The Problem with “White Countries for Everyone”

In the comments section for the Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, Latin America for Latin Americans, White Countries for Everyone! post, Erranter, a new commenter who is one of my smartest commenter, writes:

So, what can you do?

I really doubt my Numbers USA faxes have had much effect.

In fact, I’m beginning to accept the fact that “diversity is the future”. It won’t be all that bad. I look around at kids and see all colors playing together like never before. Sure, the multiculturalist philosophy has infiltrated our schools and brought a great deal of mediocrity, but without the myth of racial equality, wouldn’t there just be continuous conflict?

It seems necessary at this point, especially in CA where over half our population is non-white. I mean, you can’t tell 12 yr old that certain ones of them have higher IQs. And I’m not about to start deporting people en mass. I’d just like to see a drastic decrease in immigration, and mostly for population stabilization and not white preservation.

Sure, the average might go down a little bit but I never had much in common with the average and there will still be smart people here and there. Might be a little bit rarer, but oh well. We don’t breed. It’s our fault. It’s not like they’re doing anything wrong by being dumb. They can still be moral, helpful people, so long as they’re educated.

I mainly fear that the tribe will take over and all smart people will be taken out of positions of power due to excessive affirmative action in govt. Now that would be a disaster. As long as we have wise leadership we can get by. Human history is just getting by anyway. There’s always new problems.

Also, white American culture has shot itself in the foot because it readily has given up its culture and heritage for the sake of materialism and money. It’s not like people are listening to Bach and Beethoven and discussing Schopenhauer and Descartes in these little all-white towns. They might be quainter and cleaner than New York, but they tend to be culturally bankrupt and prefer it that way. Urbanity is hypocritical but it offers you a wider view of life.

This is probably just a typical liberal argument. Suffice it to say I still get pissed off driving through Oakland, Stockton, Richmond . . . (I could go on) and any other urban hellhole brought about by stupid, unrealistic policy.

As far as deporting people, the illegals have to go. I’m not interested in deporting anyone else.

The reason for the title is the hypocrisy of it all. The White elites, and of course, the rest of the world, have decided that White countries, and only White countries, need to be mass-invaded by non-Whites for a variety of reasons. Diversity, anti-racism, bla bla. But it’s only White countries that need to be mass-invaded by non-Whites in the name of diversity and anti-racism. Nowhere else on Earth is this invasion necessary. Only in White countries. What’s up with that?

The tipping point in Detroit was 2

This goes along with my philosophy of, “A Black a block. Spread em out and civilize em!” Mass concentrations of large numbers of Blacks in the US do not seem to be a good idea either for Blacks or for anyone else. Black culture in all its worst aspects takes over and the place goes to shit.

I don’t mind a little diversity. After all, I grew up in a California that was 20-3

Right now, I drive through town after town that looks and feels like it is a part of Mexico. There is a part of Los Angeles stretching for miles that looks and feels like San Salvador. In the San Gabriel Valley, you can drive for what seems like 10-20 miles through what looks like Taipei or Hong Kong. Most places in the world that look like downtown L.A. require a passport to get into them.

Here in California, we’ve always had immigration. The Mexicans, Blacks, Latin Americans, Samoans, East Indians, Filipinos, and Chinese are an integral part of this state. They’ve been here from the very start, or maybe 20-70 years afterwards. They’re part of the neighborhood. But for most of my lifetime, the immigration did not come in floods. I could go back to 300-400,000 legal immigrants a year no problem.

On the other hand, mass immigration to California, legal and illegal, has quite simply gone insane. It feels like we’ve been hit by a non-White foreigner tidal wave here. We never voted on this. No one ever asked our opinion on whether we wanted to be Foreigner Tsunamied or not. If put to a vote, most of us would have voted against it. We California Whites got race-replaced in our own homeland. Try it sometime. It doesn’t feel so good. Not only that, but the race replacement of California Whites has not led to a better California. Instead, it’s fucked up the whole state.

Many Blacks speak out in favor of turning the US into the United Nations. I’d like to ask them, “What exactly is in this for you?” How are you benefitting from the US being turned into a living zoo of Homo Sapiens? And I’d like to point out that we US Whites have been better to you Blacks than any of these immigrants replacing us will be.

What is Cultural Marxism?

This is a question that requires a long answer. This is as good an answer as any.

Abagond and the whole crowd over at his site = Cultural Marxism. Tim Wise, Robert Jensen, that whole crowd, that’s Cultural Marxism. Idiot radical feminists who hate men, that’s Cultural Marxism. Hispanic Aztlan revanchist shitheads are Cultural Marxists. Afrocentrist dumbasses wailing against Whitey, that’s Cultural Marxism. Radical queers pushing extreme pro-gay lunatic politics, that’s Cultural Marxism.

The Cultural Marxists pushed Identity Politics in the 1960’s. The result was the retarded division of White men from White women, White workers from Black and Hispanic workers, straight workers from gay workers, and all sorts of idiotic bullshit. Divide the workers, you know. The game the Right always does.

Except this time it was “Left” retards doing it. It defined Whites and males as the enemy, and Whites and males acted as you might expect: they fled from it like smoke from a burning building. Straight into the arms of the enemy, the Right. But the Left gave them this shove, or kick in the butt, in the first place.

That’s what it is, in a nutshell. Personally, I think it sucks, but that’s just me. It all goes back to Herbert Marcuse in the 1960′s. Originally it was a Left philosophy, so it was sort of ok in a way, but now it’s been taken over by bourgeois characters, mostly Black and Hispanic bourgeois who are not really Left people and often push rightwing economics. They just use it as grudge politics to try to get a bigger share of the loot for their bourgeois ethnic group, and a grudge against the bourgeois Whites supposedly not being nice enough to the Black, Hispanic, etc. bourgeois.

At worst, it is simply bullshit anti-White politics for the bourgeois of any race:

Whites are evil, Whites are evil, Whites are evil, Whites are evil, Whites are evil, Whites need to give up stuff, Whites need to give up stuff, Whites need to give up stuff, Whites need to give up stuff, Whites need to give up stuff.

Combine that with rightwing neoliberal multinational corporate capitalism. Mystery Shit Anti-White Worker Casserole!

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever here for any White worker. It fucks him when he walks in and fucks him again when he walks out. No one wonder it sells to White workers as fast as turd cupcakes. White workers are not as stupid as you think.

There’s nothing progressive about this politics!

Anti-White propaganda + neoliberal corporate multinational, multicultural, invite the world politics does not benefit White workers in any way, shape or form!

Leon Trotsky, Barack Obama And The Black “Vanguard Of The Revolution”

Excellent article on Vdare by Raymond V. Raehn. Although this is rightwing stuff, I am afraid that there is a lot of truth in it. Certain aspects of this piece, here and there, are noxious and even poisonous, but many others are spot on. This is a very complex piece covering a vast array of subject matter. The author is a brilliant man who did a good job of putting the material together.

Kevin MacDonald did previous work on the Frankfurt School. His analysis seems, as usual, to be quite correct.

The question is how much truth is here?

As a Leftist, it is painful to admit that there is a lot of truth here, although the whole thing seems like a vast rightwing conspiracy theory. I say this because I worked on the Left for many years, I have known many Leftists, spoken to high-ranking members of major Left parties, etc.

The project of the Western Left is indeed “the disuniting of America.” Many do believe that Whites must become “traitors to Whiteness.”

The Western Maoists have even redefined the US White working class as a hostile element who have identified with imperialism and earn their living and riches via assisting in the project to rip off the Third World. Some have even said that Western Whites need to be put in gigantic re-education camps after the revolution, their land taken over and distributed to non-Whites, etc. Others, often Maoists, champion a Black state in the Southeast and an Aztlan Hispanic state in the Southwest. Of course we Whites get no state of our own.

It is for all these reasons that the Western Left has failed so spectacularly.

Way to go, tools.

Define the White working class as a hostile element, abuse and attack them, tell them they “need to give up stuff” so their property can be redistributed to non-Whites, advocate treasonous “disuniting of America,” on and on. Way to win over White workers. Of course their project has been a breathtaking failure. And the workers who ought to be joining the Left are confused, apathetic or at worst going to Tea Party rallies.

Feel free to read and discuss this piece. There is a lot here and some it I’m not so sure of.

How the PC Left Utterly Fails in Their Analysis of US White Racism

9

However, all US White nationalists completley hate Blacks. The hatred of Blacks and to a lesser extent Jews is what the whole project is all about.

Supposedly there are a few who don’t hate other races, but just want to be left alone, but I don’t think I’ve ever met one. Sure, it’s possible.

White nationalism is the far end of White racism in the US. White racism is a continuum, ranging from extremely mild to full blown Nazis. What pisses me off about antis, Race Traitor magazine and Abagond types is that they insist that all White racism is the same. We’re all the same. We’re all racist. Those of us who are a tiny hint racist are just as evil as the KKK guys. It’s all the same thing. The only Whites who get a pass are the Race Traitor mag types.

In this way, these people totally fail in their analysis of White racism in the US. Yes, the idiots who devote their lives to the study of racism in the US (which only means White racism, since that’s the only kind of racism that exists) have totally and completely failed at this analysis. It’s hard to imagine how they could have failed in a worse way.

The far end White Supremacists often understand White racism quite well, and you can often read well-articulated and thought-out analyses on their sites. Where they error is only in thinking that most US Whites are open to their project. Not over our dead bodies, guys.

White racism exists in the US. Sure. In fact, I think that the overwhelming majority of US Whites are racist to some slight degree at least.

A coherent analysis of White racism would be an interesting sociological project. Maybe someone ought to take it up?

Anti-Semitic Conspiracy of the Day

From the charming, pirouetting and self-effacing wallflowers at Stormfront:

Eventually there will be a DNA test to use the internet. If you are found to only have White DNA the system will automatically edit your posts to what the Jews deem as correct. After three corrections you will be banned from all sites except the ADL website.

Let’s evaluate this on the Jew Know Who Scale:

+5 for Jewish Evil. Take away my right to the Net, punks, and I’ll start a pogrom myself. Just try it, Jewboys! Make my day!

+3 for originality. DNA tests to use the Net! Wild, man!

+1 for humor. The last line about your only being able to use the ADL site is classic.

+0 for factual basis. I sent off  a mail to Jewish Central Control to see if they had any plans to do this, but they don’t. At least not yet. But they thanked me for the intel, hit me up for a donation, and asked me if I wanted to fill in at Headquarters on Saturdays.

Total score: +3. Anti-Semitic conspiracy is often tired and stale. Sure, Nazis and Islamofascist sandbrains eat it up, but how many of those are there? At some point, you saturate your market. The field definitely needs some fresh thinking. May a fresh breeze blow through this sour fishmarket.

Why Do People Support Illegal Immigration?

In the comments section, Bay Area Guy lays out some typical arguments for why people support illegals. I feel he is wrong in some of his arguments:

Leftists want illegal immigrants for future votes, and also in order to weaken whites and lend further legitimacy to their anti-racist arguments (ie. I frequently hear Tim Wise type anti-racists say, “as the U.S becomes more ‘of color’ we’ll need to make serious changes”).After all, the more non-white the U.S becomes, the more you have to enact policies that help them, right?

