Feeds:
Posts
Comments

The answer is almost definitely no. The most northern people Like the Eskimos, aren’t blond. East Asians evolved in extreme cold and aren’t blond either. Likewise, Indians went through northern Siberia into Alaska and Canada. They spent thousands of years in extreme cold that makes Edmonton seem warm, with temperatures dropping to below -50 degrees on most winter days. But again, no blonds.

On the other hand, the people of northern Middle East like Jews, native Lebanese who descended from Phoenecians and not the Arabs, and others (northern Egyptians) have a large number of blonds and redheads. Same is true for the people of the hot Caucasus like the Chechens, who are usually as light skinned as Austrians or Czechs.

This isn’t just interbreeding with north Europeans in recent centuries because we have a record of them having blonds and redheads in ancient times.

One would also assume that Finns would breed more with the people of northern Finland than with Phoenicians.

Red hair developed somewhere in the middle of Europe, Holland at the time when Celtic people lived there. Neanderthal red hair developed there also, independently of Homo Sapien red hair, so something must be in the water there.

Blond hair also developed somewhere below Scandinavia as well, probably Lithiania, which is Slavic genetically (even though they pretend to be Germanic).

Russia means the land of the people with reddish-blond hair. it’s considered a northern country now because its 2 main cities are there, but at the time when the country was created, its capital was Kiev, a city in the middle of Europe. The northern parts were not part of Kievan Rus, and it bordered Turkey.

So Russia, when it became known as the land of reddish blonds, wasn’t a northern country either.

I am not at all convinced that light hair is linked to cold weather. If so, one would see more blonds in northern Russia (Eskimos) than southern Russia (Chechens), but we do not.

All black politicians support illegal immigration, which is obviously harmful to their constituents. Mexicans are prime competition for blacks at low levels, and as soon as they are legalized, will become competition for the same government jobs that keep the black middle class in existence.

The “hardworking Mexicans” are forced to be hardworking by the lack of welfare or government jobs, and by having to outcompete legal workers. I have no doubt that once they are eligible for welfare, sitting on their ass will become far more preferable to picking fruit in 95 degree heat for $5 an hour.

Once welfare rolls expand (almost definitely to levels above those seen prior welfare reform), there will be enough political and fiscal pressure to cut the programs poor blacks are so dependent on.

No matter how many NAMs this country will have, the parasites will be outnumbered by taxpayers who will vote and will donate more money to political campaigns.

Taxpayers will not allow insane levels of spending on others’ bastards. It’s one thing to be compassionate when minorities were 12%, as in the 60’s. It’s another to have to support 30% of the population.

Talk of an anti-white coalition is just that – talk. Mexicans hate blacks and will use violence to get rid of them. Blacks have no love lost for Mexicans either. Both groups, in private interactions, prefer whites to each other.

As Mexicans grow in numbers and power, they will most certainly turn on the blacks in the halls of Congress just as they have on the streets of South Central.

Mexican immigration and the subsequent amnesty is nothing but bad news for black folks. But their politicians, including the mega-powerful chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee congressman Charlie Rangel, have a near-perfect record of support for illegals.

The one explanation I can think of is that even though it harms the constituents in the long-term, this is beneficial to politicians right now and they know they won’t be around in a dozen years when the chickens come home to roost.

Rangel and co. stick with the party line that harms their people because party unity allows them to get promotions to more powerful committees.

Black pols are throwing their people under the demographic bus just their white counterparts are doing.

Ultimately having another minority group that is more numerous, more powerful and personally hostile to you just isn’t a good idea.

I would like to hear people’s thoughts on black pols selling out their own people.

Something is in the water in DC and I would like to know what causes leaders to undermine their own base.

By now you’ve probably heard that Sarah Palin resigned as Governor of Alaska. I wasn’t a big fan of her, but nor was I her opponent. I think she shouldn’t have be picked in 2008 as the VP candidate because she was just too green. Had she been a man, Palin would’ve had a chance to rise legitimately for another 8 years and then would’ve been picked when she was ready.

Unlike Half Sigma, I don’t believe that she’s dumb, she just wasn’t ready.

But neither was Geraldine Ferraro in 1984. That woman was lionized, while Sarah Palin has been destroyed.

Everything about her and her family has been under assault. The Left would not have stopped until she was no longer a viable political personality because having a conservative woman figure so prominently in our system would’ve been a constant irritant to those who see women’s right as nothing more than supporting liberal programs.

