Here is the take on this situation by anti-Zionist Jew Gilad Atzmon:
[BEGIN] As the picture of the current economy disaster becomes ever more clear, it becomes rather obvious, to me at least, that the ideology and the people who are directly responsible for the mass killing of millions of Iraqis and the displacement of many other millions, the people who keep the Palestinians starved behind walls, are unfortunately very much the same people who are responsible for a class genocide of millions of disenfranchised Americans who are now on the brink of total dispossession. ...
Earlier on I raised a rather crucial question: How is it that America failed to restrain its Wolfowitzes? How is that America let its foreign policy be shaped by some ruthless Zionists? How come alleged American "free media" failed to warn the American people of the enemy within?
Money is probably the answer, it indeed makes the world go round, or at least the American housing market.
COMMENT: "Money" is only a partial answer: Broadly speaking, the correct answer is that organized Jewish interests, a long time ago, determined to capture (take control of) the United States, and has pursued that goal with undivided attention ever since.
--http://palestinethinktank.com/2008/09/30/gilad-atzmon-credit-crunch-or-rather-zio-punch/ [END]

* Our 'leaders' have made a secret treaty -- the Security and Prosperity Partnership -- in which America is to be merged with Canada and Mexico. The existence of this treaty has been denied by Administration officials, but has been documented on official websites. Such a treaty would never be approved by the American people, and in any event could only be implemented with the 'advice and consent' of the Senate; and yet the plans for merging the three countries continues apace into a one-world (ie, one-world government) future where international communism and international capitalism become the tools by which the wealthy elites assume totalitarian power, and the freedom to which America has given birth, and which has provided a beacon of inspiration to the rest of the world, is finally and completely extinguished in the rise of the so-called New World Order (NWO).

* We have a completely fake War on Terror which was supposedly begun as a result of an Arab attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon ("911"), but which numerous researchers have now concluded was a 'false flag operation' orchestrated at the highest levels of our own governmnt in collusion with the Israeli secret service, the Mossad, whose motto is "By deception we shall make war". While this allegation may seem bizarre, the fact remains that (1) Bush has surrounded himself with fanaticical Israeli-firster Jews ("neocons"), and, as evidence uncovered by researcher Texe Marrs has demonstrated, is probably a Jew himself; and (2) the so-called Jewish Lobby, of which the Harvard academics Mersheimer and Walt have so recently and infamously written an entire best-selling book about, is so powerful that columnist Pat Buchanan dubbed Congress 'Israeli-occupied territory'. More particularly, it seems clear on reflection that the goal of 911 was two-fold -- first, to draw America into war against the Arabs with the purpose of supporting Israeli hegemonic ambitions, and especially Israeli lust for oil and 'lebensraum'; and second, to enable the government to impose a police state under cover of wartime 'necessity', thereby helping to usher in the NWO. It is thus no surprise that the government 'investigation' of 911 was a whitewash, that the 'unanswered questions' about this event stretch from here to Timbuktu, and that the War On Terror is headed by an Israeli-passport-holding dual-loyalist Jew whose last name, 'Chertoff' means 'Devil' in Russian, a fact which goes far in explaining why this Lenin-lookalike, as attorney-general of New Jersey at the time of 911, sent a planeload of Israeli suspects back to Israel without any investigation, and who, as head of Homeland Security today, decided to hire as two of his major assistants the former heads of the two most dreaded communist secret police agencies, the Soviet KGB (General Yevgeni Primakov) and the East German Stasi (Marcus Wolfe), both of them Jews.

* We have a War on Drugs whose purpose seems mainly to reduce competition for the world's most prominent Drug Kingpin, the CIA, all while helping to usher in the NWO's totalitarian police state. The CIA's drug-running, first thoroughly documented in Alfred W McCoy's massive volume "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade" (1972) and many times thereafter, funds the CIA's 'secret wars', its 'renditions' and worldwide network of secret prisons, and its University of Torture and Government Overthrow (School of the Americas).