Neocons and conservatives want illegals for cheap labor.

The key is to go after employers and leftist elites who tolerate this crap.

I have a hard time with this argument, BAG. It’s typical to say that the Left wants all these illegals in order to weaken US Whites. Is there any evidence for this? I don’t see any.

Keep in mind that I was on the Left for many years. I have met and talked to Leftist Presidential candidates on the phone and in person. I am a member of the Communist Party USA and I have spoken to top ranking members. I have met with local Communists in a local Commie group. Suffice to say I have been around the Left for 20 years. I’ve also known a lot of Jews, including a Jewish media multimillionaire. Never once have I heard a Leftist or Jew say that we need to import all of these illegals in order to weaken US Whites.

Why do people support the illegals? Mostly they are ideologues who believe in Open Borders, though they often do not say so. They believe in “the right to migrate.”

For the Hispanics, it’s obvious. Their relatives and friends are a bunch of wetbacks, and if not, they are loyal to La Raza.

I doubt if many average working class Hispanics support illegals so they can flood into the US take over whole parts of it for the Hispanics. Your average Hispanic simply does not conceive things in those terms. The only people who talk like that are upper middle class bourgeois Hispanics with a university education. Some Latino politicians talk like this too, but they just want to get re-elected. Your average Chicano cares zero about Aztlan, and if you polled them, they probably don’t even know what Aztlan is.

Your average Chicano is not an idiot, and Mexico and the rest of Latin America is full of White people. So “Whites” can easily be “Latinos.” All we have to do is speak Spanish and adopt Latino culture. Since your average Hispanic comes from a a region with over 100 million Whites, they don’t see Whites per se as the enemy. Gringos, maybe. Whites? No way. They don’t think in racial terms since they themselves are not a race.

Around here, you will see Chicanos ranging all the way from full White through myriad shades of mestizo all the way to pure Indian. They all hang out with each other, and no one thinks anything of it. If I spoke Spanish fluently, I could join them and be one of the “White Chicanos.”

Furthermore, around here a lot of Chicanos have figured out that when towns go 95

They suck so bad in many ways that many Hispanics are starting to leave since there “are not enough Whites left to keep the place civilized,” more or less in their own words. So the Hispanics need Whites around, at least a few of us. When the Whites all leave, Mexico creeps in. And that’s what the Hispanics came here to escape from.

Now! Once the illegals are here, it is another story. Does the Democratic Party want to legalize them to get future voters? Maybe. But the last bill that hit Congress would not have legalized them for 18 years. That’s a long time to wait for voters.

More probably, the Dems support amnesty out of liberal ideology and in an effort to get Hispanic votes. If you come out against illegals, you screw yourself out of the Hispanic vote. If you want their votes, you go pro-illegal, ideology be damned. As the Hispanic vote increases, terrifyingly, mass amnesties look like more and more of a sure thing.

Another reason liberals support illegals is due to sympathy. Many liberals think it is cruel especially to break up the families of the illegals. This take on the issue especially effects females. Many others think there is no way to deal with the issue but via amnesty. Others (usually Jews) think anti-illegal = White racism. They don’t like White racism, so they go pro-illegal.

If you are on the Liberal-Left, you must support the illegals. If you don’t, you are slammed, shamed, and shunned in some pretty cruel ways. You get called racist, fascist, Nazi, KKK, reactionary, pig, hater, bigot, all sorts of stuff.

Liberal-Left types are sensitive people, and their whole worldview is made up in part by not being any of those things above. To get called names like the above is really jarring and painful for leftwingers, and I suspect many Lib-Lefties are simply bullied into supporting illegals. There are a number of Leftists who refuse to speak with me anymore in part due to my heresies on these matters. It is still painful for me to think of how they called me racist, fascist, Nazi, etc. and how they refuse to speak to me anymore.

Obviously, not just neocons and conservatives but the entire US business sector, supports the illegals for cheap labor.

In addition, here in California, many Whites with money support illegals. We joke that as soon as you buy a house, you start supporting illegals. All of a sudden you have all this yardwork to be done, and many White homeowners around here want to hire cheap illegal alien labor to work around their homes. On the other hand, many lower class, poor and working class Whites totally despise illegals since they have destroyed the low end job market in the state.

An Intelligent Comment on Daily Kos

What’s the unemployment rate in California, 1

I’ve seen the Mexican Government issued “Go be a paisano in the US” pamphlets with my own eyes. Maybe they didn’t think an American who could read Spanish would ever see them, but the pamphlet was telling the poor to go “retake the American southwest”. That’s a fact.

So the California Latino voter knows there is far more poverty in Mexico than there are jobs in California. It doesn’t do them any good to bring in more cheap labor and get tossed into the unemployment line, and then be just as poor as they were originally when their unemployment benefits run out.

We really need to stop this race based political thinking. Does the fact that I have Greek ancestry mean that I want the whole of Greece immigrating over here without the jobs to support them? No, so why would a Latino trying to hang on to his job want that either?

Illegal Immigration supports two groups of people. The CEO’s trying to exploit them for cheap labor, and the politicians trying to exploit them for votes. Everyone else knows they’re being scammed.

This is a great comment. Predictably, it was pummeled by the next four commenters. The last one told him to shut up, as Daily Kos is a pro-immigration reform (amnesty) site. Daily Kos represents the Left wing of the Democratic Party. Those four comments that followed were quite predictable, and it shows why the liberal-Left in the US is absolute shit.

Let’s go over this comment bit by bit. It’s quite possible that unemployment is over 1

I can tell you from personal experience here in California that the illegal alien tidal wave has had a disastrous effect on working class Americans. My friends were all Whites, so I can only speak to its effect on working class Whites. But I don’t see why it hasn’t hurt working class Hispanics and Blacks too. At the very least, it has glutted the low wage labor market and nuked wages down to a very low level.

It’s an absolute effect that the sickening rightwing Mexican elite uses illegal immigration as a cynical way to dump their poor on us. Poor that in any decent society they ought to be taking care of. But Mexico is an extreme class society that at its base is very rightwing.

The rich in Mexico, via the state, spend about as much on health, education and whatnot as the Haitian state does. They are just another evil 3rd World elite that has turned its country into a shithole by refusing to share with the rest. Like India, like the rest of Latin America, like the Philippines, like Indonesia.

That the US Liberal-Left fully supports the rightwing scum elite in Mexico in this rightwing and deeply anti-progressive project (shoving millions of their poor up here so they don’t have to create a decent society in Mexico) is infuriating. Why is the Liberal-Left in the US supporting a bunch of rightwing shits in Mexico? But you will never hear one single peep about this on the US Liberal-Left. One can only conclude that they are in bed with the Mexican elite in this game.

Similarly, the poster notes that the pamphlets that the Mexican government hands out that explicitly urge its citizens to go to the US also openly tell them to “retake the Southwest.” This shows that the Mexican elite is the enemy of America, and that Mexico is in a sense an enemy state.

It’s an enemy state because it continues to lay claims on the US Southwest. When you go to school in Mexico, you get a steady diet of revanchist propaganda about how the US Southwest is really a part of Mexico. 5

The poster also points out the insanity of race-based politics for California Latinos. Your average working class Latino citizen is not helped by the illegal flood. You can make a good case that he is harmed by them, and that illegals throw a lot of California Latinos out of work too. So why do California Latinos support illegals? Loyalty to La Raza. Your race trumps your pocketbook if you’re a Chicano? Wow.

Treason Lobby Does Damage Control On Birthright Citizenship

This article was originally posted on VDARE. I am reposting it here for your edification. I don’t agree with everything here. For instance, I support the education of illegal alien kids, and I support treatment of illegal aliens in emergency rooms.

By Washington Watcher

The Treason Lobby is getting very nervous about the issue of birthright citizenship—the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that gives U.S. citizenship to everyone born in the U.S., including the children of illegal aliens.

Arizona State Senator Edward Schumacher-Matos, an immigrant (formerly illegal) from Colombia; and libertarian Steve Chapman, respectively.

Both appear to be getting their misinformation from the same talking points, as their columns were nearly identical. [Denying citizenship for illegal immigrants’ children is a bad idea, by Edward Schumacher-Matos, Washington Post, June 27, 2010. Citizenship Should Remain a Birthright, by Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune, June 27, 2010.]

As Americans wake up to the problem of birthright citizenship, we can expect to see these same falsehoods repeated over and over—just like the mindless mantras that infest the immigration enforcement debate, such as you can’t deport 12 million people and “illegal immigrants are doing the jobs Americans won’t do.


Myth 1: The term “Anchor Baby” is improper, because you cannot sponsor your parents until you are 21.

Chapman [Email him] writes:

“True, an undocumented adult can be sponsored for a resident visa by a citizen child—but not till the kid reaches age 21. To imagine that Mexicans are risking their lives crossing the border in 2010 to gain legal status in 2031 assumes they put an excessive weight on the distant future.”

WW refutation: Given U.S. failure to enforce immigration law, it is not unreasonable for an illegal alien to assume that they can live here illegally for 21 years and then receive sponsorship from their US Citizen children.

Indeed, I could accuse Chapman of racism for assuming that Mexicans have short time horizons—Seattle Public Schools list having long time horizons as a form of “cultural racism”.

However, it is not family sponsorship that makes the children of illegal aliens “anchor babies”—it’s the fact that it then becomes incredibly difficult to remove their parents.

You need only look at the Treason lobby’s own rhetoric about how enforcing our immigration laws is tearing families apart to see how birthright citizenship is used as a way to prevent enforcement against the illegal alien parents. President Obama was at it again in his recent immigration speech—he specifically said we cannot deport illegal aliens because

“it would tear at the very fabric of this nation—because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens.”

Of course family reunification can occur on both sides of the border. But the anchor baby provision is an enormous incentive for illegal aliens to stay here.

In fact, of course, propaganda aside, American immigration law specifically allows for exceptions in the case of “extreme hardship” caused by deportations.

Indeed, immigration lawyer Bruce Hake [Email him] has created the “The Hake Hardship Scale: A Quantitative System For Assessment Of Hardship In Immigration Cases Based On A Statistical Analysis Of AAO [USCIS Administrative Appeals Office] Decisions” for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Hake assigned points to various “hardships” that an illegal alien could appeal on.

In general, a score of 10 would be successful. Hake gave five points for the first US citizen child, and another for each child thereafter. [The Hake Hardship Scale: A Quantitative System For Assessment Of Hardship In Immigration Cases Based On A Statistical Analysis Of AAO Decisions, by Bruce A. Hake and David L. Banks, Immigration & Nationality Law Handbook, 2004]

With enough creativity and a few dollars, an immigration lawyer can try to make even one anchor baby reason enough. To get an idea of how this works, the Forensic Psychology Group’s website gives examples of different types of “expert testimony” they can provide at immigration hearings.

“In extreme and exceptional hardship cases, if one parent has to leave the United States, it can produce a separation anxiety disorder on the part of the child left behind. Some children, especially those who are very young and lack the emotional maturity to understand why a parent might have to leave the United States, might also develop a depressive disorder.” [Immigration Law, Forensic Psychology Group.]

