Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Race and the Olympics
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
South Africa Sucks
Go there, you'll learn a lot, and be amused inbetween.
Here's a selection of some of their best:
Never Forget:
On Easter Sunday, a gang of vile black beasts forced their way into an upmarket Faerie Glen home, where they found the 19 year old Esteè van Rensburg. Esteè was alone at her parent's home when rampaging blacks invaded her house. They slapped the screaming, terrified teenager around, punched and kicked her, ripped off her clothes and proceeded to gang rape her for a few tortuous hours.
When they were done raping and sodomising her, one of the criminals grabbed a pillow with his black paw and pushed it over her face. At this point Estèe's cries had subsided into pitiful, muffled whimpering for her mommy. In his other paw, the coon held a 9mm pistol, which he shoved into the pillow and calmly pulled the trigger. Estèe died instantly as she was shot in the head execution-style, her hellish excruciation finally -almost mercifully- over.
The blacks then ransacked the house, loading stolen electrical appliances into Estèe's silver
But this wasn't the first violent house invasion: three years earlier, three armed blacks attacked Estèe and her father in the same home, racially abusing them, pointing guns and also making off with a car heavily-laden with looted household goods. Estèe's parents were away for the Easter weekend when their petite ballerina daughter was brutalised and cold-bloodedly murdered. Another young White life snuffed out - a few hours of sexual torture, and bang - her usefulness expired when the anti-White hatred of the black criminal wielding the gun boiled over.
Image: Estèe's body being retrieved by mortuary staff
As is sometimes the outcome of these unconscionable, mindless acts of savagery, her parents may liquidate some assets, start a trust fund for the simian murderers and hold tearful media briefings during which the formerly disadvantaged, Apartheid-oppressed tormentors of their lovely daughter are exonerated and hugged in a show of White Liberal Guilt, all while muttering apologies for black suffering for which Estèe (just like her beloved Jesus) paid the ultimate price.
Or, perish the thought- they might grow some balls, hunt down these fucking animals, torture their stinking carcasses for several days and finally snuff out these worthless subhuman cockroaches.
Know this, White Man: that little baby girl of yours, on whom you spent thousands of rands in pre-natal medical care, bought a cot, stroller, clothing and baby toys for when she was born... spent so much time with during midnight and early morning hours when she was sick or in hospital... had fever while teething...that girl, who you then put through school, spent thousands on piano lessons, sporting activities, clothing and entertainment...
That little girl, with whom you laughed and cried, teaching her right and wrong, on whom you lavished so much love, resources and effort to raise her as an intelligent, educated asset to society...
is in Azanian terms nothing more than a sperm receptacle for rapacious, murderous negroid beasts to violate and enjoy for a few hours. Her virgin womb little more than a glorified condom for the exclusive pleasure of the most execrable, vile filth imaginable, to stick their filthy, unwashed, disease-ridden dicks into, after which she is unceremoniously shot like a dog...her life snuffed out with as little thought and concern as squashing a bug...
Don't get mad White Man - you have no right to anger, no matter the gravity of injustice against you & yours. The only right and obligation you have is to apologise for the sins of your fathers. Just shut the fuck up and do your duty - to conscientiously raise more disposable sperm receptacles for your black brethren to enjoy as & when they please. And remember to APOLOGISE. - it's the right thing to do.
Does this mean I'm a racist?
I hate kaffirs!
There – I said it.
I’ll say it again because no amount of social taboo, political correctness, nanny banging and black arse kissing is going to stop me saying what I feel and think – I hate kaffirs!!
What’s more, I’ll bet I’m expressing the sentiments of a whole lot of other people who think and feel exactly the way I do but won’t say so for the aforementioned reasons.
What's more, I'll bet that every last white person who has emigrated from
I hate them because they murder gratuitously.
I hate them because no life form holds any value for them.
I hate them because if every now and again, a white harms a kaffir it’s racism but when kaffirs murder, rape, torture, pillage and plunder white people EVERY DAY it’s to address “past imbalances.”
