁)² + (y₂−y₁)² + (z₂−z₁)²]

Example A.
d = 0.8271320903

Example B.
d = 0.5834240576

In the two-body approximation, orbits are conic sections. The sun is at the focus of an orbit, and both positions are points on the orbit.

We define the integer variable β and permit it to have only the values 1 or 2. When used as a subscript, β will indicate which position is an apside of the orbit. The other position, indicated by the subscript φ, will be the non-apsidal point on the orbit.

If (β=1) and (r₁ is less than r₂), then
the perihelion is at position #1, and θ₁ = u₁ = m₁ = 0.

If (β=2) and (r₂ is less than r₁), then
the perihelion is at position #2, and θ₂ = u₂ = m₂ = 0.

If (β=1) and (r₂ is less than r₁), then
the aphelion is at position #1, and θ₁ = u₁ = m₁ = π radians.

If (β=2) and (r₁ is less than r₂), then
the aphelion is at position #2, and θ₂ = u₂ = m₂ = π radians.

Example A.
β=1, θ₁=0, u₁=0, and m₁=0

Example B.
β=1, θ₁=0, u₁=0, and m₁=0

Where θ is the true anomaly of the spaceship in its orbit, u is the eccentric anomaly, and m is the mean anomaly.

For elliptical orbits, the apside at one of the positions can be either the perihelion or the aphelion. But for hyperbolic orbits, only the two possibilities involving the perihelion are possible. That's because hyperbolic orbits don't have apoapsis.

β = either 1 or 2
φ = 3−β
N = (−1)ᵠ

To make it clearer,

If β=1, then φ=2 and N=1
If β=2, then φ=1 and N=−1

Example A.
β=1, φ=2, N=1

Example B.
β=1, φ=2, N=1

The variables β and φ will usually be subscripts. The variable N is a sign toggle factor. Note that in defining N, the variable φ is used as an exponent rather than as a subscript.

The eccentricity is found by solving, simultaneously, the polar equation of the orbit, which relates the heliocentric distance, r, with the true anomaly, θ, and the law of cosines. After some algebra, we get

e = 2 (cos θᵦ) rᵦ (rᵦ−rᵩ) / (rᵩ²−rᵦ²−d²)

If (e is less than 0), then no orbit exists.
If (β=1) and (e is greater than 1) and (r₁ is greater than r₂), then no orbit exists.
If (β=2) and (e is greater than 1) and (r₂ is greater than r₁), then no orbit exists.

Example A.
e = 0.0934278806
elliptical orbit exists, so continue

Example B.
e = 1.000004039
hyperbolic orbit exists, so continue

If no orbit exists, then there is no reason for continuing. Also, this discussion is not relevant to the special cases of circular or parabolic or plunge orbits. On the other hand, if an elliptical or a hyperbolic orbit exists, we will now find the true anomaly of the non-apsidal position, θᵩ.

γ = (rᵦ²+rᵩ²−d²) / (2rᵦrᵩ)
θᵩ = θᵦ + N arccos γ

The principle value arctangent function can be substituted for the arccosine, if desired.

θᵩ = θᵦ + N {(π/2) − arctan[ γ / √(1−γ²) ]}

Example A.
θ₂ = 0.603183138 radians

Example B.
θ₂ = 2.844674608 radians

If the eccentricity is between 0 and 1, then adjust θᵩ to the interval [0,2π). On the other hand, if the eccentricity is greater than 1, then leave θᵩ just as it is from the equation. We don't adjust the anomalies of hyperbolic orbits to the [0,2π) interval, as we do with elliptical orbits.

You might have noticed that a condition has been applied to the orbit we are determining, namely that the arc of true anomaly that the object sweeps through, as it moves around the sun from position 1 to position 2, is strictly between 0 and π radians. Although there are two possible directions of angular motion, this procedure assumes that the object will take the short way around. Actually, that condition was introduced with the calculation of the eccentricity, but you'd have to follow the algebra, which I suppressed for brevity, to see it.

The semimajor axis of the orbit is found as follows.

a = rᵦ / (1 − e cos θᵦ)

To make it clearer,

For both elliptical and hyperbolic orbits, when position β is the perihelion, a = rᵦ / (1−e)
For elliptical orbits, when position β is the aphelion, a = rᵦ / (1+e)

Example A.
a = 1.523652877

Example B.
a = −3095.18647

For hyperbolic orbits, the semimajor axis is negative. For elliptical orbits, it is positive.

For a while hereafter, the math appropriate for elliptical and for hyperbolic orbits differ and must be treated separately.

Elliptical orbits.
a greater than zero.
e between zero and one.

The eccentric anomaly in the orbit at the non-apsidal position, uᵩ, is found from

sin uᵩ = (rᵩ/a) sin θᵩ / √(1−e²)
cos uᵩ = e + (rᵩ/a) cos θᵩ

If cos uᵩ≠0 then
begin
If (cos uᵩ is less than 0) then Q = π radians
If (cos uᵩ is greater than 0) and (sin uᵩ is less than 0) then Q = 2π radians
If (cos uᵩ is greater than 0) and (sin uᵩ is greater than 0) then Q = 0
uᵩ = arctan (sin uᵩ / cos uᵩ) + Q
end

If cos uᵩ=0 then
begin
If (sin uᵩ is greater than 0) then uᵩ = π/2 radians
If (sin uᵩ is less than 0) then uᵩ = 3π/2 radians
end

Example A.
sin u₂ = +0.524434992
cos u₂ = +0.851450491
u₂ = 0.552051395 radians

Practically speaking, the situation in which cos uᵩ=0 (exactly) will seldom occur, and that in which both cos uᵩ=0 and sin uᵩ=0 will never occur for elliptical or for hyperbolic orbits. (It only occurs for plunge orbits.)

The mean anomaly in the orbit at the non-apsidal position is found from Kepler's equation.

mᵩ = uᵩ − e sin uᵩ

Example A.
m₂ = 0.503054545 radians

The period of the orbit is

P = (365.256898326 days) a¹·⁵

Example A.
P = 686.953722 days

The mean motion, μ, in the orbit is found from

μ = (2π radians) / P

Example A.
μ = 0.00914644627 radians/day

The transit time in days, Δt, required for the spaceship to travel from position #1 to position #2, is

Δt = (N/μ) [mᵩ − π sin(½ θᵦ)]

Example A.
Δt = 55 days

And now you can calculate the time that you did not initially know.

t₂ = t₁ + Δt

Example A.
t₂ = JD 2456372

A time of perihelion passage, T, of the spaceship in its orbit is found from

T = tᵦ − mᵦ/μ

Example A.
T = JD 2456317
(This was given at the beginning because the apside at position #1, for which the time was given, is the perihelion. If it had been the aphelion this calculation step would be non-trivial.)

Other times of perihelion passage can be found by adding or subtracting whole number multiples of the period.

T' = T ± nP

Hyperbolic orbits.
a less than zero.
e greater than one.

We find the hyperbolic eccentric anomaly at the non-apsidal position, uᵩ.

