Moral Panics: Police Shootings, Race Riots, and Muslim Terrorism

Tulio sums it all up so perfectly. These are just vicious circles that endlessly feed back and loop into each other like a dog chasing its tail. One wonders what the solution is. Provocation, revenge attacks, revenge attacks for the revenge attacks, jumpy cops, belligerent suspects, and worst of all, increasingly frightened and angry people looking for more revenge, paybacks and pre-emptive reactions, it just goes on and on. Hatfields and McCoys.

Tulio: The Black man shot in Milwaukee was shot by a Black cop. Which makes this race rioting all the more bizarre. This has all been stirred up by the media. When the media focuses on something and starts a narrative, it can lead to a moral panic. Many Black folks, even ones that have never had any violent encounter with the cops, think they are currently under siege. Even if the statistics show that an innocent Black man being killed by cops is more rare than being struck by lightning. Or that 9 And then people overreact, and there are race riots and retaliatory cop killings. And then race relations began a downward spiral. Whites turn on the news and see Blacks tearing stuff up, setting buildings on fire and shooting cops, which makes them more racist. Then Blacks see Whites becoming more racist and say, “See that, they hate us! Just like we said all along!” Cops who now have to deal the possibility of being shot on the job may be even more inclined to have hair-trigger responses with Blacks, which then feeds into the notion that cops are out to get Blacks, and then you just have one big clusterfuck spiraling out of control. While I’m not a racist or a racial separatist, the separatists do make good points. If we didn’t share the same nation, we wouldn’t have to worry about intractable race problems. Or the differences in behaviors and perceptions that cause race problems. Dividing up the country into racial territories is never going to happen, but I see why some people would be in favor of it as a solution to race problems, and it makes completely sense in a lot of ways. Peace in a multiracial society can be fragile. Everything can be humming along fine, and all it takes is for someone to get shot by a cop, and all Hell lets loose, and you see that this pent-up resentment was there all along under the shallow skin of a “post-racial” nation (yeah right). Also, Whites are capable of this moral panic as well. In their case, swap cops for Muslim terrorists. Even though the statistical likelihood of being killed by a Muslim terrorist on any given day is probably even less likely than being innocently murdered by a cop, Americans think they are constantly under siege from terrorists and that terrorism is more prevalent than it actually is in reality. We have a presidential candidate that doesn’t even want Muslims stepping foot on US soil, and a large of America that agrees with him. Even though we’re orders of magnitude more likely to be killed by a homegrown mass shooter. So to whites, there’s a terrorist hiding behind every tree ready to kill you. To Blacks, the nation is full of racist cops that want to shoot you dead over a broken taillight. And it’s not that there aren’t terrorists, or that there aren’t cops with an itchy trigger finger and racial biases. It’s that these scenarios are wildly exaggerated by the media, and 99.

Please follow and like us:

128 thoughts on “Moral Panics: Police Shootings, Race Riots, and Muslim Terrorism”

  1. Again we see why people of different political views and different races cannot get along. So eventually, once Trump gets in, it will get so bad, good minded people will have to leave the USA, as it will just GO ALL TO HELL., and then you also got Trump with the nuclear button, on top of that.

  2. “Even though the statistical likelihood of being killed by a Muslim terrorist on any given day is probably even less likely than being innocently murdered by a cop”
    in countries like Belgium and France the chances for any citizen to get killed by muslim terrorism is way higher than the chances of black men in the USA to get shot by the police

      1. You mean they commit more crime than the 90% of White non-Muslims, right? Because most of the Muslims in France are White people, correct? Most North Africans like Tunisians and Algerians are Whites.

    1. 99.99% of the terrorist attacks and/or hoaxes in the West are staged by the evil Jews and their various networks – so that means “Islamic” or “Islamist” terrorism doesn’t even exist …only in the wild imagination of the Jews in the West and brainwashed white folks.
      In Belgium and France, those attacks were staged as well by the usual suspects – the ones who demolished the twin towers.
      Now obviously, Muslim militants have committed atrocities in conflict/war zones – but the ones in the West are usually innocent scapegoats or patsies. Welcome to the War on Terror Productions.

      1. Iv’e seen no concrete evidence that radical Muslims don’t commit terror. I mean, they even admit to doing it, and their leaders publicly encourage it. Plus you got a whole population that’s very poor compared Western Europe and America, so you have a lot of jealousy going on.

  3. New policy… cops never shoot guns first. Cops to protect themselves accordingly. Unarmed suspects should no longer fear being shot. Policy does not prohibit preemptive take downs, pepper sprays, tear gas, etc., aka, non-lethal means or pulling guns and aiming. Shortcomings please.

    1. Sure, as soon as the police get issued 100% accurate scanners to see which ones are armed or not.
      The shootings that made the news lately WERE reaching for something other than the sky when they got shot–and one actually DID get tazed, but chose to keep fighting the cops anyways!
      How about if the thug is reaching for anything other than the sky when told to raise its hands, whatever it gets, it deserved? Shortcomings and all that, right?

  4. I grew up on those 70s/80s cop shows where blowing the malefactor to smithereens was the absolute last, last, last resort. If that was ever true, I suppose it isn’t now. I must say I’m a little put off by cops becoming another aggrieved victim group, demanding hate crimes laws, etc.

  5. :..The Black man shot in Milwaukee was shot by a Black cop”
    so why are Blacks blaming Whites?
    A great scholar named Dufus said,”Non-Whites are the real White Supremacists as they expect us to solve all their problems for them.”