I hate them because they will fuck anything with or without a pulse, whether it’s their neighbour’s 9-month-old baby, their own 9-year-old or their own 90-year-old granny. Whether it’s a goat, a chicken or road kill they’ll fuck it – these sub-species exist only to steal, kill, eat, shit or screw. Nothing constructive or progressive can be ascribed to this most useless of primate and if there is any documented evidence out there that denies that the only thing a kaffir can make is another kaffir, everything else he either loses or breaks, please submit such evidence, I’m doing my master’s thesis on the “Contribution of the Negroid races to Humanity” and after six months have just successfully completed the first paragraph containing the preamble to the thesis. So please people, I’m looking for material ‘cause my research turned up nothing.
I hate them because they are stupid. These spastics believe that rubbing an ointment of powdered baby penis and baboon piss on their members will give them an eternal erection enabling them to pursue the aforementioned activities 24/7 without the need ever to earn a living, build a house, raise a family – as long as they can “Jikka Jikka” they are in monkey heaven. If it moves “Jikka” it, if it doesn’t move, “Jikka” it till it moves. If it screams, cries, quacks, squawks, squeaks, squeals, bleats or barks – “Jikka” it till it stops.
I hate them because they stink.
I hate them because they lie.
I hate them because they steal.
I hate them for slaughtering thousands of farmers and then rioting because they have no food.
I hate them for totally fucking up things that whites perfected and then awarding themselves millions in bonuses for it - ESKOM and SAA.
I hate them for burning the trains when they run late - better never than late is pure kaffir logic.
I hate the useless pieces of shit for stealing gifts and valuables in the mail - fuckn thievings bastards!!
I hate them because they are a threat to my family and myself.
I hate them because they have the right to commit crime and I do not have the right to defend my family, myself and my property against their criminal attentions.
I hate them for even entertaining the thought that all white women want their filthy attentions.
I hate them because they are corrupt.
I hate them because they are incompetent.
I hate them because a kaffir can call a kaffir a kaffir but if I do it I risk a jail sentence.
I hate them because it is technically illegal for me to hold a job because I’m a white man.
I hate them because if I run a business because it’s illegal for me to be employed, I have to hire kaffirs to ruin my business and steal from me to satisfy ‘Femtev Ekshen quotas.
I hate them because they can’t talk properly.
I hate them because they jerk around like spastics making unintelligible noises or yowling dementedly when they are striking, sexually aroused, happy, unhappy, angry, rioting, dancing, celebrating, mourning or “Dee-munding”
I hate them because they are lazy and would rather steal what they want than acquire it by hard work and honest means.
I hate them because they are hypocrites with double standards and dishonesty that a skunk would be ashamed of.
I hate their single male, multiple female hundreds of kids culture.
I hate their refusal to accept responsibility and accountability for their own fucks-ups.
I hate them for blaming the white man for their fuck-ups and then blaming the white man for not fixing their fuck-ups.
I hate them because just by being there they can make an area of pristine natural beauty look dark, dirty and dingy – like
I hate their littering and conversion of any inhabitable structure to squalor, filth, and the perpetual stench of shit and piss.
I hate them because they are merciless killers but moral and physical cowards who only attack vulnerable victims who cannot fight back but will beg for mercy, forgiveness food, booze or cigarettes when the tables are turned.
Wanna know why I will never co-exist with kaffirs? – All of the above.
And a note to the liberal meidenaaiers – I never once mentioned that I hate them because they’re black – so; “Jou Antie se moer…..” – I’m not a racist.
A White South Africa - What Went Wrong?
I have had this article in my files for a while, and while there is all sorts of debate raging about a White territory, I decided to put it up.
In 1980, White
The Afrikaners, once masters of the country, are today a subject nation, ruled by people, who only 120 years ago, did not have the wheel.How did this happen? What happened to Apartheid? Why did that policy not guarantee White survival in that country? What went wrong?
Arthur Kemp provides the answer.