And if that child is also a US citizen, it becomes a pretty substantial anchor to prevent deportation.

Moreover, the same supporters of birthright citizenship are trying to make it even more difficult to deport illegal alien parents of anchor babies. Solomon Ortiz’s (D-TX) Comprehensive Immigration Reform ASAP Act of 2009, which has over 100 co-sponsors, moves from “extreme hardship” exceptions to Peter Brimelow’s 1996 anti-immigration screed, Alien Nation, found that 15 percent of new Hispanic mothers whose babies were born in Southern California hospitals said they came over the border to give birth, with 25 percent of that group saying they did so to gain citizenship for the child. But this evidence actually contradicts the claim.

It means that 96 percent of these women were not lured by the desire to have an ‘anchor baby.’”

WW refutation: Once again, I could accuse Chapman of being “racist” for falsely assuming that every single Hispanic woman in Southern California is an illegal alien. Of illegal aliens, the number is necessarily much greater than

Schumacher-Matos writes:

“Pregnant Mexican women from border towns do commonly cross just to have a baby in the United States. But their extended families have often straddled the border for a century or more. The women tend to be middle class, pre-pay the hospitals in cash and go home, though their children can someday return.”

I do not see how Mexican citizens choosing to have their child born in the US, just so it will have to option to immigrate here in the future, is any less of reason to oppose birthright citizenship.

Schumacher-Matos [Email him] acknowledges that a “A handful of tourists do the same, but the total of all these is minuscule.” As usual, there are no good statistics on just how many people come to the country to give birth, but we do know it’s far from “miniscule”. There is an entire birth tourism industry complete with hotels specifically for pregnant women to have US citizen children.

Schumacher-Matos continues:

“Significant are the 4 million children in 2008 with one or more unauthorized immigrant parents spread throughout the country, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Repeated studies, however, show that their parents came for jobs or to join family. The children were normal byproducts of life, and not an immigration strategy.”

But no one is arguing that birthright citizenship is the only reason why illegal aliens come here, or even why they stay. Nevertheless, when we have somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens living in our country, a few percentage points has a lot of consequences.


Myth 3: Birthright citizenship has repeatedly been upheld by the courts, and was the intention of the drafters of the 14th Amendment.

Chapman claims that ending birthright citizenship “overthrows two centuries of legislative intent and court rulings” Both he and Schumacher-Matos mention the Plyler vs. Doe case, forcing school districts to accept illegal alien children, as an example.

WW refutation: In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment is Reconstruction legislation and therefore less than 150 years old.

Plyler was a terrible decision. But it did not rule on the issue of birthright citizenship—merely on public education for illegal aliens. It did, as Chapman and Schumacher-Matos note, state that the illegal aliens fit under the Jurisdiction Clause of the 14th Amendment. But it is up to future Supreme Court justices to decide exactly how far they wish to take it.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court was much more liberal when it ruled in 5-4 in Plyler than it is today. Even Sandra Day O’Connor voted against the illegal aliens in that case.

Chapman also alludes to the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But this dealt with a legal permanent Chinese immigrant, not an illegal alien.

Schumacher-Matos goes back further to the actual debates over the Citizenship Clause:

“Go back… and read the transcripts of the 1866 debate in the Senate and you find that both those for and against the amendment readily acknowledged its application to illegal immigrants. A Pennsylvania senator [Edgar Cowan], for example, objected to granting citizenship to the children of aliens who regularly commit ‘trespass’ within the United States. The concern then was with babies of gypsy or Chinese parents.

“But Congress and the ratifying states opted instead to uphold a founding principle of the republic that was fundamental to the peaceful building of a multiethnic immigrant nation, however imperfectly. In a world plagued by bloody ethnic conflicts, that concern remains valid.”

Here, Schumacher-Matos falsely implies that the Amendment passed over these objections. But in fact Cowan’s objections were satisfied by Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time. He explained that the Citizenship Clause

“will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

(WW emphasis).

Trumbull continued:

“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ … What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Keep in mind that Schumacher-Matos argues in the same column that it is perfectly unobjectionable for Mexicans who plan on staying in Mexico themselves to go across the border so that their children can have US Citizenship.

Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan who wrote the Citizenship Clause was even clearer stating the Amendment

“will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” [Amicus Brief No. 03-6696, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, Center for American Unity]


Myth 4: Anchor Babies do not receive any additional welfare

Chapman writes: “Some of the main benefits available to undocumented foreigners, such as emergency room care and public education for children, don’t require them to have a U.S. citizen child. Illegal immigrant parents are ineligible for welfare, Medicaid, food stamps and the like. They can be deported.”

WW refutation: Chapman here debunks his own argument (as well as the libertarian cliché “Don’t end immigration, end the welfare state!”).

Of course, he is correct that the biggest fiscal drain caused by illegal aliens is education and hospital Emergency Rooms, which the courts have unfortunately made off limits. But this is an argument against further illegal immigration—because it overcrowds our schools and shuts down our hospitals—not an argument against birthright citizenship.

Nevertheless, although illegal aliens drain our economy through jails, hospitals and education, anchor babies can still further break our budgets in ways that illegal aliens cannot.

As Chapman notes, illegal aliens are barred from most federal means tested benefits under the 1996 Welfare Reforms.

However, their US citizen children are still eligible for these programs. And our welfare system is especially tilted to benefit those who are young and poor. Anchor babies ipso facto fit the former. According to the Pew Hispanic Center over 1/3 are living at or below the poverty level.

Additionally, the massive Obamacare overhaul specifically benefits anchor babies and their families. While illegal aliens are ostensibly ineligible for the “Affordability Credits”, insurance is based on families. According to Pew Hispanic, there are 8.8 million people in “mixed families” with US citizen children and illegal alien parents. According to the Congressional Research Service,

“it appears that the Health Choices Commissioner would be responsible for determining how the credits would be administered in the case of mixed-status families.” [Is the Congressional Research Service Making ‘False Claims’ Too? by Mark Kirkorian, Center for Immigration Studies, August 26, 2009]


Myth 5: Ending birthright citizenship would be difficult to implement.

According to Schumacher-Matos, “Abrogating birthright citizenship additionally would create practical chaos. All Americans would have to prove their citizenship. Birth certificates would no longer do. Yet we lack a national registry of who is a citizen.”

WW refutation: This is perhaps the silliest objection of all. No one is calling for retroactively stripping anyone’s citizenship, so birth certificates issued prior to the law would suffice as proof of citizenship.

And it does not take much of an imagination to come up with a simple non-chaotic way for birth certificates to be issued after birthright citizenship is abolished. There could be a separate birth certificate issued to children of US citizens and Legal Permanent Residents; or there could just be a box that says “US Citizen” that could be checked on the Birth Certificate.

There is a danger that, if Obama is serious about pursuing comprehensive immigration reformas Peter Brimelow has suggested, the birthright citizenship debate might end up getting put on the backburner by the Patriotic Immigration Reform movement. It has succeeded in defeating two amnesties and it will want to defeat this one.

But the hard truth is that the Patriotic Immigration Reform movement has made little progress getting any proactive changes in policy.

Arizona’s SB 1070 put the Treason Lobby in the corner. They are trying to fight back by throwing an amnesty back at us.

Instead of being content with stopping the amnesty again, we need to keep pushing forward with

  • more state laws;
  • a moratorium on immigration, and
  • abolition of birthright citizenship.

If we want to stop amnesty, and the destruction of the historic American nation, the best defense is a strong offense.

“Washington Watcher” [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.

Source: VDARE.com.

Race Does Not Exist

Click to enlarge. Nigerians or Africans (no such thing) in light blue. Europeans or Caucasians (no such thing) in green and red. Asians (no such thing) in purple and blue. The nonexistent entities called Africans, Asians and Europeans are demonstrated in this chart. These constructs do not exist, nor do they differ from each other. That they seem to be plotting quite distinctly on this chart is simply an optical illusion. If you disagree, you are a racist scum and hopefully soon we will even be able to arrest you.

As you can see from this chart made by some racist mad scientist, race is clearly a social construct. His research violated the new Law of Political Correctness, and agents are shutting down his lab as I write this.

Race is clearly a social construct. But it’s a social construct with some powerful attributes. There have been wild and violent wars and battles between various social constructs around the world. These are termed social construct conflicts, social construct wars and social construct violence. The old terms ethnic conflict, ethnic warfare and ethnic violence are no longer acceptable and use of them is de facto evidence of racism. Use of those terms is considered such strong evidence of racism that it is even admissible in a court of Race Law.

Occasionally US cities erupt with what are called social construct riots, in which various social constructs try to destroy and burn down their cities for unknown reasons. Research into these riots has been banned because the social constructs involved were undefinable and do not even in fact exist. Recently there was the Rodney King Social Construct Riot. Before that, there were the Watts Social Construct Riots of 1965 and other famous Social Construct Riots in Detroit, Newark and other places.

These riots can be violent. Sometimes persons of one social construct will even attack persons of another social construct during these riots. How they know how or even why to attack someone of another construct is unknown, because there is no way to determine anyone’s particular construct, since the whole concept is all imaginary anyway.

Idiot Latino Politician Wants to Boycott Arizona, But Can’t Find it on a Map

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQp8M0bkarM]

I actually feel sorry for this woman, because, her stupid Latino tribal politics aside, she’s a good liberal Democratic Supervisor from Milwaukee. There are also a lot of comments calling her fat, but for an Hispanic woman of her age or so, she’s not really fat. She’s just normal. Past a certain age, fat is simply normal for US Hispanic women. The Hispanic guys could care less, and past a certain age, most of them are fat too.

Latino bullshit politics aside, I like Latino politicians, and here in California, I usually just go down the list on my ballot and vote for all the Latinos and against all the Whites, because the Latinos are always liberal, and the Whites are usually conservatards. If she was running in my area, I would probably vote for her, in spite of the fact that she’s stupid. Have some sympathy for stupid! Come on! If you start hating all the stupid people, you’ll hardly have anyone to talk to, and you’ll be home alone, smarty pants! And what’s so smart about being a shut-in?

On the other hand, I want to whop my liberal sister over the head with something, maybe a frozen burrito.

Here she is at a Milwaukee county meeting arguing that the county should boycott Arizona because Arizona is being all mean to her good folks. And hey, it’s true.

But halfway through the spiel, she has a stupid attack. She declares that Arizona’s law would make sense if Arizona was on the border with Mexico, but since Arizona is quite a ways from the Mexico border, the law is simply outrageous. Yeah, Arizona is quite a ways from the Mexican border, sure. For hundreds of miles, it’s like zero inches from Mexico! She even suggests that people use Google to check out about the law. She should have used Google herself to figure out how to read a damn map of her own damned country.

Later, a Republican White dude chimes in to give her a geography lesson and say that he supports Arizona Whites cracking down on Mexican burrito-biters, I mean illegal aliens.

I wanted to do a face palm when I saw that. I actually cringed. This is so embarrassing. It’s like someone went down to the local Taco Bell and picked up some random Latina, threw her in front of the podium and asked her to give a retarded speech. OK, so she’s fat, stupid and liberal. It could be worse. She could be fat, stupid and conservative. Then she could change her name to Rushette Limbaugh and get her own radio show.