B = cosh uᵩ = (1/e) (1 − rᵩ/a)

You can use whichever of the following two expressions is the handier.

uᵩ' = arccosh B
uᵩ' = ln [B + √(B² − 1)]

if (sin θᵩ is less than 0) then uᵩ=−uᵩ' else uᵩ=uᵩ'

Example B.
uᵩ = 0.01900435609

The hyperbolic mean anomaly at the non-apsidal position, mᵩ, is found from the hyperbolic form of Kepler's equation.

mᵩ = e sinh uᵩ − uᵩ

You can use the exponential equivalent for the sinh function, if you wish.

mᵩ = (e/2) [exp(uᵩ) − exp(−uᵩ)] − uᵩ

Example B.
mᵩ = 1.220737821e-6

Hyperbolic orbits aren't periodic, so we don't adjust negative hyperbolic anomalies to the interval [0,2π). If it comes out negative, then we should leave it that way.

The hyperbolic mean motion is

μ = (86400 radians/day) √[GM๏/(−ρa)³]

There, ρ = 149,597,870,691 meters/AU, and GM๏ = 1.32712440018e20 m³ sec⁻².

Example B.
μ = 9.989671676e-8 radians/day

The transit time from position #1 to position #2 is

Δt = (N/μ) mᵩ

Example B.
Δt = 12.22 days

And now you can calculate the time that you did not initially know.

t₂ = t₁ + Δt

Example B.
t₂ = JD 2456637.5

For hyperbolic orbits, perihelion passage will occur at

T = tᵦ

Example B.
T = JD 2456625.28

To make it clearer, the time of perihelion passage, T, will be found as follows:

If (r₂ is greater than r₁), then T = t₁
If (r₁ is greater than r₂), then T = t₂

The part of the math for which the treatment of elliptical and of hyperbolic orbits differs is past, so we present a reunified treatment of both hereafter.

We find the cross product r₁ × r₂ as follows:

X⊥' = y₁ z₂ − z₁ y₂
Y⊥' = z₁ x₂ − x₁ z₂
Z⊥' = x₁ y₂ − y₁ x₂

Example A.
X⊥' = +0.0269883468
Y⊥' = −0.0230164267
Z⊥' = +1.0983379595

Example B.
X⊥' = −0.0016603851
Y⊥' = −0.0008003865
Z⊥' = +0.0009855988

The magnitude of the cross product is

R⊥ = √(X⊥² + Y⊥² + Z⊥²)

Example A.
R⊥ = 1.098910551

Example B.
R⊥ = 0.002090192

We obtain the unit vector normal to the orbit and co-directional with the orbit's angular momentum.

X⊥ = X⊥' / R⊥
Y⊥ = Y⊥' / R⊥
Z⊥ = Z⊥' / R⊥

Example A.
X⊥ = +0.0245591843
Y⊥ = −0.0209447681
Z⊥ = +0.9994789458

Example B.
X⊥ = −0.7943697
Y⊥ = −0.3829249
Z⊥ = +0.4715351

The inclination of the orbit, i, is found from

i = arccos (Z⊥)

Example A.
i = 1.849685704°

Example B.
i = 61.86601°

A vector co-directional with the velocity in the orbit at the perihelion position can be found from the cross product R⊥ × rᵦ.

Vxᵦ'' = Y⊥ zᵦ − Z⊥ yᵦ
Vyᵦ'' = Z⊥ xᵦ − X⊥ zᵦ
Vzᵦ'' = X⊥ yᵦ − Y⊥ xᵦ

Example A.
Vx₁'' = +0.559834082
Vy₁'' = +1.262702439
Vz₁'' = +0.012704561

The magnitude of the cross product is

Vᵦ'' = √[(Vxᵦ'')² + (Vyᵦ'')² + (Vzᵦ'')²]

Example A.
V₁'' = 1.381301218

The co-directional unit vector is

Vxᵦ' = Vxᵦ'' / Vᵦ''
Vyᵦ' = Vyᵦ'' / Vᵦ''
Vzᵦ' = Vzᵦ'' / Vᵦ''

Example A.
Vx₁' = +0.405294714
Vy₁' = +0.914139814
Vz₁' = +0.00919753116

The actual magnitude of the velocity at the perihelion position is found from the Vis Viva equation. (Remember that the semimajor axis, a, is intrinsically negative for hyperbolic orbits.)

Vᵦ = (29784.692 m/s) √(2/rᵦ − 1/a)

Example A.
V₁ = 26499.885 m/s

There, the coefficient is the orbital speed of Earth when it is at a distance from the sun equal to the semimajor axis of its orbit.

(Digression: No, this is not the average speed of Earth in its orbit. To find the average speed in a periodic orbit, you must divide the circumference of the orbit by the orbital period. The circumference of an ellipse is found by solving a complete elliptical integral of the second kind, using the semimajor axis and the eccentricity of the ellipse as input. The average speed in orbit is always less than the speed at the distance of the semimajor axis. The larger the eccentricity is, the bigger the difference will be. In Earth's case, with e=0.016715, the difference is only about 1 m/s.)

The velocity in the orbit at the apside is

Vxᵦ = Vᵦ Vxᵦ'
Vyᵦ = Vᵦ Vyᵦ'
Vzᵦ = Vᵦ Vzᵦ'

Example A.
Vx₁ = +10740.263 m/s
Vy₁ = +24224.600 m/s
Vz₁ = +243.734 m/s

We begin by finding the orbit's angular momentum (per unit mass) from the cross product rᵦ × Vᵦ, and we introduce a conversion factor, ρ = 149,597,870,691 meters/AU.

hx = ρ (yᵦ Vzᵦ − zᵦ Vyᵦ)
hy = ρ (zᵦ Vxᵦ − xᵦ Vzᵦ)
hz = ρ (xᵦ Vyᵦ − yᵦ Vxᵦ)

Example A.
hx = +1.344843061e14
hy = −1.146921484e14
hz = +5.473075570e15

The longitude of the ascending node, Ω, is found from

sin Ω = hx
cos Ω = −hy

If cos Ω≠0 then
begin
If (cos Ω is less than 0) then Q = π radians
If (cos Ω is greater than 0) and (sin Ω is less than 0) then Q = 2π radians
If (cos Ω is greater than 0) and (sin Ω is less than 0) then Q = 0
Ω = arctan (sin Ω / cos Ω) + Q
end

If cos Ω=0 then
begin
If (sin Ω is greater than 0) then Ω = π/2 radians
If (sin Ω is less than 0) then Ω = 3π/2 radians
end

Example A.
sin Ω = +1.344843061e14
cos Ω = +1.146921484e14
Ω = 49.5414853°

cos w' = (xᵦ cos Ω + yᵦ sin Ω) / rᵦ

if sin i=0 then sin w' = (yᵦ cos Ω − xᵦ sin Ω) / rᵦ
if sin i≠0 then sin w' = zᵦ / (rᵦ sin i)

If cos w'≠0 then
begin
If (cos w' is less than 0) then Q = π radians
If (cos w' is greater than 0) and (sin w' is less than 0) then Q = 2π radians
If (cos w' is greater than 0) and (sin w' is greater than 0) then Q = 0
w' = arctan (sin w' / cos w') + Q
end

If cos w'=0 then
begin
If (sin w' is greater than 0) then w' = π/2 radians
If (sin w' is less than 0) then w' = 3π/2 radians
end

Example A.
sin w' = −0.958541819
cos w' = +0.284952313
w' = 286.555996°

The angle w' is the sum of the argument of the perihelion, ω, and the true anomaly at the apsidal position, θᵦ. We have already determined θᵦ as follows:

Elliptical orbits.
If (rᵦ is less than rᵩ), then θᵦ = 0
If (rᵦ is greater than rᵩ), then θᵦ = π radians

Example A,
θ₁ = 0.