It is one of the many bitter ironies about South Africa that the policy of Apartheid – to which Afrikaners clung for decades as their only hope and salvation from Third World domination – was in fact an impracticable and unworkable system which led directly to the Afrikaners’ demise as a political force in that country.The politicians -- the National Party -- who fostered Apartheid, are the primary criminals in this tragedy, holding out a false illusory hope to the Afrikaners, and then when the inevitable became just that, changed track and gave in, abandoning their followers to ANC rule as callously as they had earlier lied to them.
For Apartheid – in reality forced social segregation – was nothing but an illusion, a twisted distortion of the demographic reality of South Africa, not to mention the truth that it was, ultimately, morally repugnant as well.Who really wants to rule over millions of non-Whites by force? What sane White person would wish that as a legacy to their children? Worse, the conservative White South African politicians – all of them - never understood – and possibly still today, do not understand – what the driving force of political power is: namely, physical occupation.Political power comes from physical occupation: not historical rights, not title deeds, not moral rights – only occupation.
Those people who occupy a territory determine the nature of the society in that region. Two examples, familiar to all, illustrate this point well:Example 1:
The great shift in
This effect -- the displacement of peoples and the subsequent disappearance of their civilization -- has direct implications in racial terms. The rise and fall of any particular civilization can therefore be traced, not by the economics, politics, morals etc. of a particular civilization, but rather by the actual racial presence of the people themselves. If the society which has produced a particular civilization stays intact as a racially homogeneous unit, then that civilization remains active.If, however, the society within any particular given area changes its racial makeup -- through invasion, immigration, or any decline in numbers -- then the civilization which that society has produced will disappear with them, to be replaced by a new civilization reflecting the new inhabitants of that territory.
Example 2:
History teaches us that there are two main reasons for a change in the racial make-up of anysociety: either military occupation or the use of foreign or alien labor.The American Indians serve as a text book example of the "military occupation" case study, as detailed earlier, while South Africa serves as a text book example of the "use of foreign labor" case study. When a change occurs through the use of alien labor, the following process occurs: - The dominant society imports (usually racially) foreign labor to do the menial work in that society. - These racial aliens then become established, settle down and multiply in numbers by drawing upon the society’s structures (in White countries, their science, healthcare, technology, etc.)- They grow in number, and finally dominate that society by their sheer numbers.
It is, simply put, a demographic reality: those who occupy a land, determine the nature of that society. And so it was – and is – with South Africa, where population figures reveal precisely how the use of alien labor by the Afrikaners dispossessed them of their fatherland.Consider the following: in 1904, the first population census of the old Transvaal (one of four provinces in the ‘old’ South Africa) revealed that there were 297,277 Whites and 937,127 non-Whites in that region. (Transvaal,1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.) Importantly, the 1904 census also tells us that of these non-Whites, some 135,042 were not from the
It was not just in the
According to the 2001 census, the population of
This issue has faced every minority trying to rule over a majority country throughout history: the contradiction of allowing huge numbers of racial aliens into the territory in question to do the labor; whilst trying to prevent that civilization from being overwhelmed by foreign numbers. The truth is that it cannot be done. In 
The Afrikaner farmers who are now being murdered complain bitterly of the attacks on their properties, and of the impending government plans to seize and redistribute their farms. Yet it was those same Afrikaner farmers who were the ones who employed (and still do) hundreds of Black laborers on those farms, providing their families with housing, schools, food, and of course, churches. It is estimated that each Afrikaner farmer still to this day, employs anywhere between 100 and 300 Black laborers – and then still provides for their families as well.
Outnumbered on their ‘own’ farms by hundreds to one, it is little wonder that the White farmers are subjected to such attacks.
In the mines, the economic heart of the country, the vast majority of common laborers, numbering many hundreds of thousands, are Black. All over the country the overwhelming majority of laborers doing almost everything, from factory work to driving, from road building to house building, were (and still are) Black. Over this mass of economic integration, the Apartheid government attempted to enforce social segregation and still maintain a White government: it was a plan which was doomed from the start. Apartheid was based on a fallacy: the fallacy that non-Whites could be used as labor to drive society; that non-Whites could physically form a majority inside
The huge Black housing complex of Soweto, located outside Johannesburg as a dormitory town for non-White labor working in the ‘White’city, was, for example, built up in 1961 – at the height of the Apartheid policy, which was supposed to be saving the Whites. In fact, all that Apartheid actually did was guarantee that Whites would most certainly be overrun by the ever-growing non-White numbers. Apartheid was built on the premise that Blacks could do the labor, and could live segregated in the areas from where they performed the labor.This then, was the lie of Apartheid: that it was possible, through strict segregation, to ensure that Blacks could not rule over a country in which they were/are the majority.