    1. Non-Whites didn’t ask to become so involved with Whites it was forced upon them….although it was probably for the best.
      P.S. the plural of “polls” as in the Political ones, is not “poles”….as you said in an earlier comment.
      I know you’re from Alabama, but come on, guy.

    2. A great scholar named Dufus said,”Non-Whites are the real White Supremacists as they expect us to solve all their problems for them.”

      Well, there is nothing wrong with compassion, but Sam has a so so point on this. They should take more an initative to get education, job training, jobs etc.. without being pushed. That’s why Cuba is so successful. it’s because they’ve totally eliminated bad environmental factors, but at the cost of freedom though.

      1. Cuba shows, race mixing, as long as the Autosomal ancestry proportions stay the same- is irrelevant.

        1. It’s overblown.
          The notion that a White and Black will mix and the kid will come out Black in all regards, or even more than half of regards, is the most counter-intuitive fantasy ever.

        2. Where I live I haven’t seen any problem with black/white mixes. You see them all the time. Oddly enough, people don’t pick on the kids, but they still hate grown up adult full blooded black people.

    1. ultimately, that is correct.
      However, it reinforces Jewman’s “Whites are more individualistic” research. Whites expect you do it on your own and that it comes from you. Not so much with Africans who have it enforced externally/group wise.

    2. Interesting article. But I’d like to examine multiple perspectives on this topic before I draw any conclusions. I’ve never been to Africa to observe her findings first hand, and given that the author writes for Amren, this individual has an obvious predisposition.
      For example she speaks of cruelty and torture in Africa, but that has existed among whites as well. I’ve seen some of the torture devices used during Europe’s middle period. Even looking at them was unbearable. Even in this country witches were burned at the stake. Blacks were hung from trees on false accusations while whites stood around and cheered.
      I don’t like her conclusion that blacks have some inherent flaw that makes them incapable of being moral or having any abstract thoughts. Google a list of African proverbs and they contradict everything she just said.

      1. Yeah, how about preganant women being lynched, with the baby pulled out with a pitchfork, or black people having thier eyeballs pulled out during a lynching.

        1. Really Barack? Did they also invent the moon landing? How did they fake those lynching photos when there wasn’t even Photoshop around?

        2. yep!
          I thought if I combined the names of a pro-Apartheid lady and a Muzzie I could hide my Jewish roots!

        3. Thatcher was pro-Aparthied !! What a monster !!! Another reason to throw a parade at her funeral, as many did. (SARCASM)

        4. actually it’s in reference to, how the Obama economy (or rather the Fed Economy under Obama)- has been a monetarist/Early Thatcher economy.
          Low interest rates for the very wealthy businesses, which allows them not to have incentive to take risk, which helps to stabilize the economy, however, it leads to low growth rates, high unemployment etc. The tradeoff between “Inflation or unemployment”.
          I suspect both had policies to counter economic crises (41% inflation and recession, respectively). That being said, the notion that Obama is somehow some crazy leftist communist is nonsense.

        5. Obama and Thatcher actually weren’t too different though, at least in economics.
          In foreign policy they were really different, though.
          “The Wicked Witch is dead” rose to the top of the charts immediately following Thatcher’s death.
          The site “IsThatcherDeadYet” finally updated it’s status.
          They hated her.

        6. Actually it’s pretty damn easy to hate conservatives or the far right. One guy I know I could easily dig up his grave 10 times and kill him again each time !! However, I’m sure the feeling is mutual for a bleeding heart liberal.
          With a lot of these people, and Iv’e also seen this with radical athiests and some lefties, they cannot have a respectful conversation with people of an opposing view. It’s always dictatorship of their viewpoint.

        7. I know I’m milking just a few studies for all their worth- but there is a lot to be said about the Liberal-Conservative IQ gap.
          I think Liberals, know intuitively they are much smarter, and on some subjects have better arguments. They hence feel it is a waste of time to even bother listening to conservatives and shut them down.
          Because of that, in terms of social issues, they’ve gone on unchecked, and have hence gone off the deep end.
          This further angers conservatives, who are disp. High T and Low IQ, who then feel resentment for being shut down, and having no chance of slowing the SJW train.

        8. I’m twitching when a Liberal says ‘Trannies are treated worse in the USA, than most of the word’.
          But I don’t want to get into it.
          As Scalia said about Ginsberg “smart people can have some very wrong ideas”.
          That sums up the cultural left in general.

        9. Barack is not a communist by a long shot !! This is all political BS akin to calling W. Bush Hitler. Now, with Trump, on the other hand, he actually does have David Duke’s endorsement.

        10. Not all Trump supporters are racist or even racialist. The most liberal estimates have shown half.
          And, Trump will Louisiana while Duke will be in the single digits in the Jungle Primary.

        11. Does David Duke support repatriation or inter-American “Race zones”?
          Basically only fringe nutcases like Sam support repatriation.
          Even Alt-Right founder Spencer supports just “race zone”
          (i.e. x, y, z races can not live and have to have special permission to travel to w zone).

        12. Does David Duke support repatriation or inter-American “Race zones”?
          Basically only fringe nutcases like Sam support repatriation.
          Even Alt-Right founder Spencer supports just “race zone”
          (i.e. x, y, z races can not live and have to have special permission to travel to w zone).