Women, for example, must oppose school vouchers which would allow them to decide which school their children would attend.

Liberals believe that women should stop listening to their husbands and start listening to Howard Dean.

Many times, I’ve heard leftists defend physical assaults against conservative women like Ann Coulter with a look of bewilderment that is followed by, “but she’s a conservative.”

It is very clear that most liberals believe that it’s acceptable to assault women who disagree with them.

Men are evil, of course, but men are enemies. Women who don’t support liberal programs are committing treason – and traitors are worse than enemies.

Treason cannot be allowed, so Sarah Palin needed to be destroyed. Yesterday was a sad day.

“Affirmative action, however, met staunch opposition from Jews”
- NY Times

I just googled to find out what is the Jewish support for affirmative action to see if the Jews support it in higher or lower numbers than other whites. I was literally stunned to find out that The Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress that all filed briefs in support of Bakke, on the side of a white medical student applicant who challenged the racial quota-based affirmative action system at the University of California in 1977.

In the more recent case against University of Michigan affirmative action policies, ADL similarly filed a brief and its chairman Abe Foxman issued a statement against affirmative action, but AJC declared that it is opposed to quotas but supports a less clear-cut affirmative action. (I actually think that straight up quotas is better than what AJC supports. Also, their position in trying to cut the baby in half will not win it any support from either blacks or whites.)

A Jew Nathan Glazer led the first assault against affirmative action with a series of articles that began as early as 1964, culminating with the 1975 publication of “Affirmative Discrimination: Ethnic Inequality and Public Policy.” However, he reversed himself in 1998 and now supports affirmative action.

According to David Kelsey, 54% of Jews are opposed to affirmative action. His claim, however, was not sourced. Another blog mentioned that 46% of Jews and 45% of whites support affirmative action, but again, no citations. I wasn’t able to find any statistics on that, but there are some very interesting stats:

  • By the late 1970s, Jews were more anti-black than other whites;
  • A 1978 Harris poll concluded that (unlike 10 years earlier), “it is fair to say that as a group, Jews are not today in the vanguard of non-black people pressing for integration for integration”, describing it as “the largest swing of Jewish loyalties since 1932.”
  • Jews are less likely than other whites to favor residential racial integration (39% to 46%);
  • Less likely to favor “full racial integration” (25% vs. 35%);
  • Jews are less likely than other whites to want their kids to go to school with blacks (21% vs. 32%) and more likely to say that they actually don’t want it (21% vs 14%);
  • Every Orthodox Jewish community voted for Ronald Reagan by a ratio of 2:1 (I’ve spoken to several of them and all were ardent race realists.);

Since the early 1970s, few issues have been more salient on the Jewish community’s domestic public-affairs agenda. Clearly–almost tautologically, inasmuch as race-based affirmative action deals with race–the Jewish stance on affirmative action has had profound implications for the relationship between Blacks and Jews.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, Black-Jewish relations over the past decade have had very little to do with anti-Semitism in the African American community, and almost everything to do with public-affairs issues, especially affirmative action. The affirmative-action controversy stemmed from the long-standing Black-Jewish coalition, and subsequently led to fault lines in the coalition.

http://www.questiaschool.com/read/65195817?title=Fourteen%20Affirmative%20Action%3A%20Jewish%20Ideals%2C%20Jewish%20Interests

JIM LEHRER: Senator Lieberman is to be specific, is anti-affirmative action in some respects. Is that consistent with orthodox Jewry positions?

KENNETH WALD: Well, affirmative action is probably the one issue among American Jews in general where they part company with their allies in the liberal coalition.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jul-dec00/orthodox_8-9.html

“If we support affirmative action, we only encourage self-destruction.”
- Martin Weitz (I don’t know who he is, but must be somewhat important if he’s quoted as the voice of the Jews in this book. Am I wrong? Can someone clarify who he was? I tried googling his name, but there are too many people with this name.)


Like I said before, it makes no sense for anyone classified as white to support affirmative action. It makes even less sense for people who are most likely to get scores that qualify you for admission to the Ivy League or med/law/PhD programs.

I actually thought Jews were more suicidal than what I found, though it beats me how even one Jewish or white person can ever support affirmative action. The utter lack of common sense is mind-boggling.

