March 27, 2017

A Simple Fix to the Healthcare Crisis in America

Both sides in the health care debate have vested interests in screwing the pooch, so to speak, and little interest in solving the problem. Neither side ever asks, "What is the problem?"

The problem is simple to understand -- medical costs are too expensive in America. Fortunately, the solution is just as simple -- outlaw insurance.

Insurance -- whether traditional corporate insurance or state-controlled single payer -- acts as a subsidy on the health care marketplace. Like all subsidies, over time, it drives costs upward. This is because subsidies hide the true costs of goods and services (in this instance, for a short time) and people don't realize they're getting jobbed.

In the case of medical insurance, the "care providers" and the insurance companies collude to drive-up costs. Insurance companies negotiate with doctors, labs, and the pharmaceutical industry to set prices for things like doctor visits, blood tests, and medicine. And they often agree to pay more than they are worth because they know they can soak the patient via his premiums. And since the insurance industry works via percentages, the more money they shell out to doctors, the more they can charge for premiums and the more premiums are, the bigger the profit. (Ten percent of $10 is $1, ten percent of $100 is $10.)

Most people who have insurance consider the service they're getting to be "free", because they've already payed for it, via insurance premiums and see the doctors fees, etc. as the responsibility of the insurance company. In many cases they feel that the more expensive the treatment the better for them because they're now getting more from the insurance company than they paid in. But you never get more than you paid-in, because insurance is a for-profit business model and they have carefully calculated "actuarial tables" that are designed to ensure that (on average anyway) you will always pay more in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles than they will ever pay out.

A government-controlled single-payer system has the same disadvantage as above, the only difference being that the premiums are paid via our taxes, so the instinct to think that medical goods and services are free is even more pronounced. It has an even more sinister disadvantage, and that is that the government becomes the final arbiter of what care you can receive and when you can receive it. It hands-over far too much responsibility, and thus power, to the state.

By outlawing insurance we force doctors (and labs and pharmacies, etc.) back onto the free market. Basically returning to the 1950s (before corporate insurance became the norm and most people paid out of pocket) when medical treatment was inexpensive and upfront. Doctors had set prices for most services (visits, shots, etc.) and people knew up-front what they would be paying. If all the market will bear is two chickens and potato for a doctor visit, then that is all the doctor will be able to charge.

With this system, doctors will make much less money, but, generally speaking, they'll still be the richest guy in town.

March 25, 2017

25 Myths about Race: Myth 1 - Race Is a "Social Construct"

We hear a lot today about how race is a "social construct". This is a Cultural Marxist canard aimed at preventing White people from organizing to defend their legitimate collective interests. You'll notice that it is only ever said to Whites when they're discussing their racial interests. It's never mentioned when blacks or other groups are blaming Whites for something in an effort to demean and dominate them.

The myth that “race is a social construct” is one of the few that can be traced back to an actual individual. It was created by Jewish "anthropologist", Franz Boas, who forked anthropology by creating a branch of it known as “cultural” anthropology in order to advance his antarian ideas about race. (It's enlightening to learn how many bad ideas and anti-White movements have Jews as their progenitors.)

The fact is that race is a genetic reality that goes much more than skin deep. For instance, physical anthropologists have been able to identify (for almost a century now) the race of an individual's remains by a cursory examination of his or her bones. Also, because of the vast differences among the races, modern medical science is increasingly focusing on the race of the patient. It turns-out, different races react dramatically different to medicines and the various forms of treatment.

What we call "race" when referring to humans is the same as what we call "sub-species" in all other animals and the Human Genome Project has clearly identified three primary sub-species (that correlate directly to those long-identified by physical anthropology): Caucasian (Europeans, Middle Easterners, and North Africans), Negro (Sub-Saharan Africans), and Mongoloid (Asians and American Indians).

All of history and science shows one thing is certain: different peoples produce differing civilizations and cultures based on their genetic code and how it causes them to perceive their surroundings. So, not only is race not a "social construct" but the converse is true, society is a racial construct.

Editor's note: This is a revised and enlarged version of an article published a few years ago.

For more on the subject of race, see the Colchester Collection's "Race" catalog.

To learn more about your true identity as White people see the Colchester Collection's "White Identity" catalog.

To more fully understand why Jews promote White Genocide see the Colchester Collection's "Jewishness" catalog.