          Yeah, but only ghetto blacks are dangerous enough to justify race zones Anyhow a white traveling to a ghetto is just plain dumb. Isn’t letting them die just evolution in action? 😆
          What is this? White nationalists trying to protect poor whites like Eminem’s family before they became famous? Again, even with whites like that, they moved there out of free choice and can easily move. That’s what I disagree with Sam about.

      2. “…Blacks were hung from trees on false accusations…”
        Prove they were false. This is just propaganda. Lies. All the people lynched did something.
        From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States. Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black. 40 per year.
        In just Chicago there was 506 murders in 2012. There were 2,289 murders in Chicago between 2007 and 2011, 4 years with 572 murders per year.
        So in reality Blacks are far, far worse than lynching Whites.

        1. OK, interesting point and right, but it still doesn’t justify lynching, Why couldn’t the whites just give them a trial and adminster justice without resorting to vigilante methods? Surely blacks getting hung via a fair trial would scare them as much as grotesque displays of lynching.

        2. Thanks Sam for the rambling non-sequitor and unnecessary gore photos which prove absolutely nothing. I can dig up photos of whites that have mutilated, beaten and tortured non-whites(starting with the Native Americans) and I can assure you that you will lose that argument. The points I made flew right over your head.

        1. dude.
          Anecdotal evidence.
          obvious emotional appeal.
          Just stop while your ahead.
          This isn’t some WN website where we will start flinging our feces in a chimpout level rage when you show photos like that.
          Learn your audience
          Get mental help
          Be a good Goy

        2. I think 3 is actually one of the victims of the Hillside Stranglers, but I may be wrong. One of their victims had a broom shoved up her vagina just as this woman seems to. She was also spreadeagled on a bed like this woman.

        3. These are all from South Africa. Torture, killed by Blacks.
          Tulio ,”…unnecessary gore photos which prove absolutely nothing. I can dig up photos of whites that have mutilated, beaten and tortured non-whites(starting with the Native Americans)…”
          I don’t think you can. Not in anywhere near the volumes I can post of Whites tortured, killed by Blacks. The Indians were known for being notorious torturers. It was a part of their culture. Blacks the same. They still do this in staggering numbers. Whites torture people also but in the main it was not part of their culture for…say entertainment as it was for Blacks and Indians. Whites normally tortured people for revenge, to get information and to check for religious truths.
          “…and I can assure you that you will lose that argument. The points I made flew right over your head….”
          No and ” …The points I made flew right over your head….”. As if…you just have poor arguments. The idea that Whites formed, created or controlled the large part of torture and misery on this planet is silly. Silly mindless antiWhite Socom SJW lies. If this is so true then why are people flocking from all over the planet to White countries? If this is so then why don’t we see large scale events over and over of Whites torturing and murdering people in the US? Why isn’t the news filled with fear and loathing of the mass killings and tortures that Whites are foisting on others. You know why, but because they don’t exist. Whites, while far from perfect, are in reality a relatively non vicious race of people. They can be but their level of this sort of behavior is low. Certainly compared to other races. You, so called, arguments are weak silly SJWism’s that are just repeated nonsense like the foolish feminist saying that after super bowls women are beaten. Lies, lies. lies.

        4. Sam, you’re dead wrong. First off the vast majority of whites are killed by other whites. And I assure you that more non-whites have died at the hands of whites throughout history than the other way around. That’s beyond dispute. Not to mention having their lands invaded, their resources forfeited and being subjugated to the will of invaders.
          It’s really only been the last half century that whites have started to calm down. From WWII until antiquity there has virtually always been a war raging somewhere on the European continent against one another, or against non-whites in a land whites wanted to colonize.
          Your race has more blood on its hands than any other.

        5. “…Your race has more blood on its hands than any other…”
          I don’t accept that. You going to have to give references. I’m not going to look for them because I don’t believe it’s even close to correct. Even more if you include all the life saving medical, crop improvements and energy improvements that Whites have made then you’ll be swamped in the who’s saved the most lives count. After all if you take a small population of Whites that did colonize and kill people to be “Whites” and use this for an overall responsibility debit then you also have to Whites who made life saving advances and give all Whites a credit.
          “…Your race has more blood on its hands than any other…”
          I can name two cases that would probably swamp all the rest. USSR 60 million, Jews. China 50 million, Inspired by Jews.
          If you’re counting the Americas you would be incorrect as that was mostly disease of which Whites had no control.

        6. Russians are whites, as are Jews. And if you’re going to sit here and tell me that Natalie Portman and Seinfeld are non-whites, I’m done with you.
          It doesn’t matter if the Native Americans died from disease. They died because of an invasion of people who had no right to be here in the first place. If Africans invaded Europe and didn’t actually kill must of them their own hands but Ebola wiped out all the whites, you know damn well you’d be calling it a genocide. So cut the bullshit.

        7. It’s been said that Ashkenazis are 60% hybridized with European (some Western Europe, some Slav), on average.
          Semitic blood comes from SW Asia, anyway, and if you don’t count that as White it would mean the British, of all people, are 17% “Non-White”

          Probably less semitic in origin, indisputably White.
          Sarah Silverman;
          More semitic looking, but obviously clearly White in all features except a slightly darker skin and hair tone (which could even be found in parts of Il Italia…)

        8. Natalie Portman and Seinfeld are Jews not Whites. The Jews have said over and over and over they are not Whites. You disagree? Take it up with the Jews not me.