* We have racial preferences for negroes and other higgledy minorities which are intended to produce racial conflict with whites and thereby justify more Police Statism. When the negroes couldn't make any economic advancement even when given 'ekwul rites', the liberals had to do something to cover their asses and 'prove' they were right. Accordingly, they chose to impose racial preferences, with the excuse that 'white racism' was holding negroes back -- a clearly false proposition in view of the fact that all other minorities -- Chinese, Irish, Jews, etc -- in spite of far worse discrimination than blacks now experience, all became successful within a generation or two -- and this policy of anti-white discrimination was naturally supported by the New World Orderlies who saw the essential unfairness, and hence the tremendous potential for social unrest, which racial preferences presented.

* We have 'hate speech' laws which are intended as the fine edge of the wedge to make politically incorrect thoughts into crimes, thereby achieving yet more control over the American population, all while stamping out the information that patriots need to identify and throw off their oppressors.

* Within the last few years we have had a series of enormously abusive legislative and executive acts foisted upon us, including the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the rescinding of Posse Comitatus, and the countenancing of torture, not to mention the practice of 'signing statements' by means of which the President effectually places his own interpretation on legislation which may have little or no relation to the original intent of Congress.

* We have a very clear Second Amendment which permits the possession and carrying of weapons, and we have millions of citizens who own guns, and are thus in some sense well-prepared to resist government tyranny; but on the other hand, we have suffered an unending series of attempts to neutralize that Second Amendment, from efforts to get the Supreme Court to declare it a 'collective' right, and hence not an individual one, to escalating attempts to impede gun sales, illegalize ammunition, and confiscate legal firearms. Indeed, the Supreme Court's recent Heller decision upholding the right of the individual to keep and bear arms was achieved with only a 5-4 majority, and this means that if there is another test of this essential right with but one new liberal appointment to the Court, this would almost certainly spell the end of the Second Amendment. What is worse, however, is the manipulation of people's thoughts thru the Jew-controlled mass media and educational establishment, in which gun owners are demonized, gun control is lauded, and students from the publik skoolz are dumbed down to such a degree that they do not know and cannot appreciate American history and the fact that guns were an essential part of that history. In fact, most people are so dumbed down that, as several commentators have noted and news stories have actually reported, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are likely to be regarded as subversive literature.

* We have in the order of 600 gulags around the country with a capacity of hundreds of thousands if not millions of internees. Is it really sensible to think that these prisons are intended for anyone except dissenters, who will be incarcerated just as soon as martial law is imposed?

* We have a President who took an oath which every President takes, to uphold and defend the Constitution, but who, in an extraordinarily candid moment of truth, angrily referred to the Constitution as 'a God-damned piece of paper'.

* And above all, we have a Congress and a President who are dominated by a small but wealthy ethnic group -- Jews -- who are or have been the driving engine behind most of the above actions or policies, and who -- by means of their money and other influence -- will continue to dominate America and make this country a mere appendage of 'that shitty little country' Israel.

As many have noted, the pattern of abuses which we have listed above is that of chipping away at our freedoms so gradually that few will notice, and fewer still protest, until those freedoms are gone and we are caught in a totalitarian web that constrains our every move. This, indeed, is what the 19th century French writer Alexis de Tocqueville predicted as constituting the end of American freedom, tho he did not see it as totalitarian so much as simply bureaucratic -- a word which so well describes the freedom-crimping so-called-democracies of Europe. As a general rule we are not taught about freedom, and especially we are not taught that freedom is like a muscle -- it must be exercised or else it weakens and eventually withers away; and for this reason most people are not psychologically prepared to defend it. There is an irony here, however, because the liberals and leftists who are proponents of Big Government and its Big Brother facilitator gun control believe that the government will 'wither away' -- hence producing freedom -- providing only that the government is in communist or socialist hands -- when in fact it is the nature of Big Government, of which communism and socialism are prime examples, to pile law upon law, rule upon rule and regulation upon regulation until freedom is completely gone -- hardly an act of withering away. The real problem, of course, is that nature abhors a vacuum, including a power vacuum, and this means that the 'power vacuum' of which freedom is composed has a tendency to be overtaken and replaced by government unless there is an active effort to retain that freedom. This, I believe, is what J Edgar Hoover meant when he said that freedom must be rewon by each generation; but in any event it is clear that government itself is the main threat to freedom. And since, as Lord Acton observed, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, it follows that, as the power of government grows, not only does freedom decline, but it declines into a condition in which corruption becomes rampant. For those who love freedom, then, the best analogy of our situation is perhaps the proverbial frog in the pot: When a frog is put into hot water, it will jump out; but, so they say, when placed into cold water, it stays put, and will continue to stay put as the temperature is gradually raised, right up until the time that the frog's goose is cooked.