Hyperbolic orbits.
θᵦ = 0

We subtract to find the argument of the perihelion, ω.

ω' = w' − θᵦ

Example A,
converted to degrees,
ω' = 286.555996°

We correct the argument of the perihelion to the interval [0,2π), if necessary.

If (ω' is less than 0) then ω=ω'+2π else ω=ω'

Example A
converted to degrees
ω = 286.555996°

Now we have the complete set of Keplerian orbital elements: a, e, i, Ω, ω, T.

Example A (Mars)
a = 1.523652877
e = 0.0934278806
i = 1.849685704°
Ω = 49.5414853°
ω = 286.555996°
T = JD 2456317

A Christian made a video that he posted on YouTube, in order to challenge atheists with the question "Where did the universe come from, and why?" Here's my answer.

Politics have exploded in the aftermath of the elementary school shooting in Connecticut. Leftists have been taking every possible opportunity to promote gun control. Stupidly. There will always be criminals and crazies in the population. Laws banning guns don’t prevent these people from having and using guns.

No prohibition, whether of alcohol, or of marijuana, or of cocaine, or of guns, has ever succeeded in denying access to the prohibited item by those intent on their abuse.

It is easily verifiable that gun crime in the United States is most severe where gun control is strictest, and that gun crime is least serious in the areas where gun restrictions are the fewest. New York City, for example, has strict gun control and a high rate of gun crime. Meanwhile, in West Virginia you can carry around a pistol or a rifle, openly, without any license requirement, and gun crime hardly ever happens there.

That's how it is everywhere. In the state of Victoria, Australia, the gun homicide rate rose by 300% following gun confiscation pursuant to gun-control legislation enacted in that country. The reason? Only the criminals, including the murderers, had guns. Australia had rushed to impose gun control on its citizens following a 1996 massacre similar to the one that took place in Aurora, Colorado, on 20 July 2012. Given a moment to reflect, anyone can figure out that such massacres can occur only when there's no one else with a gun at the scene of the crime who can stop the killer. But, in Australia, people acted before they thought, and now that the legal clamps are down the freest of the Australians today are the criminals. Because of gun control in Australia, there are now more murders with guns, not fewer. Although it might seem at first glance to defy logic, it actually does not; the correlation between the strictness of gun control and the rate of gun crime is the most logical thing in the world.

Why don’t people learn from experience?

Gun control laws don’t work because criminals break them. In fact, gun control laws are never necessary. Why not? Because murder is already illegal, and so is robbery, and so is any other act of unjustified aggression that can be carried out with (or without) guns. The laws that prohibit such crimes authorize the state to punish their perpetrators.

According to the police, Adam Lanza stole some guns, killed his mother, transported the guns loaded, brought guns on to school property, broke into a school, fired guns within city limits, and committed mass murder. All of those acts are illegal. How much of an idiot does someone have to be to suppose that breaking one more law, a gun-control law, would have mattered to him?

Gun control laws add nothing socially useful. They certainly do not prevent gun crimes. If you want to prevent gun crime from happening, then you must take advantage of a simple, but very important fact:

Good people outnumber bad people. Or, sensible people outnumber crazy people.

Got that? Good. What it means is if everyone were armed, if everyone carried firearms all the time, the bad people wouldn’t be able to discharge their entire magazines into helpless crowds. Instead, the good people would kill the bad shooter before he could fire more than 10% of his bullets, and that would save the lives of all the people who would otherwise have been killed by the latter 90% of the bad guy’s ammunition.

Now that’s a real improvement.

In order to see how things can be in the absence of gun-control laws, simply look somewhat to the state of Vermont. Vermont's gun policy is the least restrictive in the United States. Only in Vermont can a citizen carry a concealed gun without a permit. Vermont is one of a very few states in which a citizen may own and carry a fully automatic pistol or rifle. Vermont has one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the country, about 140 violent crimes per 100,000 population per year. None of the dire predictions of the leftists have come to pass there. Why not? Because good people outnumber bad people in Vermont.

Now, in sharp contrast, let's look at the District of Columbia, where the liberals have had their way. The District of Columbia has the most restrictive gun control laws in the United States. Nearly every sort of gun freedom that people in other parts of the USA enjoy is denied there. And what impact have all these gun control restrictions had on the rate of violent crimes? The District of Columbia's violent crime rate is higher than that of any state, about 1400 violent crimes per 100,000 population per year—ten times the corresponding rate in Vermont.

Here are my sources of data, so you can check what I've said. Wikipedia's article on "Gun laws in the United States." Census Bureau data, "Crime Rates by State, 2008 and 2009, and by Type, 2009 (PDF)."

The Sandy Hook massacre in Connecticut isn’t an argument in favor of gun control. Quite the opposite. It is an argument in favor of a universally armed populace. Unfortunately, in their panic, many people are reacting without thought, calling for the gun control “remedy” that history proves does not work, believing the leftist propaganda that sensible and thinking people would know better than to trust. The gun-banners are moving fast to push their agenda on the American public because they know it is only a matter of time before the Americans start thinking more carefully than they are doing now.

See the photo of the teacher who was killed while shielding her students with her body? If she had had a gun to shoot back with, she might have had an even chance of shooting the gunman, instead of the other way around. If all of the teachers in the school had been armed, the gunman’s luck would have run out very fast. Nowhere near 20 children would have been killed because the bad man would have been dead before that could happen.

Let me try this again.

Connecticut is a state with fairly strict gun control laws, much stricter than those of Vermont. The reason violent crime is fairly low there, about 300 violent crimes per 100,000 population per year, despite the gun control laws, is that its also a state where most residents are white. (Race is a factor in the crime rate, also.) But when a vicious killer came along to put the efficacy of gun control to a test, the laws didn't work. They didn't work because gun control laws are the first laws that someone breaks when he intends to commit crimes with guns.

It's simple, I know. But you'd be surprised at how many people just can't figure it out.

And it wouldn't do any good, either, to pass a law making it illegal to break any of the other laws, gun control laws especially, since the criminals would just laugh and break that law, too, as they load their rifle magazine on the way to the elementary school. I hope that the folly of expecting laws to engender safety is clear to everyone.

What will stop criminals from shooting up crowds is armed people in every crowd who can shoot back. That will reduce the criminal's opportunity for doing evil to only three or four shots, instead of thirty or forty shots, before someone puts a stop to his massacre.