      3. Yeah, there is absolutely no cruel, stupid thing happening in Africa now that doesn’t have its counterpart in the Europe of 400-500 years ago, right up to and including panics about penis-stealing witches. This gives me hope that it is all a matter of a few hundred years of cultural evolution. Of course even in its worst moments Europe had the remnants of the high culture of classical antiquity to guide its development.

  6. The real problem here seems to be media sensationalism. This has been getting worse and worse. Media has become increasingly partisan and increasingly tabloid, resulting in a style of reporting that panders to the echo chamber instead of challenging the citizenry to think and telling them the truth. It is, of course, all about getting that advertising and if whipping the base into frenzies of moral panic is what sells papers, attracts viewers, gets clicks or whatever, that’s what media outlets will do.
    This goes back to that old truism about the media being the message. And the message, in this case, is that America has become artificially polarized due to its propensity towards self righteous paranoia and moral hysteria, and this dovetails with a profit driven mass media in a way that is ultimately unhealthy for the polity as a whole.

    1. The “message” is 180º from the truth now!
      The Left actually believe that the RIGHT want to “burn this bitch down” despite that being uttered by a Lefty rioter!
      “When they bring a knife, you bring a gun.”
      “Punch back twice as hard.”
      Conservatives are nothing but a bunch of “bitter clingers.”
      “Punish our enemies and reward our friends.”
      Yup, that’s the president talking about almost half the country. He truly is full of reflexive gibberish.

  7. It’s not the specific number of lynchings that went all the way, per se……..
    it’s that Blacks had to live under the fear of lynchings/that “code” of Law.
    Yes, it’s not as compelling as actual mass murders everywhere, but is still is bad.
    And, Sam, the comparison to ‘Black on Black’ or ‘Black on White’ crime is irrelevant.
    those guys are PUNISHED. It’s about justice for what’s been done.
    If you guys didn’t have these absurd false equivalencies God knows what you’d do.

    1. “…And, Sam, the comparison to ‘Black on Black’ or ‘Black on White’ crime is irrelevant…”
      You’re a complete propagandist and a liar. The Blacks constantly talk about slavery yet never say a word about White slavery. It would not surprise me a bit if the number of Whites slaves in history far outnumbered the Black ones.
      If Blacks are going to talk about things done “to” them then it’s perfect;y reasonable for Whites to talk about what Blacks are doing to Whites.

    2. The thing is, lynching back then WAS the justice. You don’t punish the punishers, otherwise, justice becomes just “revenge”.
      Blacks had to not do anything that could be even construed as an attack against whites. Now cops have to worry about being killed by thugs.
      If it’s truly about “justice for what’s been done” why the false equivalency between cops killing thugs and thugs killing cops?

      1. Given human nature, a lot of abuse was present. You see this today also with “The Untouchables” in India. Don’t believe me? Just research it.
        On the flip side, a place with a lot of blacks, say a prison, or a white ruled South Africa (which Sam posted photos from), will have a lot of abuse by the majority against the minority.

  8. “Prove they were false”
    Innocent until proven guilty…………….
    VIA a Court of Law….
    “Due process”
    “Western Civilization”?
    Get it?
    I told you guys he was crazy. Nobody wanted to listen to me then neither. Now we have to deal with his shit all the time.

    1. My point is that all the Whites tortured and killed by Blacks had no trail either. Yet you don’t condemn them. You want Whites to be killed without trial but not Blacks.

  9. It does not cease to amaze me, how all the great values of Western Civilization get thrown out the window with these Reicher psychos when it comes to Blacks.
    ‘No trial’
    ‘they’re all guilty’
    ‘Guilty until proven innocent’.
    ‘Hang ’em’
    ‘who cares about individuals- they’re all evil’
    The Alt-Right defends “Western Civilization” less than Ben Shapiro. My God.

    1. You don’t care about Western Civilization so why whine? I believe in abandoning the fairness of Western Civilization when dealing with Jews and if necessary Blacks and all others not a part of it. After all they don’t believe in it and certainly don’t practice it. Why should they be considered a part of it or under it’s protections? That’s one the major failing points of Whites. Giving people the benefits of Western Civilization who don’t follow it’s principles or value it.
      There was a television commercial many years ago for cereal is said,”Trix are for kids”. Well “Western Civilization is for Westerners”.
      The Byzantine Empire, as far as I know, was the longest living empire ever. Maybe one the reasons it was so was they totally clamped down on the anti-Western civilization destroyers. If you weren’t part of the West you had no say so. The Jews were not allowed to teach, to be bankers, to own White slaves and a lot of things. It kept them from destroying the Eastern Roman empire like they did the West.

  10. Ultimately…..
    if the more rightist elements of the Alt-Right get in power…..
    it will cause the decline of Western Civilization, faster than any groups else moving in.
    Much of the ideology is the antithesis to Western Civilization………….

    1. All of this stuff is heading toward an armegeddon of sorts between extremist NAMS and white nationalists. Better get out of the USA while you still can !!

      1. One Black harassing WNs made the point that Blacks can do bush wars pretty well.
        I.E. Mugabe & the Rhodesian war, Barack Obama Sr. (Mau Mau)*, etc.

        1. They sure can–if someone else gives them weapons and training. How many of the thugs in America put in so much as an hour in the targeting range?
          More bluntly, they go by the “Spray&Pray” technique more often than the “Triangulating Snipers” technique. Which brings up: Who trained the snipers in Dallas?