Now looking at the list of abuses which we have cited above, what is perfectly clear is that our leaders are pursuing policies which are grossly unpopular and/or grossly destructive of America, and ones which are leading to a New World Order/Jew World Order government. But one does not even have to agree that it is Jews who are largely responsible -- all one has to do is recognize that our political representatives in Washington are acting in a manner completely contrary to the best interests of America's core population and the will of the electorate, and that this behavior will lead to the destruction of America within only a few years.

So what, then, is the solution to 'the Washington question'?? Vote the rascals out? Well, frankly, we have tried that, and it didn't work. We tried it in the last election to stop the war, but the Democrats, who replaced the ousted Republicans, won't even 'put it on the table'. And we tried it in the days of Newt Gingrich's 'Contract with America', where again nothing happened but a lot of rhetoric, and the complaint that Gingrich had 'put a contract ON America'. Indeed, as the NWO has tightened its grip, we have been striving ever harder for change, and yet nothing has worked. In fact, the chances for change have become less and less at the ballot box, where votes are counted electronically, and where in most places there is no 'paper trail' that can prove what has clearly been demonstrated in numerous instances, namely, electronic manipulation of the voting results. Even worse, enormously popular candidates who deviate from the NWO line -- Ron Paul being the prime example -- are denigrated and shunted aside, even tho their popularity and fundraising abilities seem to make them a shoo-in for bringing their party victory.

So again I ask, What then is to be done? The answer, I think, is contained in the two quotations which head this essay, and which might be referred to as the Shooting Solution: It is time -- or very nearly time -- to start employing the Second Amendment for what its prime author, Thomas Jefferson, intended, namely, for patriots to use their arms to remind the politicians in Washington that they are in danger of death or serious bodily harm from those they supposedly represent as long as they continue to act contrary to the best interests of the core American population. Or to put it another way, while I myself am a generally nonviolent person, I simply do not see any alternative to using violence to change the dreadful and rapidly-deteriorating situation in which we find ourselves. The only thing that is going to have a stronger effect in Washington than Jewish money is violence against the political establishment by We The People; and unless we choose this alternative, and choose it soon, then the American nation -- and most probably the white race, and Western civilization -- is going to come to a rapid and inglorious end.

Let me clarify a bit. As I observed in The Militia Solution, I have long maintained that the difference between a civilized and an uncivilized society is that the civilized society customarily settles differences nonviolently, while the uncivilized society customarily relies on violence. But if this is true, it is also true that even the civilized society has its roots in violence, because violence or the threat of violence is necessary to keep people from engaging in violence. This may seem like a sort of contradiction, but philosophers would recognize the containing of violence with violence as what might be called 'meta-violence', ie, violence about violence, with the intention of containing or eliminating it. In the present essay we are going to make use of this idea in proposing, first, that if there is to be a solution to the tyranny that is engulfing us -- a tyranny created by the machinations of the money and power elites, mostly Jewish -- then it is very likely going to be violent; but second, that there is a way to use violence so that the freedom won at such terrible personal cost for us by our Founders may be rewon by us with only a very small amount of violence, and in particular, meta-violence.

But don't get me wrong: the object of my proposal is NOT the violent overthrow of our government -- to the contrary, my effort is precisely to PREVENT a violent overthrow -- something which might well be attempted by misguided patriots under present circumstances. More particularly, overthrow of the government produces anarchy, a state which is unstable, and which inevitably develops into dictatorship, since most people wish to live under a government of some kind, and since in a state of anarchy, a government will naturally crystallize around a strongman who will impose his will in lieu of law. Instead, what I propose in the present essay is to explain how just a small amount of violence can both prevent anarchy and also maintain the current form of government while securing our freedom by damping out government abuse.