The historical record is clear: there has never been a society in which the majority of the population has not determined the nature of that society. Nowhere, ever.White South Africans, it must be said, more or less believed the lie: they were happy to have Black domestic servants; to have Blacks serve them in restaurants; iron their clothes; make up the very beds they slept in – and were prepared to believe that this mass of established Black labor inside their territory would never have any effect upon the political power structure of their country. It is said, in jest, that the definition of a White South African is ‘someone who would rather be murdered in their bed than make it.’ Amusing? To be honest, not really: consider these true examples:
* Under Apartheid, Blacks could not use White public toilets, but were used to clean those same toilets each day. One can only wonder at the naiveté of such an arrangement.
* Under Apartheid, Blacks could work in restaurant kitchens, prepare the food, put it on the plates and deliver it to the White patrons’ tables, but could not eat that food at the same table in that same restaurant. What hypocrisy is that? Surely if one was going to be consistent, one would have forbidden Blacks from working in restaurants completely: but no, Apartheid didn’t go that far, it was built upon the premise that Blacks did do the work.
Cynical observers talked about the "grass mower" syndrome amongst South African Whites. They regarded Black labor as akin to lawn mowers. A lawn mower sits quietly in its shed or garage until you need it, then it mows the grass, and then you put it back in the shed where it stays quietly, not causing any trouble, until the next time it is needed.Somehow, White South Africans believed that Black labor was like a lawnmower: you could have it around, and when you didn’t need it, you could hide it in its little shed where it would be good and quiet – until you needed it again. The reality is, of course, dramatically different.
Another important part of the Apartheid lie was that military force could keep the system intact. The demographic reality once again belies this: the South African White population totaled about 5 million at its height, while the Black population at that time was around 30 million. Of the 5 million Whites, less than 800,000 were of military serviceable age, and not even all of these could be called up at any one time, so in reality the state had to rely on no more than a few hundred thousand military personnel at any one time – to try and control a Black population of millions. Given that demographic reality, it can be seen that Apartheid was unsustainable by military means. Yet the lie continued, and young White South Africans were conscripted into the army and police to fight and die for a system which was doomed from the very beginning.
At the same time, White Western healthcare and technology was made available on a massive scale: the largest hospital in the Southern Hemisphere was erected in the Black
These laws – detention without trial, banning of books and people, were bad enough by themselves, but as the conflict intensified, both sides started using methods which would be shunned by any decent society: the Apartheid state used officially-funded death squads while police torture became routine; and the ANC placed bombs in restaurants, and encouraged mobs to necklace murder collaborators, amongst other outrages.
In the name of a lie – that Apartheid could be sustained – the state caused, what was in anybody’s book, morally repugnant acts to take place, on both sides of the political divide. The Black resistance movements adopted a guerrilla hit-and-run policy of attacks on strategic targets. To combat this unconventional war, the South African Police were given extended powers of detention and other draconian measures - all of which could only be short term fire fighting measures, as the main issue: that of preventing majority Black occupation of the country-- was never addressed by any Apartheid laws.
The White government tried to give practical application to the policy of "Grand Apartheid." 
White South Africa’s fate was sealed when the territorial division was not adjusted to fit in with the demographic realities; when all the effort was put into creating Black homelands and none put into creating a White "homeland" and the continued insistence upon the use of Black labor.
The partial reforms of the mid-1980s - which included the repealing of the laws forbidding mixed racial marriages and mixed racial political parties, combined with limited constitutional reforms which gave Indians and Coloreds (in South Africa, these are people of mixed race) their own parliamentary chambers, did little to stop the increasing violence. In fact, racial violence increased dramatically: the reforms created an unfulfilled "revolution of rising expectations," and it was precisely during this cycle of Black violence and White counter violence that the racial war taking place inside the country exacted its highest death tolls ever.
