Left wing propaganda

Leftist propaganda is not only easy to spot, it is also difficult to avoid.  Still, for entertainment purposes, I'll highlight examples now and then.

This one is from a Portland rag called  "Willamette Week".  It's from Sept. 30th, 2009, in an article ironically named "Censored":

"De facto segregation deepening in public education... Schools segregated by race and poverty tend to have much higher dropout rates, higher teacher turnover, and greater exposure to crime and gangs, placing students at a major disadvantage in society."

I wonder how many thousands of clueless sheeple read the above article and simply accepted that statement at face value.  According to the above, an influx of black and Hispanic children (into an all white school) will tend to decrease dropout rates, improve teacher retention and reduce crime.  Is this really what we see in real life?  It certainly is not my experience.  In fact, my experience has been the exact opposite.  Since this is a public blog, I warmly welcome any evidence that supports the Willamette's claims.

Another example, from the same weekly, is from Feb. 24th, 2010 "The China Syndrome":

"The Oregon Department of Energy has been under scrutiny since legislative staff revealed in 2008 that the program's costs were far higher than previously announced: BETCs cost $22 million in foregone taxes in 2003-05..."

The underlying assumption here is that government has a right to our money.  This gives it justification to take our money (steal it, if you will) as "taxes".  Once this principle is established, the leftist takes his logic one step further: stealing less money counts as "cost".  What if I were a burglar and the boss, at my regular job, demanded that I work extra hours one night - but I objected that those extra hours would "cost" me several hundred dollars because I would not be able to burgle houses during that time?  What kind of response would I get from my boss?

You will find that, as this column grows, most of my examples will be from free publications.  This is because I refuse to support the leftist media with my money.  While at the Amren conference, I was disappointed to see one of the guests with a brand new newspaper (I think it was the Washington Post).  It looked like he had purchased it.  Folks, please do not buy "mainstream" newspapers!  They hate us.  They hate whites and they hate liberty.  We should not be supporting them.

Diversity in Africa part one

Here is an excerpt from a thread I started on an online forum:

Me: An innocent enough question: should the U.S., along with billions in foreign aid, also try to influence African nations to value racial diversity in their schools. If such diversity is a good thing, why should it be denied the Africans?

Them: I don't feel that we should be spending billions there and I dont think we should tell them how to run their schools. Diversity in africa? How would they go about that? Bus some white kids from south Africa up to Nigeria? I dont think that would work out for them, and I believe they have larger things to consider than the ethnic make up of their class rooms...

Me: You're right. However, given that our government does send our hard-earned money to Africa and given that our government does believe racial diversity is the greatest possible good, should they not promote it in Africa as they promote it here?
Yes, it's impractical to import whites and Asians to Africa - but it's also impractical to import Africans to America for the sake of diversity and yet our government actually does this so, that being the case, should it not be both ways?

Them: Africans are "imported” into the US? The term is immigration. Many people from myriad nations immigrate to the US every year. I suspect the federal government has a quota system in place to evenly balance how many people immigrate from one particular country or region. Your phrasing is patently racist and I find it personally offensive. But I assume that's what you're going for. Find another rock and climb under that one then relax and stay a while.
American values and customs should not be imposed on other sovereign nations just because US aid goes there. That would be called "meddling" in foreign affairs, a practice that has not served the US very well in the past nor will it in the future.

Me: Some people, it seems, love to find "racism" everywhere they look. It's an obsession. Of course I used the word "import" regarding whites and Asians too - but this is perfectly all right in the eyes of one racist poster, as long as it's not used regarding blacks because THAT would be "racist".  Typical double standard and blatant for all to see.
Of course the U.S. should not spend taxpayer money overseas. Nor should the U.S. impose its will on other nations. Given the premise, however, that racial diversity is good for schools - should it not be a goal for those who wish to help Africa, to help bestow upon them this blessing? My query is not a complicated one - but obviously it is one that some people don't like to ponder.
On the one hand, we have true conservatives who reject foreign aid and meddling (as do I) - but this is not my point and perhaps I could have worded it better originally. Then we have leftists who, for some odd reason, believe racial diversity should only be a goal in nations traditionally inhabited by whites or mainly by whites. To them I ask: "if racial diversity is such a good thing, why not help Africa achieve it if we have a goal of helping Africa?"
I'll spell it out in even simpler terms. Given: Racial diversity is good for education. Given: Many Americans truly wish to help Africa educate her children = Racial diversity would be good for Africa. Next question: why do those who wish to help Africa, and who DO favor foreign aid to Africa, not make it a goal to also bring racial diversity to Africa? It's a fair question and it deserves a fair answer; not the usual mud slinging and whining about "racism".

Them: Other than in South Africa, a country that has quite recently (as of 1996) desegregated it's schools officially but much segregation remains, where is there segregation in other African nations?
Like in South Africa, desegregation is a new concept for the US as a nation. For that reason, it is understandable that many in the country are threatened by it and would use such sarcastic phrases as "help bestow upon them this blessing".
If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat...

Me: You've never heard of "de-facto segregation"? I will not respond to your other inflammatory remarks because you're trying to change the topic of this thread. If you wish to discuss the specific advantages of racial integration in education vs. disadvantages you should probably start another thread. This one pertains to "black Africa" where the vast majority of schools are 100% black. This is de-facto segregation. Of course it would be difficult to import children/adults of other races to enrich their schools - but certainly not impossible. If it were recognized as a goal, then ways would be found to make it happen. There are plenty of colleges in areas of the U.S. that are almost entirely white and, guess what? They have special programs called "diversity programs" that encourage students of other races and backgrounds to move there and attend their schools. Why is it so unthinkable that African schools do the same? This should not even be a controversial topic. Would you care to explain why you feel threatened/offended by this?

Them: Ah, we finally come to the crux of this odd thread. These "diversity programs" sound wonderful and should be supported and encouraged. Where in the US is this practice occurring? It's about time that some level of equality is given to groups who have long been oppressed.
Thanks for clarifying.

Them again: First of all some of the ignorance in this forum is astonishing. Africa has millions of different tribal and ethnic groups and the idea of integrating schools so that children of different tribal/ethnic groups live and work and play together is a great one. I can't claim to be an expert on pan-African local educational policies so I have no idea if this is a widespread practice or if it doesn't happen anywhere but if it's not it could go a long way to healing much of the animus these varying groups feel toward one another, just as it has with the desegregation of schools in the States.
Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be what is being discussed here. What this seems to be is a ridiculous argument that sees people as "black" or "white" and is using the absurd idea of sending white children from who knows where to be educated in Africa to make the idea of desegregated schools in the U.S. seem absurd as well. Poor form friend.
The desegregation of the U.S. education system is one of the truly great things this nation has done. First and for most it taught all successive generations that people are pretty much the same regardless of their skin tone. It has given children of all ethnic backgrounds a chance to grow up together and work together. It has helped to level the playing field that for a long time gave white children a huge advantage as a birthright. And has helped cure much of the systemic racism in our country. Things aren't perfect but they're a lot better than the used to be. And, while not everybody takes advantage of the opportunities education affords them, those that do should be blamed for it.