Now our situation at the present time is this: All the totalitarian measures are in place to create a full-blown police state, and all that is wanting is some event, such as war, or another 'Pearl Harbor' such as 911 was supposed to be -- which will spring the trap and give the Powers-That-Be an excuse to impose it. When this occurs, the first thing that will happen is gun confiscation, irrespective of what the Supremes have ruled; and you can bet that the cops are gong to be checking their gun registration and sales lists and knocking at your door demanding that you give up the best means that we now possess to confront the Orwellian nightmare. At that point, we have two choices: To give up our guns, or to resist with force. But who is going to resist? While I am not going to make any generalizations about Americans, let us remember what happened in Britain, Canada and Australia, where there was not a peep of protest when guns were effectively confiscated in these nations. And now that this tragedy has actually happened to these nations, there is not much left in the way of their complete enslavement, which seems to be proceeding apace. In fairness, it should be noted that only Americans have a Second Amendment, and it is this which emboldens such bumper-sticker slogans as 'They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.' But whether this makes Americans any more difficult to disarm than Brits, Canadians or Aussies is anyone's guess at this point.

But if all the news seems bad at present, there is in fact good news, because there is a way to take back our freedom, and to keep it. To explain, let us begin by noting that the American Revolution was midwifed by only a relatively few men -- and not only just a few men, but those without modern weapons or means of communication. As Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed it's the only thing that ever has." But how could it be done in this case? It is that very question which cries out to be answered, and it is that question that I plan to answer in this essay.

Now in getting to the heart of our question, let us examine what a famous writer had to say about reversing the situation in his homeland of Russia, at the time when it was called the USSR and steeped in totalitarianism. Here are his words:

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"
-- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Old Sol was undoubtedly right about the situation, and yet his solution had an important failing which may have rendered it ineffective. That failing was COMMUNICATION. Unless his idea had been communicated to a great many others, then there would be only a few who would know what to do, and this would not have caused the terror to grind to a halt, but instead only inflamed it. Indeed, it is much like the 'solution' that a lot of American patriots are relying on -- shoot the NWO enforcers when they show up at the door -- and pretty much as unreliable (what if they send a SWAT team after you, or wait till you come out for groceries?). This is not, of course, to say that one should not resist when 'they' show up at your door, for resistance is better than allowing yourself to be arrested and tortured, or warehoused with negro criminals who will rapidly turn you into a fuck doll; but it will not be sufficient to make what I will call a Second American Revolution. More specifically, we must be PROACTIVE revolutionaries, ie, we must not wait for 'them' to come to our door; instead we must take the war to them. For this reason, I offer the following:

First rule of freedom: Take the war to the enemy.

The point here is that sitting at home waiting for 'them' is at best only an opportunity to kill a few of the opposition, but is much more likely to get you arrested later or put you on the run where you expose your friends as well as yourself to the foul hand of Leviathan. Taking the war to the enemy, however, will keep your identity secret, while helping to monkey-wrench the NWO.

Second rule of freedom: Never allow yourself to be abused without retaliation.

The purpose of this latter rule is not for the self-indulgent purpose of allowing one to enjoy revenge -- indeed, it may be easier and in many ways better NOT to retaliate; rather the point is to CULTIVATE A REPUTATION FOR NOT TOLERATING ABUSE. This is important because, when you have a 'rep', people are a lot less likely to abuse you. Or to put it another way, you are less likely to have to fight, as decreed by the First Rule, providing you follow the Second. After all, why do you think so many politicians are willing to cater to negroes? The answer, of course, is that negroes have a known propensity to riot, and it is just cheaper to pay them off.

Third rule of freedom: Fight well with words and you may never have to fight with deeds.

The real war we are fighting is for the hearts and minds of our countrymen. Unfortunately, because of the power of the mainstream media, all of which are in Jewish hands, most people believe what these media tell them. This is a big disadvantage, because unseating Establishment lies is much more difficult than merely convincing those who are not yet programmed with Establishment memes. But in spite of this, we are nevertheless gifted with a powerful medium for reaching the masses, namely, the Internet -- a medium so powerful that the Establishment is doing everything in its power to shut it down or change it in ways so it will be difficult for anti-Establishment truth to leak out. For this reason we have designated the restricting or shutting down of the Net as an act of war against We The People (see below). What all this means, then, is that, as long as the Establishment has not transgressed this or other boundaries which we have singled out as constituting a new Lexington or Concord, our prime effort should be the education of our fellows (Third Rule); for if we win the war of ideas, little further war will be necessary.