    2. “…Alt-Right get in power…..
      it will cause the decline of Western Civilization, faster than any groups else moving in….”
      What howling stupidity in the face of reality. The left and others of your ilk have been in charge for decades and all we’ve seen have been failure after failure.
      The alt-right would move us out of the endless mass war for Jews and look after our own interest.

  11. Although I suppose it could unfold rapidly and like a horror story, I don’t see this massive Balkanization happening over night.
    You’ll get extremists on both sides, but the mainstream/ Middle Americana is not going to all of a sudden decide to pick up arms against Mr. Tao or Mr .Smith or Mrs. Garcia next door.
    I just don’t see it.
    We’d already have to be in anarchy for that to happen.

    1. Possibly the whole Civil War thing will be prevented by the strong tyrannical Trump regime, which then eventually takes the US down a civilized path to destruction, which is just as bad. For instance, Trump could go ballistic on the middle east, just cause he can (with nukes). Possibly Trump could turn on all extremists, Muslims, and whoever else gets in his way.
      The WNs won’t like Trump once he double crosses them and sends them to concentration camps, just like Muslims, illegals or whoever else.

      1. There’s a reasonable possibility that the Military might refuse to act upon his orders, causing a crisis of proportions the likes of which we’ve never seen.
        Congress probably won’t do anything then, and everything will be in limbo until a strongman somewhere in the line of succession ousts Trump and stabilizes things.

        1. The probability of Mike Pence reaching the oval office before 2021 if Trump is elected is better than 50% 🙂

        2. Yeah you got a point there. A lot of the military lacks any respect for him. In fact, there is a whole movement among democrats and republicans which basically says Trump is too dangerous to have his hands on nukes, or to be in command of the military at all.

  12. In fairness to Sam in Sam V. Tulio, Whites had technology which enabled more deaths/killings. Blacks didn’t and couldn’t do as much….but when they have weapons, as they do in modernity, they sure as hell aren’t afraid of using them.
    The value placed on life by Sub-Saharan Warlords is next to 0.

    1. Not to say that K!ke Eisenhower had great respect for human life, but most White generals and figureheads were better to civilians.

    2. Yes, but you leave out how the Sub-Saharan Warlords GET guns and bombs that are far above their intellectual pay grade?
      Who would give savages weapons that even you admit they aren’t afraid of using, rather than “KEEP OUT OF REACH OF SAVAGES”?
      South Africa during Apartheid = 170 murders per year
      South Africa NOW (after Apartheid) = 24,206 murders per year
      Do you see the problem?
      And incidentally, why any country that wants peace, clamps down on the savages?

      1. Correct!
        That’s why I’m NOT a Nationalist.
        Much of Africa is basically owned by foreign companies, and their leaders/administrators are owned, but Black, so it’s apparently okay?
        I reject this………
        the lower-IQ has caused corruption, and the “slaving” effects still exist (Charles Taylor’s diamond mines), so sometimes colonialism was actually better than what exists now. Sometimes.
        Now looking at a country that’s been said to have a relatively low crime rate like Burkina Faso, why deprive them of their right to self-govern?
        They’re doing fine….
        but others, not so much.

        1. So then you’d be OK with depriving criminals of their right to self-govern?
          That’s a good idea.
          And no, the Corporations are buying back what the savages stole. You forget, whites built the countries in the first place.
          Let’s say I have something you want. Being an upstanding citizen, YOU would never steal from me, but you’d arm the local gangs and let them rob me, then buy from them. That’s what happened to places like South Africa, just on a massive scale.
          If you really want peace, the savages need to be unilaterally crushed and the countries taken back into Civilized World control. Otherwise, we’ll always have savages “spontaneously” attacking their betters with weapons far above their pay-grade.

        2. Also, try typing in “Slavery In Africa” into whatever search engine or info-engine you trust. There isn’t “slaving effects”, the savages have reinstated slavery, which the Civilized World was so much against that we fought to end it…
          Should it be allowed in nonwhite countries simply because “They Don’t Know Any Better”? And if so, can you give an estimated century when they will know better?

        3. Of course Whites and Chinese built the companies.
          But they need “overseers” so to speak, to get things done.
          It just creates a nasty situation when they bring over lots of European and/or Lebanese immigrants, so they just use Blacks.
          Whites are getting most of the benefit.

        4. Whites built the COUNTRIES. But why do they need savage overseers? Why not just kick the savages aside, recolonize the countries?
          Remember, Rhodesia and South Africa, if none others, started out as totally white countries.
          And no, whites are not the ones benefiting, otherwise, I wouldn’t read anything about white farm murders, or would at least have an equal number of Chinese Farm Murder photos. I wouldn’t hear about a family raped and murdered and the baby thrown into a pot of boiling water. I wouldn’t hear of Foreign Aid workers raped and bayoneted to death.
          If those are benefits, why aren’t we giving the savages those “benefits” instead of them always doing it to us?
          However, I think you accidentally struck on why Russia and China interfered in the first place: To get a vig of the resources AT ALL. Civilized World offshoots would have traded only with the Civilized World and would’ve told China and Russia to go to Hell, if not helped them get there, right?

        5. And did you forget, there’s already a “nasty situation” of Africa’s excess population invading Europe and raping/murdering their betters, with the Governments’ implicit, if not explicit help?