Me: But of course. There is great diversity amongst black Africans and just because they may have similar skin tones does not make them all alike. I'll even go a step further: There is great diversity amongst white people in the U.S. and the fact that they have similar skin tones does not make them all the same. Nevertheless, it is obvious that any school that is 100% white (regardless of its diversity) is considered to be "lacking in diversity" by the powers that be, by the media, by school administrators and even by the public. So, if diversity of skin color is considered of paramount importance in the U.S., why should it not be considered important in Africa as well?
But you want diversity of "tribes"; groups that differ culturally. American blacks are, culturally, more American than anything else. I would venture to say that a Polish immigrant represents far more cultural diversity, in an American school, than a homegrown black. And yet in the eyes of The Law, that Polish immigrant doesn't count as "diversity" - because he is white. Take 500 Polish immigrants and import them into a school in America that has a total of 1000 students and guess what? That school is still considered "lacking diversity". The powers that be will wring their hands and agonize over this and they will do anything in their power to change it.
I'll pose a question to you: can you cite one example where U.S. law recognized the presence of whites, amongst other whites, as "diversity" in regards to nationality/ethnicity? Has the presence of Jewish kids (for example) ever exempted a school from forced busing? Jews do have a distinct culture and a history of oppression in this country. Has the U.S. government ever recognized the presence of Jews, in a school, as "diversity" for its purposes?
At this point, I was banned.

Is it racism or anger and resentment?

It is normal for members of oppressed groups (even if they only perceive themselves as being oppressed) to deride their oppressors.  Thus, if a native American tribe, that had just been dispossessed of its land and suffered massacres at the hands of whites, referred to whites in derogatory ways few would blame them for it.   Could we accurately describe such native Americans as "racist"?  I don't think so; they are only venting their spleens.  Since, in this scenario, the difference between the oppressed and the victims is primarily racial, race is the attribute that a native American would latch onto for his verbal arrows.

Society at large is blissfully ignorant of the crimes committed against whites, both as a race and as individuals.  The mainstream media, government, schools and the business world conspire to keep them oblivious to the horrors that race realists and white nationalists are painfully aware of.  Race realists bear the burden of knowledge and this knowledge leads to anger.  Sometimes it leads to hatred.  I believe that anger is justified and constructive.  It leads to activism and the education of others.  Hatred, on the other hand, is more like a temper tantrum; it is destructive and counterproductive*.  I believe that anybody who is aware of racial truths and dynamics must feel angry.  If not, then something is wrong with that person.

An angry person will sometimes vent his spleen.  In the throws of his anger, he might sometimes use crude terms, exaggerate or fling insults at those who oppose him.  While I cannot say that such behavior is always justified, I can certainly make the case that such behavior is excusable on occasion.   I do not believe that such outbursts, in and of themselves, make a person a racist.

Take the case of Craig Bodeker, creator of the excellent video "A Conversation About Race".  While feebly trying to attack him, the SPLC (which truly is a hate group) cites some invectives that Bodeker let fly within the framework of a heated youtube exchange.  Bodeker retorts:

"Have any readers ever been to the comments section on Youtube? Does anyone NOT KNOW what a mosh-pitt of “free expression” it is? There are, sometimes, actual screaming matches, even though they’re conducted in written form. Sometimes people say harsh, mean things there, in that last remaining refuge of Free Speech. Am I to assume that the SPLS’s Sonia Scherr has never made a sarcastic comment? Or even a distasteful one? Or that anyone who EVER has should be stereotyped, marginalized and disenfranchised? This seems to be what the SPLC suggests. . . ."

The above accusation, by the SPLC, illustrates how race-realists are expected to be more than human.  I'm wondering if Sonia Scherr is married or has a boyfriend.  If so, I'm wondering if they've ever gotten into a spat.  What might have been said during such a spat?  Would it be fair to record every word, said in anger, and regurgitate it each time we wish to pass judgment upon Mrs. Scherr?  Well I've got news for the goons at SPLC:  we race-realists are real people with real feelings and we're really angry and, by God, we'll express our anger using whatever colorful language suits our fancy.

*Here, I'm speaking of blanket hatred toward particular groups, not hatred of that which is evil.

Jewish pedigree and racial origins

Due to the haughtiness of some traditional Jews of Eastern/Central European origin they like to fancy themselves "pure" Jews without any gentile admixture. The fact that they are white doesn't hint to them that reality is otherwise; they imagine that climate alone, over a millennium or so, is enough to noticeably alter the pigmentation of a people. Narrow as many of them are in their outlook on life, they fancy that the ancient Jews were as white as they are or that each tribe had a different appearance and that each one, upon exile, happened to arrive at a place where the gentiles looked the same. No need to waste time debunking the theories of mental children but let it be known that the average Jew, in ancient times, was neither black nor white, but in between. The fact that the majority of the present native Palestinian Arabs are brown would indicate that. The fact that the ancient Egyptians depicted the Canaanites (and there is no reason to suspect they looked any different than the Jews other than hair style and, maybe clothes) as brown also supports that idea. But it also states in the Mishna (Nega'im) "Said Ribbi Yishma'el, the children of Israel... are neither black, like an Ethiopian, nor white, like a German, but in between, like a cedar tree". I once showed this to a very white Hassidic Jew in Jerusalem and he was dumbfounded, not knowing what to say.

When I was in a Lubavither yeshiva a blond haired, blue eyed Hassid asked where my family was from and I told him "Russia". He gave a look of surprise and then said "well! Somewhere along the way..." as if to say my forebears had somehow been contaminated. Not that it's his fault but he is the descendant of Vikings. There is no way to know for sure how much of any Jew's ancestry comes from ancient Israel but, if you find one who looks radically different from the gentile population from whence he came, and he looks Mideastern, there's no more likely candidate for "descendant of ancient Jews" than he.