But if we are going to have to fight, then when does the war start? This question is of special importance because, as noted earlier, our situation is that of the frog in the pot -- there will not be a Lexington or Concord that will tell us unambiguously, "Let it start here." Accordingly, I am going to list some events or actions, any one of which I believe should be counted as an act of war, ie, a war in which patriots must act with violence. Here are my suggestions:

* Shutdown of the Internet.
* A significant impairment of the exchange of information over the Net (or anywhere) on subjects the government wants to hush up, such as racial information on Jews or blacks.
* A roundup of pro-white 'dissidents'.
* Gun confiscation or ammo restriction
* Martial law/suspension of the Constitution
* Implementation of the North American Union (NAU/SPP) - ie, the merging of the US, Canada and Mexico
* Abandonment of the dollar
* Food rationing
* Torture of Americans
* Putting into effect the anti-freedom legislation that has now been passed but has not been implemented.
* Starting a war with Iran or other state

We set out these criteria in hopes that 'they' won't dare to transgress them. This is not of course an exhaustive list; but it does cover quite a bit of ground. Not everyone will agree that the government has overstepped its boundaries on every one of the above items, but many if not most will.

OK, so now we know when the war starts, what we must do before it starts, and how to avoid the problem that Solzhenitsyn's solution posed, ie, we know that we must publicize these conditions widely so that a large number of people will know the time when it is no longer reasonably possible to refrain from violence. Another thing we know is that we must take the war to the enemy. But who is going to do this, and when and how, and how much?

To answer the above questions, we are going to need to take our cues from several sources. One is my essay The Militia Solution. Another is my book Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy. Another is Louis Beam's essay on 'Leaderless Resistance'. And another is Alan Stang's recent column on 'Red Dot Blowback'. From this list it should be apparent that what I am going to propose possesses a certain complexity, and yet, all things considered, it is really very simple. To explain, I am now going to give a bare-bones version of what I propose, and then I am going to tackle the major problems which arise and tell you how I believe they can be overcome.

The bare-bones version of how we take back our freedom with what I have earlier designated 'meta-violence' is to engage in targeted assassinations of people selected from the unfortunately-large-set of bad guys that are driving this nation into the ground. Our targets are selected by consulting compilations of information -- websites on the Net, for example, which keep tabs on the bad guys and list their offenses against the people. Other things being equal, we prefer to target the bad guys directly, but if a target is hard to hit, we may instead target those who are the target's assistants, protectors (bodyguards, etc), or family. (While this will surely be objected to by some, the fact remains that the associates of Bad Guys are also, to some degree, also Bad Guys, and assassination of assistants may at least persuade other potential helpmeets to refrain from giving aid and comfort to such people.) The point here is to remove a selection of bad guys from power, either by killing them, or else by scaring the shit out of them so they are convinced to retire and give up their power, or at least to start behaving properly. The purpose is also -- and especially -- to scare the men who are our POTENTIAL targets so that they will reform their behavior and stop abusing us.

The above is a bare-bones outline of what we will refer to as simply the Shooting Solution. But there is one important problem which must be overcome if the solution is to be viable. To explain, we do not envision assassinations as being done by some sort of guerrilla army, because organizations like armies are subject to infiltration, and thus liquidation -- something which is much easier in the present-day world of 'Total Information Awareness' where the government has reduced privacy to a mere shadow of its former self. Instead, we envision assassinations as being performed by individuals or small groups who are not under anyone's command or control, but instead act alone -- spontaneously, as it were, and as the opportunity presents itself. This, we should note, is what Louis Beam proposed in his famous essay on 'Leaderless Resistance'. The core problem, then, is, How does one get people to undertake soldierhood?