        6. So then you’d be OK with depriving criminals of their right to self-govern?
          That’s a good idea.
          And no, the Corporations are buying back what the savages stole. You forget, whites built the countries in the first place.
          Let’s say I have something you want. Being an upstanding citizen, YOU would never steal from me, but you’d arm the local gangs and let them rob me, then buy from them. That’s what happened to places like South Africa, just on a massive scale.
          If you really want peace, the savages need to be unilaterally crushed and the countries taken back into Civilized World control. Otherwise, we’ll always have savages “spontaneously” attacking their betters with weapons far above their pay-grade.

          I wouldn’t generalize and say all South African blacks are bad, but much as with drug addicted whites who terrorize East Tennessee, some are so criminal that being violent as a reaction is totally necessary.
          Perhaps the real problem with South Africa, isn’t that the black led government gives a pat on the back to black thugs who terrorize white farmers, but that the black led government, being third world, is too weak to fight back This is sad though considering that now there are no sancitons against SA, so ithey have no problem getting outside help.

        7. Too weak? That’s a weak excuse, pun intended. The savage “Government” of occupied South Africa doesn’t WANT to protect the whites against their fellow savages.
          If the Government was too weak as you claim, it would also be too weak to prevent whites from getting guns…Or if it’s really weak, the whites should be able to overthrow it and take their country back from the thieving, murderous savages! That hasn’t happened, so we know the savage Government is still strong, it just CHOOSES not to protect the white citizens from savages.
          And if they couldn’t protect the whites, but intended to, why not ask for help from the Civilized World or China? America’s been the police of the world for longer than I’ve been alive, and China really knows how to stop crime and keep a low prison population (By shooting the scum, but they get a pass for that for some reason)…So why haven’t they asked for help? It’s because they don’t WANT to, not because they CAN’T!

        1. What about situations like South Africa, where the savages didn’t have anything to pay for the weapons with?
          The Chinese and Russians gave the savages guns, bombs, and training on “credit”, expecting to be paid back with resources and/or control when the savages overthrew the country, right?

        1. Yes, I did see that, but remember, the savages decided to use the guns against their betters, so you can’t just say the savages are innocent dupes.
          And you also have to remember that Russia gave the savages weapons to use to overthrow civilization too, as did China, it’s not all the fault of the Civilized World like you want to paint it as. The Civilized World (And even dumps like Turkey) tries to interdict weapons from Russia, but embargoes are unenforceable, right?
          Why do you think the weapon of choice for terrorists around the globe is the AK, not anything made by the Civilized World?

        2. Liberia wasn’t ever really a Colony, technically it was, but it was designed to be temporary, and then to have Blacks run it themselves………….
          and, I do wonder what went wrong……
          you’ll probably say they have low impulse control, but that’s enough for massacres of multiple % points of the population over 12 years?
          It was a decent country until 1980, when they overthrew the Americo-Liberians, because Natives were “oppressed”. Taylor and the current President were Government ministers under the Americo-Liberian Government, and they are mixed, and Native respectively….
          and of course, even if the Natives were oppressed by Americo-Liberians, it’s certainly a lot more shitty now.

        3. You wonder what went wrong…Please tell me you’re being sarcastic with that. America yanked the Marines that were acting as Border Patrol.
          The poor feral Blacks were invaded by absolutely SAVAGE ones from OUTSIDE Liberia, who were poorer yet. The massacres of the population were done by outsiders who saw the (comparatively) smarter, therefore wealthier Americo-Liberians, as you call them…Who built the country in the first place! Just like South Africa and Rhodesia had pogroms against the whites who built the country in the first place, and Haiti exterminated completely the whites who built the country in the first place.
          Bandits can “win” against a more civilized country, BUT they cannot maintain it. The only comfort we’ll get is that they destroy exactly what they set out to steal!

        4. To Barrack,
          You pretty much highlighted what went wrong in Liberia. Ever since the Old slaves went over, they saw themselves as “Higher” than the natives, calling them Bush Niggers.
          Disunity as a nation is a pretty universal thing in Africa.

        5. of course, that is what happened…….
          it’s not “how it went wrong”, ePGAH, it’s how it went so wrong..

        6. Phil-
          It appears that there needs to be a division of African countries based on tribes, that would help.
          “Temneland”, “Golaland”, etc.

        7. Please explain what you mean by SO wrong?
          Do you really expect jealous savages who overrun and overthrow a more successful neighbor to rebuild it up as good as the original owner had it?
          If they could, why wouldn’t they do that instead of invading and stealing what their betters built up?
          I don’t mean to confine it to Africa, please note what the invading savages are doing in UK, Germany, Sweden, and even here in America.
          Unless you believe a 5-year-old really did invite a gang of savages to rape her, then show her father the video of it?

        8. When Liberia was being attacked we should have protected these people. I said so at the time. If you look at pictures before it fell it was like a little America. People went to church. For Africa it was a well run decent place to live. They had nice little neighborhoods like Mayberry. We should have supplied troops to hold back the rabble while training the Liberians to protect themselves and provided modern armament for them.
          I’m not much for criticizing Whites but we really dropped the ball on this and it was a disgrace.

        9. To Sam, really? I never really thought about what Liberia was like at time. Do you have any links/ stories about it’s condition.
          To EPAGH, what invaders? If you mean John Doe’s coup, I thought they were an tribe within the nation or do you mean another event?
          To Barrack, That’s pretty much what should’ve been but never was. what I call “Macro groups” Like Yoruba, Igbo, and Hausa, exists in about several significant portions in most SSA nations. The lack of a homogeneous culture to dominate African countries is among the largest obstacles for them to over come.