I get that people may not want to oppose it in public. But what exactly stops you from voting against AA-supporting politicians when you are standing alone in the voting booth?

“John is white. He is married with two children. He wears a blue collar when he leaves his shabby, inner-city house to go to work. Life has been a struggle for John, but now he faces his most difficult challenge. John’s neighborhood is turning black. [...]

In a 50 percent black neighborhood, there is a 37 chance that John’s family will in some way be violently victimized. As the neighborhood relentlessly turns black, some whites will have to be among the last to leave. If John is unfortunate enough to be one them, he will face the following statistics: When the neighborhood is 90 percent black, John and his family will have a 96 percent chance of being victimized. Soon after that victimization will become a virtual certainty, reaching 99 percent likely when the neighborhood turns 93 percent black.”

In the United States, when it comes to race relations, much is said about white racism, which gives the illusion of Euro-american as a violent and threatening community. Yet this is a deceiving and prejudiced picture. A simple glance at the interracial figures show that European Americans are often targeted for interracial crimes while they seldom practice it.

Based on the victimization survey of the US Bureau of Justice, it is possible to make an fairly accurate estimate of the magnitude of interracial crime by converting into numbers the percentages given on two statistical tables: table 42 -Distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender and table 48: Distribution of multiple-offender victimizations, by type of crime, race of victims and perceived race of offender. We can also use some figures from the FBI UCR Crime reports.Doing this shows that in 2002 while there was, according to the FBI UCR report, about 1 700 White on Black hate crimes, there were nearly 2 million Black on White crimes. Yet, while the statistics for hate crimes receive extensive media coverage, the statistics for interracial crimes are rarely mentionned. this is what leads to a mistaken and stereotyped vision of Euro-Americans and the way they relate to people of other races.


See table below : “Victimisation Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations
, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender
+
Distribution of multiple-offender victimizations, by type of crime, race of
victims and perceived race of offender
- Year 2002

If one look at interracial crime as a whole, Black on White interracial crime largely outnumber White on Black interracial crime. Oddly, while “white racism”, about 1700 crimes, is often used to justify Black people resentment and agressivity toward Whites, White people are not suppose to feel a thing or the slightest resentment for the ceaseless racial violence of which they are the target.


While the african-american community is presented as a victim group, facts & numbers show that the day of Jiw Crow’s America are long gone, it is now blacks who are the most violent group toward other racial groups in America while European-Americans are the more targetted for interracial violence. Blacks are safer today when they are amongst whites than when they are among their own community. That isn’t true for whites, who are not as safe around Blacks as among their own community. Indeed, the statistics show that while most criminality is intra-racial from the victims point of view, (white on white and Black on Black) from the offender point of view, Black criminality is, for many types of crime, interracial: Black criminal assault more Whites or as many Whites as they assault other Blacks. It would therefore be more accurate to say that today, European Americans are living in Louis Farrakhan’s America.

The Interracial crime pattern might also impact the hate crime statistics. It is likely that this kind of criminality also provides an opportunity for the criminal to act on his racial hostility toward whites. For example, known black gangs, such as the 5 percenters, openly express racial hostility and have beliefs similar to the Nation of Islam. The Geraldine Davidson Murder is another example an example of the link between interracial crime and anti-white crime; it began as simple mugging but there were very strong racist overtone, the criminals had also a history of hate crimes done while commiting burglaries. The Wichita Massacre during which Jonathan & Reginald Carr, two african-american who had previously attacked other european-americans, mugged, raped and finally executed five white victims by making them undress, kneel in a row then executing them, has come to many to symbolize the dramatic nature of black on white interracial crime.

If the number of Black on White interracial crimes was roughly 1.9 millions, this means about 10 millions such crimes are affecting the White population every 5 years, 20 millions in 10 years…. Then it must be taken into account that it is not just the victim who is affected but also her familie and friends. Counting a family of two parents and two children, the figure for victims or people who are affected by the ripples of Black on White Crime could be multiplied by 4; in 10 years, about 80 millions European Americans would somehow be affected by this phenomenon. It would be worth asking if the huge number of crimes done by black criminals doesn’t have “some” impact on race relations in America, yet this topic is rarely mentionned and examined.