Let's all say it together: "Now that's a real improvement!"

However long it took for the police to respond to the 911 call from Sandy Hook Elementary, that amount of time was sufficient for the murderer to kill 20 children, several teachers, and the school principal. It would have been nice if the killer had met armed opposition... just a bit more promptly. Armed teachers could have done what the police could not do: save 20 children and themselves from a gunman.

Connecticut is already, pretty much, a gun control state. We've seen that the gun control approach doesn't work. But in a society where nearly everyone had a gun, the response to gun aggression would be instant, without even a single minute of delay.

An armed populace is its own best defender. Good people outnumber bad people. Arm the people, and evildoers will tremble, as they should. Remove all restrictions on gun ownership, and the good and lawful people will have the balance of firepower nearly always in their favor. Allow people the use of arms, as Thomas Jefferson and all the Founding Fathers intended, and crazed gunmen will be gunned down as they appear, before they can kill so many people.

As often as I criticize Israel, there's one thing that the Israelis do right that American municipal governments do wrong, and that's their public policy regarding guns. There's none of this leftist gun control in Israel. There's none of the sense that someone carrying a gun is affronting the polite sensibilities of other people. Indeed, it is quite the contrary. School teachers can be seen carrying fully automatic rifles, just in case they see some "terrorists" who might need to be shot.

This sensible attitude toward guns, so conspicuous in Israel, can be found nearly everywhere on Earth except in the following places:

(1) Countries whose governments are dictatorships.

(2) Historically white countries where the media have been promoting gun fear and sowing distrust among men since the mid-20th century.

Why Otherwise Intelligent People Don't Think Clearly About Guns.

In the historically white countries, anti-gun propaganda has been spread by news and entertainment presentations in the press, in the movies, and on television for almost a human lifespan. Most of that propaganda is the mischief of Jewish media bosses, and it has created among white people an irrational attitude toward guns which tends to favor gun control laws.

How many times have you watched a Hollywood movie and noticed that the "gun culture" seems rather hyper-macho? Whether the character is a hero or a villain, he's portrayed as a "tough guy" who likes nothing better than getting into a fight with his gun. That's part of the propaganda. If you study history, then you know that a real gun culture, at least among white people, is a very polite culture, where good rules of conduct are made and respected, and enforced as necessary. But Hollywood is run by Jews, and the Jews don't want anybody, whites especially, to regard guns as a facilitator of civility. They'd much rather you associate guns with aggression, with violence, with the sort of things that blacks do with guns—instead of the usual behavior of whites with guns.

White people in general have an inborn psychological flaw. When whites have gotten an erroneous set of moral ideas into their heads, they become very slow to learn correction from experience. Observed realities are discounted. Careful research is explained away. Facts are angrily denounced. Statistics don't matter. A white person with this affliction will, upon hearing the truth, adopt a smug sense of superiority, a sense of "I've heard this before, and I won't believe it because I know better," when, in fact, he doesn't really know better; he is merely comfortable with his wrongness. Denying reality for "moral reasons" is a mental disorder to which white people are especially susceptible. And, unfortunately, many white people throughout the world have adopted a panicky, irrational attitude toward guns, such that reasoning with them usually does no good.

Change.org asked me to sign a petition calling for gun control laws. Here is my reply.

No thanks. There's no way I'm going to be rushed into doing something so stupid as signing a gun ban petition. If the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre proves anything, it proves that gun control in general and gun-free zones in particular don't prevent criminals with guns from perpetrating mass murder. And it proves, also, that the police cannot possibly reach the site of a mass murder in progress in time to prevent 20 or so deaths.

So much is blindingly obvious. So much so that no one honest could possibly miss it. And, therefore, whoever uses the Sandy Hook massacre as a pretext for calling for gun control is not honest. They are also villains, of a higher sort.

It is clear that the gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary School should have been confronted by armed opposition immediately, without even one minute's delay. Imagine if the teachers had been armed. There's the gunman in the hall, with an armed teacher in front of him, another behind him, and two more drawing aim at him from classrooms on either side. One second later, there is no more danger to anyone at the school.

That will work. That is the answer. Gun control has been tried, and it has proved not to work. Its failure was easily predictable for the simplest reasons by the most logical of arguments. Criminals break laws. So they break gun control laws, too. And if you were to pass a law making it illegal to break any of the other laws, the criminals would break that law, too.

I mean, really. How much of a dumbass does someone need to be in order that he not have the mental ability to figure that out? How low does his IQ need to be before he can imagine that gun control is a remedy for gun crime? Even if you don't know the history regarding the efficacy of Prohibitions, whether of alcohol, or of marijuana, or of cocaine, or of Bibles, or of guns, the simple fact that criminals break laws should tell you that gun control laws won't stop gun crime.

The Possible Complicity of Government and/or Banking Leaders as Major Villains.

The LIBOR scandal is a controversy regarding an exceptionally large fraud that began in London, England. LIBOR stands for "London Interbank Offered Rate," meaning the interest rates that one bank can expect to pay or to get when it borrows from another bank. The LIBOR is used as a standard reference for loan interest rates around the world. Banking officials in England and elsewhere had formed a conspiracy to manipulate the LIBOR in pursuit of dishonest gain. The scandal began after they got caught. Several banks, including Barclays in England and UBS in Switzerland, have been fined for their involvement in LIBOR-related frauds. Since the LIBOR is connected to at least $350 trillion dollars in financial services, these illegal manipulations of the index may constitute, in aggregate, the largest financial crime in history.

There have been allegations on the Web and on the Usenet that both Peter Lanza, father of the alleged Sandy Hook Elementary School killer Adam Lanza, and Robert Holmes, father of the alleged Batman Movie killer James Holmes, were scheduled to testify before the US Senate regarding any knowledge they might have regarding the LIBOR crimes. From those allegations, a theory has arisen regarding the possible instigation of two mass murders in the United States by banking officials who intended the crimes to intimidate these witnesses into keeping their mouths shut, lest even worse things happen to them and to their families.

There have also been denials of these allegations on the internet, which assert that neither Peter Lanza nor Robert Holmes was ever scheduled to testify about the LIBOR controversy before the US Senate or in court.

I don't know what the truth is at present. However, events with large political significance usually happen for reasons that, although they might be evil, they are also quite easily understandable. Most thieves, for example, don't steal because they are "crazy"; rather, they steal because they want to enjoy spending someone else's money. Using the same principle in regard to the mass murders in Aurora, Colorado, and in Newtown, Connecticut, the least believable explanation is that two men killed a bunch of people just because they were crazy. Any explanation that offers a logical motive for the murders, however sinister, is more likely to be the truth.

Before I'd heard about the LIBOR scandal, I had already noticed a general drift of events that seemed to be overly convenient to advocates of gun-control. I'd already begun to suspect that the massacres in Aurora (20 July 2012) and in Newtown (14 December 2012) were a bit other, or a little more, than they might at first seem to be. I had taken note of the extraordinary push for gun control and for the repeal of stand-your-ground laws from the mainstream media during the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin shooting, especially in regard to misrepresentations and deceptions that the media employed in connection with witness testimony and with George Zimmerman's injuries. I'd observed Barack Obama had submitted to Congress a long list of gun makes and models, proposed to be banned by federal legislation, at a time when an unusual number of crimes were happening that would induce the legislators to facilitate the passage of these proposed bans.