        10. I dunno about “invaders”..more like rebels.
          Sam- The U.S. allegedly faked beginning the extradition of anti-Doe leader Charles Taylor, allowing him to escape from Jail in MA, and head back to Liberia in 1984-1985, so we did kind of help.
          Nixon made sure power stayed in the Tubman family.
          Phil-So I would assume that the cultures have been phased out?

        11. Phil-
          Is it true the Natives were oppressed?
          It seems there were Native-Americo intermarriages happening with some regularity; Taylor himself (the Natives that had assimilated to Americo culture).
          Ellen Sirleaf was a cabinet minister under Tubman despite being of Native Blood.
          How much were they oppressed?

        12. Sadly, I don’t have links, I have an old paper-based book. We USED TO protect Liberians against the savages. We had a contingent of Marines acting as their Border Patrol. WE YANKED THEM AWAY, leaving the Liberians to twist in the wind!
          I can’t even find pictures of pre-overthrow Liberia through Google, only pictures of the mess they made.
          By “invaders” I mean the Blacks of Africa that never had the advantages of civilization, who poured in because Liberians had got a Good Thing Going. That you call them merely “rebels” is interesting. How many homeless would you let into your house before worrying that your house wouldn’t be yours anymore?
          The Liberians had every right to act like they were better than the savages they let in. The ingrates turned on them, stole it, and destroyed it. And America let that, Rhodesia, South Africa, and Rwanda happen.
          But we’d get bitched at for interfering as surely as we get bitched at for not interfering, so in a lazy way, it is “better” not to interfere?
          But from the point of human rights, Rule of Law, or any other similar standpoint, America should have stopped that shit!

        13. To Barrack,
          No, I do not mean the culture have phased out, but rather that in an ideal world African nations would be grouped by either similar cultures or groups that were on good terms.
          Oppressed? In some form likely, but I think it mainly took the form of overall contempt than anything really institutional, but I could be wrong because I have heard of relations being comparable to South African Apartheid.
          Keep in mind also that simply the existence of mixed heirtage people doesn’t disupte the by and large perception of each other. Hell, not all South African Whites viewed each other the same.
          While Cecil Rhodes, for example, had a large range of Northern Europeans he’d accepted despite specific association with Anglo Saxons, most British colonists of Africa hated the Dutch Boers unlike him.
          And within the Boers you have those who mixed with slaves of Hottenot/bantu descent (how often though I’m unsure) but their relations, yet I don’t think I need to explain there relationship.

        14. Phil-
          As for Liberia, I was just saying I was skeptical of “oppression” because Natives were represented in the elite/highest levels of Government, something not seen in Apartheid South Africa.
          It appeared more cultural than anything, because the said Natives either had one Americo parent or had parents adopted by Americos/were raised in urban areas.
          The only major Immigrant group to Liberia, was the Lebanese, who were denied citizenship (they changed the requirement from “Persons of Colored descent” to “Persons of Negro descent” in the 1950s, just to deny these people citizenship). It does not appear they would discriminate against darker skinned Natives as opposed to admixed Americos.

        15. To Barrack,
          In Urban areas perhaps, but actually how often did mixing occur and how does that relate to by and large perception?
          Keep in mind that this was during a very “Eurocentric” time. In otherwords, the upper class of former US slaves indeed saw themselves higher than the natives, partially due to there European influenced upbringing.
          The use of Lebanese being rejected citizenship due to being “non blacks” seems closer akin to the actual ethnic political significance of the country rather than a mere race thing.
          “Unlike the Sierra Leone Creoles, Americo-Liberians rarely intermarried with indigenous West Africans.
          The colonists and their descendants led the political, social, cultural and economic sectors of the country; they ruled the new nation for over 130 years as a dominant minority. From 1878 to 1980, the Republic of Liberia was a one-party state ruled by the Americo-Liberian-dominated True Whig Party and Masonic Order of Liberia.[3]”

          “The social order in Liberia was dominated by a group of Americo-Liberians. Although descended from peoples of African origin, the ancestors of Americo-Liberians had been born in the United States for generations before emigrating to Africa; they held American cultural, religious and social values, shaped by their own heritage. Like many Americans and Europeans of the period, the Americo-Liberian held beliefs in the religious superiority of Protestant Christianity and the cultural power of European civilization over indigenous animism and culture.
          The Americo-Liberians created communities and social infrastructure closely based on what they knew – American society. They spoke English, built churches and houses in styles resembling those they were familiar with in the southern United States. Although they never constituted more than five percent of the population of Liberia, they controlled key resources that allowed them to dominate the local native peoples: access to the ocean, modern technical skills, literacy and higher levels of education, and valuable relationships with many United States institutions, including the American government.[12]
          Reflecting the system of racial segregation in the United States, the Americo-Liberians created a cultural and racial caste system with themselves at the top and indigenous Liberians at the bottom.[13][14][15] They believed in a form of racial equality by which meant that all residents of Liberia had the potential of to become “civilized” through conversion to Christianity and western-style education.”

