If you would like a version of this Book >Click Here<

Racialism

***What is This?***

            This is a collection of facts and experience arranged specifically to open the eyes of anyone fortunate enough to read it. “Racial Equality” is a fantasy. It is false. We are led to believe it simply to avoid offending other people, and also to differentiate our governments from that of Nazi Germany. We all have been led to embrace a lie just because the truth is offensive. Yet to see through it all, you’d simply have to ask yourself, if we’re all equal, how come we’re always having to come up with excuses for the failings of others? How can you call it equality when Whites have to provide it? Why is it that actions need to be taken to achieve equality in grades from students who sit in the same classroom?

            Well, the answer is simple. We, the people of the White world, have been lavished with a guilty conscience. Most people do not know that before WW2, western governments openly practiced racialist policies, usually to preserve the founding ethnic group of that nation. After WW2 and the defeat of Germany, these governments sought to stem as far away from any similarity to anything that could be deemed similar to what the Germans pursued. Hence forth, the flood gates had opened, and policies changed. Today, for whatever reason, we’d rather believe that everyone is equal. We are not all equal. I intend to prove this by the time you’re finished reading.

            If you are sceptical, read on, and either solidify your beliefs in what you call the truth, rejecting what you’ve been told is bigotry, or be shown the truth.

***The Myth***

What have you been taught all your life? That people from all over the globe are all equal. The only thing to separate us is the colour of our skin. This leads you to believe that racism is based on nothing but pigmentation, and therefore, is complete trash. Well if that’s what you’ve been raised to believe…that’s a fair assumption. I believed that for a portion of my life.

Well I’m afraid that’s simply not true. There are numerous physical differences between the races, but there is no need to get into them simply because they are inconsequential (Although it certainly contributes to the overall argument. If we are physically different, why not mentally?). What we want to look at first are the mental differences.

Take Blacks for example. When White Europeans stumbled upon Blacks, what sort of condition were they in? Well, the simple answer is, the condition they’re still in. Africans were, and are, in a condition of complete and total squalor. They lived, and live, in poverty. They were, and are, totally unable to construct a functioning society.

What will your typical politically correct Joe say to this? Well the Blacks were denied the means to build a society like Whites and Orientals had. Africa is a continent of RICH natural resources. The Blacks in Africa were surrounded by ocean, yet never constructed a sail. They were surrounded by jungle, yet never cut a tree down. They were plagued by wild beasts, yet never built a weapon worth preserving after its use. The land was endowed with rich minerals, yet they never utilised these for progress of any kind. They were surrounded by each other, yet never devised a written language of any kind to communicate on paper or record history. Blacks in Africa had an unimaginable number of resources at hand, yet they never thought to do anything with them. If we are all equal, shouldn’t the Whites, Orientals, and Blacks all have progressed at the same rate (before White Racism got to play its part, that is)? That would seem logical, but we didn’t. This is a fact. People have said to me before Blacks didn’t need any of the things Europeans invented. This is ridiculous. While it is true that necessity is the mother of invention, the factors in Africa that would have enabled Blacks to live off the land without said developments would have allowed their population to grow beyond the capacity of the land. This, in turn, would lead to the need for the same developments Europeans were forced to make. Thus, to say that Africans didn’t need to change agricultural science as they knew it simply because their growing season is all year-round, is false. This is applicable to every other “environmental” factor people may come up with. I have also heard that Europeans were simply greedy. This drove their lust for material wealth which translated into progress in all scientific fields. To say that Europeans are more greedy than other people debunks equality immediately, so I certainly hope that’s not your stance. If Europeans differ from others in terms of greed, why not anything else? If you’re going to call it greed, I’ll call it ambition.

Before I continue, just to clarify, I in no way am lying in this text. The simple fact is that I do not need to lie. The lie is equality, and to disprove it all I need to do is speak the truth.

They were unable to develop the science Europeans did at the same rate. This is a fact. They were eventually forced into slave labour, which was of course, both morally and economically, wrong. This brings up a surprisingly common, but completely invalid argument. The argument is that the slave trade denied Africa the much needed vitality of its youth, which prevented it from advancing in parallel with the Europeans and Orientals. Well, any educated person can tell that’s simply not true. First off, they weren’t advancing in parallel when we found them, which was before we started shipping them off to the slave markets. Second, there was already an active slave trade in Africa. Whites merely “got in on the action” for lack of a better phrase. Third, France and Britain had sent entire armies to die at the hands of each other, and their numbers were replaced within a generation. France and Britain seemed to do just fine. Lastly, many European nations also practice slavery, which did not seem to affect European society in the same way the public would claim it affected African society. So please, don’t bother trying to press that argument any further.

Another common misconception (that I was also guilty of) is that Whites went and rounded up the Blacks when they wanted slaves. It was the Blacks themselves that sold their own people into slavery. Slavery is still practiced today in Africa, and is not only a lucrative business, but it is also defended by some Blacks as a part of their culture.

When the slaves were freed in the United States, Americans (Whites) said, alright, who wants to go home? Some Blacks wanted to, so they were shipped off to the African coast, dumped them on a beach and said here you go, build what you will. They founded the country of Liberia (named for being recently liberated) and they were in fact so grateful they named their capital Monrovia after the US President Monroe. They then proceeded to enslave the indigenous population. This made up 19 times their number. So after just being freed from slavery, they proceed to enslave their own people. Not only that, but the slaves make up 95% of the country! A few hundred years with the White man and these people picked up a few tricks. This is to such a point that they can return to the ordinary Blacks and enslave 19 times their own number. The disparity between the relative intelligence of Western Blacks to African Blacks is documented and I will get to it later. The very notion of being recently freed from slavery and then pushing those very conditions on your own people; it’s enough to make you question the “moral poverty” of the people.