In the old days the Jews placed plenty of emphasis on pedigree and one need not go any further than the books of Chronicles to see that. The emphasis was not to make sure one was Jewish and it was not even purely for halachic reasons but a matter of national pride intertwined with halacha. It was important to them to keep our people as pure as possible - to such an extent that even Ribbi 'Aqiva wasn't allowed to be head of the Sanhedrin because he was descended from a convert. See also the "Kuzari" by R. Yehuda haLewi. Over time, due to dispersion and persecution our people became more and more diluted until those making the rules were, themselves, very much mixed. The ancient People of Israel ceased to exist in many ways. The religious aspect of our people, in an adulterated way, continued to thrive among many who professed the faith and, mixed among them, real descendants of the ancient people. Now we are so far gone that no importance, whatsoever, is given to true pedigree. Instead we have a newer kind of pedigree based on ones being a descendant of a famous rabbi. At this point, at least among Ashkenazic Jews, it's hard to say how much credence should be given to claims like "my family descends from Rashi, and so from Hillel". That may even be so but that has nothing to do with any type of purity. It's also hard to say whether or not Ashkenazic "cohanim" are really cohanim. It should be noted however that, among the various Jewish communities among the best at preserving true traditions were the German Jews up until recently. Among the worst were the Eastern Europeans and the Sephardic Jews. The Yemenites, Jarbaim (from an island near Tunisia) and, to a lesser extent, the 'Iraqis were the most conservative of all.



Anti-semitism among race-realists

Once in a while, there are incidents of anti-Jewish sentiment being expressed at American Renaissance conferences.  This has led some people to accuse American Renaissance of being an antisemitic organization.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The first conference featured a rabbi speaker and kosher food.  Since then, historically, Jews have been prominent both as speakers and guests at the conferences.  It is obvious to anybody who knows him that Jared Taylor holds no animosity toward Jews.

Why, then, do anti-semites continue to be a part of American Renaissance?   The blame lies with many of those who make the accusations; it is  something of a self-fulfilling prophesy.  Leftist orthodoxy proscribes any expression of white solidarity.  Therefore, any person, or group, that advocates for whites is automatically branded as "racist", "bigoted" or "prejudiced".  Such groups are condemned to the outskirts of society, as if they were intellectual lepers.  Few are willing to openly sympathize with pro-white stances because they fear for their livelihoods, their marriages and even their safety.

Since so few are willing to support groups like American Renaissance, it becomes even more important that such groups take support, and membership, from wherever it may come.  When you're a besieged minority, you bolster your numbers as best you can.  You cast a wide net to increase your clout.  A wide net invariably catches undesirables because, unlike large groups that contain millions of supporters, marginalized groups don't have the luxury of being picky.

Since they end up with bad apples who get caught in the wider net, the marginalized groups are easier targets for their enemies.  The leftists can then point and say, "there are neo-Nazis among those race-realists!  How can you associate yourself with such people?"  A person like me can reasonably counter that one reason I associate with race-realist groups is to help remove the stigma; the more normal people who join them, the less need they'll have for the crazies to bolster their numbers.  So, if you have a problem with anti-semites within Amren, I suggest you subscribe to the magazine, contribute to the website and attend the conferences.  Then you'll be doing your part in solving the problem.

Of course there's another, far more important, reason I associate with race-realist groups: they represent the Truth.  Would it really make sense for me to disassociate myself with the Truth just because some crazy people also associate themselves with it?

Reflections of a "Racist" Father

REFLECTIONS OF A “RACIST”

FATHER

By J.A.Y.

So I’ve earned the reputation of being “racist” and the enmity of those dearest to me.  Why?  Because I dared tell my daughter that I disapprove of her dating black men.  Now, for 90% of you out there, this would seem to be a cut-and-dry case.  After all, why else would a man tell his daughter such a thing unless he hates blacks?

Let me give some advice to all you young women who suffer from “racist” fathers: try to have a meaningful conversation with your father – but without hysterics.  Of course, if you hate your father, don’t bother even trying.  If you hate your father, you probably shouldn’t even be reading this.  But, if you love your father, and are left wringing your hands due to his “sickness” and puzzling attitudes, then I strongly suggest you meet the beast head on and confront it.  Otherwise, your relationship with your father will be wanting.  Perhaps your father really is racist and hates black people simply because that’s what he was taught when he was younger.  Perhaps he hates black people for other reasons.  Either way, if you object to his feelings, it’s time for you to set him straight and show him that people from every walk of life can be worthy of his respect and friendship.

As for me, this pamphlet explains my point of view (though it is very concise). Please read it. Then, if you disagree, by all means, show me the error of my ways.

For you fathers, take my advice: do not wait until your daughter reaches dating age to explain the dynamics of race that you’ve learned here and elsewhere.  Start young and repeat often.  Your daughter’s life and well being depend on it.

Following are some reasons why I do not want my daughter dating black men:

Ethnic Continuity

Tiger Woods, Barack Obama, Halle Berry, Bob Marley and Mariah Carey.  What do they all have in common?  They’re black, right? Well… if you want to get technical, they’re mixed race.  But, whenever the issue of ethnicity comes up, it’s their black side that is emphasized.  How often do we hear Tiger Woods being described as “Asian”?  How often do we hear Halle Berry being described as “white”?  Did I even mention Malcom X? He wasn’t white… or was he?  Of course one could argue that the black parentage is stressed simply because blacks are a minority.  I would disagree but, for the purposes of my argument, we can go with that.

It is normal for a person to want his own ethnicity, religion, language and culture to be passed on to his offspring.  For most of Human history, and in most places, this was as natural as breathing.  In modern times, exceptions were made for immigrants.  After all, if you migrate to a new country, you can’t realistically expect your descendants to continue in the ways of their ancestors in the old country.  Nevertheless, even in America, Human nature holds out.  People need an identity and they typically want that identity to have depth beyond the boundaries of their own persons.  Hispanics have a lot of pride in their heritage.  They even have organizations promoting the advancement of their people.  One such organization is called “The Race” and our newest Supreme Court member, Sonia Sotomayer, is a great supporter of that organization.  Federal money helps support “The Race” and it has chapters in many, if not most, institutions of higher learning.  We find that Hispanics are proud of their heritage even in Mexico and Puerto Rico.  Does this mean something is wrong with them?  On the contrary; their feelings are normal.  If I were Hispanic, I would want my kids to be Hispanic.  If I were black, I’d want my kids to be black.  It just so happens that I’m Jewish and, you guessed it, I want my kids to be Jewish.  This concern for the future of my flesh and blood is not new.  It has been this way since Biblical times.  I remember watching “The Last of the Mohicans” and how sad it made me that their tribe was gone forever.  The Jewish tribe is worth no less than the Mohicans.

In the modern Western world, people have lost their connection to nature.  Advances in medicine, communication and transportation have left nature buried under thick layers of artificiality.  Pain killers can fool a body into believing it is healthy when it is not.  The Internet can fool people into thinking of each other as neighbors when they are not.  Government can trick diverse peoples into believing they are close kin when they are not.  True nations and races do have genetic interests and those interests cannot be made to disappear through so much political correctness.  Nature will triumph sooner or later and it is healthy and wholesome for a person to be in touch with nature.  For more on this concept, read “On Genetic Interests” by Frank Salter.