In 1990, the White government finally faced the truth that it could no longer effectively control the ballooning Black population, and unbanned the ANC and released Nelson Mandela from prison. By 1994, power had been handed over to the ANC in a one-man one-vote election - although strict Apartheid had ended in the 1980s, it is from 1994 that the policy is considered to have been laid to rest.It was an inevitable result: Apartheid could not be maintained. It was, in practical terms, unenforceable due to the demographic reality; and it was morally unacceptable as well, forcing young Whites to partake in a conflict which could not be won. White South Africans therefore sowed the seeds of their own downfall with Apartheid, a system of segregation that could never be maintained in the face of their own use of Black labor.
It is too easy – as many ‘right wing’ White South Africans still do – to blame conspiracies, Jews, the ‘Illuminati’ or the last White president, FW de Klerk, for the collapse of White South Africa. The reality is that the White population itself was responsible for the collapse: they were the ones who used non-White labor; they were the ones who supported and maintained the system which turned out to be the largest non-White breeding program in history.
Apartheid was founded on the deadly logic of petty segregation: History proves this is no answer to the racial question.
The only solution lies in complete physical geographical separation, nothing less. Any attempt to implement, by force, racial segregation over a hopelessly racially-integrated economy by a minority, is doomed to fail, and Apartheid was no exception to this rule.Apartheid had to fall: the only question was when, not if. And the politicians who sold it to White South Africans as their only hope and salvation, lied: either deliberately, or out of ignorance of the reality of the relationship between demographics and power.
Can the Afrikaners be Saved? The question therefore arises: Given the current situation, can the Afrikaners be saved?
The answer is relatively simple:
* In a united
* In a smaller region where Afrikaners form the majority population, the answer is yes. No minority has every survived indefinitely in the face of a growing hostile majority, particularly one in
The only way in which Afrikaners can be saved, is if they come to understand the relationship between demographics and power: with no risk of overrepeating this critical point, namely, that those who occupy a territory, determine the nature of that territory. Only once a majority of Afrikaners understand this truth, can there even begin to be talk of a practical plan for saving them from ultimate long term extermination at the hands of the
Theoretically, if a majority of Afrikaners should come to this understanding, then it would be possible for Afrikaners to save themselves – as no-one else is going to save them. Let us be positive and say that theoretically, if Afrikaners did come to an understanding of the relationship between demographics and power politics. Then they would stop wasting time blaming crackpot conspiracies for their downfall, stop dancing around wasting time playing party politics in a majority rule system in which they are just as doomed to failure as they were under Apartheid and start practically working towards creating a territory or region in which they become the demographic majority.
This would, ipso facto as a result of their small numbers, be a much smaller territory that then current area of
Yes, this means gathering together the stock Afrikaner nation into a defined area – for example, (and this is just a theoretical example) if 500,000 Afrikaners had to settle in the old Eastern Transvaal, and physically occupy it, then this territory would de facto, and later even de jure, become an Afrikaner state. The only way, then, that Afrikaners can be spared the fate of all first World minorities in Africa, is for them to abandon their dependence on non-White labor, accept that their salvation lies in a smaller territory, and finally pack their bags and congregate in that smaller territory where they will form an outright demographic majority.There is no other way: all else is chaff in the wind. History will tell if the Afrikaners have it within them to undertake this second Great Trek, or if they are doomed to go the way of all-White settlements in
About the writer:
Arthur Kemp is the Rhodesian-born author of March of theTitans: A History of the White Race. He was educated in
Here is some research that gives a perspective on the claims that differences between human races are genetically insignificant.
In Number of ancestral human species: a molecular perspective
D. CURNOE*, and A. THORNE, (in HOMO Vol. 53/3, pp. 201-224) write:
“Nuclear DNA
Our analyses using 24 genetic distances provide an estimated speciation rate of 1-13 with a mean of 4 for all DNA distances (table 1). Some of the speciation rates in table 1 are <1. This results from the fact that some of the distances between humans and chimpanzees, when halved, are below those between Africans and Asians.”