In his essay, Beam did not -- as we shall do below -- address the question of how LR would recruit its soldiers -- his faith that this would happen spontaneously seems more akin to a religious dogma than to anything which is based in reality. In particular, assassination is an undertaking with a certain danger even in the best of cases. As a second point, LR is beset with the so-called Free Rider Problem, ie, the problem of people doing nothing because they are waiting for others to act, thereby hopefully making it unnecessary for them to take any risks. Beyond this, the difficulty of recruitment -- if that is what to call it -- for leaderless resistance is compounded by the fact that large swaths of our people are physically soft, addicted to their creature comforts, ignorant of the enemy, and often mind-controlled by the Jew Tube. But for all this, it remains possible that the proper education of white people can turn this situation around, in spite of the sneering disdain which I have seen in some patriots (or is it government agents?) who insist that we all assemble at dawn and make a charge on the Capitol (That would end patriotic efforts REAL QUICK, as my dear departed mother would say). Indeed, as we get closer and closer to what is looking like a combination of World War Three, martial law and world government from Jeru-Salem, it is vital that we recruit as many supporters as possible thru education. We especially need to recruit the young, who are likely to have to shoulder the burden of violence, and whose minds are more open to new ideas than anyone else. Because if we do not make a genuine and sustained effort at doing the footwork and headwork that the Shooting Solution requires, then we may as well just drink ourselves into a stupor in front of the Jew Tube.

Now there is no denying that recruitment for leaderless resistance is one of the most difficult problems -- if not THE most difficult -- for implementing the Shooting Solution. As noted above, Louis Beam seemed to think that fighters would emerge spontaneously as government abuse mounts, but at the present time this is little more than a theory which remains to be tested. But in fact there are ways which can -- if not guarantee that freedom fighters will emerge spontaneously -- then at least make that emergence more probable. The first, which we have already mentioned, is education; for the better we educate the people (or at least their leaders, real or potential), the greater the chance that people will help in small ways, if not in large. Education, however, involves more than just informing about the Jewish threat and the NWO -- it is also vitally involved with what we might call a religious outlook. This is not to say that we need to form a Church of the Great White Spirit, or to encourage people in their variety of religious beliefs; it is rather that the facts strongly support the existence of an afterlife -- something which is not strictly religious, but which makes a profound difference in people's willingness to help when they see that they are not just being asked to be cannon fodder, but instead have a role for which they must answer -- if not to a Higher Power, then at least to the other beings with whom they will inhabit the Afterworld, including those who are now their earthly associates. My point here is that most people will not want to subject themselves to an eternity of guilt or shame, and will therefore seek to act ethically and indeed heroically while here on earth. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the white race will simply not survive unless it 'gets religion', because it takes a powerful force like belief in God or the afterlife in order to motivate people to risk their lives after the fashion of leaderless resistance. More specifically, when men simply play 'follow the leader' in ordinary combat, they do so under constraints that they may be shamed as cowards or tried as traitors if they don't play their part, but such constraints are not sufficient to make them self-motivated and self-commanding soldiers who act independently and whose will is given to the common good. Religion may be as silly as Jerry Lewis leading little kiddies to the 'gas chambers', but if our irreligious world cannot fight as hard as the Ay-rabs for Allah or the Foreskinners for themselves, America, the white man and Western civilization are not going to survive in the evolutionary struggle for existence.

But there are reasons besides those just mentioned why we have good reason to hope that patriots will emerge from the woodwork, so to speak, and prosecute the Shooting Solution. One of these is anger -- a real motivator which has been driving my own behavior for years, and which I can see from the things that many others have said to me is also driving them.

Another driving force is experience or fear of personal harm: Just as Mel Gibson in his movie The Patriot did not come to the aid of the Revolutionary cause until he became the object of Redcoat abuse, so the New World Orderlies are going to be pushing the sheeple into tighter and tighter straitjackets, which means that many such people are going to be looking for opportunities to rebel. Indeed, the genius of democracy is to make people believe that they are free, whether they really are or not; so when citizens begin to have that freedom stuffed down their throats in the supposedly-democratic NWO, they are going to gag, and at least some of them are going to realize, like Howard Beale in Network, that they are as mad as hell and aren't going to take it any more.

A third reason we can expect patriots to aid in the Shooting Solution is the reason why men climb mountains -- "because it's there". There is just so long that men -- especially white men -- can sit in front of the Jew Tube with their beer and pretzels and watch swaggering refrigerator-sized negroes pretend to be athletes; and when they get fed up enuf, or bored enuf, or whatever is the driving force that makes white men a race of achievers, then we are surely going to see some gunly action.