*See Appendix 4 for additional info on what Blacks do with their countries.

There is no question that Africa is a primitive place. But why is that? It certainly isn’t our fault, is it? For those of you who live in dense, urban areas or large cities, which neighbourhood do you dare not venture to at night? The Black neighbourhood, no doubt. Maybe the Hispanic Neighbourhood? Well, whatever answer came to mind, it wasn’t “The White neighbourhood”, was it? That much aside, I hear often that Africa is in the condition it is today because it is “held hostage” by world debt organizations. There is a lot of truth to that. But why is Africa in such unredeemable debt in the first place? African colonies were prosperous places that not only generated uncountable revenues, but substantially improved the standard of living for the indigenous population. Europeans brought education, medicine, science, and progress with them. This came at the price of the natural resources of the land. African colonies were prosperous right up to the point when they were granted independence. What catastrophic change took place? What caused the colonies, now nations, to descend into chaos and poverty? The answer is that these states were now under Black rule. If the state Africa was in prior to European domination is any indicator of the relative position of Blacks culturally, socially, and scientifically, you could use that to predict the state Africa would revert to when the Europeans relinquished control. This would seem to be true. The exceptions to this of course would be South Africa and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), but South African apartheid policies ended sometime ago, and the country is taking a rapid downfall. Zimbabwe has now endured more than 20 years of Black rule, and I will get into some figures for that country later on. To be concise however, Zimbabwe today is now a chaotic slum, even by African standards. Why is this? Use the disparity between the levels of advancement Black and White societies as a gauge. Now try and explain how it is possible in the comparatively short time of European dominance of the African continent for an entire race to simply “catch up”. The colonies succeeded in improving their standards of living and prospering because they were being governed by a people who had achieved such goals. If you relinquish control to a people who have not, how could one possible expect it to prosper still, let alone even continue in its present state? Not to be condescending, but relinquishing control of the African colonies is a lot like taking a successful company and replacing its CEO with a blundering incompetent fool. No one would expect it to continue to perform well, so it’s simply a mystery to me why people are scratching their heads over the failure of Blacks trying to emulate a Western society after it was set up for them. They are not ready for it. That is why they fail at running it, let alone getting to that point.

Whites are not dangerous (by and large). We are not an aggressive people. The comparative murder rates (which I will also get into later) show this. I’m not saying Whites are perfect. We are not. But as a race, we produce more of the great minds, more of the brilliant people than any other. We may produce rapists, murderers, drug dealers and thieves, but not on the scale Blacks and Hispanics do, and it is of no hindrance to our progress as a people. These claims I just made will be supported by the factual statistics later in this document. Take my word for it for the next few minutes.

By now you’ll have noticed that my arguments are primarily, if not exclusively directed at Blacks. This is because they are:

a) The utmost extreme of cases; and

b) Common everywhere. (By this I mean if I were to argue against Mexicans, I would be alienating Canadian and British readers (In Canada and England, Mexicans are basically non-existent).)

Rest assured, when my point is across, it won’t matter who I’m making an example of.

Blacks did not produce a sophisticated society, sophisticated technology, or even a written language, for that matter. If we adhere to the principle, “If you are unable to create it yourself, you are not qualified to operate it.”, then it is no wonder why, once their nations were placed under their own control, failed. Immigration, according to that principle, seems to be an insane prospect. Allow me to explain this further. The reason we are able to say…operate computers, is because they were specifically engineered to be user-friendly. Our society has not been structured to cater to those who are less able to perform to its standards. European societies were developed by and for Europeans. This is why Blacks cannot immigrate here and succeed on the level equivalent to Whites. We created it to our standards, which is far beyond that of Blacks (refer back to what was said about colonial Africa). Similarly, this is why a European can observe an African society and describe it as “primitive.”

Integration now poses a number of problems to the European hosts. I’ll get into this a little later like everything else, as I only want this to serve as an intro, but to name a few problems: To cater to them, we’ve already dumbed down the educational system to close the “achievement gap”, the gap between where Whites score and Blacks on standard testing. We offer extensive welfare programs which are overwhelmingly taken advantage of by non-Whites (on a per-capita basis). We push the myth of racial equality so they can feel better about themselves (and relieve our guilty conscience). Is it that somehow we are responsible for them? Our justice system persecutes White-on-Black crime as hate crimes, but overwhelmingly not Black-on-White crime. That is an injustice. If we’re all equal, shouldn’t hate crimes be applied in an equally fair manner? In theory yes, in reality, no. To get back to the guilty conscience idea, I’m sure many of you have heard of the phrase “Out of sight, out of mind.” This is severely applicable to our modern day society. Our politicians may preach about how we need to end the social injustices that produce racial inequality in society, but this is because they are rich, educated, White men who know nothing of the reality. Not surprisingly, it is those who find themselves forced to integrate with other people that can see the reality of it all, and are often the ones more frequently described as “racist”. Those that live in all-white areas that have no experience with other people tend to believe what the media feeds them. But strangely it is not uncommon for all-white areas to gain a strong sense of identity and wish to remain all-white. The bottom line is that it is more often than not those who have no true experience with other people that not only eat up the whole myth of equality but preach it as well.