Just think about that: some of the genetic differences between Africans and Eurasians, are more than half as great as between the consensus human genome and chimpanzees!
Compare the research cited above, in regard to the great difference between African and Eurasian nuclear and mtDNA, to the deceptive statements by Feldman, as quoted in Discover magazine (IMO…, posted on site).
Next, consider how ‘racial’ differences, between Eurasians and sub-Saharan Africans, compare to the difference between modern humans and pre-human species of Homo.
“We estimate the mean distance between H. sapiens and «terminal» H. neanderthalensis from 16 distances to be around 0.08%. This is a very small distance and is less than half the estimated genetic difference between living sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians (Starr & McMillan 2001). The mean of 8 genetic distances between H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis is 0.026-0.027. This is equivalent to the genetic distance between Papua New Guineans and Thais or Na Dene and Indonesians (Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994).”
So, the difference between the modern human consensus genome, and H. neanderthalensis, is less than half the difference between s-S Africans and Eurasians. These are the differences: twice as much as the gulf between Hss and Hn, which Lewontin and the race-deniers call ‘trivial’!
What about the genetic distance to H. erectus? “Homo sapiens and … H. erectus living about 0.3 Ma, … may have shared an ancestor around 1.5 Ma (a total divergence time of 2.4 million years). The distance between them as determined from the mean of 16 distances may have been around 0.19%. This is about equivalent to the estimated genetic difference between living sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians of 0.2% (Starr & McMillan 2001). The mean of 8 other genetic distances between H. sapiens and H. erectus is 0.065-0.068. This overlaps the range of distances for living humans, with the lower estimate identical to the distance between «Bantu» and «Eskimo» (Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994).”
So, modern Eurasians and s-S Africans are about as genetically distant as modern humans are from H. erectus! The authors say erectus and modern humans may have shared a last common ancestor about 1.5 million years ago. Notice how that fits with the data on fossil mtDNA included on chromosome 11 (see Australian Ancestry) which also implies that African erectus and Eurasians had diverged for more than a million years, before [on my view] hybridization between Eurasian sapiens and tropical erectus produced the indigenous populations of
Even authors who have, in the past, minimized the importance of racial genetic distinctions are now admitting that the shibboleths, ‘race is a social construct’ and ‘we are all the same genetically’, are just plain wrong. As one reviewer wrote,
“New support for the existence and significance of group, or racial, differences in medicine comes from several contributors to the [then] current Nature Genetics, a leading journal of genetics. This already widely noted issue is devoted to the question of whether inherited differences between groups should be considered in medical research and treatment, and though various authors deny the relevance of such differences, Sarah Tishkoff (University of Maryland) and
Kenneth Kidd (Yale) in “Implications of biogeography of human populations for race and magazine” report that racial differences indeed exist, while Joanna L. Mountain and Neil Risch, both of Stanford, in “Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences between among ‘racial’ and ‘ethnic’ groups,” recognize racial disparities and regard them as important for medical treatment.”
The reviewer comments that, “The careful (and sometimes cautious) findings of these scholars may seem all too obvious, but they are an important corrective, in an authoritative source, to efforts to use such recent advances in genetic knowledge as the Genome to obscure the fact and the importance of racial differences.”
The reviewer continues, writing of a recent Stanford study that has found a very close correlation between individuals' racial self-identification and the evidence from their DNA. In Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies, which appears in the February 2005 issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, a dozen researchers report that the way the 3,636 individuals studied classified themselves racially tallied almost perfectly with their racial type as indicated by 326 signposts in their DNA: only 5 participants volunteered a racial identity at variance with that indicated by their genetic material.
Intriguingly, the study also determined that the DNA of self-identified African-American and Hispanic participants, despite their substantial genetic admixture from other racial groups (and despite their historical tendencies to identify with other racial groups), jibed with their expressed racial membership as often as did those of whites and East Asians. The largest of its kind to date, the Stanford study focused on four major racial groupings (white, East Asian, African-American, and Hispanic) and was conducted in fifteen locations in the
Study leader Neil Risch, currently a professor at the
Risch said, “people’s self-identified race is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background, contradicting the race-as-social-construct view”.