(calculated figures for the NCVUS table 42)
Distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender – Year 2002
Offender victim Estimated number of victimizations (1)
Crimes of violence- (3)
White Black
100 111
Black White
466 205
Black Black
460 388
Completed violence - (3)
White Black
16 017
Black White
162 718
Black Black
157 559
attempted/threatened violence - (3)
White Black
84 187
Black White
303 535
Black Black
302 643
Rape/Sexual Assault - (3)
White Black
8 448
Black White
17 572
Black Black
51 042
Robbery - (3)
White Black
7 125
Black White
61 397
Black Black
60 021
>> Completed/property taken- (3)
White Black
7 111
Black White
49 714
Black Black
43 679
>> With Injury- (3)
White Black
/ (2)
Black White
13 530
Black Black
20 700
>> Without Injury - (3)
White Black
7 101
Black White
36 131
Black Black
22 989
>> Attempted to take property(4) - (3)
White Black
/ (2)
Black White
17 762
Black Black
16 364
>> With Injury - (3)
White Black
/ (2)
Black White
6 036
Black Black
5 230
>> Without injury- (3)
White Black
/ (2)
Black White
5 669
Black Black
11 144
Assault- (3)
White Black
84 903
Black White
387 366
Black Black
349 372
>> Aggravated - (3)
White Black
22 128
Black White
70 082
Black Black
101 259
>> Simple - (3)
White Black
62 478
Black White
316 720
Black Black
247 864
(1) Estimate based on the NCVUS – table 42 – total number of victimizations per race and % perceived offenders by race

(2) The absence of number means the Department of Justice could not find enough victims in its population sample for this type of crime to establish a statistic.

(3) – Means Whites have victimized less Blacks than Blacks have victimized Whites + Means the opposite


(calculated figures for the NCVUS table 48)
Distribution of multiple-offender victimizations, by type of crime, race of victims and perceived race of offender – Year 2002

Offenders victims Estimated number of victimizations (1)
Crimes of violence - (3) / a
White Black
26 461
Black White
200 302
Black Black
103 748
Robbery - (3)
White Black
/ (2)
Black White
58 770
Black Black
28 411
Agressions - (3)
White Black
35 532
Black White
241 266
Black Black
66 101
(1) Estimate based on the NCVUS – tableau 48 – total number of victimizations per race and % perceived offenders by race

(2) The absence of number means the Department of Justice could not find enough victims in its population sample for this type of crime to establish a statistic.

(3) – Means Whites have victimized less Blacks than Blacks have victimized Whites + Means the opposite


Relation victim / Murderer by race
Année
White Victim
Black Murderer
Black Victim
White Murderer
1995
699
281
1996
558
247
1997
520
209
1998
440
205
452
154
417
178
475
175
483
227
Total
4 044
1 676
In the FBI Ucr reports, for every year, see section II, table 2.8 – The links take you to the FBI Spreadsheets)

Distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims and perceived race of offender For Robberies
from 1996 to 2002

Année
+/- (3)

Offender
Victim
Estimated number of victimizations (1)
1996 –
White Black
7 440
Black White
201 284
Black Black
123 442
1997 –
White Black
15 738
Black White
143 606
Black Black
92 073
1998 -
White Black
0 (2)
Black White
121 640
Black Black
85 252
1999 –
White Black
68 186
Black White
103 407
Black Black
106 053
2000 –
White Black
5 604
Black White
114 355
Black Black
77 727
2001 –
White Black
0 (2)
Black White
114 355
Black Black
45 210
2002 -
White Black
7 124
Black White
61 397
Black Black
60 021
Total
-
White Black
104 092
Black White
855 260
Black Black
589 778

(1) Estimate based on the NCVUS – tableau 42 – total number of victimizations per race and % perceived offenders by race

(2) The absence of number means the Department of Justice could not find enough victims in its population sample for this type of crime to establish a statistic.

(3) – Means Whites have victimized less Blacks than Blacks have victimized Whites + Means the opposite


Sources : FBI – UCR Crime Reports

Sources: US bureau of Justice Statistics

Tip of the hat to Racisme Antiblanc.

When the Communist Revolution failed to take root in Western countries in spite of Russia’s shining example, local Communists tried to analyze the reasons for their failure, and found them in Western civilization and culture itself. Antonio Gramsci, the founder of the Italian Communist Party, said the workers will never see their true class interests until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests.