A fourth reason why we believe that the Shooting Solution will emerge under cover of leaderless resistance is that there are still those who believe strongly in the motto of New Hampshire which appears on all that state's licence plates: "Live free or die." That is, such people are determined not to live as slaves -- whether for the NWO or anyone else -- and the very fact that the state of New Hampshire has spread this idea for so many years makes it just that much more potent.

And finally there is a fifth reason for believing that enlightened patriots will emerge to embrace the Shooting Solution, to wit, that it is really quite easy and low-risk for a military-type operation. Here is what Alan Stang had to say about it:

"Did you happen to know that the .50 caliber rifle has a range of more than a mile? Do you know how far that is? It's far enough so that by the time you find out where it came from, the sorehead who did it has another name and identity supplied by the nerds and is dancing the tango in Buenos Aires.
"Remember, I'm not the guy you need to worry about. I'm too decrepit to hit a face with a pie. The guy you need to worry about is out there now, watching, stewing. By now, he is legion. He knows you are coming for his guns. And he is for instance the deadliest creature who ever stalked the earth: the Marine Corps sniper. Gunny may be a little heavier, and a tad slower, but he is still fast enough to stick the red dot in your eye on his way to Buenos Aires."
--http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/comments/ron_pau_red_dot_blowback/

Now at this point it is worthwhile to note that there is an important paradox which is relevant to the matter of recruitment for the Shooting Solution. This paradox, which as far as I am aware, was first identified by me in my book Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy, is one which I named the Paradox of Voting Motivation (This is not to be confused with the Paradox of Voting, another paradox which is entirely different.) The PVM is involved with the concept of the feedback loop, which is the characteristic of a process that 'feeds back' into itself to produce some kind of change in the process. While the PVM is complicated by several factors, the simplest case is one with which we are all familiar: There are three candidates in an election, two of whom are from the major parties and are expected to collect most of the votes, and a third candidate, whom we like, but whom we are afraid to vote for because such an act would constitute 'throwing away our vote' on a candidate who cannot win, and where it would therefore be better for us to vote for one of the major candidates in order to have a hand in selecting 'the lesser of two evils'. But what is really happening here? For one thing, we are not voting our true preference (voting is supposed to be a measure of true preference) because of what we know about the election. Or to put it another way, the voting process 'feeds back' into the electorate to cause people to change their vote from 'true preference' to 'lesser of two evils'. To see how important this is, suppose that the 'minor candidate' was actually the most popular, altho this fact was not generally known. In that case, people wouldn't vote for him 'because he couldn't be elected', and he couldn't be elected because people wouldn't vote for him. In fact, even if it WERE generally known that the 'minor candidate' were the most popular, this STILL might not be sufficient to get his supporters to vote for him because they believe that the major party candidates will still draw most of the votes. A pretty kettle of fish, I'd say.

As one might expect, the Paradox of Voting Motivation has a much broader scope than mere elections. For example, it causes people to have a negative reaction to Holocaust revisionism 'because other people reject it' and thus it can't be right. Likewise, it causes people to avoid supporting the white racialist cause 'because most others don't do it' and for this reason it would prove embarrassing and socially negative. And most important of all in the present context, it would tend to keep people from supporting resistance to the NWO 'because nobody else is doing it' and would thereby subject supporters to risk.

Now in case the reader has not figured it out yet, the paradox which is involved with the PVM is that for a person, issue or idea to be popular, generally accepted or the like, IT MUST ALREADY BE POPULAR, GENERALLY ACCEPTED OR THE LIKE, with the result that unpopular or generally unaccepted persons, issues or ideas WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTED. Of course this is not EXACTLY true, but the point is that the feedback loop which is involved here tends to keep popular things popular and unpopular things unpopular. There is, however, a way to deal with this particular difficulty, because awareness of the Paradox provides a means of overcoming it. To explain, we begin by noting that there is a strong element of self-fulfilling prophecy in an election: If those who support a candidate also believe he can win, then this may suffice to insure his election; whereas if they do NOT believe he can win, then even if the majority supports him, he still cannot win, because his supporters 'don't want to throw away their votes.' But beyond the element of self-fulfilling prophecy, there is also the factor that, even if a candidate's supporters don't believe he can win, they should STILL vote for him because A LARGER VOTING TOTAL FOR THE CANDIDATE WILL GIVE VOTERS CONFIDENCE IN THAT CANDIDATE OR HIS ISSUES AT THE NEXT ELECTION WHEN THE SAME CANDIDATE OR ISSUES WILL BE UP FOR VOTER APPROVAL. That is, as a candidate or issue gains popularity, voters will tend to accept or approve the candidate or issue BECAUSE OF THAT GAIN, meaning that the feedback loop underlying the Paradox can work in an underdog candidate's favor over time. The lesson here for the NWO Resistance, then, is clear: Even if things look bleak, you must support the Resistance, because that may be an important factor in helping the Resistance to gain support.