What would happen if my daughter ended up marrying a white, gentile man and had kids?  The kids would not be Jewish but, since being white does not seem to count as an ethnicity worth being proud of (unless you’re a “racist”), my grandkids would likely consider themselves just as much “Jewish” as gentile.  They might even rediscover their Jewish side and convert.  This is not so unusual; I’ve known many such people.  However, should their father be black, this is what they will consider themselves.  Yes, they will not forget that their mom was Jewish.  It will be an interesting footnote in somebody’s genealogical records some day.  Just find the asterisk at the bottom of the page, in fine print.  The obvious reality is that black heritage prevails in nearly all cases here in America.  The reasons for this are interesting – but not the subject of this paper.  Any ethnicity, when mixed with black, will be swallowed up by the black ethnicity.  The exceptions occur when there are specific benefits to be had otherwise – such as casino rights that come with Native American heritage.

Some have hoped for the extinction of the Jewish People through “biological assimilation.  It would do the species good – the Gentile gene pool would become smarter, and Jews would become nicer, even as they disappeared from the face of the earth” (Earnest Hooten, paraphrased in “Race and Human Evolution” pg. 148).

Why Not Black?

I do not want my descendants to be black.  Why not, you ask?  Here are some reasons and it should be noted that most of the following traits apply to black men, to one degree or another, regardless of where they are found or where they hail from:

1)             A pathological culture that does not value learning, reading, or the other finer things in life that are considered “acting white”.  Please note, I am speaking of American blacks and this cultural phenomenon is well known.  Many have bemoaned this fact and it is no secret.   Even though individual blacks can transcend this cultural handicap, there is a much higher risk for their children and grandchildren than for members of other ethnicities.  The pressure, upon young blacks, is enormous.  I do not want this to be the lot of my grandchildren.

2)             Higher risk for many diseases.  Hardly a day goes by when we don’t read about some malady that blacks are at higher risk for.  In fact, it is rare to see an article about health that does not point this out.  I do not want my descendants to be at higher risk for those diseases.  We’ve got enough as it is.

3)             A much higher risk for STD’s:  I do not want my grandchildren to belong to a society that suffers disproportionately from sexually transmitted disease.  Who, in his right mind, would want that for his own people?  Given the choice, I’d rather my descendants be white and not have to deal with it.

4)             A considerably lower average I.Q.  The average I.Q. for white Americans is 100.  For black Americans, it is 85.  This is not based on one or two isolated studies; it is a well-established fact about which there is no dispute.  The dispute has centered on the causes of this disparity.  Whatever they may be, I do not want my descendants to be part of a society that is so handicapped.  There are all kinds of negative consequences to societies whose average I.Q. is that low.  Again, individuals may transcend those consequences, but their children will always be impacted by them.  Ideally, each individual should be part of a greater society.  Something larger than himself.  As it stands, most blacks in America belong to black society.  Many of them want it this way.  Others perhaps not.  Either way, black society is saddled with this major handicap.  Given the choice, I’d rather my progeny not be handicapped in this way.

This is a good place to introduce the concept of “regression to the mean”.  It turns out that, within various populations, the children of the highly intelligent will likely regress DOWN toward the mean of the population.  Likewise the children of the less intelligent will regress UP toward the mean.  So, even if my daughter picks out a bright black man, their children will probably be less intelligent than either of them.  In other words, the norm, for black Americans, is 85 and there will be a tendency for black children to regress toward that, even if their parents are highly intelligent.  Of course, a good upbringing will mitigate this effect to a certain degree – but for how many generations?

5)             Much higher risk for illegitimacy. It seems that black men are much less likely to marry their sweethearts than white men.  Why would I want my descendants to be part of such a society?  Even black mother will sometimes warn their daughters about black men.

6)             Higher risk for being a criminal and for being the victim of a criminal.  I don’t think this needs elaboration, obvious as it is.  A black man is about eight times more likely to be a murderer than a white man.  He is also much more likely, contrary to popular myth, to be a serial killer or a rapist.

Higher Risk of STD’s

The high incidence of STD’s, among blacks, means that it is those who have sexual relations with them are in much greater danger than those who have sexual relations with white men.

Now let’s take a look at infection rates, among blacks vs. whites, for STD’s:

Regarding AIDS, blacks make up about half of known HIV infections in the U.S. – even though they make up only about 12% of the population.  About 2% of American blacks are HIV positive.  In other words, a black man is about 7.5 times more likely to be HIV positive than a white man.

For Gonorrhea, blacks are 18 times more likely to be infected.

For Syphilis, blacks are 6 times more likely to be infected.

For Chlamydia, blacks are 8 times more likely to be infected.

All told, it is about 25 times more risky to have sex with a black man as it is to have sex with a white man.

Would I encourage my daughter to drive without a seatbelt?  Seatbelts reduce the risk of highway fatalities by about 50%.  In contrast, refraining from sex with blacks will reduce the risk of STD’s (admittedly not always fatal) by 92%.  Any father who remains silent in the face of such risk must either hate his own children or be woefully ignorant.

Higher Risk of Domestic Violence

Across all categories (yes, even serial murder) of crime, blacks are far more likely to be perpetrators.  Domestic violence is no different.  Because of a combination of “no snitch” culture among blacks and political correctness among whites, there is a lack of willingness to talk about domestic violence among blacks.  But it appears that domestic violence is about twice as high, among blacks, than among whites:

“White couples reported rates of male-to-female and female-to-male partner violence at eight and 10 percent, respectively. In contrast, black couples reported rates of 20 percent and 22 percent, respectively; Hispanic couples reported rates of 21 percent and 20 percent, respectively.”

It is a fact that self-confidence is a trait that most women find attractive in a man.  Due to the frenzied promotion of black men, at every level of society, it is no wonder that they have an abundance of self-confidence.  And so more women are attracted to black men for this reason.  As more women seek black men, this confidence grows even more and we have a feedback loop.   A charmed woman would never suspect that her man is cheating on her, or that he considers his new white girlfriend as merely a trophy or a status symbol.  Of course there are many white men who take advantage of women as well but, given the high priority black men give to attaining a white woman and given the frenzied promotion of black men in today’s society, it is to be expected that a black man presents a higher risk for a white woman.

Higher Risk of Divorce/Separation

Statistics are hard to come by but anecdotal evidence seems to indicate a higher rate of divorce for interracial couples.  It seems to me that this would be the case for at least one very simple reason: people of different races are attracted to each other, more often than they’ll admit, BECAUSE of race and not despite race.  As evidence of this, I offer an observation that you, dear daughter deny.  It is obvious to me, and to many other people, that black male/white female couples are far more numerous than white male/black female couples.  Likewise we find that white male/ Asian female couples are far more numerous than Asian male/white female couples.  If love were, indeed, colorblind, we would find roughly the same proportions of couples described above.  Whenever people are attracted to others for what they perceive as superficial reasons, it is to be expected that separation is more likely in their future.  The same could be said about women who pursue tall or wealthy men or men who pursue women with certain external attributes.