In other words, before I had heard that Peter Lanza and Robert Holmes were to be witnesses adverse to the interests of the bankers, I'd formed the opinion that recent events formed a pattern, much as an artist makes a painting with many brushstrokes. Events had been bringing into focus a picture in which rich and/or powerful people were trying to frighten, pressure, deceive, and intimidate the common citizens of the United States into giving up their guns and their right to own guns.

So it was, and still is, rather easy to believe that certain banking officials, suspected of being guilty of some spectacular dirty dealing, and having much to lose if they are convicted of their crimes, might be willing to hire assassins to kill people and try to set the blame for mass murder upon the family members of men who were prepared to testify against them in the LIBOR matter.

It does make sense. It makes much more sense than "Oh, the killer just went crazy" because crazy isn't really a motive. You can go crazy in lots of ways other than killing a score of movie-goers or elementary school children.

The possible LIBOR scandal connection was brought to my attention by an article by Kenneth Schortgen, posted 16 December 2012 on the Examiner.com website. It was entitled "The Connecticut Elementary School Shooting: Is THIS The Real Reason For This Shooting? The LIBOR Scandal Link!" That article was removed—with excessive haste—on the evening of 18 December 2012, after someone asserted that no connection existed between the LIBOR scandal and either of the two aforesaid mass murders in the United States. A copy of the text, along with some follow-up speculation, was posted on the northerntruthseeker website.

Susan Posel, a spokesperson of "Occupy Corporatism," has on her blog (17 December 2012) wrote an essay entitled "No Viable Connection Between Peter Lanza & US Senate LIBOR Hearings," in which she denies that there is any such connection, calling the claims made in the vanished Examiner article "disinformation." However, Susan Posel has herself been identified as a source of disinformation. On the other hand, some more credible sources have joined the denial, including the respected Daily Paul, which reports a Senate Banking Committee aid (who asked not to be named) has having said: "This rumor is 100% false. The Senate Banking Committee does not have any LIBOR hearings currently scheduled, and has never considered either of these men as potential witnesses."

However, the idea that Robert Holmes might be connected with the LIBOR scandal wasn't cooked up just recently. It surfaced as far back as July 2012, not long after James Holmes shooting spree at the Batman theater. See Batman Connections, Robert Holmes, and the LIBOR Scandal, posted 26 July 2012.

Again, I don't know what the truth is about whether Peter Lanza or Robert Holmes were, or weren't, set to testify before the US Senate about LIBOR-related crimes. The theory is a plausible one, and, if it is a hoax, then it was exceptionally well-crafted. It's a shame that the Senate committee aid declined to identify himself; if he had done so, then anyone could check up on the authenticity of the source of the denial. As it is, we have only the credibility of the site that reported the denial—which isn't really all that poor, considering its association with Ron Paul.

Perhaps the most sensible of the commentaries about the mass murders in Aurora CO and in Newtown CT, and about various speculations pertaining thereto, was posted on YouTube by TrutherGirls.

My confidence in the LIBOR connection theory has gone from about 75% down to about 25%. Just to keep the theory's nature on the record, I'm going to detail it hereafter.

A Conspiracy Theory Regarding a Connection between LIBOR-Related Financial Crime and Two Mass Murders in the United States.

If only one of those fathers of alleged mass murdering sons were to have testified in a LIBOR hearing, it would be an interesting coincidence. But if both of them had been scheduled to do so, then the odds of coincidence drop to almost zero and the odds of conspiracy rise to almost certainty.

The conspiracy theory runs like this. The bankers framed Robert Holmes' son, James, for a mass murder committed in Aurora, Colorado, on 20 July 2012 at a preview showing of a Batman movie called The Dark Knight Rises. After looking at a side-by-side comparison of the man with the red-dyed hair, alleged to have been the killer, and the man who is now in jail awaiting trial for the crime, it does seem that they are two different men. One of the men has a wider nose and thinner lips than the other man does, though their faces are of similar shape around the chin.

If they are different men, then one of them is James Holmes (either in jail or in the hands of kidnappers). The other man is either the mass murderer or else he's an actor who superficially resembles James Holmes and who was hired to impersonate the murderer, who, in turn, has made good his escape and is hiding in some unknown place.

References.
Social Media Pranksters Will Be Prosecuted, Officials Warn In Newtown
Connecticut Police Spokesman: Newtown Will Prosecute Independent Journalist Whistleblowers

Police Lt. J. Paul Vance told reporters in Newtown, Connecticut, that anyone posting "misinformation" on social media regarding the Newtown Elementary School Massacre would be arrested and prosecuted for "crimes." One wonders what the charges would be.

It's difficult to believe that anyone would choose this moment to be offensive with comments regarding children who recently died, or otherwise take mischievous advantage of the tragedy. However, the police have made declarations regarding their intentions to arrest and prosecute that exceed their authority. Police Lt. Vance said he would take action against anyone who posted "misinformation."

It is NOT a crime to publish an incorrect opinion, or to mistakenly summarize current events. Everyone has a right to express opinion, and no one should be held in violation of law just because he was confused about what the facts are. The First Amendment protects offensive opinions as well as nice ones, so even people who go online to smirk and gloat about the Newtown Massacre, as rude as they are, have not broken any laws that they can be prosecuted for.

There are few exceptions to lawful free speech. Here they are.

1. It is illegal to disclose classified information in an unauthorized manner.

2. It is illegal to disclose proprietary information in a way that jeopardizes someone's lawful business interests.

3. It is illegal to commit perjury.

4. It is illegal to commit libel or slander.

5. It is illegal to create, with one's speech, a clear and present danger.

There is also "disturbing the peace," but the content of your speech may not be the basis of any criminal charges. Rather, a speaker is required not to impose on other persons with his presentation. If you talk so loudly at night that your neighbors can't get to sleep, then you've disturbed their peace and can be arrested by the police in order to make you stop. On the other hand, any attempt by law enforcement to regulate the content of speech in this way would be a misuse of their authority and a violation of the First Amendment.

It is perfectly legal to be rude. It's legal to transmit one's honest understanding of a body of facts, whether or not it is entirely correct. It's legal to convey one's personal opinion on any subject, regardless of what anyone else thinks about that opinion.

We don't burn witches at the stake, nor atheists either. And we don't prosecute any other expression of ideas just because someone else doesn't like those ideas.

Even J. Paul Vance has a right to go on camera and, while acting like a incompetent blowhard, share with us his stupid, offensive, and false opinion regarding what is, and what isn't, legally permissible speech. Personally, I don't think he knows enough about the laws to enforce them effectively, but that's just my opinion.

A painting is created by a thousand brushstrokes. And although one pixel does not an image make, as pixels accumulate over time, it becomes steadily easier to say what the subject of the image might be. Just so, as we observe current events we begin to suspect that things aren't quite, or aren't entirely, as the authorities describe them to be.