So having made the case that there is real hope for leaderless resistance based on the Shooting Solution, what exactly can be done in the way of the Third Rule, viz, education? FIRST AND FOREMOST, we must see that people are educated as much as possible concerning the facts of Jewish/elitist power, hegemonic aspirations, and hostility to the white race and Western civilization. (This, it may be noted, is the principal purpose of my website, www.thebirdman.org.) SECOND, we must see that people are educated in how to use weapons -- something which a militia can provide as discussed in The Militia Solution, but which education can be obtained in other ways, as in military training, or in taking 'vacations' to Ireland to learn bombmaking from people on the front lines. THIRD, we must see that people are educated in the sense of being led (or raised) to recognize that they are a part of a community of white men with a distinguished history from which they have received many benefits, and therefore have an obligation to that community to participate in carrying out a plan such as the one we have outlined here, when the need arises and the time is right. And FOURTH, we must see that people are educated about the fact that strong evidence points to the existence of an afterlife, and thus to shirk one's duty in this life means the possibility of an eternity of shame and grief in that afterlife.

Now one final thing which I wish to say on the matter of warriors arising spontaneously from our midst is that the Jews have had an amazing success in finding fellow Jews to do their necessary 'wetwork'. There are numerous instances which dot recent history -- the assassination of two Russian Tsars, President McKinley, Huey Long, Israeli Premier Rabin, Pyotr Stolypin, etc, but these are merely ones I know. Besides these, we have numerous killings of 'nobodies', especially by the Clinton gang (Clinton is reputedly a Rockefeller scion, as alleged by the late indefatigable investigator/reporter Sherman Skolnick, a Jew who failed to mention that Rockefeller is Jewish), and of course there are many other killings attributed to the Jews, from two world wars to 911. The point I am driving at is that Jews possess exceptional patriotism and outstanding courage, and if white men, who are far more in number than Jews, cannot produce men of patriotic inclinations equal to those of the Jews, then this is not only a deeply shameful circumstance for white men, but one where we have to ask what this shows about the white character and the moral right of whites to hold what white racialists allege to be a superior place among the races of mankind. Indeed, what good does it do to make so much noise about protecting the white race from the depredations of Jews when we cannot even come close to matching Jewish courage or community feeling?

But it is not only the Jews' behavior which puts white men to shame; for the Arabs are equally devoted to defending their homelands and their religion. More specifically, if the conflict continues between America and the Islamic world, how many more years do you think will elapse before some of that massive Arabian oil wealth is used to purchase a nuclear or some other destructive device that doesn't just knock down a couple of towers, but does something much worse, such as a 'dirty bomb' that spreads depleted uranium all over Manhattan or Washington? What I am saying is that, if we do not clean house and get rid of the Jewish pestilence that is eating away at our country, then the Arabs are going to give it a go, and the cost to us is likely to be far greater than if we did it ourselves.

As a final remark, there is much wisdom in those immortal words of Walt Kelly: 'We have met the enemy and he is us.' We can whine all we want about Jews and traitorous politicians and the NWO, but there is only one way we are going to solve those problems -- to get off our butts and tackle them. It is a task for us -- those who love freedom, who have vowed to live free or die. And it doesn't even necessarily have to be violent, if we can get serious about educating our people. As I have said before, all it would take is a hundred good men, maybe not even that, to turn this nation around with a few well-placed bullets -- indeed, to turn the entire world around. But unless the white race can get its act together -- can show itself at least as intelligent, courageous and resourceful as the Jews or the Arabs -- then we and our race and our civilization don't have the chance of an ice cube in Hell.


NOTE: For more information on John Bryant and his forty books, please visit the Introductory section of www.thebirdman.org (Birdman Bryant is very sadley no longer with us)