I commend those authors for having the courage to tell even a little of the truth about this PC-censored topic. A paper by Deka, et al., titled: Population genetics of dinucleotide (dC-dA)n.(dG-dT)n polymorphisms in world populations (Am J Hum Genet. 1995 Feb;56(2):461-74) is both pertinent and long-ignored.
“We have characterized eight dinucleotide (dC-dA)n.(dG-dT)n repeat loci located on human chromosome 13q in eight human populations and in a sample of chimpanzees. Even though there is substantial variation in allele frequencies at each locus, at a given locus the most frequent alleles are shared by all human populations. … The microsatellite loci examined here are present and, with the exception of the locus D13S197, are polymorphic in the chimpanzees, showing an overlapping distribution of allele sizes with those observed in human populations.”
This study compares the genetic distances of eight human populations (Samoans, North Amerindians, South Amerindians, New Guineans, Kachari [Mongolids], Germans, more generalized Caucasians, and Sokoto: sub-Saharan Africans from Nigeria) to each other and to chimpanzees. The data were analyzed two ways - with Nei's standard genetic distance, and with modified Cavalli-Sforza distance.
Using Nei's method, the Nigerian-chimp distance was 1.334 +/- 0.375, by far the closest value. By the Cavalli-Sforza method, the Sokoto Nigerians were again the closest to chimps (0.539) by a large margin. The farthest were again the South Amerindians (0.712), with the Germans (0.680) and general Caucasians (0.667) being a very close third and fourth behind the South Amerindians as well as Samoans (0.711) and North Amerindians (0.697). So, while the two methods give slightly different orders, in both cases the Nigerians are by far the closest group to the chimps. Once again, given the first method, these sub-Saharan Africans were at 1.334 while all the other groups ranged from 1.527-1.901, and given the second method they were at 0.539 while the other groups ranged from 0.643 (Kachari again) to 0.712. Thus, based on these data, the sub-Saharan African group is genetically closest to chimps.
Finally, there have been numerous publications asserting that modern humans are 99.9% genetically identical. EVEN if that were true, there are so many loci in the human genome that a tenth of a percent of them would be MILLIONS! As one of the authors (quoted below) observes, “that could explain differences” … NO doubt!
However, that 99.9 figure is WRONG. As posted
“New research casts doubt on the widely accepted belief that humans are 99.9 percent genetically identical. That statement has been used to argue that race isn't real.
But two new studies suggest that percentage is too high, researchers say … “The 99.9 percent number is pure nonsense,” wrote Michael Wigler, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York, in a recent email. “I will not say anything more about it.” … Wigler is a co-author of one of the two studies, which is published in the July 23 advance online edition of the prestigious research journal Science. In it, the researchers wrote that they were surprised to find large-scale differences in human DNA. “There is considerable structural variation in the human genome [genetic code], most of which was not previously apparent,” they wrote.
Wigler’s group sampled DNA from 20 people from around the world. They detected 76 major differences among the people, differences known as copy number polymorphisms. This means that some sections of genetic code are repeated, but the numbers of repetitions vary among people.
This “could explain why people are different” … said Scherer, whose team reached similar findings to those of the
“At first we were astonished and didn't believe our results because for years we had been taught that most variation in DNA was limited to very small changes,” Scherer said. But later, he added, he learned
The
That [99.9%] figure has become one of the most prominent pieces of their [“race-isn't real” proponents] argument since about four years ago, when the number came out from scientists associated with the Human Genome Project, a 13-year program to map the human genetic code.
Lander - a researcher who has been quoted in published reports giving the 99.9 percent figure, and who works with the Whitehead Institute in
Also unreachable was Craig Venter, chairman of the Institute for Genomics Research in
Sunday, August 17, 2008
What Must Be Done: Part II.