March 24, 2017

Holocaust or Hollow Hoax? 10 Reasons the "Holocaust" Never Happened

Over the last 40 years or so, due to the efforts of a small handful of extremely courageous Real Historians (often called "revisionists" but that term doesn't really apply, it more aptly applies to the Cultural Marxists who've lied to us about our history), the truth about the so-called "holocaust" has slowly come out. And that truth is simply that it never happened. It is the biggest of Big Lies.

I'm the first to admit I'm no expert on the topic but many of those, whom I've come to trust, are. During the last decade or so, after listening to many different people on the topic, I've come to believe the above statement that the "holocaust" never happened. The following are the 10 major reasons why I've changed my view on the topic. If you have proof that any of the following are wrong, please let me know in the comments.

10 Reasons the "Holocaust" Never Happened

  1. The World Almanac reported that the world's Jewish population was slightly larger just after the war than it was just before the war
  2. No Bodies: Nobody ever found anywhere near six million bodies
  3. No Gas Chambers: Nobody ever found a single gas chamber capable of killing humans, never-mind six million of them
  4. No Crematoria: Nobody ever found crematoria capable of incinerating six million bodies
  5. No Written Orders were ever discovered ordering the deaths of Jews
  6. No Mention of a "Holocaust" in historical works like Churchill's six-volume history of the war, The Second World War
  7. Camp Workers and Residents living near the camps can not recall anyone going missing
  8. Red Cross Representatives Were Stationed in the Camps and none ever reported a "holocaust"
  9. Jewish Elites Have Repeatedly Cried "Six Million": After nearly every major European conflict of the 19th & 20th centuries, Jews cried "holocaust"
  10. Six Million is the Number of Jews That Were Transported to the Camps, yet the camps were full at the end of the war

Notes on the above

1. The World Almanac Reports: The World Almanac reported that there were roughly 15.3 million Jews in the world in 1933 when Judea famously declared war on Germany and a little under 15.8 million in 1948, just after the war. According to most sources, there are still roughly 15-18 million Jews in the world. And that number has held steady for over a century.

The world's Jewish population in 1933 & 1948

2. No Bodies: No where near six million bodies were ever found. They say this is because they were burned in pits. Crematorium owners and other experts on the subject assure us that it is impossible to burn a human body to ash without specially designed incinerators. Even garbage incinerators won't do it.

You've probably seen the photos of emaciated bodies piled high in huge mounds. Turns-out, none of those photos have ever been authenticated and are probably pictures from the Soviet camps (gulags and others) where mass murders did take place. All of the authentic photos of the Jewish camps show relatively healthy well-fed inmates.

Jews in camp

3. No Gas Chambers: Although there were gas chambers at the camps, none capable of killing humans en masse has ever been found. The chambers found in the camps today were used for delousing the prisoners clothing and bedding. No one disputes this nor does anyone claim they were used for gassing people. Further, the Zyklon B supply was exhausted circa 1942-3 after which time most of the gassings were reported to have occurred. The Germans switched to steam for delousing purposes. Another important question: if they were in the camps to be exterminated why were the Germans so interested in their comfort and routinely delousing their clothing and bedding?

Delousing saunas

4. No Crematoria: There were crematoria in at least one of the camps, and they were used for cremating bodies -- people did die in the camps from accidents, natural causes, and diseases like typhus and it was dangerous to bury them in camps that had high water tables, so they were cremated instead.

5. No Written Order: No shred of a paper trail has ever been found. Given that the Reich was notoriously assiduous in matters of record-keeping and recorded every order in triplicate it's hard to believe that something so important was accomplished with zero paperwork. Eventually, a document was submitted purporting to be proof of a written order but it was quickly dismissed as a Soviet forgery. Apparently, it was written with German vocabulary -- but Russian grammar and syntax.

6. No Mention of a "Holocaust" in Historical Works. Winston Churchill authored a roughly 4,500 page, six-volume history of World War II called The Second World War -- he never mentions a deliberate attempt to exterminate Jews. Other men who played a major role in World War Two, like Dwight Eisenhower and Charles de Gaulle, never mentioned a "holocaust" of Jews in their memoirs. In fact, the term didn't even come into vogue until Kurt Vonnegut coined the term in his 1969 novel Slaughterhouse Five. He, of course, was writing about the very real holocaust (Greek for "burnt offering") of civilians in the allied firebombing of Dresden.