We’ve grown so obsessed with not offending non-Whites with the truth that we’ve basically taken all of their problems onto our own shoulders. It extends abroad too! Suddenly it’s our responsibility to alleviate Africa of its problems. Well, I hate to break it to you, but to do that would mean not only removing the Blacks from power, but all together.

We're all the same; we're simply products of our environments, right? If that were true (and of course, ignoring the environments certain types of people consistently create), then bees from Africa should be no different than North American bees. After all, there are no social circumstances and inequalities affecting the bees' lot in life. But no - scientists say that so-called killer bees from Africa are no different than North American bees biologically - they are just much more aggressive. Amazing! Absolutely astounding that aggressive and destructive behaviour can be hard-wired genetically in insects, but not people. It's quite astounding that things like that can be accepted - but people do not carry the principles proven over to the world of man. The very fact that the races actually differ biologically should be cluing people in - but it is not...

Some people have said that race is just a social construct. These people are dead wrong. Let’s look at that notion for a second here. How plausible is it that the only thing that separates the races is their skin colour? I mean really…how likely is it? Our skin colour is different, but aside from that we’re all the same, no questions asked. Is that concrete? Well obviously no, because race-based studies continue to reveal that there is more to race than skin colour. The following are excerpts from articles related to the issue:

Race Linked to Genetic Markers

CHRISTOPHER WINDHAM
Wall Street Journal, 02/01/2005

In the latest study to wade into the question of whether race is a biologically based category or a socially constructed label, scientists at Stanford University claim to have found that 326 genetic 'markers' -- segments of DNA -- can be used to cluster people into four groups, with each group corresponding to common racial categories: white, African-American, East Asian and Hispanic.

The study, published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, involved 3,636 people enrolled in a large trial on the genetics of hypertension. To see whether genetic markers correspond to the standard racial categories, the scientists first analyzed the volunteers' DNA, identifying which genetic markers they carried. They then used a computer program to cluster people based on genetic similarities; those who shared genetic markers were grouped together. Finally, the scientists compared those groupings with the volunteers' self-identified race. The result: people who considered themselves white had been grouped by the computer, based on their genetic markers, in one cluster, while people who consider themselves African-American had been grouped in a second, different cluster. The same held for Hispanics and East Asians. Only five people had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the racial or ethnic box they checked at the outset of the
study.

"People have argued that race and ethnicity are purely social categories," says Neil Risch, the study's lead author, who is director of the Center for Human Genetics at the University of California, San Francisco. "We've shown that socially defined ethnic categories correspond with genetic categories." The findings are convincing because of the large number of genetic markers -- 326 -- used to cluster the participants, he says.

The Genome in Black and White (and Gray)

ROBIN MARANTZ HENIG
New York Times 10/10/2004

Imagine that you have heart failure. What can medicine do for you? It depends: are you white or black? If you're white, your doctor may prescribe one of the drugs that seem to ease the symptoms, maybe a beta-blocker or an ACE inhibitor. And if you're black, your doctor may still prescribe those drugs, but they might not really help.

That's about to change. In the not-too-distant future, if you're black and have heart failure, drug-company researchers predict you'll be able to go to the doctor and walk out with a prescription tailor-made for you. Well, not tailor- made, exactly, but something that seems to work in people a lot like you. Well, not a lot like you, exactly, except that they're black, too. In this not-too- distant future, if you're black, your doctor will be able to prescribe BiDil, the first drug in America that's being niche-marketed to people of a particular race -- our first ethnic medicine.

BiDil, expected to be approved early next year by the Food and Drug Administration, is on the leading edge of the emerging field of race-based pharmacogenomics. It signals a shift in perception, a new approach to medicine that has at its core an idea at once familiar and incendiary: the assumption that there are biological differences among the races.

Come on multicultists; pull your heads out of your asses.

Despite repeated claims to the contrary, there has been no narrowing of the 15- to 18-point average IQ difference between Blacks and Whites (1.1 standard deviations). The differences are as large today as when first measured nearly 100 years ago. These differences, and the associated gaps in living standards, education levels etc., are rooted in factors that are largely heritable, not cultural. IQ differences are attributable more to differences in brain size than to racism, stereotype threat, item selection on tests, and all the other suggestions given by the commentators.

It is time to meet reality. It is time to stop committing the “moralistic fallacy” that good science must conform to approved outcomes.

*See Appendix 5 for the genetic basis for IQ scores.

*See Appendix 2 for genetic differences

Jews have inarguably been the most persecuted, discriminated-against people in all of history (with good reason). However, outright blatant anti-jewish policies and practices ground to a halt in 1945. Today, American Jews of European descent have average IQs of 113, have made up 27% (whilst only 3% of the population) of Nobel Prize recipients, produce more than half of the world’s chess champions, and boast six times the proportion of people with IQs of 140 as Europeans in both the US and in Canada. In some 60 years, Jews have emerged as the dominant economic ethnic group in the Western World. If Jews have been more hated than anyone else, how could they emerge in such a short time to the point they are at now? The answer is that discrimination and subjugation is not the reason why a people cannot flourish.  Considering that the Black civil rights movement kicked off in the 60’s, they have had 40 years to recover from similar systematic discrimination. Even now, they are still at the bottom of every measurable contribution to society. Their IQ scores have not changed in 80 years, still floating at the 84-85 range. Will 20 years make a difference? Or will inherited traits and genes remain prevalent? White Nationalists do not tend to be very fond of Jews, but the evidence shows that it is having little impact on their success. Jews have come this far in 60, and Blacks have remained stagnant for 80.