But there is a more sinister angle to this story.  It is not only true that the vast majority of black/white couples involve a black man and a white woman – but it is also true that the media portrays this arrangement in the vast majority of cases.  It is unclear if this is art following reality or reality following art.  In any case, the black male is being pushed upon the public as if he were some kind of product.  It is not difficult to find examples.  Unfortunately, people have become so accustomed to this that they can no longer see it.  Black males, even as young as toddlers, are depicted next to white females far more often than the other way around.  If the reader doubts this, let her keep track for a while.  Let her start paying attention each time a mix of races is shown.  How often is a black man standing next to a white (or Asian, for that matter) woman?  How often is a white (or Asian) man standing next to a black woman?  The discrepancy will become obvious if one only pays attention.  The next question you will probably ask will be “so what?”  The answer is that any time we see something being sold to the public, there is always a motive.  If money is not the motive, what then, could it be?  If something has intrinsic value, there is no need for a hard sell.  If the sales pitch is pervasive, but there is nothing extraordinary about the product, then women are being set up to get a lot less than they bargained for.  Black men are being sold to the public, but not for any monetary gain; instead, this is part of a larger plan to transform society as a whole.

Patriotism

It is the natural order of things for humans to show loyalty first to their immediate family.  Next comes their extended family.  Then their clan.  Then their race – which is none other than a more extended family.  This is because we are hard-wired for the furtherance of our genes.  It benefits us if we look out for those who share more of our genes.  This is why we find individuals sacrificing their own lives for the sake of their kin.  This is the reasoning behind patriotism.  A “patriot” is one who loves his country.  A “country” really means a “nation”.  A nation is a kinship.  Jews are a nation and a Jew is a member of this nation regardless of where he lives.  Armenians are a nation, as are Han Chinese and Bantu.  Nations transcend national boundaries.  We are told, over and over, that America is a nation of many races, religions etc.  Yet we don’t see Hispanics shedding their ethnicity.  We don’t see blacks declaring that their race is not important.  On the contrary, they vote according to race – whether in elections or on a jury.  Yet, somehow, it is considered wrong for whites to behave as other races.  I say that not only is it not wrong, it is a civic duty and it is the true meaning of “patriotism”.  The same applies, of course, to Jews.  At a certain level, a person who cares nothing for her own race – so little, in fact, that she will give herself to another race – hates an important part of herself.  It is fashionable (among whites and most secular Jews) to minimize ethnic associations.  This fad will not last long because it goes against nature.  Nature will always win.

There was a time, not long ago, when people took their civic duties seriously.  They saw themselves, not just as individuals, but also as part of a continuum.  In their minds, they owed an obligation to their ancestors to carry on their bloodline, their good name and their honor.  This is the natural order of things and continues to be so in most of the world.  But now we have “generation me” that is only concerned with self-gratification.  Sometimes this comes in the form of charity and good works and sometimes hedonism – but there is rarely a sense of duty to one’s one flesh and blood and one’s ancestors.  The irony in this is that, when other ethnic groups (that do have solidarity) rise up and take power, those “me” people will have nobody to stand up for them; they will be utterly alone and helpless.  In the end, they will have nobody to care for them in their old age (if they make it that far) and no homeland to call their own.

Diversity

I once posed a question to a leftist online forum: would the world be less diverse if there were no Jews?  I then followed up with the simple observation that, left unchecked intermarriage would destroy the Jewish People.  That being the case, wouldn’t it be better for the cause of diversity if Jews married other Jews and had children?

The above question/statement was viewed with outrage.  It was met with accusations of bigotry and intolerance.  But where are the Sumerians now?  Where are the Goths?  Where are the Hittites?  All those peoples intermarried themselves into oblivion.  I don’t know if the world is worse off without them, but I do know that we have less diversity.  How anybody can reasonably claim that wanton intermarriage cannot destroy a numerically small people is beyond me.  Furthermore, what meaning does ethnic diversity have if ethnic groups do not preserve their distinctiveness?  Perhaps those who tout the virtues of diversity are actually enemies of diversity and they only use it as a tool to destroy ethnic distinctions and, they hope, war and strife.  I suspect this really is the case.  If so, then let them come out and say, “we are against diversity”.  In the end, we cannot know what the hostile elite truly want – but we can know what WE want.  As for me, I want diversity.   I want to preserve our ethnic distinctiveness so that we Jews can continue to contribute our part in the patchwork of Mankind.  I would consider this a worthy goal and a duty to pass on to my children.

The Other Side of the Coin

The endless pursuit of black men, by non-black women, has negative consequences not just for those directly involved.  It turns out that (surprise) there is a crisis among black women who would prefer to date/marry their own kind – but cannot find an eligible black man.  Here’s a quote from a recent CNN article:

"We're seeing more and more single African-American women who are not finding men," Caldwell says. "There's a lack of qualified black men to get into relationships with."

The numbers are grim. According to the 2006 U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey, 45 percent of African-American women have never been married, compared with 23 percent of white women.”

This goes back to civic responsibility and mutual respect.  A healthy society encourages people to date within their own group.  Not outside it.

The Children

“As one might expect, on a host of background and achievement characteristics, mixed race adolescents fall in between whites and blacks. When it comes to engaging in risky/anti-social adolescent behavior, however, mixed race adolescents are stark outliers compared to both blacks and whites.”

Also:

"The truth is, when people of different backgrounds marry and produce offspring, it creates more types that are harder to match," said Michelle Setterholm, the program's director of scientific services. "The probability (of finding a suitable bone marrow donor) just gets lower when you have people of mixed ancestral DNA."

Contrary to popular belief, there is no “hybrid vigor” among Humans except in unusual populations that are extremely inbred.  Yes, we find mixed race people who are very attractive and successful, but the odds of children turning out this way are reduced when they are of mixed race.

Like it or not, thanks to the leftist establishment’s extreme obsession with race, we live in a highly racial society.  “People of color” are expected to identify with their ethnic group and, almost from cradle to grave, a person must often make choices which group he belongs to.  People, when given the opportunity, segregate by race.  We see this in school lunchrooms all over the country.  Which table will your half black child sit at?  The “black table”, where he probably won’t be fully accepted or the “white table”, where he will always carry the stigma of special treatment?  Anti-white racism is a serious problem in the black American community.  It is likely that the family of your child’s father will not only resent you but they may resent your child.  Perhaps you are fearless and carefree when it comes to racism – but what right do you have to subject a child to it?   I know you may not be planning on having children but the truth is that nobody knows.  I am one of three brothers and I was the only one who was planned – so accidents run in the family.  Beware!