7. Camp Workers and Residents around the camp don't recall a "holocaust". Although we've all heard the stories from Jews of having their friends and relatives killed before their eyes or having narrowly escaped death themselves, few, if any, non-Jews have ever corroborated these tales. As I understand, the Nuremberg Trials of "war criminials" used the same small number of Jewish "witnesses" for every case.

8. Red Cross Representatives Were Stationed in the Camps and None Ever Reported Malfeasance. Further, at the insistence of the Germans, the Red Cross often sent teams in to inspect the camps and they routinely reported that there were no violations of the early Geneva Conventions. As a side note, there is an apocryphal report floating around the web which states that roughly 275,000 Jews died in the camps, most toward the end of the war when typhus hit central Europe hard. Others, of course, died from natural causes.

9. Several times over the centuries Jewish Elites Have Cried Six Million in order to fleece their flock. Including a famous declaration of a holocaust after the First World War.

Some of the many claimed "holocausts" before WWII

10. Six Million Jews Were Transported to the Camps, yet the camps were full at the end of the war. This one is self-evident, if six million were interned and they were all more or less present at the end of the war (except for the natural number of deaths in a population that size over six years) then how can one accept the claim of six million dead.


Given the above, why does the establishment inundate us with the "holocaust" narrative? The answer is simple. The Western establishment is dominated by a relatively small handful of Jewish Oligarchs who are trying to destroy all opposition to the Jew World Order. The "holocaust" narrative is intended to induce guilt in Whites in an effort to prevent us from resisting Jewish Rule.

For those interested in learning more, see the Colchester Collection's short (but growing) list of books on the subject of the "Holocaust".

Also, I recommend Fredrick Toben's excellent documentary, Judea Declares War on Germany, which gives a more thorough treatment of the topic.

March 22, 2017

Whites Are the True People of Color

The true people of color?
Increasingly, over the last 25 years or so, the term "people of color" has been popularized by Cultural Marxists (aka "liberals" or "progressives"), as a label, to refer to people that are not White. It was developed as an alternative to the term "colored people" because that appellation came from a White cultural context and therefore was anathema to them.

Another reason for developing the term is that they wanted a phrase that would include all of humanity ("colored people" meant black people or people of mixed White and black descent) -- except for Whites. They felt they needed something that would exclude White people from the mass of humanity -- even though Whites are a tiny minority of the world's population (about 11-13%). So much for the good intentions of "the Left". They pay lip-service to concepts like "inclusiveness", "fairness", and "equality" but rarely practice it.

It's odd that they settled on "people of color" because Whites are the true people of color.

Technically, white is a totality of all color evenly mixed together and black is a complete absence of color. For example, in computer science if you're using hexadecimal encoding and you want to color something white, you would type "FFFFFF" which means use the maximum amount of each of the three primary colors: (FF) red, (FF) green, and (FF) blue. In comparison, if you want to make something appear black, you'd type "000000", in other words no red, no green, and no blue.

But you don't need science to prove this point, just look around you. Non-whites -- no matter where they're from in the world (Asia, Africa, the New World, etc.) -- have almost exclusively black hair, black eyes, and dark brown to blackish skin (unless there's a White admixture).

Whites, on the other hand, radiate a profusion of colors. They have hair that is black, brown, red, or blonde -- and every imaginable combination of those colors. The same is true of their eye-color. The eyes of European peoples can be blue or brown/black and everything in between -- green, pale brown, yellowish brown, etc. And of course, the same is true with skin-color. Whites have skin that ranges from as fair as ivory to dark olive and in every shade of those colors possible.

The next time you hear a "liberal" wax on about "people of color" you can smile secure in the knowledge that you've been inoculated against their brand of insipidity. Just know that they hate White people and be wary.

March 20, 2017

The Queering of the West: The "Transgender" Agenda

Say it loud and say it proud: "transgender" is a scam.

There's no such thing as a transgender person because gender doesn't apply to people, it applies to language. Words have gender -- masculine, feminine, or neutral -- humans have sex -- male or female. It's a very simple issue, either you have a Y chromosome or you don't. Science has settled the matter.

OK. It's not quite that simple, sex is determined by the gene, SRY, which is a testis-determining factor. This gene is almost always carried by the Y chromosome (more on that below).