It is unknown how much Gramsci’s view of Christianity was effected by the fact that his father was an Albanian Moslem, but without a doubt, today’s Left very much supports this view and revels in its anti-Christian intolerance.

The idea that Western civilization is to blame for inequality (a.k.a. anything short of Communism) is likewise dominant in Leftist circles today. In 2004, Thomas Frank published the best-seller What’s The Matter With Kansas, his native city. According to the book, Republicans shifted the the political discourse from the class animus to debating cultural issues. By using “explosive” social issues like gay marriage to blame the “liberal elite,” Republicans get the masses to vote against their own economic interest. (By which he means, people should vote to rob others through taxation if that benefits the voters.)

The book spent 18 weeks on the New York Times best-seller list and was published in the UK and Australia under the title, “What’s The Matter With America”.

Thus, more than a dozen years after the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, the basic idea of Western Communism, as originally developed by Antonio Gramsci, still lives on.

The big mistake Americans made after the Cold War ended was to declare Socialism dead. But here we are, nearly a generation after East Europeans rejected Communism, discovering it has penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the Universities to the media. Islamic terrorism, for example, is justified as caused by “poverty, oppression and marginalization.”. So is black crime. So is Third World poverty.

Multiculturalism and Third World immigration became hammers used to destroy the West. The Left had finally come to realize that the white man will never support their ideas. Thus, the Left not only gave up on the white race, but turned against the very people it originally sought to uplift: the working class.

If the people of the West won’t support Communism, then the West must get new people, and the world is full of illiterates just dying to come to the U.S. and vote for more welfare.

There’s a reason liberals push for immigration from Mexico and Haiti, but not from, say, Bulgaria and Serbia, formerly Communist countries where almost nobody supports Socialist policies any longer. The former can be reasonably expected to consistently support every leftist program, no matter how unreasonable, while the latter imposed the Flat Tax and other conservative policies in their countries.

Multiculturalism is, thus, the means by which Gramscian Communists are seeking to achieve what Lenin achieved in Russia.

While Lenin’s East European Communism collapse, Gramscian Western Communism has actually grown stronger, as the idea of demographic replacement of capitalist whites with Socialist minorities became undisputed and indisputable.

People who grew up in formerly Communist countries universally say that we in the West are more brainwashed by Gramscian Multiculturalism and cultural destruction than they ever were with Lenin’s ideas.

They are right.

East Europeans had to be forced to remain quiet by their secret service. Westerners, on the other hand, are so intent on following orders that the majority acts as volunteer KGB agents, willing to destroy anyone who disagrees with the PC dogma of welcoming the demographic replacement of Western people.

Not only has Gramscianism grown stronger than Leninism, but it is also much more dangerous. Eastern Europeans suffered economically under Communism, but are now rapidly rebuilding. One or two generations is enough to recover from Leninism because the countries’ demographics and culture remains largely the same.

The damage caused by Gramscianism, however, is permanent. Once you destroy a nation’s culture and replace its people, there’s no going back except maybe by Inquisition-style warfare used in 15-th century Spain.

And the Gramscian victory doesn’t require an armed revolt. Merely changing people’s minds and forcing the rest to shut up by making them outcasts is enough for Gramscians to win.

When Gramscian ideas won the day in the early 1960s, the West was lost. Even as whites were 90% of Americans, fighting Communism, they had already lost their country during the John Kennedy administration.

The Russians knew when their country turned Communist and ultimately they knew how to fix the problem. Americans, on the other hand, were overtaken without even realizing it, and no easy solution exists.

“Listen here 400 years of slavery can do some crazy stuff to a general population.”

So did the enslavement of blacks begin before any white people arrived in the New World? That seems to be what blacks are suggesting in arguing that they were subject to 400 years of slavery. If black slavery ended everywhere in 1865 (much earlier in some places), does that mean that it began in 1465 when Christopher Columbus was 14 year old?

I wonder if 200 years from now, blacks will claim they have been subject to 600 years of slavery.

If being around white people is slavery, then leave. Nobody is keeping you here in captivity. Get a one-way ticket to freedom in Ivory Coast and Congo. Mexicans can move, Poles can move, Italians can move, English can move, everyone can move and none of them were subject to slavery in their native.

If being with whitey, even with affirmative action and diversity training, is so bad that you see yourself as a slave, go find a place where you can be free.

“Great empires do not die by murder, but by suicide,” observed English historian Arnold Toynbee. The poison of the West is multiculturalism and mass immigration.