Listen to the video, in the second link above, and hear the arrogant cop tell his countrymen, more or less, and I paraphrase: "We will say how things are. You will not disagree. If you do, we will punish you as we would punish a criminal."

So, who wants to be America's Alexandr Solzhenitsyn?

Official Historical Revisionism in regard to events at Sandy Hook Elementary?
(Note: I wrote this entire section before I found out about the possible Libor scandal connection.)

One thing to watch for is a changing timeline. The early timeline is likely to be the accurate one. Any changes are probably not going to be corrections for the sake of accuracy; rather, they will be revisions for the purpose of making the police look good, or for patching a gap in a false official story.

In a timeline given by ABCnews, the 911 call reporting shooting in the school was made at 9:40, while the police didn't get into the school until 11:00. Quote: "11 a.m.: Police give the first indications that there are multiple fatalities inside. Fifty minutes later, [i.e. 11:50 am] they announce that most of the dead are children. 'Units in the school. I got bodies here,' is heard over the police radio."

A timeline published on The Huffington Post puts the onset of shooting at 9:35, which is in reasonably good agreement with the ABCnews timeline. However, it also asserts that a SWAT team arrived 10 minutes later, at 9:45, and that they "swept the buildings with police dogs" (no doubt sniffing out the source of all that shooting) at 10:00. It also says that the killer was reported dead at 10:30.

Who's right? Inconsistency can be the result of honestly made errors, but they can also point to manipulation of the data, possibly for political reasons. Let's compare the reported time gaps.

From first 911 call to the arrival of the police.
ABCnews says: 1h20m.
Huffington Post says: 10m.

From first 911 call until police confirm dead children.
ABCnews says: 2h10m.
Huffington Post says: 25m ("swept the buildings") or 55m ("killer dead").

The differences are too large to be honest mistakes. One or the other account is wrong. If I had to guess, I'd say that Huffington Post has received misinformation regarding the timeliness of the police response. No wonder the cops are having spokesmen threaten to arrest people who disagree with whatever it is they choose to say about the massacre. If the ABCnews timeline is the correct one, then the cops were slow.

And we ought to consider that it is possible that both timelines are partly correct: maybe the police arrived quickly, but stayed safely in the school parking lot, or in the woods behind the school, while shooting noises were coming from inside the school. I hope that's not true, but I don't see any reason to declare it to be impossible.

Be alert for other inconsistencies among timelines, especially between early ones (near the time of the massacre, which happened the morning of 14 Dec 2012) and the later ones. If a false official story is being concocted, whether the reason is to make the police look more effective at preventing mass murders than they really are, or whether the reason is to make gun control laws seem wise and necessary, despite their being neither, then it will probably involve changing the timeline from truth to fiction.

Watch, also, for historical revisionism of other details.

On 16 December, there appeared, again in the Huffington Post, a trial balloon involving the idea that the police, responding very quickly to the first 911 call, frightened Adam Lanza into shooting himself to death, so that he wouldn't have to face death a few minutes later during a shootout with police officers. The smart psychological tactic by police—of somehow letting their awesome presence be known—supposedly saved the lives of "hundreds" of other elementary school children who would have been shot by the "hundreds" of extra bullets that Adam Lanza had been carrying around in his pockets. Yessir, that intimidated Lanza right into blowing his own head off. Or so they say. I'm skeptical of this detail to the point of doubting the credibility of the Huffington Post, but you can believe as you wish.

This paragraph added on 7 January 2013. The narrative on the Sandy Hook Massacre has begun to change. NBC News "reports" that Adam Lanza had visited Sandy Hook Elementary School on the day before the massacre and became involved in a fight with four of its teachers. Although this might be true, it is very suspicious that we are hearing about this detail so late. Something like this should have been reported immediately, during the early coverage of the shooting. A grudge would have been a plausible motive for Lanza's later deeds, and all those efforts by expert psychologists to investigate Lanza's background, probing for some unknown cause of psychopathy, would have been unnecessary. Of course, the rumor about this fight between Adam Lanza and several teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary might be true, but it's the kind of things that should have had a very early revelation. If such a fight had happened, then it should have been in the news no later than 16 December 2012. The tardiness of its emergence gives it the look of historical revisionism.

The following paragraphs were added on 11 January 2013.

The narrative on the Sandy Hook Massacre began changing early. Initially, the media were saying that Nancy Lanza was a teacher at Sandy Hook and that she was killed by her son at the school. A few days later, the story had changed, so that Nancy Lanza wasn't a teacher at Sandy Hook and that she was killed by her son at her home. Also, the news media were reporting that adults who supposedly were witness to the incident, whatever it was, had heard "hundreds" of gunshots. But when the children were interviewed by the press, some of them didn't remember any gunshots, some of them heard sounds that they interpreted as someone kicking a door, and some of them said that they heard gunshots but were vague about the details. One exception: a boy who attended Sandy Hook said he heard gunshots, but that they didn't sound like police officer gunshots or animal control gunshots, so they had to be bad-man gunshots. Furthermore, there have been conflicting reports in the media about the type and number of firearms allegedly used by Adam Lanza in the school. The early reports specified two handguns (a Glock and a Sig Sauer) and a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. The medical examiner asserted that the victims had been shot with a rifle. Later, the media were contradicting the early reports, instead saying that the police had informed them that Adam Lanza did not have a rifle with him, but did have four handguns. (How did he carry them? In a bag? One stuck in each of his pants pockets? Was he an especially good juggler?) The media were reporting, also, that Adam Lanza was allowed into the school, rather than breaking in, because someone believed him to be a clergyman.

How suspicious this is. The medical examiner testified that all of the shooting victims in Sandy Hook Elementary were shot with a rifle. But the only rifle found at the scene was found inside the trunk of the car that Adam Lanza drove to the school. Adam Lanza's dead body was inside the school. The gun was locked in the trunk of his car. The medical examiner says that the dead children were shot with a rifle. Somebody is lying! Maybe everybody is lying. They just can't agree on which lies they should be telling.

It seems that there was a rifle in Sandy Hook Elementary, and that it was fired, at least once, from the school toward the parking lot. The news media showed a car with holes (in and out again) that were made by a rifle bullet. But if the AR-15 Bushmaster rifle belonging to the Lanza family was found in the trunk of Adam Lanza's car, then which rifle was used inside the school? And if it wasn't Lanza's rifle that was used, then why need we assume that it was Lanza who did the shooting? My early theory in which an assassin invaded the Lanza home, killed Nancy, kidnapped Adam, stole a few guns, and hied away to Sandy Hook for a murder spree, which he afterward blamed on Adam, with or without the knowledge and cooperation of local, state, and federal police, suddenly seems plausible. An alternative theory, in which the massacre was a hoax, embellished by a few rifle shots from near or inside the school, also seems plausible. The official story is running in third place in the plausibility race.

The following paragraphs were added on 18 January 2013.