My dear liberal politicians, please do your homework if you’re going to give a speech. The conservatards have practically cornered the market on stupid, so how are we going to beat them? Do stupid at a loss and drive them out of the stupid business? Give it up.

I wonder why she couldn’t find the state of Arizona on a map. Maybe it wasn’t on the map. Just look at her. Maybe she ate the state of Arizona. She looks like she could have.

There, I made a fat joke!

Sorry hun. Lay off the chimichangas hermana, and keep the liberal faith. Si se puede!

How Black and Hispanic “Values” Clash with White Middle Class Upbringing

Referring to the video here, a commenter disagrees that the people on the show were out of line to ask the White woman why she won’t date Blacks. He also denies that they said she was racist:

One again, did he actually use the word racist? I listened to that dialogue again and I did not hear it. At 8:48 he says something like “well that…” and then it becomes intelligible. Then all I could hear is “why?”

I also heard him say, “not everybody is going to be attracted to the opposite race…” We’ll forget for the moment that there’s no such thing as “an opposite race”, but he did seem to acknowledge that some will just prefer their own. All he asked is why.

1. They didn’t need to say she was racist. It was implied.

2. They should not have asked her why in the first place. I mean, in White culture, you ask a question like that, and people will look at you like, “What the Hell kind of question is that!?” And everyone can read that body language.

You know, I was not brought up that way. Would I ask some Black woman to go out with me (assuming I wanted to take her out), then badger her if she didn’t want to, then ask her why, then say she was racist for not dating me? I mean, in the White bread world I was brought up in, that is like the nadir of outrageous, audacious rudeness. You’re not “acting White.” You’re “acting like a nigger.”

But Black guys do this all the time. Ask White women out, badger them when they say no, then say they are racist for saying no.

Do you realize what White middle class socialization is like? We are brought up, and there’s like a million rules about every little stinking thing. It drives you mad just to keep track of them all the time and not be constantly violating them. Chronic violation of the rules leads to ostracization, rejection, not getting hired, firings, all kinds of bad shit. So you learn or you’re an outcast.

Violation of a lot of these rules, it is implied, is called, “Acting like a Black or a Mexican.” IOW, it’s low class. White people don’t act that way. Or, good White people don’t act that way. Trailer trash? Sure, but they’re hardly White. They are barely above the Blacks and the Mexicans. In some cases, worse.

In fact, even in White liberal environments, you will hear people say, often laughing, “Don’t do that! That’s not the White thing to do.” “That’s not White. That’s not a White way of acting.” That’s what, “Hey, that’s mighty White of you!” means. It means you are acting like an upstanding White person.

Now. Is there an implied supremacism behind that? Sure. But if supremacism is what it takes to get your group to act good, I say go for it. I would love it if Blacks would shame their kids who act bad, saying, “Don’t do that! You’re acting like a White person! How disgusting! Act like a proud Black person instead.” Indeed, this is part of the Afrocentrist mindset.

Now, maybe Blacks think we are a bunch of uptight nerds who keep dropping turds in the punch bowl and spoiling all the fun. Perhaps we are, I have no idea.

But I’m pointing this out to show you how profoundly offensive a lot of Black and even Hispanic behavior is to White bread, middle class suburban Whites. I mean, you were brought up that you don’t do these 100,000 and one things on near penalty of death. Then you see non-Whites not only doing this stuff, but doing it unapologetically, refusing to apologize when called on it, and even seeming to glory in it.

It’s so offensive to us it’s beyond words. It’s appalling.

Very Interesting Black Blog

Jamila.

Been checking it out lately. It’s quite amazing.

I figured the author was Black, but the writing was so bright and the person so well-read that I started to wonder, a function of my liberal racism. “Are you sure this person is really Black? I mean, they’re so smart!” So I went looking for evidence that the author was really Black.

I finally found it, but then they said they were wearing a dress in that photo. Huh? Because along with the Black hypothesis, I also assumed the author was male. Because the writing was so good and especially the thinking was so bright and erudite in that, you know, male way. That’s my liberal sexism. “This writing is so smart and good. No way it’s a chick!”

So I followed the link to their Facebook page and lo and behold, a Black woman, and not an academic looking one either, a young, pretty fun-looking one!

What’s really strange is the link list. There’s me (that’s how I found it), some Black woman blogs (including the awesome What About Our Daughters?), some super-feminist blogs, then the other extreme – some Men’s Rights Activist, masculinist and PUA blogs, then some race realist blogs, then some libertarian sites. Huh? Huh? Huh?

Reading around, she’s also sympathetic to race realism, which is really strange coming from her type, or really any Black blogger. Sensibly sympathetic to it, and taking some of the usual Blacks who are trying to tear it to pieces. She has an excellent review of Michael Levin’s Why Race Matters book. Levin is actually not a bad person, and his heart is in the heart place. I wonder if he’s a Liberal Race Realist at heart.

What’s weird is that to some extent, with all of her strange contradictions, she’s a bit of a Black female mirror image of me!

Very strange site. Very strange. But good stuff!

Anti-White Hate Propaganda on a British Talk Show

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkXogn8Oeo]

That video is really pissing me off. It’s a British talk show about White women who are with Black guys. They interview a bunch of White women who prefer Black guys to White men. The Black guys, as a rule, are the well-behaved types that my friends and I call “White Blacks” – i.e., they act like White people.

We learn so many fascinating facts from these silly dames.

Black men are better in bed than White men. White men are lousy in bed. WTH?

Black men treat women better than White men. I can tell you right off that in my experience, that is not true.

Also notice at the end of the video, the one White woman who says she would not date a Black man, in fact – if he was the last man on Earth even – notice the propaganda here. They interviewed five White women who prefer Black men to White men, and one White woman who felt the opposite way; if you’re a moron, which most people are, the logical conclusion is that 8

Also notice how the “White Black” guy argues with the White woman who refuses to date Blacks and implies that she is a racist for having this opinion. Utterly sickening.

But this is what Black men and boys always do. In schools where there are many Blacks and Whites, this is the line the hyper-sexually aggressive Black boys use with the White girls. If the girl says she won’t go out with them, they badger and badger her about it, endlessly accusing her of being racist. After all, the only reason she could resist his irresistible Black Big Cock Godliness is racism, right?

Sadly, many White women are weak and stupid, and Cultural Marxism worsens these problems, so this lame line – “You won’t date me because I’m racist!” – actually works, incredibly enough.

I’m shocked that Black males would stoop so low as to use this line. If a Black woman would not go out with me, I would hardly accuse her of being racist! How rude can you get? I was brought in a civilized, mannered, White middle class environment, and a lot of stuff is just beyond the pale rude. Especially calling someone racist because they won’t date your sorry ass. How pitiful can you get?

I have known many White women who had relationships with Black men. Some even preferred Black guys. In the case of every single woman where they had a kid, the Black man had taken off, nowhere to be seen.

This is the typical scene. Single White or Hispanic Mom, or she has a new guy. The Black guy made one or more kids with her, then he took off. If you ask the child, he’s either mad at or indifferent to his absent Black father. Ask the woman, and the father is nowhere to be seen. He’s vanished from the Earth, takes no interest in his offspring.

In addition, the Black men were far more likely than White men to abuse, verbally and physically, imprison, browbeat, keep at home, rape, rob, steal from, and of course cheat on the White woman. I can’t think of one single case where the guy did not do at least one of these things. What I have seen, Black men treat White women appallingly worse than White men do.

Are there cases that are not like this? I assume so, just never met any. If I knew a White woman who was involved with a Black guy and thinking of marrying or having kids with him, I would recommend that she not do that. As evidence, I would cite the experience of the women I know who had relationships with Black men.

Was the sex great? Who knows, maybe it was. Did they treat these women better than White guys? Are you kidding? For White women, Black men may well be a fun ride for a bit. As far as marrying them or having kids with them, the odds are not on your side.

Evidence for Environmental Effects on IQ

The hereditarians are flat out wrong on IQ. They always say that there is an environmental effect on IQ, but then whenever you show them any evidence of it, they immediately shoot it down. There are few hereditarian researchers on IQ who actually acknowledge evidence for an environmental effect on IQ.

Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton and the snide, upper class, snooty, antisocial atavists over at Gene Expression lead the pack. Since nearly the entire HBD/race realist sphere follows the line of Jensen and Rushton, nearly this entire sphere has rejected all evidence for a direct effect of the environment on IQ. Every time we show them they evidence, they shoot it down.

Nearly all White racists and especially White nationalists reject all evidence for an environmental effect on IQ and shoot down any evidence they throw up.

White nationalists have a lot at stake in this debate.

White nationalism is founded on the idea that European Whites are a genetically superior race, and most of the other races, including Blacks, Bushmen, Pygmies, Eskimos, Amerindians, mestizos, mulattos, Polynesians, Melanesians, Micronesians, Southeast Asians, Papuans, Aborigines and Negritos are all quite genetically inferior in intelligence.

They also throw in all non-European Whites as genetically inferior in brains, including Arabs, North Africans, Iranians, Afghans, East Indians and the people of the Stans. Since most White nationalists are Nordicists, Southern Europeans and the people of the Caucasus are also thrown in as intellectually genetically inferior.

There isn’t much evidence for this, as Southern Europeans and the people of the Caucasus in general have IQ’s that are quite high. Furthermore, Eskimo and Maori IQ is high. The IQ’s of many groups in the US, including Mexicans, East Indians and Africans, are also quite high.

When we suggest that there are environmental effects on IQ, we shoot down their whole theory of genetic intellectual superiority and upset their whole theoretical worldview.

But there is quite a bit of evidence for environmental effects on IQ.

Wild IQ rises in the 20th century, mostly in the developed world, are impossible to explain by genetics.

The much higher IQ of US Blacks as opposed to other Blacks is hard to explain by genetics, though WN’s and the Gene Expression authors never tire of retarded explanations. The WN explanation for the 20 pt difference between US and African Black IQ is that it is explained by White blood in US Blacks. This explanation is retarded as it can only explain 4.5 points of the gap, leaving the other 15.5 points unexplained.

The Gene Expression folks say that African IQ is artificially lowered by malnutrition (they invoke environment only when it suits their hereditarian bias and reject it the rest of the time). Therefore, normative Black IQ is 80, and US Black IQ of 87 is also explained by White blood. But there is no evidence for their theory.

The White nationalists and their HBD buddies also pour cold water on the Flynn Effect showing massive IQ rises in the 20th Century. According to them, while IQ has actually increased, real intelligence has not gone up one single iota. The FE IQ’s are not on some BS called “g intelligence,” therefore they are nothing, meaningless ephemera. People are not getting smarter at all, not even

For instance there have been 22 different studies of IQ and breastfeeding, all the way up to age 50. All of these studies found cognitive benefits from breastfeeding. On the contrary, hereditarians recently championed one study that found no de novo effect for breastfeeding on IQ. Instead, the differences were tied up with mother’s IQ’s. That is, smarter mothers breastfed more and stupider ones did not. I will take 22 studies over one any day. (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 128)

The effects of nutritional supplementation in pregnancy on IQ of offspring have been studied.