In general, mixed race couples invest more on their kids – except for white/black couples.  They invest less on their kids, on average.

The reason given, by livescience, is:

“This could be because families in which one of the parents is black likely experience greater prejudice and disapproval from their extended families than do non-black interracial couples, Powell and Cheng wrote. Also, there seem to be greater social challenges faced by couples in which a non-white man is involved with a white woman, they wrote.”

This might be so, but I think there is another reason: mixed white/black children tend to not resemble either of their parents very much.  If we ask ourselves what purpose Mother Nature might have in making us look so different, we quickly realize that physical appearance is a good indicator of genetic variation.  Identical twins look the same and they have the same D.N.A.  A Bantu and a Swede look very different and their D.N.A. is also different enough for a crime lab to distinguish between them based on a small sample.  These external indicators served human populations very well during the many millennia before D.N.A. tests.  As a matter of fact, a white parent is likely to be more similar, genetically, to a random white than to her own half black child.  The parent has a greater genetic interest in contributing to the welfare of another white than to her own mixed child.  As for the other mixed-race couples investing more in their children, this is probably because those cases mostly involve Asian immigrants and Asian immigrants tend to invest more in their children.  Of course humans are not animalistic, instinct-driven automatons; we have free choice and some of us even adopt and give charity to those who are very different than us.  Nevertheless, the voice of nature never disappears – and it shows up in statistics.  We can never entirely remove ourselves from nature.

Group Rights

As a libertarian, I sometimes find myself having to find a balance between my emphasis on individual rights and community rights that I intuitively know to exist.  While living in Israel, I encountered an interesting phenomenon: immodestly dressed women (as defined by the locals) who ventured into Orthodox areas would find themselves spat upon and sometimes have rocks thrown at them.  While I don’t condone the use of violence, the locals have every right to voice their displeasure with such conduct.  After all, one major reason Orthodox Jews like to live in their own communities is that they are able to raise their children in what they consider to be a “pure” environment.  They feel that only they have the right to determine what type of education their children will receive, who their children’s friends will be, and what type of environment they will be exposed to on the street.  The only realistic way to control such things is to form their own community.  Most of us would be appalled at a group of potty-mouthed, smoking, irresponsible punk rockers entering a remote village in an Amazon rain forest and mingling with the natives.  We would see this as some sort of cultural aggression, imperialism and violation – and we would be right.  It would not only be insensitive.  It would be wrong.  The natives have a right to continue their own traditions as they see fit.  They have the right of self-determination.

But the governments of Western countries do not see it this way.  They believe that an elite group of wealthy individuals (themselves) have the right to bring millions of aliens to the territory they control.  Not only that but they believe they have the right to FORCE the native population to mingle with the newcomers.  By law, the natives must attend schools with the children of the newcomers (unless they can afford a private school), work with the newcomers, deal with the newcomers in government offices, hear the language of the newcomers whenever they call a government office or large company and see the newcomers’ faces plastered all over their newspapers, magazines, television and billboards.  In other words, government has decided that white people, and Jews, do not have freedom of association.  By extension, they are forcing the children of whites (inasmuch as their propaganda is successful) to couple with the children of the newcomers.  When populations are FORCED together, it is inevitable that miscegenation will follow.  When you choose a black man, in a sense, you are acting as a deputy of The State.  Your actions are the natural consequence of the greater design that big government has in mind for us.  It is not a random, haphazard event at all.  You are facilitating, and furthering, the erosion of the group rights of white people and Jews.  Many might claim that you are violating the freedom of association of the black community as well.

Choosing a mate may seem to be a strictly personal choice, one that fits into the realm of the individual.  As a matter of fact, it is also a community choice.  In this case, the community is a serial community.  It is composed of the many thousands of individuals who stand to be born, in the future, from such a union.  Your choice of a mate has serious consequences for all those people yet to be born.  We owe many of the comforts of modern society to ancestors who had our best interests in mind.  The least we can do is return the favor by acting likewise toward our descendants.

Some would say that our nation is a nation of immigrants.  Quite so, but every single founder of the United States of America was white.  It was clearly their intention that this be a white nation based upon the culture and ideals of Europe.  While the continent of America was always multiracial, the United States of America was not.  Only much later, when “liberalism” gained ground, toward the end of the 19^th century, did the concept of a “melting pot” start to catch on.  Only in 1965, with the passage of the immigration act, did the fate of whites in America become sealed.  Since then, the traditional values of America have become eroded, crime has skyrocketed and America is losing its lead among nations.  Ironically, black society has broken down as a direct result of these “social experiments”.  While the 1950’s were not an example of a perfect society, at least there was a distinctive culture that was “American”.  Now, who is to say what is “American”?  The term can mean anything and, therefore, it means nothing.

Should We All be Judged as Individuals?

Yes, my dear daughter.  Indeed we should each be judged as individuals.  This is one objection I have to affirmative action programs.  You do agree with me that those are unjust for the same reason, don’t you?  Of course, as an insurance company, I would certainly not hasten to judge a teenage driver.  After all, there are, no doubt, safe and responsible teenage drivers.  However, I would have to spend a lot of time getting to know each, and every, teenage driver in order to determine his premiums.  I just don’t have the time, so I have no choice but to lump them all together and charge them higher premiums.  I know that, as a group, they are more dangerous drivers.

When it comes to dating and relationships, people make generalizations all the time.  Just examine the personals in your local newspaper or online.  People are expected to generalize about age.  As a matter of fact, a person who has no preference at all, about age, would be considered abnormal.  I am in my 40’s.  Why would most 20-year old women reject me outright for a relationship?   I am, after all, young at heart.  Should I not be judged as an individual?  Is there something wrong with those women?  Are they “ageists”?  Not only do they judge me online, but even in real life I’m certain that once they discern that I’m in my 40’s, they no longer even consider me a prospect.  Women judge men all the time based on their height.  It’s often the first thing they notice and many, if not most, women generalize about short men.  They are expected to specify which height they are looking for in their personal ads.  Are such women heightists?  I opine that there is good reason why men and women generalize when seeking a mate: such generalizations have served them well in their evolutionary history.  Over time, those traits that were considered advantageous morphed into sexual preferences (but probably not while living in “multiracial societies” as we have today).  Typically, they still have validity today and it doesn’t take very much imagination to figure out what those advantages might be.  Do we really know somebody until we’ve lived with him for a while?  Probably not.  The high divorce rate (for all groups) should make that obvious.  So, in reality, we are dealing with unknowns.  Just like the insurance company, we generalize all the time.  We judge people based on how they dress, how they talk, how they walk and their gender.  All those external attributes help us survive in an uncertain world.  Race is no different.  White people, leftists included, vote with their feet when it comes to race.   They prefer to be among their own and for very good reason.  On all counts, whites are safer among other whites.  So not only is it not wrong to focus on white men, it is the most prudent thing to do.