Okay, the summary of facts most likely to be true has changed again. Now NBC News is saying that the shooter used four handguns and no rifles at all were involved. Even the weapon found in the trunk of Lanza's car might not have been a his mother's rifle, as we were at first told—but whatever type of weapon it was, it wasn't used in the killings. So for nearly four weeks, we've been lied to by three television networks, a bunch of cops, a medical examiner, and the alleged President of the United States, who kept telling us, over and over, that the murder weapon was an "assault" rifle, a "semiautomatic" rifle, a "powerful" rifle, a "military" rifle, a "Bushmaster" rifle, a "Bushwhacker" rifle, or an AR-15 rifle. Apparently, rifles didn't arrive at Sandy Hook until the police brought them there, which make the reported discovery of rifle bullet holes in some of the cars in the school's parking lot very interesting—assuming it's true. Given the source (the mainstream media) it might not be. We really shouldn't be surprised. The MSM revealed its true character with its brazen lies and cherry-picked details regarding George Zimmerman in the matter of Trayvon Martin. The Sandy Hook massacre is America's second big dose of media dishonesty, and it has the very same political motive: gun control.

If the Sandy Hook massacre was carried out with handguns, why not say so? The answer that I suspect might be correct might sound excessively cynical, but here it is. Handguns, rather than rifles, are the usual tools of murderers and robbers. Whenever gun confiscation occurs, the people who lose their guns are always those who never did any wrong with guns. The criminals always seem to keep theirs. It is, therefore, rather obvious that the government isn't really concerned about denying weapons to murderers and robbers. When the government tells you that this is the intended purpose of gun control, the government is telling you lies. The government begins with rifle confiscation because rifles are weapons that are accurate over long ranges, meaning that they are the sort of weapon that citizens would logically chose in fighting the soldiers of a tyrant or the troops of an occupying army. Although handguns are more convenient to the criminal, a rifle is far more suited to engaging a well-armed enemy force. So when the government begins a program of gun-control by demonizing rifles and by trying to make people to surrender rifles, it is signaling that its true purpose is to soften the people up for dictatorship or for foreign occupation.

The NRA Sold Out.

The National Rifle Association endorsed a proposal to put police officers in every school. That's not really a good remedy to the problem of the occasional gunman. For one thing, most of the time the police officers on duty in the schools would have little to do except look the other way when black students sell drugs in the halls, meaning that these officers would be paid for doing nothing, except when a mass murderer should show up. Despite the impression the media are trying to give us, killers bent on massacring elementary school children are a rarity. The taxpayers would have to pay the salaries of a great many full-time police officers, at least one in each public school, who would, most of the time, have little or nothing to do.

Also, cops usually find ways to make jackasses out of themselves when they have time on their hands. A bored police officer might decide to "justify" his paycheck by doing all kinds of picky, picky enforcement, and coddle his ego by throwing his official weight around. He might even be a bad guy himself, with a hidden desire to hurt somebody. Sometimes, mean men do find jobs with police departments.

A much better idea is to arm the teachers. The teachers are already being paid to teach and tend the children at the school. No additional tax money would need to be spent if they were to begin carrying guns in shoulder holsters inside their jackets. Further, the teachers have already been screened as being suitable for working with children, and they have been weeded of misfit personalities over time. Using the teachers as official bodyguards for school children is a remedy that is both cheaper and safer than using cops for that purpose would be. By endorsing the cops-in-schools idea, the NRA appears to have caved in to political pressures and should no longer be considered a reliable advocate for gun rights.

Further Reading. When the Music Stops: How America's Cities May Explode in Violence. The latter part of the essay explains that the police won't be able to stop urban flash riots because their reaction time is hours, whereas the flash riot formation time is only minutes. That means the rioters can outmaneuver the police with strike and run tactics, coordinated by cell phones and iphones. The essay goes on to outline a plan by which beleaguered citizens can fight back against flash rioters by using teams of snipers, armed with rifles, lying prone in the beds of pickup trucks. This civilian mobile infantry will also have a reaction time of only minutes and can kill or disperse the rioters, saving the lives of persons who were caught in the rioters' ambush. Now, if you happen to be on the side of the flash rioters, then you don't want the rioters' prey to have any means of fighting back, and gun confiscation, from that point of view, would be desirable. On the other hand, if you prefer, in the event that a choice must be made between dead productive citizens and dead predatory criminals, that the criminals be the ones to die, then you don't want gun confiscation. Rather, you'd want all citizens to be armed.

A Word about Power.

In a constitutional republic, the law is superior to the government, and the constitution is the supreme law. Only an evil, corrupt government seeks to circumvent the constitution in order to infringe on the rights of the people. Only an evil, corrupt executive head of state, uses "emergency war powers," enacted more than 150 years ago to deal with an economic crisis, as an excuse for executive orders intended to harm the people or to make them vulnerable to harm. Only an evil, corrupt legislature passes laws in conflict with the constitution, with the intention that its Acts will be obeyed and the constitution disregarded.

In a constitutional republic, there is nothing legally wrong with the idea that a county sheriff can arrest the national head of state for breaking the law. Violating the constitution is breaking the law.

For that matter, there's nothing wrong with a military unit going beyond refusing to obey an unlawful order and, upon being deputized by a county sheriff (to give them civil authority), going to arrest the head of state for breaking the law. The soldier's oath puts the defense of the constitution first, and obedience to the orders of the head of state is a lesser requirement. That's why obeying an illegal order, even if it comes from the head of state, would make the soldier a criminal—in a constitutional republic.

Issuing an executive order in contravention of the constitution is breaking the law. Anyone interfering with such an arrest is an accessory after the fact, to be arrested and tried along with the criminal head of state, and to be shot dead if his resistance makes such arrest impossible. In constitutional republics, heads of state can't just do whatever they want. They must obey the laws, too. And they are subject to the same punishments that apply to anyone else. The national constitution, as the founding document by which the country was given its legal existence, is the supreme law of the land.

One of the rights protected by the Constitution of the United States is the right to keep and bear arms. The government is precluded from enacting legislation that would deny, hamper, or burden this right by the phase with which the 2nd Amendment ends: "shall not be infringed." When the government does exactly this, it violates the constitution. A gun control measure enacted by Congress would make criminals of Representatives and Senators. If the president signs a gun control joint resolution from Congress, then he is a criminal (of the big-boss kind) from that moment onward.

Groups in America—today and for the foreseeable future—need martial power, in the form of weapons, in the sense that a band playing in Texas needs a fiddle. It's just how things are done here, and you won't get very far without them. America isn't really civilized anymore. It once was, but the Jews and the political traitors among us changed the United States of America from a civilized nation into a greedy corporation where the bosses only want to starve to death, or else work to death, all of the little people.

That's what the USA is now, and has been, and will remain until it dies: a corporation, not a republic. If you want to bring a republic back to the American people, you'll have to defeat the consortium of bankers, corrupt government cliques, and complicit media institutions in a war that must, for success, end with these domestic enemies of the Constitution being hanged.