            If you think 20 more years is all it will take, then you’ll believe anything. I don’t think anyone could honestly say to themselves that in 20 years, Blacks will be proportionally aligned along poverty, crime, and educational rankings. The only thing that will be different 20 years from now is that there will be more of them, and less of us to support them.

***Consequences***

The consequences of adhering to the fantasy of equality and promoting both immigration and integration are as numerous as they are devastating. I’ll summarize them in the following categories:

1 – Discriminatory policies (double standards, etc)

2 – Crime (Also social unrest)

3 – Money

4 – Societal Effects

*See Appendix 1 for what happens when you merely offend Blacks.

*See Appendix 6 for what happens when the multi-ethnic fantasy collapses.

***1: Discriminatory Policies***

A while ago, I was listening to some stand up comedy and this comedian said, I don’t like hockey, there's only one black thing on that ice, and they're all hitting it with a stick. *laughter* Golf...on the other hand… *laughter* Now think about that for a second, why is it that a Black person can make this sort of joke, when as if it were a White comedian standing in front of that microphone, telling the joke from the opposite standpoint, how he hates golf and loves hockey because he gets to beat the black puck with a stick, no one will laugh. Why is it like that? He'd probably be brought up on charges, don’t you think? Ever hear the James Brown song,”Say it loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud”? What do you say about music that is about White pride? It’s for Skinheads, it’s for Nazis.

There is something wrong with society today if the major ethnic group to whom these White countries originally...belonged to...can be guilted into being ashamed of who they are to the point where they not only allow themselves to be ridiculed, but punish people who do the same thing from the opposite standpoint. That, is an injustice. It’s ridiculous. What gives them the right to make us feel guilty for such a thing as being proud of who WE are? Are we not allowed to be proud because White pride is associated with Nazi Germany? Self defence is completely justified. White racism is justified. It is a reaction. It is a reaction to decades of oppression and injustices.

What brings on this oppression? We’re being deliberately targeted and discriminated against by non-Whites. Whites are blamed for the failings and faults of others. Worse still, we accept it. What is the reasoning behind it? We’re responsible for slavery in America, and therefore, the poor performance of Blacks? Most certainly not. At the time of this writing, slavery in America has been over for 140 years. How long does it take to get your act together? If that weren’t enough, they hold a grudge against us for it. Shouldn’t hundreds of thousands of Whites dying to free the Blacks be enough? The Arabs ran a slave trade much larger than that of the Whites, yet Blacks seem to hold very, very little animosity towards them. We died for them, and are less deserving of their hate, but we receive it anyway. Why. I suppose the answer is inconsequential. It doesn’t even matter.

In my country, Canada, the government has to meet racial quotas. Why should a law like this be in place? If we are all equal, then the workforce should be made up of equal proportions of people of all races, just because that will be the way it works out, more or less, right? Wrong, if the government didn’t have to meet racial quotas, we’d have more non-Whites out of work, because they are less qualified than Whites. It’s the simple truth.

Next thing you know, everything is multicultural this and ethnic that until it gets to the point where you’re in a community that’s 88% white and there’s not one goddamn White thing celebrated. Ever. You’ve a “holiday” tree on the front lawn of city hall; while on the other hand, your mayor is out kicking off a Hanukah celebration. Shouldn’t the menorah be a holiday candle-stick?

This brings me to the subject of “hate”. “Hate” is the buzz word used to immediately discredit any individual who speaks against a minority group. Predictably, anyone bearing the label of “hater” has been effectively delegitamized, forced into a perpetual state of mockery among mainstream society. The current societal situation allows for no outright criticism of anything popular. Currently, multiculturalism is popular, to criticize it would make you a “hater”. Being a ‘gangsta’ is popular, to point out the negative aspects of doing nothing in school, starting fights, smoking pot and being downright criminal, you will be passed off as someone who just doesn’t like Black people. Actually, to be fair, this attitude is more prevalent in the youth of today, who would rather indulge now and pay later.

From Byron Calvert:

"We hear a lot about the word "hate" these days.”Hate" speech, "hate" crimes, "hate" group, "hate" music, "hate" thought. Do a Google search for any of these terms and you will find our opponents bemoaning the ugly "hate" monster rearing its ugly head all across the land. Many people in America think that "hate" is illegal, and when reminded that it is not, they think it should be. And what do they consider to be "hate"? Whatever they are told to. There is a lot of power in the ability to define the language and certain words in it. The people that mold and manipulate popular thought have created an emotional reaction to the word "hate," and they can unleash that reaction upon anyone or anything that they claim is engaged in "hate."

 

When the masses hear that you are a "hater," they do not listen to what you have to say, and their critical thinking abilities are effectively shut off. As much as multiculturalists deplore the use of labels and stereotyping, they never fail to utilize both when they can dismiss, discredit and delegitamize somebody by putting them in the neat little "hate" box.

But how can you outlaw an emotional response? And who decides which emotional response might be next? Maybe the next will be "love," or "envy," or "humour."