Nutritional supplementation in pregnancy and later supplementation of children has been shown to have effects at age 24 in Guatemala (1980) and age 18 in Mexico (1982). Mexican boys improved on IQ, and Guatemalans improved on a range of cognitive and achievement outcomes. (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 124)

Lead levels in blood have a strong effect on IQ, leading to declines of up to 10-15 points. There is a clear cause effect relationship between blood levels and IQ. Blood lead levels are higher in Blacks than in Whites, because Blacks tend to liver in older dilapidated housing that has lead paint. Black children apparently ingest the paint chips somehow.

Iron level in the blood also effects IQ. consistently shown that malnutrition leads to low IQ and antisocial behavior in childhood. Iron deficiency is quite high in US Blacks and Hispanics.

One controlled study found that children who were severely malnourished in childhood ended up with IQ’s of 84 when returned to the home, 82 when institutionalized and 97 when adopted away (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 123).

A study in South Africa showed that intensive courses in college teaching Black college students the types of intelligence that are tested for on IQ tests quickly raised IQ’s from 83 to 97. Students were generally aged 18-22, above the age where environment is said to effect IQ. Even Philippe Rushton agreed that scores went up in this study, but he had some retarded reason why this had no effect on his hereditarian theories (Rushton and Jensen 2005).

It is a common canard among White nationalist and hereditarian circles that all early intervention programs designed to raise IQ have not been able to do so. It’s true that they often do not raise IQ, but they have other benefits. What matters is whether these programs are cost-effective or not.

Yet some very intensive programs have been successful. The Abecedarian and Perry Preschool projects (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 108) showed long-term rises in achievement scores lasting all the way into adolescence. Abecedarian found rises of 4.5 IQ points all the way into adulthood. The problem is that Abecedarian was quite expensive. Whether 4 point IQ gains could occur in large populations given this treatment and whether this would be cost-effective is not known.

References

Rushton, J. Philippe and Arthur R., Jensen. 2005. Wanted: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Vol. 11, No. 2, 328–336.

Sternberg, Robert J. and Grigorenko, Elena. 1971. Environmental Effects on Cognitive Abilities. New York: Routledge Psychology Press.

Negros in Negroland: A Fascinating Book

I have been spending the past few days thumbing through this amazing 268 page book, written in 1868 by a very racist White Southerner, an unabashed White Supremacist. Keep in mind that back in those days though, White Supremacy was simply normative for nearly all US Whites.

The impetus for this book comes out of the Radical Republican attempts at Reconstruction, which were, it is true, a disaster. Incompetent and uneducated Blacks were put in positions of power over Whites all over the South during this period, with catastrophic effects. It was not unusual to find Black judges, mayors, sheriffs, police officers, supervisors, etc., who could not even read or write. The object here was simply to humiliate the Southern Whites.

Blacks roamed all over the South aimlessly. Many, knowing nothing else, retreated to the plantations where they had been slaves, this time asking for wage labor. Encampments of them on their old plantations were not uncommon. Many others resorted to crime, often stealing only food to eat. There were many shootings by Southern Whites of Black criminals.

The South was in ruins, and Radical policy only added to the chaos. The finest of Southern White manhood was dead, wounded or hobbling around as amputees. Blacks had freedom but had not the faintest idea of what to do with it.

By the time this book was written, 1868, the Ku Klux Klan had just been formed and was beginning already to ride the torched night. Terrorist attacks on Blacks and White Radicals were growing. The North had just fought a horrible war with the South and was full of the dead and hobbling wounded themselves.

The intent of the Radicals was to humiliate the South in the traditional fashion of ancient man in war, exemplified by the Greeks.

It didn’t work.

Violent Southern reaction only produced disgust from an exhausted North. Soon after this book was written, Radical Reconstruction was ended or amended, and most troops had pulled out of the South. The North was washing their hands of the exasperating South and saying the Hell with them, moving on to their own affairs.

In the decades after this book was written, reactionary retrenchment set in, and much of the progressive changes for Southern Blacks were undone. It was not a full retreat to slavery, but it was a reaction back to Jim Crow, merely one step above.

Bearing in mind the era in which this book was written, its thesis is understandable. The author was actually a liberal for his time, as he was a Southerner who had long opposed slavery as a counterproductive and dying institution.

His solution to the Negro Question was Back to Africa, which seems racist to us, but was actually a progressive position at the time, even embraced by Lincoln. The attitude was similar to that of Herzl’s The Jewish State, where he stated that European anti-Semitism was incorrigible due to the behavior of both parties, and a divorce was the only way out.

The Back to Africa crowd had a similar mindset. Black and White in the US were interminably opposed, and Whites would never cut Blacks a square deal.

Back to Palestine in the case of the Jews, back to Africa for the Africans.

The full title of this book is The Negroes in Negroland, the Negroes in America, and Negroes Generally, also, the Several Races of White Men, Considered the Involuntary and Predestined Supplanters of the Black Races, a Compilation by Hinton Rowan Helper, a Rational Republican, Author of The Impending Crisis of the South, Nojoque, and Other Writings in Behalf of a Free and White America.

The book recites a voluminous amount of literature from early White explorers to Africa in an attempt to prove Black (apparently genetic) inferiority. His object in proving Black inferiority is to show what a crime it is to put an inferior race over a superior one in the South, and to show that inferior Blacks will never be able to succeed in America and will only degrade the country.

The various chapters on Africa were selected for the unflattering portrayal of Africans by explorers. I do not think that the explorers were making this stuff up. Indeed, Africans were living in a state of profound and debased barbarian savagery.

But so were many primitive peoples including Polynesians, Melanesians, Papuans and many Amerindian tribes.

The only lesson that can be drawn here is that Hobbes was correct about the barbaric nature of uncivilized man and his short, nasty and brutish lot.

The question arises whether the debasement of Africans was due to their genes or their culture. I suppose the best answer is both. However, reading through this, it immediately becomes clear that no matter how messed up Africa is today, Africa is immensely more civilized than it was 150 year ago. African Americans have gone much further, and do not resemble this picture much at all, although you can see hints of it in many places.

Africans’ genes have not changed much in 150 years, so much of their debased savagery must have been cultural. African Americans have actually changed genetically in the US in addition to undergoing massive cultural change whereby they lost most of their African culture and gained an American one.

One thing that I found interesting what that this very racist man actually quoted many explorers who said that quite a few African women were beautiful, and it would stand to reason that a White man could want one. They even said that African women made good wives. However, they noted that the African woman was coarse and lacked many of the finer civilized nuances of a White woman.

In particular, one notes the casual terror and murderousness of African life, the omnipresence of death and dead bodies, the minimal nature of mourning in which the dead are soon nonchalantly forgotten, the lack of compassion, romantic love and the other finer sentiments.

This got me to thinking as a race realist where US Blacks retain these qualities. In particular, White observers in Africa today remark that Blacks do not seem to have a White understanding of romantic love.

However, I know that Alpha Unit on this site has all of the finer sentiments that any White woman could have, and more so, honestly. The Black commenters on here, male and female, seem to display the finer sentiments of adequately civilized humans.

I was struck on Abagond’s site how similar the educated Black women on there were to White women in their understanding and desire for romantic love. Perhaps it’s a function of IQ or education. At any rate, I do not think that US Blacks in general, or Black women in particular, are in general lacking in the finer sentiments of romantic love vis a vis Whites.

The casualness of death and lack of compassion in these accounts was also striking, as was any lack of a real mourning period after death. This got me to wondering if US Blacks were deficient in this regard.

However, I have seen and heard many older Black mothers on TV and radio who still mourn for their dead or imprisoned children, some years after the fact. I have seen interviews where Black women in their 40’s and 50’s still keep the dead son’s room decorated with his photos and things and weep on camera for his death even 10-20 years after the fact. Although rationally one should argue that humans ought to get over it, extended and passionate mourning is definitely a finer sentiment and a sign of high civilization.

The thievery, wanton dishonesty and shocking amorality of Africans in this book is frightening. Surely, US Blacks are on average less honest, more thieving and more amoral than US Whites.

However, in this book, nearly every African encountered is essentially a laughing, guiltless, casual and amoral thief. That’s not the case with US Blacks. Many are bad, but many others are very honest to a fault, even moreso than you or me. Many US Blacks have highly developed consciences and even strong guilt complexes. I’ve even met some with the ultimate guilt neurosis, OCD.

What I am getting at here is that a lot of this shocking debasement, savagery and barbarianism of early Africa, which might seem at first to be genetic, is largely cultural. I don’t know much about Africans and Caribbeans today, but US Blacks are tremendously more civilized in their personalities and behavior than the Africans of 150 years ago.

The level of barbarism or civilization in a group often has more to do with culture than genes.

It’s Not Helpful to Arguments About Black Mental Inferiority…

When even the Black leadership acts like a bunch of retards.

Seriously? The NAACP can’t tell the difference between planetary “black holes” and “Black ho’s'”?

Someone needs to stop these Black people before they make fools out of themselves some more.

What’s worse is that Hallmark is vying with the NAACP for the Retardation Olympics and they actually pulled the card. That or Hallmark is afraid of being on the losing end of the Ghetto Lottery (I mean a fake civil rights lawsuit).

The NAACP used to be a standup organization. Now it just seems like they sit around all day and look for stuff to get pissed off about. Must be fun I guess.

The NAACP is getting more useless by the day. Someone ought to sue the NAACP on behalf of the sane people in the nation for wasting so much of our precious time with stupid bullshit.

As an aside, is this why there are so few Blacks in the US space program? They keep misinterpreting astronomical terms as racial slurs?

People wonder why Whites don’t like Blacks. Well, here’s one reason right here, hate to say it.

This behavior is not flattering in the least.

“Who Owns the Restaurant?” by Alpha Unit

Go into almost any business, particularly a restaurant, and you might see a posting that reads, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” This is perfectly lawful.

But you can’t refuse service for just any old reason. The government said so. You can’t refuse to serve someone because he’s Black. Or Jewish. Or White. Or because she’s a woman. Or disabled. Or Muslim.

The federal government says that you can’t refuse service on the basis of:

  1. race
  2. color
  3. religion
  4. national origin
  5. age
  6. sex
  7. familial status
  8. disability status
  9. veteran status

You can’t. That’s all there is to it.

“Well, I own the restaurant!” you declare. “Why can’t I decide who I will and won’t serve, however I want to?”

You own the restaurant, but the government lets you own it, you see. The government decides what you have to do to be able to own it and to keep owning it. Government-created infrastructure and government-mandated regulation of commerce make it possible for you to be in business.

The government’s got its hands all over and all into your restaurant. (It’s got its hand in the till, too.)

It gets to tell you how you can run your restaurant. That includes laying down the rules for refusing service.

“This is government going too far!” you and Rand Paul might insist. Maybe. Government has a way of doing that.

Somebody is always thinking that the government’s gone too far. And somebody is always thinking that it hasn’t gone far enough. One act of government can create both criticisms!

No matter what it does, somebody’s not going to like it. Guaranteed.