But the government doesn't have all of the power. Other groups have enough of it, as well, to hold their own and to further their interests. The government refers to these groups as gangs. Gangs are able to defy law enforcement within the United States because they are organized and have, for the most part, successfully resisted infiltration by government spies. Indeed, the gangs have infiltrated the government's law-enforcement agencies better than the reverse.

The police will back down, and have been backing down, from armed confrontation with gangs, with the sole exception of white nationalist groups. For white nationalists, the US government brings out its tanks, its attack helicopters, its armed drones, its jet fighters, and armies of cops in battle dress with full-auto weapons and grenades. Against white nationalist groups, the government will openly do murder, including the murder of white children. But I suspect the reason is that white nationalists have never fought determinedly enough to hand the government a defeat in battle. Were white nationalists to begin winning their combat engagements with government forces, they'd earn some respect—after the early surge had abated.

Treason isn't the only crime that profits when it is successful. Terrorism is another. Meaningful terrorism, that is. The powers-that-be aren't really harmed by someone who shoots children inside a public school. But they are harmed when they, themselves, are the targets. The powers of which I speak aren't to be found among elementary school teachers or principals, but among the directors, shareholders, and senior executives of the banks within the Federal Reserve System, as well as the directors, shareholders, and senior executives of the major telecommunications corporations. The wise terrorist does not waste his time doing what does not truly disturb his real enemies, nor does he squander his resources in fighting armies that he can simply step around.

When government works as it should, the country is a gang to which every citizen belongs and for which the military forces and the police are just the "strong arm" part. In America's early days, that's how things were. It's characteristic of civilization that things be this way. The people didn't fear the police because the police were good fellow gang members who had the job of enforcing the gang's rules. It was aliens, outsiders, meddlers with the interests of the citizen, who had to fear the gang's power. But governments have a long track record of turning sour, of growing corrupt—especially when Jews have influence upon them. And gradually the police are no longer considered to be, neither among themselves nor among the populace, "fellow citizens." They morph into monsters who claim the right to boss everybody else.

The problem for white groups is that they are more civilized than the government is. Despite the occasional hero-martyr like Robert Mathews or Joe Stack, white groups are, without exception, too "moral" in the Christian sense to kill and kill and kill and kill until the enemy is taught to have some respect. The Latino groups don't have that problem. The black gangs certainly do not have it. The organized non-white groups therefore get the respect that the white groups have yet to earn. Whites want to obey the laws, and the obedience habit persists into times when even the whites themselves—who, typically, are the last to know—understand that the laws are being made by hostile powers. That makes white people the easiest group to oppress and squeeze for "taxes," and it's why white people are the losers in every political correctness game.

One of the greatest heroes Australia has is the late Rodney William Ansell, the rugged fellow whose life inspired the fictional character of Crocodile Dundee. He was named Australian Man of the Year in 1988 because his fame had brought hundreds of millions of dollars into the Australian tourism industry. Ansell died in a shoot-out with Australian police who came to confiscate his guns. I'm not saying that the police officers who came for the guns were evil men, but they were carrying out an evil purpose upon the orders of evil men, and they ought to have known better. Just as a soldier should never carry out an illegal order, so likewise must a police officer never enforce any law that harms the decent citizen who would like nothing better than to obey the laws, if the laws were such that they could be safely obeyed. Policemen do have an obligation to be thinking moral agents; they can no more evade this responsibility by saying "I was only following orders" than a soldier can.

The white habit of respecting authority, combined with a lust for approval and for gain, is also why white groups, trying to become organized, must deal with so many traitors. When I was in the National Alliance, I saw a long succession of young white men, mostly in their early 20s, greet Dr. Pierce with big salesman smiles, after which they applied a measure of flattery, followed by a detailed explanation of why Dr. Pierce ought to appoint him at once as his 2nd-in-command, or at least give him some Important Job—one that didn't raise a sweat—right away. When offered a job that was either tedious, such as stuffing leaflets into envelopes, or physically difficult, like pouring concrete or raising steel arches for a new Quonset building, in return for the (low) salary that the National Alliance could afford to pay them, few of these guys lasted very long. Most of them turned around and drove away, bitter that they hadn't been properly appreciated.

These initially obsequious fellows came to us hoping for gain, for status, or for access to rebel girls with ambiguous morals (there actually were some of those). When the disappointed job applicants, who had trumpeted their loyalty to their race before being asked to do some real work on its behalf, left the National Alliance's main office (near Hillsboro, West Virginia), some of them would offer to supply antagonistic powers with "intelligence." One of these finks enabled the federals to ambush a guest who had come from Germany to help us, and who had been a far better worker than the informer had been. The German young man was wanted by the law in his country for raising his right arm in an inappropriate way, and the federals used that as a pretext to intercept him while he was shopping at Wal-Mart in Lewisburg WV, to jam a pistol barrel into his face, to crack his head down upon the top of a car, and to break his arm while arresting him for deportation proceedings.

You might notice that the US government is not especially interested in nabbing and deporting illegal Chicano immigrants who are wanted in Mexico for political crimes or for drug offenses—although this does happen occasionally. You might also notice that Mexican illegals who offer no resistance to arrest aren't treated as that German fellow was treated. I wonder why that is.

The reason is power. The Chicano organizations are a racist group who have no difficulty finding recruits who are truly loyal to their race, who will serve without reservation, and who won't betray their "brothers and sisters." The same can be said for many of the black groups. But white people have a treason problem, which is caused by the inevitable infusion, into the ranks of any white nationalist organization, of persons who pretend to be race patriots, but who are in reality individualist self-promoters. If they can't have a high place, they want no place at all. If they don't get what they think they deserve, and right quickly, they will leave and bargain with the enemy for whatever they can get.

When it comes to real criminal activity, the white groups do the least of it. Much more crime per group member can be found among the Latinos or the blacks. But, remember, these non-white organized gangs have power enough to make the police back off. And they got that power by being racially loyal, truly so, and not merely as a pretense.

If a white person comes to a white nationalist group to join, he should not expect to be given a leadership role. He should expect, rather, to work in whatever capacity the existing leaders find him to be competent. He should not expect to be paid much money. Some of his fellows might be working for free, as volunteers. He should not expect any possible self-promotional talk to gain him favor. The boss will have heard it all before, and his disgust is more likely. You come humbly and prepared to dig a ditch all the day long, or you don't come at all.

There are few things funnier than watching a 20-year-old man trying to cajole a 65-year-old man, while simultaneously conning him with half-truths that he doesn't believe the older guy will notice. It's like watching a six-year-old boy "explain" to his daddy why he didn't really break the window, even though it might look that way. But that's what you see at the headquarters of a white nationalist group, at least once in a while. This kind of shallowness among persons attracted to rebel causes, as white nationalism is perceived to be, is why whites haven't made the strides toward organized collective power that the racial groups of other races have made.

Although already only about 2% of people have enough perception to understand that rebellion against the establishment is necessary and that time for organizing is running out, of this two percent, all but two percent are useless because they aren't prepared to devote themselves to the cause. So what white organizations must do is carry on an non-stop effort to sort through the people they can reach, in order to find the useful 2% of 2%, that one person in 2500, who is worth hiring.