Two people cannot sit on the same chair, without one eventually being pushed off. There can be an uncomfortable sharing of the same seat for some time, but eventually both sides will become tired of the arrangement, and either one person will have to leave or the two people will get into a fight.

There is no society where diversity did not lead to hostility. It is true that similar ethnicities – e.g., Caribbean, African and American Blacks – can eventually integrate voluntarily (usually in one generation, sometimes faster). But that is because the values of these people are close enough that a compromise is possible. But when two strangers with different moral and cultural values are forced to not only live together, but share power, violence is inevitable and usually immediate.

Diversity, real diversity between radically different people, is a failure throughout the world. The only result of diversity is war. Different African tribes are at each other’s throats in every country they are forced to share. Muslims fight each other, Sunni against Shia, Arabs against Persians. Certainly we’ve seen tremendous warfare in Europe, which involved diversity (Britain vs. France much more than Holland vs. Germany). As hard it may be to bring bring people of the same race together, it’s that much more difficult to cross racial race.

Races develop when people evolve in different environments, which place different biological and social pressures on people. Social norms, therefore, must be as radically different as the differences in people’s appearances.

We are told repeatedly that Mexican Indians, Moslems and Africans will successfully integrate into Western societies. But what proof is there? It is true that allowing a small number of immigrants will force them to join the greater society by learning the language and the customs of the dominant people. But if you are a majority, why should you adopt to the minority, even if the minority resided in your land before you? When Mexicans are a majority of the people in this country, why would they adopt to our values? When Moslems are the majority of Europeans, why would they choose to speak French and Spanish instead of Arabic?

Mexicans, Africans and Muslims may become wealthier than they were in their native land. They may be nice. They may be pleasant. They may be hardworking. None of this is relevant to this discussion, however. Just because someone is wealthy, nice and hardworking, does not make them Western.

The people of Hong Kong are wealthy (as compared to most of the world), usually nice and usually hardworking – but they are not Western. Being Western has nothing to do with any of these qualities. The term “Western” does not describe whether a person is good or bad, it describes a distinct culture created by a distinct people. Theirs is the East Asian culture, a product of East Asian people. The Indian culture is likewise the product of the Indian people. The African culture too is the product of the Black people. And yes, the Western culture is the product of the white people. Blacks are no more likely to want to watch Opera than whites are to want to run around the jungle with a stick.

To the extent diversity works anywhere, it is a result of the White Westerners’ belief in the God of Multiculturalism and Peace. During the first half of the 20th century, European and Western nations fought the two bloodiest wars of all time. This was not a result of some inherent White brutality, but rather a product of innovation that created airplanes, tanks, rockets, missiles, machine guns.

Coming out of World War Two, the White man was simply tired and could not go on fighting. The idea of embracing each other seemed like a way out of a permanent disaster with constant warfare. And so the West agreed to look beyond one’s tribal instincts and embrace one another. Of course, that is relatively easy for nations that are similar. The French embraced the Walloons. The Germans embraced the Dutch. The Norwegians embraced the Danes. The English embraced the Irish. But it’s easy for people who are already similar to join hands and sing the kumbaya around the campfire.

But what to do when Muslims who believe in cover up their women from head to toe arrive in Holland, a place famous for its libertine sexual mores?

What to do when Africans arrive into Western countries and set fire in the middle of their hotel rooms when they want to cook food? Or when Mexicans demand that the City of Los Angeles spends its money celebrating Cinco De Mayo rather than Fourth of July?

Most cultures would fight back. But Whites simply backed down and went along with their own cultural destruction. The City of Los Angeles now sponsors Cinco De Mayo, but not the Fourth of July. One holiday is not inherently better than the other. But when you consider that the second largest city in the United States prefers celebrating a Mexican military victory rather than American independence, you begin to understand the kind of cultural destruction that awaits us in the near future.

Most people understand what diversity means, and hardly anyone believes it. Italians can live in the same neighborhood with Jews, their fellow Mediterraneans, and Germans can live with the English. But outside of their own race, people feel uncomfortable.

No White person will admit publicly that he is opposed to integration. They will sing praises to the Brown v. Board of Ed decision. And yet, the White people who joined Civil Rights demonstrations and sang “We Shall Overcome” were no different from those who stood in front of school doors to prevent integration.