"Who Owns the Restaurant?" by Alpha Unit

Go into almost any business, particularly a restaurant, and you might see a posting that reads, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” This is perfectly lawful. But you can’t refuse service for just any old reason. The government said so. You can’t refuse to serve someone because he’s Black. Or Jewish. Or White. Or because she’s a woman. Or disabled. Or Muslim. The federal government says that you can’t refuse service on the basis of:

  1. race
  2. color
  3. religion
  4. national origin
  5. age
  6. sex
  7. familial status
  8. disability status
  9. veteran status

You can’t. That’s all there is to it. “Well, I own the restaurant!” you declare. “Why can’t I decide who I will and won’t serve, however I want to?” You own the restaurant, but the government lets you own it, you see. The government decides what you have to do to be able to own it and to keep owning it. Government-created infrastructure and government-mandated regulation of commerce make it possible for you to be in business. The government’s got its hands all over and all into your restaurant. (It’s got its hand in the till, too.) It gets to tell you how you can run your restaurant. That includes laying down the rules for refusing service. “This is government going too far!” you and Rand Paul might insist. Maybe. Government has a way of doing that. Somebody is always thinking that the government’s gone too far. And somebody is always thinking that it hasn’t gone far enough. One act of government can create both criticisms! No matter what it does, somebody’s not going to like it. Guaranteed.

The Agenda of the Racial Hereditarians

Almost all of the leading hereditarian race researchers have come out saying that they want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws. The reasoning is clear. If it can be proven that Blacks are genetically stupider than Whites, then clearly, people ought to have the right to discriminate against them, right? Anyway, that’s how their thinking goes.

A lot of these folks have recently been taking this further. Jason Malloy of Gene Expression spent some time trying to put together an argument that lower Black IQ made Blacks inferior employees. The conclusions are ominous. If we can scientifically prove that Blacks are worse employees, then the logical thing to do would be to discriminate against them.

But their arguments are not as good as they seem. Let’s take a look at them. First of all, are South African IQ scores valid? Yes, it appears that they are.

In South Africa it was found that job performance correlated with IQ. A Black with a 70 IQ performed the same as a White with 70 IQ, and a White with 115 IQ performed the same as a Black with 115 IQ. That is, based on this study, IQ scores for Black South Africans appear to be valid.

This study is used to claim that Black-White job performance differences are caused by lower Black IQ.

But this is not what the study proved at all. Black job performance, if caused by low Black IQ, would have to be over 1 Standard Deviations (SD) (maybe 1.3 SD) below White. Instead, Black job performance is .33 SD below Whites. Black lower job performance is not very much lower than Whites anyway, does not correlate well with Black IQ. In other words, Blacks perform far better on the job than would be predicted by their IQ scores.

From the study:

Black-White differences on job performance are rather small and much smaller than would be predicted based on IQ differentials.Main Effects

The results of this study reinforce some beliefs and change others. For Black-White comparisons, the overall results show a standardized ethnic group difference for job performance ratings of approximately one third of a standard deviation (when corrected for criterion reliability), and this is quite similar to Kraiger and Ford (1985).

We also had similar results for one of three types of performance measures used by J. K. Ford et al. (1986). Specifically, we found larger d’s associated with objective measures of job knowledge than with subjective measures of job knowledge.

Furthermore, Black-White wage gap is far worse than predicted based on B-W IQ gap. This is important because the hereditarians are going to say that Blacks make less money because they are worse workers, and they are worse workers because they are stupid. However, as you can see, the wage gap is far worse than would be expected by IQ, not to mention Black job performance, which exceeds Black IQ.

Nice try guys, trying to justify paying Blacks less, but it didn’t work. This study implies that there are other factors behind lower Black wages beyond IQ and job performance. One of them may be discrimination.

The hereditarians, whether they are right or not, do not have Black people’s best interest at stake. In fact, they are trying to provide scientific evidence to justify racism and discrimination. Blacks have every right to be skeptical about these people.

Alt Left: The Myth of Male Heterosexual HIV

Update: The comments section on this article is now closed. Continue your comments at the new thread.

We have a reactionary commenter in the comments section who is posting the usual scare stuff about the risks of males in the US getting HIV from a woman. In truth, the risks are very low. To the extent that they exist at all, they exist in the form of regular sex with a woman who has HIV. I mean regular sex. Like hundreds of times, preferably over years. That’s how a male gets HIV from a woman in the US.

Your chances rise slightly with every encounter with an HIV positive partner, so if you are having sex 100’s of times with an HIV positive woman, you risk starts going up. Your risk from a one time or casual encounter with even a known HIV positive female is nearly zero. Your risk from a woman with unknown status is even lower.

These folks like our commenter like to go on an on about how condoms don’t prevent HIV. Well, technically it is true. There were some studies in which serodisocordant couples (one had HIV, the other did not) were followed for ~5 years. Some used condoms all the time, others sometimes, others never. There was significant risk to the females in the never use category, some risk to the females in the occasional category, and low risk to the females in the always category.

There was no risk to the males who used condoms. Of the males who never used condoms with their HIV positive partners, only 2

If condoms were such a big risk to women nevertheless, we would expect to see some women in porn getting HIV from men using condoms. Not one case has yet been reported.

If HIV is such a risk to men from having sex with women, we should be seeing some infections in porn. Not one man has caught HIV from a woman in porn yet, even though for decades, most scenes did not use condoms and to this day, many still do not.

It’s so hard to get HIV from a woman in the US that most guys should not waste time worrying about it. If you regularly have sex with women who shoot dope, you have more to worry about. If you have a regular partner, you might want her to get tested if you don’t know her status, as regular sex with an HIV positive woman over 100’s of acts is somewhat risky.

It’s always nice to know people’s status. I know mine. It’s negative. I’ve been tested. A few times.

Males get HIV infection in three ways.

  1. Gay sex. Usually receptive anal sex. Other acts and positions are much less risky.
  2. Sharing needles with illegal drug users. Don’t do it.
  3. Heterosexual sex. The number of cases is so small that I would almost say don’t worry about it, but not quite.

All these Black and Hispanic guys with HIV who are giving it to women in their communities are getting it by gay sex and sharing needles. With the Black guys, there is a lot of down low gay sex and some needle sharing. With the Hispanic guys, it’s almost all needle sharing.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Myth: Whites Are More Likely to be Pedophiles and Child Molesters

There is a long-standing myth perpetrated by Blacks and White anti-racists like Tim Wise that Whites are more likely to molest children than any other race. This goes back to some stereotype of the creepy, nerdy, weirdo White guy who can’t get laid so he molests kids.

About time we shot this myth full of holes like it needs to be.

First of all, let’s look at child abuse in general, including sexual and all other types of abuse.

Stats:

Relative to their population, likelihood of child abuse compared to background population rate:

American Indian  +10
Blacks           +9
Hispanics        no difference
Whites           -3
Asian            -6

On an individual basis, American Indians are most likely to abuse a child in some way or other, then Blacks, then Hispanics, then Whites, then Asians.

The high Amerindian rate is probably due to the utterly collapsed nature of Amerindian families and societies as a whole. The high Black rate is because, well, Blacks have elevated rates of most crimes compared to Whites, Hispanics, Asians and Amerindians. Low Asian rate is probably because across almost all crime stats, Asians typically have the lowest rates of them all.

As you can see, not only are Whites less likely to abuse kids than Blacks, they have one of the lowest child abuse rates of any ethnic group in the US, surpassed only by Asians.

The argument that Whites are more likely to molest children uses these statistics:

Those inmates who were convicted of committing violent acts against children were more like to have been White, a percentage of nearly 7

The figure is from the Bureau of Prisons, 1991. In 1991, Whites were 7

The problem with the 1991 report was that, as usual, Hispanics were lumped in with Whites in terms of crime perpetrators, artificially inflating the White rate. The 1994 Justice Department report finally disaggregates Whites from Hispanics.

We can compare the BJS Report to the 1994 Census. According to the 1994 Census estimate, the US population is broken down thus:

7 11. 1

Extrapolating the Census data above to the BJS Report, we find that the Hispanics are broken down thus:

26,077 Hispanic molesters =

23,743 White
1,480 Black
303   American Indian

The results,

Whites    56.
Hispanics 23.
Blacks    19.
Other     1.

Now compare to their presence in the general population for likelihood of being a child molester as opposed to an average American:

Race     Molesters Population Ratio

White    56.
Black    19.
Hispanic 23.

This lines up with anecdotal reports of high rates of sex crimes in areas overrun with illegal aliens from Mesoamerica.

The myth lies shattered.

Hispanics are 2.3 X (13

Blacks are 6

Additional evidence comes from child abuse reports which were reported to authorities, which honestly are better because excellent anecdotal evidence from Black websites and interviews with Black women who grew up in the ghetto inform us that sexual abuse of girls is rampant in the ghetto. Some of the women even say things like, “All girls are molested in the ghetto.”

However, in the ghetto, sexual abuse of girls is considered so shameful that it may not even be discussed, and hence is seldom reported and there are few arrests. The whole affair is covered up with massive denial. This rings quite true with me as pathology of all sorts is elevated in ghettos, so why would child sexual abuse not be so.

This may also explain the relatively high percentage of White men imprisoned for this crime since White men who commit this crime are much more likely to be arrested and Black men often just get away with it and are never caught. So victimization surveys ought to clear this up for us.

According to this study at The Root (Drake et al 2011), Black children are reported to authorities for all types of abuse 7

Black children are 2
<p>Where did the myth come from? It’s not certain, but for most crimes, especially violent crimes, Blacks have rates that are up to 6-9 times higher than Whites. For child molestation, these wildly elevated rates for Blacks are not seen; instead, the Black rate is close to double the White rate, not 6-9 times higher. So in child molestation, Whites much more approach parity with Black crime rates. This greatly increased White rate vis a vis Blacks compared to other crimes may have given rise to the illusion that Whites are more likely than Blacks to commit this crime.</p>
<h3>References</h3>
<dl>
<dd>Drake, Brett; Jolley, Jennifer M.; Lanier, Paul; Fluke, John; Barth, Richard P. and Jonson-Reid, Melissa. February 7, 2011. <a href=Racial Bias in Child Protection? A Comparison of Competing Explanations Using National Data. Pediatrics 2011 127:3 471-478.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Imaginary Conversations About White Privilege

Conversation 1

Earnest PC Leftist: Hey, you have White Privilege!

White Person: I do? Nah, I don’t think so, man. LOL, what’s that, anyway?

Earnest PC Leftist: Yeah, you have White Privilege, and it sucks. You need to get rid of it.

White Person: But I don’t even have it in the first place, LOL. How am I supposed to get rid of it LOL?

Earnest PC Leftist: You have White Privilege, and it sucks! You need to get rid of it!

White Person: Bye.

Conversation 2

Earnest PC Leftist: Hey, you have White Privilege!

White Person: Like Hell I do. I just lost my job, my car got repoed, my kid ran away from home, my dog bit me, my wife is divorcing me, and my house is in foreclosure. The only good thing is that I’m not quite suicidal. Yet. And see that bottle of Jack Daniels sitting there? Well, that’s the other good thing.