 

The multiculturalists like to say that, "We hate what we fear, and we fear what we do not know." They imply that if you exhibit any emotion towards something that the multiculturalists are promoting, you are simply irrational, ignorant, superstitious and "behind the times." Maybe you just need to be re-educated until you agree with them. Unfortunately for them, the facts do not support their assertions. Numerous studies point out the fact that familiarity with different cultures/races tends to confirm and uphold commonly held stereotypes and prejudices.

 

I know for myself, I have heard from many people serving in the military who tell me that they were raised in Wyoming or Utah or wherever, and had little experience with other races, but had been raised to treat everybody equally. Now they are in the Army with a majority of blacks and Hispanics, and they can no longer stand the sight or sound of them, and can't wait to leave the military so they never have to be around them again. Their personal experience with these non-Whites has proven them to be noisy, disrespectful, violent, stupid, lazy and incompetent. I have personally observed the same reaction in prison, where White youths raised in Minnesota (3% black, at that time) were thrown into a prison system that was approaching 50% black. Many had never known blacks before, and had nothing negative to say about them. After a certain amount of time being forced to live with their dark skinned "brothers," most grow to detest and hate blacks, based on their personal experiences. Prison and the military both are good examples of the future of America. They offer a glimpse of a time when you will be outnumbered and forced to live with people who are not only incredibly and biologically different from you, but who hate you and seek to victimize you, and you cannot escape. Today the country is big enough that "White flight" can still carry you away from anything you wish to avoid, but this will not last long, as our country fills up with "minority-majorities."

 

So is it really true that we "hate what we fear, and we fear what we do not know?" There are things that I hate: being stabbed, being arrested, getting third degree burns, being broke, getting hit by a car, spraining an ankle. I hate those things, because I have personal experiences with them. It's actually pretty hard to bring yourself to hate something that you know nothing about.

 

But the multiculturalists have successfully defined "hate" as something that, even if not illegal (yet) is at the least something that will get you fired from your job, kicked out of school, scorned by your friends and family, maybe assaulted on the street. It's open season and fair game to hate the haters, and nobody seems to sense the hypocrisy in that.

 

The multiculturalists used to say, "Well, everybody is free to say and think what they want, it's only when you cross the line into physically acting it out that a crime has occurred." But they have made such gains with their program that they now feel comfortable saying, "Nah, we pretty much want to lock you up for what you think and say, too."

 

People are as bound by the ironclad laws of nature as are any other animal. We fear what threatens us. That is a biological response without which we could not have survived for thousands of years on this planet. It is instinctual. Not everyone is able to intelligently and articulately and rationally explain or demonstrate the correctness of an instinct. But neither can the animal kingdom, for example. If you get between a mother bear and her cubs, she will react with what might be described as an intense anger and hatred towards you, but only as long as you represent a threat to her and her young. Bears don't hate people. They don't sit around all day bitching about people. They try to avoid us and prefer to ignore us unless they feel we are a danger to them, and that creates a reaction. Is that a "hate" crime? Is it a crime at all? Or is it a necessary instinct? Should we put bears into sensitivity training classes until they stop perceiving us as a threat?

 

The media and the government spend a lot of time and money singing the praises of "multiculturalism." We hear nothing except how beneficial multiculturalism is, how cool and exciting it is, how it's good for the economy, etc...You know, if multiculturalism was that great, why do they have to pass laws to make us obey it? Why do they force our children to attend "diverse" schools? Why do they have to sue people in court to make them allow diversity in their places of business, neighbourhoods, golf courses, churches, unions and college fraternities? If diversity was so advantageous and so cool, and so financially and culturally beneficial to us all, why does it have to be enforced by law? Why aren't we all embracing it with open arms?

 

Diversity and multiculturalism has been presented to us as something that is good for us, and that "fact" is not open to debate or discussion or dispute. Why is that? Why can't we call on our politicians and media bosses to demonstrate the soundness of this new social experiment that represents such a profound departure from the last few thousand years of successful civilization? Why are we ignored or attacked when we point out that the few times in history when multiculturalism was practiced, it had a permanent negative effect on its practitioners? How come our "leaders" cannot point to a single successful example of multiculturalism anywhere on the planet, anytime in history? All we hear is fairy tales and fantasies about the wonders of diversity when the average 6 year old knows that the reality is a nightmare.

 

The failed social experiment of forced multiculturalism is a lot like putting sand in your car's gas tank. Not only will it make your car not run, it will destroy your engine to try it. Not only does multiculturalism not work, but we will permanently destroy our civilization in the process of finding that out.
Is something so obvious being done by accident? Or........."

This is precisely the point I’m getting at. To argue against the current practice in society has effectively been made illegal. In Canada the situation is worse than in the United States. In the United States, the freedom of speech is ironclad. It is set in stone, so to speak. However in Canada, the government is able to get away with contradictory laws and violations of so-called civil rights of its citizens. Canada is on the road to becoming North America’s Germany, and not in a good way. When we have the “hate” laws that prohibit “hate” speech, that is a clear violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that Canadians are entitled to the freedom of speech. These hate laws state that it is illegal to say anything that would promote the hatred or genocide of any identifiable group, based on ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation or religion. It also says anything said in public that is likely to incite hatred or violence, or encourage hatred or violence, is illegal too. However, words that fall into these categories are ok if they are in private conversation. If they are made in public, or conveyed in such a way that the public were able to see it, then a crime has been committed.