Both groups opposed integration when it came to their own children. The rich got to move to neighborhoods that excluded blacks with unnecessarily high prices, and in cities, through coop boards.

The poor couldn’t afford to do that, so they stood in front of school doors screaming at black students. The media reported their actions as “hate”, but the reality was that they were mad out of frustration and fear. If your son got beaten (like Mike Berman) and your daughters raped (like Mike’s two sisters) by blacks, with the school and the courts refusing to punish the criminals, and you could not afford to send your child to private school, you too would stand in front of school doors screaming “Nigger”.

The history of the rise of American suburbs is a history of a desperate White flight away from schools that were being filled with Black children. It is undeniable that suburbs would not be even a quarter of their current size but for school integration.

White teachers fled from the schools that turned black, and even government programs giving educators significant additional benefits, such as full tuition reimbursement in a Master’s degree program, cannot attract whites into predominantly black schools.

So how can you tell if a person is a “racist” and opposed to diversity? He lives in a white town or neighborhood. Ultimately, that is all you need to know about a person. White neighborhoods are much more expensive than minority areas and usually have poor public transportation (which is what prevents poor blacks from moving in). Why are Whites traveling for hours to and from work when they can buy a similar house for much less right near their job in the center of the city where they work? They will never admit it in public, and in many cases they will never admit it to themselves – but they are paying a premium merely to avoid diversity.

And that’s all you need to know about the success of American multiculturalism and diversity.

Next time a white liberal tells you to support non-white immigration, ask him where he lives. If he’s not from Gary, IN or South Central LA, you can safely tell him that he’s lying – to you and to himself.

“Given Jewish academic success, when a black with SAT=1300 gets a spot in the Ivy League he’s probably going to take it from a 1500 nonJewish white and not a 1600 Jewish one. By eliminating close competitors and replacing them with charity cases, Jews actually do benefit from affirmitive action. Not so much average Jews but elite Jews. And those are the ones most likely to be in a position of influence.”

I think this would be a great argument vs. the elites than Jews in particular. Elites get to keep the potential opposition down via affirmative action.

But the more educated a group, the harder it will get hit. It is not as if all the Jews are getting 1600 on the SAT. They are still more likely to score 1200 than 1300; more likely to score 1300 than 1400, more likely to score 1400 than 1500; more likely to score 1500 than 1600. Let’s not overestimate how smart the Jews are.

What is not fair is that Jews distribute some of their damage to other whites with the current program.

Let me explain how this works. Based on fair and objective evaluation (grades/SAT) this would be the breakdown of college kids (made up numbers just to show what I am talking about):

Of the 1,000 students, 850 are white, 100 are Oriental, 20 black and 30 Hispanic. Of the 850 white students, 400 are Jewish.

With affirmative action, this is the breakdown is instead: 650 whites, 50 Orientals, 150 blacks, 150 Hispanics.

If Jews were a separate group, their numbers would be reduced from 400 to 20. But if all whites “pay the price” proportionally, their numbers will be reduced to 320 or so.

Now, it’s clear that Jews suffer from affirmative action. Losing 80 gifted students who would wind up in second-tier schools is definitely a hit.

There’s no way to argue that Jews benefit from affirmative action.

In fact, their loss is greater than that of other whites. If 10% of Jews are eligible for Ivy League, and 5% of them are denied admissions, that’s a bigger hit than if another group has 1% that’s eligible, and that group similarly loses 5%. (All whites lose the same percentage to affirmative action.)

However, if Jews were broken away from whites, a massive percentage of them would have to be denied admissions to the Ivy League, something along the lines of 90%-95%. That’s what happened from World War One to the 1950s when Jews were instead diverted into Brooklyn College and City College.

Other whites would lose less, however.

So both Jews and white Gentiles lose, but Gentiles are punished for Jewish success (as well as their own), whereas Jews are punished only for their own.

So in conclusion:

1) Jews lose from affirmative action;
2) A greater percentage of Jewish than white Gentile population is harmed by affirmative action;
3) Jews are punished only for their own success, which is not right, while white Gentiles are punished for themselves and for Jews as well, which is even more wrong.

So that gets me to my original view of the Jews:

- They are suicidal, doing things that harm them, often even more than anyone else.
- Because of their suicidal action, we all have to suffer.
- Jewish organizations must be stopped, for their own good and ours.

Older Posts »