Earnest PC Leftist: Yeah, you have White Privilege, and it sucks. You need to get rid of it.

White Person: (Rolls eyes). Sure thing, take my White privilege. Hell, they’ve taken everything else I ever had. Help yourself, man. (Disgusted sarcastic smile).

Earnest PC Leftist: Yeah, but look, losing your job, getting your car repoed, having your kid run away, having your dog bite you, having your wife divorce you and getting your house foreclosed is so much worse if you’re Black! It’s like 10 times worse! If those things happen to you when you’re White, it’s so much better! You have no idea!

White Person: (Rolls eyes). Yeah, I can imagine. I’m so lucky to be White, damn. (Cynical, sardonic smile.)

Earnest PC Leftist: You have White Privilege, and it sucks! You need to get rid of it!

White Person: Dude. Listen. I got to get going, OK? Nice talking to you.

Conversation 3

Earnest PC Leftist: Hey, you have White Privilege!

White Person: Really? Cool, guess today’s my lucky day. I won a $20 lottery ticket too. God works in small ways, you know.

Earnest PC Leftist: Yeah, you have White Privilege, and it sucks. You need to get rid of it.

White Person: LOL, why should I do that? You think I’m stupid?

Earnest PC Leftist: White privilege is evil. You’re oppressing poor, helpless non-whites.

White Person: LOL, yeah, I’m feeling bad already. Listen, take your morals to the bank and try to cash them in. See how much they give you for them. I’m sure they’re worth more than gold! (Sarcastic smile.)

Earnest PC Leftist: You have White Privilege, and it sucks! You need to get rid of it!

White Person: LOL, yeah right. I don’t think so. Get rid of it? Homey don’t play that. I kind of like the way this White Privilege tastes, and the price is right, too. Hey, waiter! Can I order seconds on the White Privilege? This stuff is to die for. Give my regards to the cook for this dish. And by the way, if it’s not too much imposition, could you show me where I can find a recipe for this White Privilege dish? I want to make some of this White Privilege shit at home. This stuff hits the spot.

Earnest PC Leftist: You have White Privilege, and it sucks! You need to get rid of it!

White Person: (Holds one hand, opening and closing it while grinning). Talk to the hand LOL.

A Few Short Thoughts on White Privilege

I just talked to a couple of Whites about White privilege. One is middle aged and the other is elderly. Their IQ’s range from 140-150. One got partway through Law School, the other is a freshman at the university. Both are extremely well-educated (self-educated) compared to the average White. One is liberal, the other is Leftist, a Communist.

Neither one had ever heard of White Privilege Theory. I had to explain it to them, from its origins on. They sat there shaking their heads and saying how dumb and absurd the theory was. They also said it would not resonate at all with average Whites, and all it will do is piss them off and make them want to go to a Tea Party.

For Whites like me and my friends, we think that White Privilege means something like while we have to eat a shit sandwich, Blacks have to eat a triple decker shit sandwich. So the White Privilege theory says that while we are eating this shit sandwich, we are yelling, “Damn! This sandwich tastes good! I’m sure glad I don’t have to eat that triple decker like the you know who’s.”

Within White society, Whiteness gives you no particular benefit. You’re just another person, and you get treated on your merits like everyone else.

If you are low on the totem pole, especially at work, you get treated like serious shit by other Whites. They really look down on Whites lower on the pecking order in the workplace. You’re treated like a “nigger,” mostly because you have a “nigger job.” They order you around like you’re a slave, brutalize you psychologically, then fire you for no reason. They don’t even attempt to disguise their contempt for you. You may as well be Black.

As I said, White has no advantages in White society.

It’s not like you walk into a party, and as soon as you step in the door, the White host says, “Hey! You’re White! Come on in! Free drinks all nite on the house, you get in free and free drinks to my pool bar every nite from now on, and by the way, here’s my daughter, I want you to marry her if you would like. She’s an attorney, she’s beautiful, and she’s a nympho.”

Yeah right.

White privilege is a favorite of the Black bourgeois and upper middle class Blacks. It’s a way for them to avoid talking about class. If you go Abagond‘s site, you will notice that he never discusses the “C” word – class. It’s all about race. In this way, Abagond gets to promote his class interests – those of the upper classes, while avoiding the real race problem in the US, which is one of class, not race.

I have a feeling that Abagond would go to the favelas of Brazil and harangue those poor, downtrodden Whites there about their White privilege and racism against their Black and Brown fellow slum-dwellers. I’m sure that will go over real well!

All these people talking of White privilege and other forms of Identity Politics are objectively contras – this line is counterrevolutionary and rightwing. It divides the working classes into male against female, gay against straight, one race against another, churchgoers against non-churchgoers, encouraging one of each pair, males, straights, Whites and churchgoers, to vote against their class interests and for the Right.

It also avoids discussing class, probably because of the upper class interests of the economically privileged folks who are dishing out this intellectual theory.

This is the same thing that the Right has always done – to divide working classes on race, gender, orientation and religion to keep them from uniting to vote for their class interests against the elite. This stuff is just bourgeois indulgence and ought to be irrelevant to any real liberation project.

New Anti-Illegal Immigration Bill in Arizona

Arizona just passed a new anti-illegal immigration bill which has people freaked out all over the country.

There is really a lot less to it than either side recognizes. All it does is make Arizona law the same as federal law, so it ought to be immune to court challenges. It also stipulates that cops can only check for immigration status after they stop someone for a legitimate reason, for example, for a traffic stop or if they are a suspect in some other crime. So there are not going to be any roundups or stops on the basis of someone looking Hispanic or speaking Spanish.

The Left has gone nuts over this bill, and the Obama Administration has registered their disapproval. That bills like this are being passed at all reveals frustration over the Feds’ refusal to enforce immigration law. So the solution, says everyone, is some crap called “comprehensive immigration reform.” Every time you see that word “comprehensive” with regard to immigration, start running away. That word is code for “amnesty.” Comprehensive = amnesty. It’s that simple.

It’s actually much worse than that.

The pro-illegal crowd not only wants amnesty for 12 million illegals, they also want to end “the militarization of the border.” What that means is that they want the Border Patrol pulled off the border.

They also want “an end to the raids.” What that means is that after we do amnesty, all of the new illegals will get a free pass into the country.

There won’t be any Border Patrol at the border, so the illegals will just walk across. Once the illegals are in the country, there won’t be any more raids, so they will get to stay here as long as they like. Until the next amnesty, that is. In other words, Open Borders.

The Democrats are trying to sell this “comprehensive immigration reform” stink bomb on this basis: We will legalize the 12 million already here, and then we won’t let one more illegal stay in this country. After we give them all amnesty, we are going to massively beef up border security and finally get control over the borders. They we will bust all the employers hiring the illegals, and we will make constant raids on any new illegals. The line is, “Sure, we are doing this amnesty once, but after that, there will never be another one.”

Forget it. Ain’t gonna happen. The US is never going to get control over its border because it doesn’t want to. The Republicans want the illegals to flood over for cheap labor, and the Democrats want them pouring over because that’s what their traitor Hispanic constituency wants.

The US is never going to bust all the employers. Ain’t gonna happen. There is already a workable program called E-Verify that can easily determine if any employee is an illegal or not. The Democrats have killed mandatory E-Verify and will continue to kill it forever.

The raids necessary to remove all of the illegals are never going to happen either.

Keep in mind that this was how they sold us that last treasonous amnesty in 1986 under Reagan. First it was only supposed to be for 500,000 illegals. It ended up legalizing 3 million of them. Back then, they said the same thing. We will give them amnesty this once, then we will get control over the border, crack down on the employers and remove all the illegals already here. None of these things happened because the powers that be want these millions of illegals here.

Furthermore, there will not just be 12 million illegals legalized. There will be another 30-40 million of their relatives coming in subsequent decades under family reunification, a much abused immigration law that needs a serious working over.

Let’s get this straight. Comprehensive immigration reform means not just amnesty for 12 million illegals and adding their 40 million relatives. It also means Open Borders. Because the pro-amnesty stance is essentially an Open Borders stance. Comprehensive immigration reform = amnesty = Open Borders.

I am going to tentatively support this law until we see how it actually works out. Supposedly, this makes me a fascist and a conservative. Fine, I’m a conservative and a fascist then, no problem.

Arizona has also done two other cool things.

They passed a law banning all ethnic studies programs at K-12 schools. There are Chicano Studies programs in many Arizona high schools, and they’re terrible. They are all being taught by Reconquista Aztlan MECHA and La Raza Hispanic traitors. This curriculum is furiously anti-White and openly treasonous. It has no place in US K-12 schools.

It’s lamentable that it exists at universities too, but all sorts of nonsense is taught at university level, and you can’t much get rid of it without running the risk of censoring higher education, which I don’t want to do.

Arizona also passed a law mandating that all English teachers in Arizona K-12 schools must be fluent in English and speak without a strong accent.

One wonders why such a law was needed.

Here is what happened. A while back, Arizona had bilingual education, which I actually support, since I have a Masters in Linguistics, and I know bilingual ed works for those who need it. Opposition to bilingual ed is not pedagogically sound or proper.

Eight years ago, Arizona got rid of all bilingual ed, a very bad idea. The schools had hired all these Hispanic bilingual ed teachers for their bilingual program, many of them from Latin America. Many of these folks spoke English only as a 2nd language and were not native English speakers.

After the state got rid of bilingual ed, the schools shifted the bilingual ed teachers to other subjects, mostly to teaching English. This bill is an attempt to deal with that problem. The bill is pedagogically sound. Indeed, only native English speakers should be teaching English in the US, where English is the de facto national language.

More states are going to pass such laws. Utah and Texas have introduced copies of Arizona’s bill. This will be nice because the more states that pass these bills, the harder it’s going to be for the pro-illegals to pull off their, “We are going to boycott this state!” threat. It’s fairly easy to boycott one state, but when it gets to two, three and more states, it’s going to be harder and harder to boycott so many states.

This Does Not Exist

This suitcase nuke does not exist.

See this fake picture of a suitcase nuke? The pic is fake. Fake, fake, fake, fake. How do we know it’s fake? Because not only do suitcase nukes not exist, but even if they did, they could never fit into this suitcase here.

A footlocker from 1943, used by the US military in WW2. Think you might attract attention carting this down the street? Yeah.

They would need to fit into a gigantic footlocker. Not only is it so huge that it was attract much attention, but the nuke, even if it could be compressed down to the size so small to fit into this locker, would have to be so heavy that it could hardly be carted around. With a 40-kiloton yield, I assume that it would have to weigh around 10 tons or 2,000 pounds. You’d probably need at least a forklift to even pick the thing up.

As you can see with this disgusting piece, the terrorist nukes meme has been picked up by of all people, the Palestinian nationalist movement.

The suitcase nukes were always held to be developed by the USSR, but in the latest mutation of the lie, they are now held but the new version of the “Soviet Menace,” the land everyone loves to hate…drum roll…Israel! The evil Israelis either made them themselves or they got them from the equally evil Americans. Anyway, the diabolical Jews are set to set off one of these suitcase nukes in the US in one of their infamous false flag operations.