Look at that part I bolded. Anything likely to incite hatred or violence. Now consider the words of Byron Calvert in the few paragraphs above. The media has created a gut reaction to the word “hate” that can be unleashed the moment the label is applied. So if you argue against multiculturalism, you have unleashed upon yourself the media induced torrent or retaliatory anger. So one can conclude that to preach against multiculturalism, or to argue for White civil rights, would incite hatred or violence not only against themselves, but to those who do listen, against those who have created the current societal situation. Effectively, it is illegal to speak for White civil rights in Canada, because doing so predictably incites the hatred in Whites for others. If Whites are told they are oppressed, they are not only going to hate those who put into practice the policies that do so, but those who benefit from them, such as minorities. Therefore it is illegal to turn the tide of this sleep of death we’re being pushed towards.

To put it in a way that anyone will disagree with, it is effectively illegal to have an unpopular opinion and voice it publicly. You can look at the examples of Ernst Zundel or Brad Love. Ernst Zundel was deported to Germany for denying the holocaust, something not a crime (yet) in Canada, or the United States. However, whether you agree with him or not, you must most certainly agree with his right to have his opinion and publish it freely. Is that not the fundamental right our country stands for? Essentially it is illegal to have an opinion the government does not agree with. This is evident in Brad Love’s story as well. As of the time of this writing, Brad Love is rotting in a cell for the crime of criticizing Canada’s immigration policies. He wrote several letters to politicians, as well as to his local newspaper. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but personal letters should count as private conversation. We do get (some) White immigrants to, so why is it that the minority being protected over White immigrants? Criticizing our immigration policies is a hate crime? What next? Criticizing a basketball team? “Some of the players are Black, so that makes you a racist.” There’s that “hate” monster rearing its ugly head again….

None of this would happen if we did not have minority lobby groups whining and complaining every time the majority gets its way, or when they are criticized. Let me ask you this: Why is it that the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People) wields so much more power and influence than the NAAWP (same as NAACP, but replaced “Coloured” with “White”), yet they represent approximately 1/6 as many people? Is this not a democratic society where the majority rules? How many of you were even aware that there was a NAAWP?

As for hate crimes in general, I’ll talk about those for a moment. Hate crimes are ridiculous. If a White guy kills a White guy it might be 15 years - if a White guy kills a Black guy it might be 15 - but maybe the state decides to push hate crime charges and now it's 25 years.

 

The crime is no different - murder is murder - so why is the sentence different? When the White man is murdered it's 15 years, and the Black man, 25 (if hate crime charges stick). Does that mean the Black man was more valuable to society?

 

That's why the punishment is more severe? I don't care what motivated you to kill the guy - it's the act itself that should be punished. When you go down that road...really, a hate crime isn't a hate crime so much as it's a thought crime. And what direction will society take when 'thought' crimes become the norm? If we have laws against murdering a guy because he's Black - why not have laws against murdering a guy because he's a dentist? Everybody has their own personal motivation for why they murder someone. For whatever reason, they hate the person that they murder (or don't care at all) - shouldn't they be protected by some sort of hate crime too? Why can you only hate someone based on ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or nationality? I can find lots of other things to hate in a person.

 

The thing is that the law doesn't cover all of its bases when trying to pursue the endeavour of thought crimes such as these - so instead, to preserve equality in the law there shouldn't be any hate charges. It's impossible to cover every reason you could have to hate someone that would motivate you to do the crime - so the only way to equally cover them all is to NOT cover them. Now the dentist that was murdered because he was an obnoxious asshole or whatever, whatever reason the murderer had to hate him - the laws protecting him are just the same as the laws protecting some Black guy. And that's the way it should be.

 

It just seems so stupid to me that they'd write a law into existence that tacks on years to your sentence for what motivated you to commit the crime. Why not have laws against hating people that are assholes? They're citizens too, right? How does one even prove your motivation behind a crime when it is so intangible as thought? Who defines what hate is? Having additional charges filed against the perpetrator just because of the victim's background is racist if you ask me, especially when everyone was equally protected by the law against killing a guy. Now the laws that protect minorities and fags are more sever than the laws against the majority and rarely do they ever protect us. Is that right? No. Absolutely not.

 

Hate crime charges rarely protect whites from blatant racial motivations behind crimes committed against them.

I really don't want to make this argument one to protect Whites - although that certainly is an issue - this is more about the inherent racism (in the true sense of the word) that lies within the very existence of the hate crime. Essentially - it seems that it is a worse crime to kill a Black man because you hate him because he is black - than it is to kill a White man because you hate him because he slept with your wife. Murder is murder. The sentence should be the same. Moving on to crime in general…

*** 2: Crime ***

Now I’m going to get into the facts and statistics I told you to wait for earlier. I may not get to everything immediately, but hopefully by the time you’re finished reading, you will be satisfied. Blacks, as a race, produce criminals on an unprecedented level. This makes them more dangerous as a people. For instance, almost 1 million White Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by Black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 Blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by Whites, according to the same survey. (Note: My statistics are American. Race-based statistics are extremely difficult to come by for Canada. They were banned in Toronto and many cities to follow in 1989 because the crime report said (you guessed it) that Blacks were committing a disproportionately large amount of crimes. It was deemed offensive and banned.) Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than Whites even though the Black population was only one-seventh the size of the White population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: Blacks are committing more than 50 times the number of violent crimes of Whites.

Pretty difficult to believe, isn’t it? Well, unless you’re about to accuse the US Department of Justice of being racist, you’d better believe it.