You have asked me, dear daughter, about the hypothetical scenario where you meet a man who is perfect in every way.  He is intelligent, handsome, caring, has a profession and is committed.  But he happens to be black.  You asked if I would still object.  The answer is “yes”.   By now, if you’ve read this treatise carefully, you would know why.  Nevertheless, I shall enumerate the reasons here:

1)            You may THINK you know him, but you really don’t until you’ve lived with him for a while.  By then, the damage may already be done.

2)            Even today, when you marry somebody, you are not marrying just the man.  You are also, in a sense, marrying his family, his friends and his life history.  So you found a black man who bucked the trends.  That’s wonderful.  Did his brothers, cousins and uncles, who come to visit sometimes, also buck the trends?  Did his friends also buck the trends?  Will your mixed children buck the trends?  Will his (as of yet unknown) criminal history, child support obligations, or health problems become your burden as well?

3)            In our increasingly racially conscious, and racially divisive, world, how will you fare?  Where will your children stand in the new balkanized U.S.A.?  Will they become victims of the spreading black/brown war as Hispanics gain more and more control?

4)            You are still young.  How well do you know yourself?  Many young white women are self-delusional when it comes to interracial relationships.  They believe they are color-blind and that their decision is based solely on love.  I do not think this is likely given the intense racial propaganda all of us are exposed to.  Years of subliminal messages have probably had an impact on your psyche.  How could they have not?  Perhaps, years later, you will look back and ask yourself, “How could I have fallen for that?”  If, indeed, you are marrying him for the wrong reasons, what does this bode for your long-term relationship?

5)            Regardless what you’ve been taught by the powers that be, there are fundamental differences between the races.  Decades of intense, pervasive and subliminal propaganda have conditioned American blacks to the point where very few can transcend race.  For example, there are so few blacks who oppose Obama that they are statistically negligible.  The handful who do oppose him are ostracized.   Media policies of emphasizing black history, culture, persecution, poverty, discrimination, health issues, music, sports etc. have, in a sense, engendered a powerful feeling of “us” versus “Them” among American blacks who, by and large, see everything through the filter of race.  This is how they’ve been trained by the leftist powers that be.  So much so that even intelligent, respectful blacks, whose external culture seems no different than that of whites, are still enslaved by a set of attitudes that are supposed to represent “black” attitudes.   Witness the reactions after the O.J. Simpson verdict.  During, and after, the Obama campaign, and each time an “unarmed black man” gets shot by police.  Sure, many whites will agree with those attitudes – but they don’t agree with them 99% of the time.  Whites are not enslaved by race because, as far as the leftist elite is concerned, there is no “white community”, there are no “white interests”, there is no “white nation”, there are no “white accomplishments” and there should be no “white pride”.  Therefore, a white person is not beholden to any set of racial attitudes.  Whites do not vote as a block and do not see things in terms of their race – except in a negative sense (white guilt).  In light of the above, any time a white person is coupled with a black person, sooner or later there will be conflict revolving around race.  The white may, or may not, agree with the black on any given issue but the former is a free-thinker (at least in regards to racial matters) while the later is certainly not.  If you meet a random black person on the street, you can safely assume that he supports Obama, that he supports affirmative action programs, that there is nothing wrong with having a Congressional Black Caucus, that blacks invented many important things and that anti-black racism is still prevalent in America.  On the other hand, you can also safely assume that this black person does not participate in Green Peace protests, is not a member of PETA, does not donate to charities that benefit mainly non-blacks, and did not adopt a white or Asian child.

The Source of the Problem: “Liberalism”

Concepts that are considered dangerous, and outside the scope of debate, can be called “heresy”.   Having spent a good portion of my life within religious circles, I have experienced, first hand, how people of faith protect their ideological turf by proscribing certain thoughts.  Once those thoughts are forbidden, it becomes less likely that those under their sway will question the underlying basis of their faith.  “Liberalism” is very much like a religion in this respect.   A “liberal” is guided by emotion and has little tolerance for objective observation if it might challenge one of his core beliefs.  He cherishes his faith and will go to great lengths to protect it.  Of course not all “liberals” have exactly the same core beliefs.  Just as other religions have denominations and sects, so too do “liberals”.  The main difference being that “liberals” do not formally recognize these divisions in their ranks.

One common tenet of “liberalism” is racial egalitarianism: the belief that either race does not exist or, even if it does, there are no meaningful distinctions between the races.   Within the framework of organized higher education, media and government, science is subservient to dogma.  Research that focuses on racial differences will not be funded.  If it occurs anyway, it will not be published.  If it gets published anyway, it will be ignored.  If it gets attention anyway, it will be condemned.

“What’s wrong with consensuses is not the establishment of a majority view, which is necessary and legitimate, but the silencing of skeptics. “We still have whole domains we can’t talk about,” Dr. Bouchard said, referring to the psychology of differences between races and sexes.”

Scientists who question racial dogma are marginalized and persecuted.  Then, when a layman expresses doubt about racial dogma, he will be told that the vast majority of scientists uphold the belief that race is not a meaningful concept.  Of course the reason this is so is that most scientists a) have been indoctrinated just like the rest of us and b) value their careers.  In many countries, a scientist can even be prosecuted under the law, for questioning this orthodoxy.  You cannot question core beliefs of Islam and expect a rational response from a Muslim.  Similarly, you cannot question core beliefs of racial orthodoxy and expect a rational response from a “liberal”.  Instead, he will fling accusations and insults.  You might point to mounds of evidence backing up what you say, but the “liberal” will not read it because he finds it offensive.  This is to say, he approaches the subject emotionally.

The mind of a liberal has been conditioned to assume certain things about race and science:

1)            He who entertains notions of meaningful racial differences hates “people of color”.

2)            He who believes there are differences, in average I.Q. between the races, considers whites to be more human than other races because I.Q. is what makes us human more than anything else.

3)            He holds the bell curve to be an invalid concept because he knows people on the right side of the bell curve.  In other words, he does not grasp the concept of “mean I.Q.” or “average”.  If you say that blacks have a lower average I.Q. than whites, in his mind this means that every black is stupid – which is patently false and, therefore, you are wrong.

4)            He assumes that there must be ulterior, evil, motives in your racial research and opinions.  Research that is acceptable to “liberals” is good because it furthers science but research that challenges racial dogma is bad because it is motivated by hate.

5)            He fears that any kind of racial science will, ultimately, lead to another Nazi holocaust, Jim Crow laws or slavery.