Sure, Israel’s done a few false flags, mostly long ago. But the False Flag crowd is really nutty. Every time some Arab commits some atrocious terrorist attack (an Arab specialty since Arabs specialize in terrorism), guess what? It’s not really Ay-rabs that done it! It was really those darn sneaky Jews! Damn those devious Jews get around!

Anti-Racist Idiot Goes to Haiti, Gets Raped, Is Thankful for the Experience

The White nationalists just love this stuff. They can’t get enough of it.

But it does seem to show the sheer idiocy of some White anti-racists.

Amanda Kijera, a White liberal anti-racist (Facebook page here), went to Haiti to volunteer to help the Haitian people. After a few months there, she was raped one night by a Black Haitian man on a rooftop. After the rape, she says she feels grateful for having had this experience (Huh?!) and blames Whites for so screwing up Black guys all over the world that they do fucked up stuff like raping women. It’s all Whitey’s fault. You know, we’re forcing all these Black guys to rape women by oppressing them and all.

As she was being raped on the rooftop, she pleaded with her “brother” to stop and told him she was a Malcolm X scholar. I doubt if the illiterate punk even knows who Malcolm X was. As you might expect, this had no effect on the rapist.

If this woman goes back to Haiti without an armed guard, I say she’s an idiot.

Amanda Kijera, silly White woman from the Tim Wise School of Anti-racism, goes to Haiti, gets raped by a Black guy, then blames Whites, like a good anti-racist should.

Haiti’s rape rate is off the charts. I recently heard on the radio that 7

After the earthquake, there were widespread reports of Haitian men raping Haitian women and girls, even in the temporary camps set up to house them. That Haitian men have about a

This reminds me of the Amy Biehl case in South Africa during apartheid. This young liberal White woman went to South Africa to show her solidarity with the oppressed Blacks. At some point in her visit, she was surrounded by a mob of South Africans, including females, and stabbed to death. A radical group, the Azanian People’s Liberation Army, claimed responsibility for the murder. Apparently their revolutionary style was to murder any Whites in South Africa at random. They were responsible for a number of terrorist attacks on innocent South African Whites.

There was another fairly famous case of a young leftwing White woman who moved alone to a US ghetto to work with the oppressed. She was not there long when one night she was murdered by a crowd of young Black men by being set on fire in an apparent hate crime.

I’m not trying to make a case here that young Black males are so dangerous that all White females should avoid them. But there are some places a young White woman should not go to alone, like Haiti, a US ghetto at night and a South African Black township.

A lot of White liberals are actually secret race realists who are cynical about Blacks. They are non-racist to anti-racist in their views and politics, but nevertheless, they are frightened of Blacks and generally try to avoid them.

They live in White towns and send their kids to White schools. I admit I’ve been afraid of Blacks most of my life. That certainly doesn’t apply to all Black people, but it’s a general feeling. No doubt the standard anti-racist view is that this fear of mine makes me a racist. Well, fine, perhaps it does. OK, I’m a racist then. I’m comfortable with that, and I’m also still alive at 52.

This Is So Wrong

First Yemen, now Saudi Arabia. There is something really fucked up about the men in this part of the world.

Childbirth under the age of 15 probably ought to be regarded as a hazard. The maternal mortality rate is quite high in this age group. I would advise any girl under the age of 15 who is pregnant to have an abortion. She’s probably not a fit mother either, not for a couple of years at least anyway. Sex under the age of 12, especially with an adult male, ought to be regarded as physically dangerous for females.

“Caucasian Law Enforcement Defends Minority Rights,” by Alpha Unit

Harris County, Texas, is the site of the latest push for civil rights in America. The minority in question are Caucasians.

In Harris County, sheriff’s deputies seeking solidarity with like-minded others have their pick of civil rights “flavors” – the Mexican-American Sheriff’s Organization, the Afro-American Sheriff’s Deputy League, and, now, the Caucasian Law Enforcement Association.

Its founder, deputy Daniel McCool, is concerned, he says, with hiring practices of Sheriff Adrian Garcia, who was elected a couple of years ago as the county’s first Hispanic sheriff.

McCool doesn’t claim to have evidence of hiring malfeasance, but he believes that hiring is now based not on merit but on that old standard of “who you know” or on some kind of commitment to affirmative action. He and his fellow White officers are now, according to him, feeling the sting of discrimination that is coming from people “we used to call minorities.”

Mark Warren, whose article brought all of this to my attention, has a local’s take on the situation:

I’m from a little town in east Harris County called Highlands, and I can attest to the fact that there has always been a Caucasian Law Enforcement Association standing up for the rights of Whites. It’s called the “Harris County Sheriff’s Department.”

Teabagger Rally, Circa 1960

Notice how pro-Black = Communism in 1960? Now we have a proud pro-Black Black man in the Presidency in 2010, and pro-Black = Communism once again.

Same people, different decade.

Via this excellent, but very long, post at Daily Kos. The post is very long, but you might want to look through it. The liberals there are actually debating what role racism plays in the Teabaggers. It’s not an entirely unreasonable argument.

Honestly, it’s hard to say what role racism plays in the Teabaggers.

Sure, there is a Black Agenda and a White Agenda in the US. The Teabaggers are for the White Agenda and against the Black Agenda. They see this President as a “traitor” President. Not one of us – not an American, not a citizen, a Muslim, get it? Not one of us – he’s not White! However, most Teabaggers are more sophisticated than most White nationalists.

WN’s in general oppose Obama because he is, as they put it, “the latest outrage, a Negro President.” Most WN’s will not accept any Black as President, no matter his politics or agenda.

The Teabaggers in general are much more sophisticated than that. American White racism is subtle and hard to pick up on unless you are used to the code words.

The Teabaggers will use any Black who is anti-Black agenda and pro-White agenda. That is, Black traitors and sell-outs to Whitey are A-OK with most tea partiers. This is why the Teabaggers are so hard to figure out. The Teabaggers will gladly support any Black pol who backs their agenda and supports White America against his people.

So their opposition to Obama is not “based on the fact that he is Black.” He’s a Black who’s working for the Blacks, and in US White America, that’s called working for the enemy .

There is much discussion in the thread about whether or not Teabaggers have it in for poor Whites too. No one knows.

The Right in the US, from the KKK all the way down, always feared that low-income Whites would unite with low-income Blacks on class terms, and they’ve always sought to throw a wedge between that incipient alliance. They succeeded very well.

There is a good argument that Prohibition was a WASP project by WASP’s outraged at the drunkenness and Underclass behavior of “non-Whites” such as the Irish and the Italians. Prohibition was really a White Supremacy project.

When Prohibition ended, it was replaced immediately with marijuana prohibition. This was sold to frightened Whites on the basis that Underclass Mexicans and Blacks were smoking weed, getting horny and screwing White girls or killing White people. Worse, they were corrupting Whites with Underclass Black and Brown values. Marijuana Prohibition was a White Supremacy project.

Under FDR, Whites were adamant that they be allowed to discriminate for WPA jobs. And they did discriminate a lot. FDR tried to stop it by forcing WPA projects in the South to hire both Blacks and Whites, but it was a tough haul.

Notably, Social Security and other social protections were initially denied to farm workers and domestic workers . In the 1930’s, these classes of employees were for the most part Black. The sentiment at the time was the same as now – Whites saying, “I don’t want my tax dollars going to those people.” It was Tea Party 1934.

When Reagan came in, poverty was rewritten to mean “Black.” The phony and nonexistent welfare queen was created. I see this backlash as a reaction against the Civil Rights Liberation of the 1960’s. It was another Reconstruction reactionary backlash, the 2nd or 3rd Reconstruction if you will. Every time Blacks get some rights, there’s a White backlash to withdraw many of the rights newly granted.

There have always been plenty of White poor. Go to West Virginia sometime and look around. But for the last 30 years at least, poverty has been rewritten to mean “Black.” Poor = Black and increasingly Brown. When Teabaggers say that Obama is for the poor and against them, they mean he is for the Blacks and the Browns and against the Whites.

The problem in the US is that racism is all tied up in issues of class. Class and race are mingled in America for so long now that it’s hard to tell where one starts and the other ends. That’s why discussions about whether or not the Teabaggers are racist are ultimately futile. Until you understand the American race-class marriage and the decades-long use of code words for racialized projects, the discussion isn’t going anywhere.

Who Says Black Chicks are Ugly?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J96ujGstSUw]

This is a video of a Black star who I’d never heard of, Kiely Williams, doing a song called “Spectacular.” The song really sucks – stupid, irresponsible and possibly dangerous bullshit. She goes to a bar, gets totally wasted, gets picked up by some guy, goes home with him, passes out drunk (!) to where she’s unconscious, and then gets laid by him while she is passed out drunk. Which makes the guy a rapist asshole and makes her a complete idiot. Nevertheless, it was all worth it because the sex was so great. Yeah, great for him. Since she was passed out, so she could not experience that greatness. The feminists are upset about the video, as they ought to be.

Anyway, this Black chick, Kiely Williams, is definitely a babe. I don’t see where these racists get off calling her ugly. Screw em.

It’s an article of faith among White Nationalists (WN’s) that all Black women are automatically ugly. I’m not sure at what point they have enough White in them to be good looking, maybe 2/3 or so. Anyway, attractive Black females simply do not exist.

This is pretty much the same with White anti-Black racists in general. Black women are automatically hideous. I once suggested to a friend of mine that some of them were darn fine looking. “Yeah!” He huffed. “If they’ve got some White in them!” Then he looked disgusted: “It looks like an ape!” he belted out. Since I was dating a Black girl at the time, there wasn’t much to say .

But this is a common White racist view. Black per se is de facto ugly, no ifs ands or buts about it. The only redeeming factor for Black women, and the only thing capable of making them good-looking, is White blood, preferably the more the better.

As Whites, we are brought to up to believe that Black features are not attractive, but it does take some reinforcement to make it sink in, males being the horny bastards that we are.

I remember when I was a young man, my friends and I frequently spoke of “Black foxes,” and how much we wanted one, mostly for the adventure of it. Black women really hate this kind of thinking, calling it “the White man who wants his jungle fantasy,” but I guess it’s better than writing them all off.

The main thing is that we Whites are not used to Black features. We are brought up with all White people, and that’s who we think is good looking. When I was growing up (pre-MTV era), there were few attractive Blacks in the media. Black features look sort of strange, odd or weird to most of us Whites, exotic at best, even if we don’t think they are ugly per se.

After looking at Black women for a long time, I finally realized that a lot of them actually are beautiful, but Black beauty is an acquired taste, like wine or coffee -most don’t like it at first, but it grows on you if you let it. There are many Black women, even very dark ones, who are strikingly attractive. That is, once you develop that acquired taste.

There is a Black woman who lives next door to me with a 15 year old daughter. Both are very dark, and the mother is quite heavy. But if you look at their faces, there is something knock-out drop dead gorgeous beautiful about them, once again, once you develop that acquired taste.

I’m glad I learned to appreciate the unique beauty that Black women have. It makes the world of women that much more of a beautiful, exciting and exotic place.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)