About 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 1 in 5, or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes. Most victims – about 90 per cent – are White, according to the survey "Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims," published in 1993. The media does not want to talk about this. In fact, to even suggest that these disparities exist, citing factual resources and forming conclusions based on them that do not fit the current widely accepted view, is to be immediately discredited.

No matter how crime figures are presented or “rationalised” the figures themselves do not change. For example, while I may use criminal statistics to prove that Blacks commit more crimes per capita than Whites, they could just as easily use the statistics to argue the system is racist. To that I say it’s a valid argument in theory, but that relies on you believing that everyone is equal. Unfortunately it is totally implausible because if it were racism that causes the disparity, the disparity would not be consistent. But it is.

Here is a small excerpt from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Paul Sheehan:

“The problem is getting worse, not better. In the past 2 decades, violent crime has increased more than four times faster then the population. Young Blacks (under 18) are more violent than previous generations and are 12 times more likely to be arrested for murder than young Whites.

Blacks murder Whites at 18 times the rate that Whites murder Blacks. Imagine if these statistics were reversed, what would our politicians cry for? Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering. Justice Department and FBI statistics indicate that between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 million violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly involving Black offenders and White victims, and more than 45,000 people were killed in inter-racial murders.

When non-violent crimes (burglary, larceny, car theft and personal theft) are included, the cumulative totals become prodigious. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says 27 million non-violent crimes were committed in the US in 1992, and the survey found that 31 per cent of the robberies involved Black offenders and White victims (while only 2 per cent in the reverse). When all the crime figures are calculated, it appears that Black Americans have committed at least 170 million crimes against White Americans in the past 30 years. It is the great defining disaster of American life.

All these are facts, yet by simply writing this story, by assembling the facts in this way, I would be deemed a racist by the American news media. It prefers to maintain a paternalistic double-standard in its coverage of Black America, a lower standard.”

What is the typical response to these crime figures? Oh they’re marginalized, they’ve been discriminated against. It’s not crime, it’s poverty. People like me have grown tired of these empty justifications, and looked elsewhere for logical reasoning, because we certainly weren’t getting it from the government. Tell me, how does rape improve one’s economic woes? How come when your house gets robbed, the groceries are still in the fridge? These are not crimes motivated by starvation and poverty; they are motivated by a corrupt culture that encourages crime, violence, stupidity, failure and ignorance, in addition to an inherent evolutionary disposition that hurts their ability to achieve.

To prove my point, I will illustrate the crime-poverty relation below. The following is a table containing data on the top 10 Whitest and Blackest cities in America*. The First column contains the name and location of the city, the 2^nd contains the % of White or Black inhabitants, the 3^rd contains the Crime Relocation Index* rating, and the 4^th the % of the population below the poverty line.

*          Each city has a population of at least 500,000.

*          The Crime Relocation Index is a number system used to gauge the crime in a city. 100 is the national average, so if your city has an index rating of 50, it has half the crime of the national average, if it has an index rating of 200 it has twice the crime of the national average, etc.

So all the White cities have low poverty rates, while all the Black cities have high poverty rates. What does this tell you? Poverty causes crime? We’ll see. Blacks cause poverty? In a way. Blacks cause crime which causes poverty? Definitely. Legitimate poverty generates petty crime, such as theft of food. Theft of food is generally not reported and simply written off as an expense at the end of each accounting cycle for a store.

Poverty does not cause crime, not the kind of crime we're looking at here. Simply because the overwhelming majority of crime you can attribute to poverty, plain and simple, will go unreported. Crime causes poverty. Crime reduces the desirability of an area, so property value goes down and it's a stack of dominoes from there. Therefore it is the inhabitants of the cities that truly dictate whether they do well or not, as it is their responsibility to well, you know...not kill each other.

That can be argued back and forth forever, so we'll leave that alone for now. The Blackest cities have higher poverty rates, and by the equalist’s logic, the crime should be proportional to the poverty, so we'll compare.

The Blackest city was matched with the Whitest, the 2^nd Blackest with the 2^nd Whitest, etc.

In every case, the Black cities are committing more crimes in proportion to poverty than the White cities. Approximately 11.9% of the United States lives below the poverty line. The mean % of Black poverty in the Blackest cities is 19.92. The mean crime index for the Blackest cities is 451. This means that the rest of the United States should have crime equal to 269.4. Wow, it's 100.

Still not convinced there is a link? One would say it’s all just a product of the rap culture. Unfortunately for Blacks, we have Africa as proof that rap is not sole reason for their failure. In addition to that, 80% of rap music is purchased by White people, so it should be a White problem above all others. If you say that Blacks are too poor to buy the cds, then you certainly can’t say it’s attributable to rap, because anyone too poor to buy a cd is certainly too poor to own a computer with an internet connection to download the music.

Is it racism? Think to yourself and ask, what causes racism? Racists? No. If that were true, where could racism have come from? Racial tensions cause racism. Multiculturalism causes racial tension. Never before in the history of human civilization have two separate peoples lived in proximate geographical spaces and not come into conflict with one another. If the conflict was race motivated, who knows, the point is never before have two races lived in proximity to one another and had peace. In addition, no society has ever survived multiculturalism. The only possible argument you can raise against that is that no society has endured indefinitely. Well, I’d like to hope that ours will. How can our culture survive if we do nothing to celebrate it, whilst taking in other peoples at the same time? It has become even taboo to talk about celebrating European heritage. To speak of “White Pride” is to immediately associate yourself with Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists. This is exactly the way the powers-that-be want it.