6)            He assumes that, since you don’t want your daughter dating a man of another race, this means you hate members of the other race.  The “liberal” has no conception of racial awareness for whites except in the context of hatred for other whites.  This is why he cannot fathom why any white, or Jew, would wish to carry his ethnic group into the future unless it is because the person in question wants other races to disappear.

7)            He believes that it is acceptable for “people of color” to have their own organizations to further their own race – but it is not acceptable for whites to do the same.  The “liberal” will claim that this is because “people of color” are minorities and persecuted.  Yet he will deny whites this right even in place like South Africa or Detroit.

8)            He believes in “diversity” for other people but chooses majority white areas for himself to live in.

9)            He ignores injustices that are not politically correct such as the plight of the pygmies, black on white crime, rape among blacks, gay on straight rape and the high rate of drunk driving among illegal immigrants.  Similar injustices, when perpetrated by whites, get a lot of attention and scrutiny.

10)      He will avoid reading race-realist literature, claiming that he is “too busy” or has “other priorities” and yet he considers himself well informed and his opinions “factual”.

11)      He believes that discrimination is wrong, even within a privately owned company.  In other words, a “liberal” has only a rudimentary concept of private property.

12)      He believes that affirmative action programs have only beneficiaries, but no victims.

13)      He believes that a society can create laws “encouraging” the promotion of one group over another but, somehow, this will not lead to sacrifices being made in order to advance the favored group and no qualifications will be compromised in this process.

14)      He believes that primitive peoples have “complex” societies that require much intelligence and wisdom – wanton murder and rape, within those societies, is hardly worthy of mention.

15)      He considers “white privilege” to be pervasive and can account for the multitude of whites in high positions of authority.  Yet “black privilege” has nothing to do with the multitude of blacks in sports.

16)      He believes that if the mainstream media does not report something (such as black on white murder and rape), it is not an important issue.  It only becomes an important issue when major news outlets report it or it affects the “liberal” personally.

17)      He believes that “race” is synonymous with “skin color”.   Therefore, since skin color cannot determine I.Q., neither can race.

18)      He believes that I.Q. tests are culturally biased in favor of white people.

19)      He considers whites to be apart from nature insofar as they are not expected to have an interest in the advancement of their own genetic kin.  In contrast, it is normal and acceptable for animals and other races to be a part of nature in this way.

The above is only a partial list.  Against such assumptions, it is easy to understand why educating a “liberal” is an uphill struggle.  Much has been written, by people far more educated than myself, to dispel the above “liberal” racial myths.

There are so many barriers that it typically takes decades to overcome them.  This is a major reason why the race-realist/conservative population is older: it takes most of one’s life to be cured of “liberalism”.  Indeed, it sometimes ends up costing the “liberal” his life or the lives of his loved ones.  It is unfortunate that, at least for women, our childbearing years end before we are cured of “liberalism”.

There is another great obstacle to learning the truth about race: academic laziness.   People tend to follow the easiest path.  They would rather be entertained than challenge their minds.  Therefore, I can understand why you, my daughter, spend so much of your sparse free time, reading novels, watching movies and text messaging your friends.  It would take a lot of effort to break your inertia and dedicate some of your time to studying the implications of human biodiversity.  Moreover, you live in an area that has a large white majority; you are not subject to the negative aspects of ethnic diversity on any meaningful scale.  Therefore, from your perspective, there seems to be no urgency.  However, thanks to disparate birth rates and misguided immigration policies, whites are destined to be a minority in the U.S. in the very near future.  Since your experience with black/Hispanic society has been somewhat limited, you see no cause for concern.  Your assumption is that blacks and Hispanics behave the same way, when they are a majority, as when they are a small minority.  I would recommend that you move to Detroit or inner L.A. for a few months to educate yourself – but I value your safety.  One common misconception, fed by the movie industry and constant propaganda, is that poor white areas are as crime-ridden and dangerous as poor black/Hispanic areas.  By far the best determiner, for crime rates in a specific area, is the racial makeup of its inhabitants.  While poverty can exacerbate crime levels, it does not cause it.  Poverty and crime are often found together because both are products of low I.Q. and a high time preference (living for the now rather than planning for the future).  A higher violent crime rate, amongst blacks, is also a result of higher testosterone levels – which is also suspected of contributing to a higher prostate cancer rate.

The Thick Book Tactic

Back in the days when I was part of the religious Jewish community, I took note of a common tactic to defend accepted dogma.  I call it “The Thick Book Tactic”.  The way it works is that a famous person, regarded as a scholar, writes a long book supposedly disproving the targeted heresy.  Back in those days, I had my own “heresy” and I actually went through the trouble of reading the “thick books”.  I discovered that they were practically devoid of real content, instead referring to other works – which, in turn, were easy to debunk.  Those “thick books”, when actually read, were card houses.  But the truth is that they were never intended to be read, at least not by the general populous.  Instead, the main intention was to give people something to point to and say, “Do you see this thick book?  It debunks your heresy.  People wiser than you have already resolved your issues”.  Of course, when I wrote my own opinions, well founded as they were, few were interested in reading them because I was not famous.  The masses would much rather point to nonsense written by a famous person, than actually consider an opposing view.  They’re comfortable in their faith and those “thick books”, even if never read, help support their ideology.

Today, “liberals” have their own “thick books” that they use to defend their racial orthodoxy.  Very few actually read them of course.  Those thick books would intimidate the vast majority of those who would question racial orthodoxy because they are so thick.   Not only that, but they use technical terminology and refer to other works that few laymen have even heard of.

Conclusion

As mentioned above, one of the tenets of “liberal” faith is that primitive societies are “complex” and “wise”.  So let us learn something from them: respect your elders and learn from them.  Life is too short to learn it all by yourself; you might be too old to reap the benefits of wisdom by the time you have gained it.  For most of human history, our life expectancy was about 40.  Since the average person would be dead by the time his life experiences had accumulated enough to guide him meaningfully, it was crucial to learn from his elders.  Societies that did not respect their elders were doomed to fail.  Then came the invention of writing – but still, most people couldn’t read.  And so even then, elders were a valuable asset to their communities.  Now, we live in the modern Western world where most of us are literate – and yet most people will only read establishment-supported literature if anything at all.  They seem to believe that, since information is all around them, somehow it will seep into their head by osmosis and without any effort on their part.  They simply assume that their leaders will automatically filter out the false from the true.  They assume that the news media will be honest and upfront with them, reporting fairly and impartially.  In fact, they are being deliberately misled by both their leaders and the media.  They are being lied to over and over again.  YOU are being lied to by those you trust and now I, your father, am trying to warn you.  You owe it to yourself to spend time investigating these matters without bias.  When your eyes are opened, you will find it hard to understand how you could have been so blind before.