The promoters of the "transgender" agenda will sometimes refer to exceedingly rare birth defects like Klinefelter or XX male syndrome to buttress their case. But this argument is based on the wrong assumption that sex is determined by genitalia. As noted above, it is not, it's determined by genes.

Those who suffer from Klinefelter syndrome are born with two X chromosomes and one Y (XXY). This makes them technically male (sterile) but with some feminine manifestations.

XX male syndrome is a little different. Because of unequal crossing over between X and Y chromosomes during meiosis in the father, the X chromosome, passed on by the father, contains the SRY gene. As with Klinefelter sufferers they are technically male (and sterile), with feminine manifestations.

Both of the cases above represent exceedingly rare birth defects. In the case of Klinefelter syndrome about 0.03 percent of people will have the condition. XX male syndrome is even rarer -- less than 0.005 percent of population are afflicted.

As you can see, being male or female isn't about how you "feel", it's determined by genetic reality. If you "feel" like you're a woman inside a man's body (or the reverse) that doesn't mean that you are some heretofore undiscovered "gender", it means you suffer from a mental disorder.

March 16, 2017

Feminism Is not about "Gender" Equality

"Feminism" was never about equality between the sexes. (I use quotes around the word "feminism" because let's face it, there's nothing feminine about it.)

Equal means the same. Saying "two and two is four" is the same as saying "2+2=4". Men and women are not the same, they have very different musculoskeletal systems, reproductive systems, and brains. Which translates into profoundly different abilities and capabilities. In turn, this means they have profoundly different roles and profoundly different sets of responsibilities.

Traditionally the role of women was to have babies, breast feed them (the two things that not only do women do better than men, but men can't do at all), and take care of the home. Men were responsible for provisioning and protecting the family. Modernity abstracts the role of men, making it look as if anyone can do it. But the truth is, men still do those things much better than women. This is borne-out by all the evidence. For example, it is well known that single mother households are far less prosperous than family environments in which the father is present. And that prosperity isn't just financial. Not only do two-parent and single-father households make more money, but the children do better in life in every category. They're more educated, less prone to criminality, less likely to have children out of wedlock, and more likely to feel more "fulfilled" in every way.

"Feminism" encourages women to pursue meaningless "careers" in place of doing what comes natural, i.e. have and raise children. Can careers in counseling or marketing really be as fulfilling as having children and raising them to be contributing members of a community, a nation, or even the world? What could be more important.

It's clear that men and women can never be "equal". If we were the same, then there would be no point in having two sexes, we would have only one sex. Men and women are complementary. They're are not meant to compete with one another, but rather to balance each other out. The "battle of the sexes" is an unnatural Judeo-Marxist construct.

The funders and organizers of "feminism" understand that the sexes are complementary rather than "equal", so why do they promote the contrived concept of "equality between the sexes". What is their real aim? The answer is clear to anyone who has spent any time pondering the question. They're trying to destroy Western Civilization and "feminism" is one of a handful of Cultural-Marxist "movements" (along with multi-culturalism, queerism, socialism, hyper-consumerism, etc.) they using to do it. "Feminism's" purpose is to weaponize women against men and children. To put it more accurately, the goal of "feminism" is to get women to think, act, and (most importantly) vote in ways conducive to advancing the interests of (((globalizing elites))).

The stated aim of the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism (Jew founded, funded, and organized) is to "induce cultural pessimism in white males". In other words, to strip White men and boys of their confidence. They further state that they will do this via two main vectors of attack -- by claiming that Whites males are "racist" and "sexist". In a nutshell, the promotion of the concept that White men are irredeemably "sexist" is the reason the Jews promote "feminism".

March 4, 2017

The Colchester Collection Weekly Update for March 4, 2017

As many of you have probably noticed, I've taken a short sabbatical from adding new books to the Collection. I've neglected other important projects over the last few years as I've devoted 15-20 hours a week to this project. I'm catching-up on those endeavors and will get back to adding more books in a revised form in about a month. Instead of 15-20 hours a week, I'll be doing just a few (2-4) hours on Saturday mornings, which means instead of adding 15 or so books every week it will be more like three or four.

Of course, there are still more than 1,300 titles available on the site for your reading pleasure. Thank you for your continued support and I hope you enjoy the reading.