Do you think bringing them into our society has changed them? Because you’re right. (Remember Liberia?) It has. The Blacks here are clearly not only smarter, but more able to become intelligent than their African companions who have not been immersed in White culture. Blacks in America average out with IQs of 84, while Blacks in Africa average out with IQs of 70. Of course, they are not all given the same test, the test is tailored to factor in various circumstances, most predominantly the ones that differ between Africa and America. You do have good, hard-working, decent Blacks, but who’s to say his children will be the same? Sure, you can teach a dog to shake hands, but have you ever heard of a dog teaching its puppies to shake hands?

“It's funny to me that the same lame excuses they use for Africa is what we hear in America.

 - ‘Lack of education.’ (School is not only free, but it's mandatory in America)

 - ’They live in violence-prone areas.’ (They create violence-prone areas)

 - ‘Lack of jobs.’ (Businesses will leave an area that is dangerous, and no new businesses will come)

The only BS excuse we hear in the U.S. that they can't get away with saying in Africa is ‘A history of racism and discrimination.’

     Otherwise, the failure of Black Africans is the same as the failure of Blacks in America. They can't claim discrimination in Africa as a cause of failure, because of the simple fact that in areas of Africa heavily influenced or controlled by Whites, Blacks have the highest standard of living on the whole continent. That is an undeniable fact.

     Now, even in those areas, do the Blacks have as high a standard of living as Whites? No, of course not, and they never will. Some people think Blacks and Whites will only have equal standards of living when the Whites decline the level of Blacks, but that will never happen. Will our standard of living decline? Of course. But no matter how low our lifestyle goes, that of non-Whites will go proportionally lower. When we are able to thrive and start businesses, Blacks may complain that they are poor, but at least they have jobs. And the ones who won't work will still be fed, clothed and housed by our tax dollars. When we are put out of business, our standard of living will decline, but then the Blacks will have NO jobs and there will be NO free welfare money, since the tax base will be gone.

     So even as we decline to the level Blacks are at now, Blacks will have no way of maintaining their current lifestyles, so as we sink, they will sink even lower. So there will never be parity. I am basing that on historical and economical reality, there is nothing new happening here.

    The Blacks are, once again, being used to fruitlessly go to war with the hand that feeds them in the vain hopes that they will somehow benefit from our demise.
A few simple examples are Haiti, Rhodesia, South Africa, and American cities. The Blacks jack the White man, and then realize that they are worse off than before. The short term gratification of gloating over our reversal of fortune doesn't do much for an empty belly. I can't blame the Blacks for not learning their lesson, since White people haven't learned that lesson, either.”

The Black race produces more criminals and delinquents than Whites. This is on a racial level; as a whole. If you just kept the good ones, what criteria would you judge them on? What do they bring to the table? Is it worth the time and effort spent sorting them? Just because these particular ones have risen above their inherent genetic limitations doesn’t mean their kids will.

Blacks commit more crimes than Whites, therefore, they are not only more dangerous (to us *and* themselves), but cost us money in the form of policing, jailing, and the pricy court process disproportionate to their numbers. When Blacks populate an area, they turn it into a ghetto. It’s not that ghettos produce poor, stupid Blacks; poor, stupid Blacks produce ghettos. This can be attributed to their inability to form a functioning society on their own. The following are just race-based statistics I felt were too much to work into the body of my argument, so they are here for you to see.

·                    Blacks murder more than 1,600 Whites each year.

·                    Blacks murder Whites at 18 times the rate Whites murder Blacks.

·                    Black neighbourhoods are 35 times more violent than White neighbourhoods.

·                    In the last 50 years, the White part of the American population has declined from 90% to 72%. The U.S. now has about 33 million Blacks and 25 million Hispanics (legal and illegal). By the year 2050, American Whites will be a minority, just 49%. By 2100, Whites will be 25% of the population.

·                    The White race is 8% of earth's population.

·                    There are an estimated 486 prison inmates per 100,000 U.S.

·                    At midyear 2004 there were 4,919 Black male prison and jail inmates per 100,000 Black males in the United States, compared to 1,717 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 717 White male inmates per 100,000 White males.

·                    400,000 foreigners collect Social Security in the U.S.

·                    Immigrants cost 133 Billion dollars a year in job losses.

·                    Last year over 10 Billion dollars was sent to Mexico alone by Mexican workers in the U.S.

·                    Bilingual education doubles the cost of educating immigrants.

·                    Services and benefits to legals and illegals is 68 Billion dollars a year, and rising.

·                    Non-citizens get 7 Billion dollars a year in Welfare (Food stamps, housing, medical, etc...)

·                    Between 1991-1995 The number of illegal aliens sentenced in Federal court rose 167% while the increase among citizens sentenced rose only 13%

·                    Bureau of Prisons officials estimate that 20% of Federal inmates are illegal aliens.

·                    The average annual cost of a Federal inmate is $23, 381.

When Blacks make up such a disproportionate number of the prison population, shouldn’t it be they who foot the cost? It is their contribution, after all.

U.S. Population in 1994
74.0% White, 12.5% Black, 9.1% Hispanic, 3.5% Asian

·                    In 2002, Whites and Blacks were each 40 percent of the inmates in local jails around the United States, even though Whites outnumbered Blacks by about six to one.