        16. Phil- I knew that many of the more coastal natives were essentially slaves for s period of time after 1847. I knew western connections and technology helped them enslave. But I thought that eventually, like how Blacks colonized by Europeans had things happen- that they learned/ had access to technology to stop the Americos. You will probably also find it interesting that many African-American separatists LOVE Charles Taylor and Americo-Liberians, saying that they sold AA’s ancestors into slavery and hence were getting Karma.

        17. Yeah, those of the coast were the type typically associated with blacks of the US.
          As for “making things happen”, I believe you are referring to John Doe’s uprising, correct? Yeah, Americos did had their issue in relation to natives as well as some forms of corruption but things became complicated when you consider that stability degraded from that point, his rule was rather Krahn centric, one ethnic group out of dozens that lived in the country so you have a new rule of ethnic bias. So this being a “united native” movement seems a bit skewed.
          Ironically yes, it does comes off as payback but the thing was that the Windward coast, Liberia’s region, I believed contributed little to the slave trade. Places in Central Africa or closer to the Guinea region like Senegal or Nigeria played larger roles.

        18. When Liberia was being attacked we should have protected these people. I said so at the time. If you look at pictures before it fell it was like a little America. People went to church. For Africa it was a well run decent place to live. They had nice little neighborhoods like Mayberry. We should have supplied troops to hold back the rabble while training the Liberians to protect themselves and provided modern armament for them.
          I’m not much for criticizing Whites but we really dropped the ball on this and it was a disgrace.

          Sam has a point here. Perhaps the reason much of the world is in ruin is cause of selfishness and neglect.

    3. Phil- on the subject of Americo-Liberians, have you seen pumpkinperson’s post about the salves being taken from West Africa being 10 points less intelligent than the average? Adding a dash of White couldn’t do much to compensate…..although I suppose their IQs could have regressed towards the mean. It does show that a lesser-intellected people with good culture/technology can beat out smarter people with bad culture. I may bring this up to PP.

      1. 10 points? I did read the article, but I may have to look at it again.
        What I can agree one is that the slaves captured were less intelligent than the ones that stayed due to many being criminals or captured peasants of a sacked village.
        AA average about 20 percent white, relative to the New world blacks they also mixed with more white women proportionately if one looked at mtdna.
        I would suppose that, when comparing blacks of negligible admixture, native blacks would be more variable in IQ.
        Your take concern IW and culture I’m unsure about depending on which group you are referring too. If AA’s are the former then probably yes.

  13. Yes, even Ashkenazi Jews have semitic blood.
    But a people who originate from Israel may be White, or as White as many Southern Europeans.
    The notion, and sadly, the popular notion, that their is just some imaginary racial/ethnic line that seperates Turkey from Greece, “dem Whaites from dem dum Browns”, is a fantasy. There are varying degrees of admixture going out in SW Asia, and up into the Balkans and Italy.
    AND, Ashkenazi Jews are for all intents and purposes at this point “the master race”, by the own account of the “fire breathing WNs” here, Jews are capable of absurd feats. Why not claim them as an asset for the Great White race?
    that’s all they ever wanted

    1. “…Why not claim them as an asset for the Great White race?…”
      Because they are psychopaths and will forever destroy everything around them.
      If they succeed in destroying all other races they will then fall in to killing each other and either one race will be left or more likely the human race will end.

  14. Sam saying Ashkenazi Jews are all pure non-White, does bring up an interesting point….
    blogger “peepee” says that anti-semitism, at least in Whites does require some IQ, both in cynicsm and ‘spatial ability’ of recognizing a Jew from non-Jew (since they do have pale skin, Caucasian builds, etc)…….
    if someone were racist against Blacks, and solely Blacks, they go for the most simplistic scenario, and aren’t bright.
    I’d suspect the people that think “Ted Cruz is non-White” also have low spatial abilities, they truly can’t tell who has White/Caucasian features or not, so they make it up;

  15. There should not be any “revenge killings” by thugs against cops.
    It should be made clear who is being punished and for what, rather than the narrative that the worthless thug is some kind of martyr.
    “Revenge killings” by thugs makes as much sense as the child spanking the parent when the child does something wrong!

  16. Japanese and Koreans do not have low IQ but have a reputation for brutality. Their Yakuza and other mafias are fairly savage, they have their share of violent street gangs, fair numbers of Asian-American women are mixed up in the sex trade (Massage parlor busts in a newspaper always feature some rough-looking Chinese women), LA riots always degenerate into Korean snipers taking position on rooftops.
    IQ alone does not cancel out anti-social or predatory behavior.

  17. A certain German-American still holds the record for killing in Milwakee, not an African-American with his windows fogged up by a Blunt and some 40 Oz.
    Dahmer’s high IQ and German athleticism combined to horrifying effect.
    Low IQ makes people less successful criminals but high IQ does not cancel out anti-social behavior.

  18. Low IQ is what saves rural and semi-rural areas from the threat of riot-ghetto anarchists do not possess the survivalist skills to “occupy” a snowy Wisconsin forest for a winter waging insurrection against Scandinavian-American deer hunters.
    I’m not sure how well they’d fare in the suburbs.
    They are stuck on concrete city streets.

  19. Tulio,
    In the beginning where the words, and the words made the world.
    The clergy owns logos, the words, and makes the world, the world of the subjects, all those who can’t make a world on their own.
    Today the media is the kernel of the clerical class (another essential component being “educators”).
    The real question would be, who, and what makes they who, through the words, made the world?
    My answer: at the bottom of it, evolution. In its human variant, the struggle for power.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)