What Must Be Done: Part I
"I have deceived you with the promise of help," Travis informed the Alamo's defenders shortly after sunset. "Our fate is sealed. Within a very few days--perhaps a very few hours--we must all be in eternity. This is our destiny and we cannot avoid it. This is our certain doom." He urged his men not to blame the Texas government, or James Fannin, commander of the Goliad garrison, who had failed to come to the Alamo's aid. "All that remains is to die in the fort and fight to the last moment.... We must sell our lives as dearly as possible."
Resolving that he would fight Santa Anna "as long as there is breath in my body," Travis offered his men a choice. Unsheathing his sword, he drew a long line in the ground in front of his men. "I now want every man who is determined to stay here and die with me to come across this line," declared Commander Travis. "Who will be the first? March!"
"At the end, only two were left where a moment before 183 had stood." The bedridden Jim Bowie, who had been brought into the plaza to hear Travis' speech, implored his comrades to help him cross the line: "Boys, I am not able to go to you, but I wish some of you would be so kind as to remove my cot over there." I'm a proud Texan, and I have walked the ground of the Alamo. "REMEMBER THE ALAMO" still means everything to me. I remember it. I venerate it. I believe it is one of the bravest stands in the history of the world, and I believe it was a just and noble war not just for Texas, not just for America, or the South, but the entire white race. Due to our stand at the Alamo, Texas won independence. Due to Texas winning independence, the Mexican-American war was fought. Due to the Mexican-American war, America's territory was doubled and a new frontier for the white race was opened up instead of the hispanics beneath us. The land, the resources, the freedom, the beauty, were bequeathed to our manifest destiny and spanned from sea to shining sea. The life and welfare of hundreds of millions of whites were created by the actions of 183 Texans at the Alamo. These were SERIOUS people, just 183, willing to do what it took, to kill and die, to embrace a moral absolute, to finish their sentences with "VICTORY OR DEATH." The Alamo is now lost. San Antonio, indeed all of Texas, is overrun with the very same Mexicans those men fought and died to keep out. Their sacrifice was in vain, they have been betrayed. Their descendants have stabbed them in the back and robbed them of their glory. The very soul of Texas and the heart of our history has been ripped from us and belongs to the enemy. America's fate is still intertwined with that one lonely, shelled out half-ruined church. Soon it will lose the same west the Alamo, through its blood sacrifice, gained, but can no longer hold. Therefore I propose people take the same vow I took and view it as a sacred, binding trust forever more. To graduate from 'yes I like whites' to 'I pledge myself to the white race.' From white nationalist to white warrior. Before anything else can be done, first your mind, your soul, must be willing to do it. The first thing all white nationalists must do is be willing to do what must be done. If they are not willing to do that, there is no sense debating what else must be done even an iota further. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iraq8WJioc4&feature=related Watch this video, and then ask yourself: Do you want these two white children to be the only girls brave enough to fight for our race? Do you want these two white children to sacrifice themselves for you, while you sit aside and do nothing? Do you want these two children to carry the flag into the breach and die for their race, sacrifice everything they have for you, brave every storm and every persecution, while you sit aside and do nothing, ever, until the very end? They don't even know you, they've never seen you, they don't know your name, but they will lay down their lives and bleed for you, because they love you. They ask nothing of you, they will do it all without a single benefit, they will let you sit aside and do nothing until the very end, and, not questioning how much we whites deserve their faith and support, will do it all anyway. These two girls will bleed for you, they have pledged their lives to you, for you. Will you bleed for them? I will.Thursday, August 14, 2008
Jews, Anti-semitism, and Anti-anti-Semitism:
What do we know about jews, on what basis can we judge them? I speak of jews as a group like I speak of any group, a generalization that is largely true and thus sufficient to make informed decisions about the group as a whole, without singling any particular individual out or worrying about exceptions. We have Jewish history, Judaism and Christianity the religion, prominent Jewish thinkers, scientific research into Jewish biology, Israel, and knowledge of where jews are socio-economically and politically wherever else they live. From these facts it should be easy to determine a fair opinion of jews in general.
Going by the old testament, jewish history is of a petty kingdom continuously at war with a bloody disdain for their neighbors and even apostates and heretics among themselves. There is really no good thing the ancient Israel did. Unlike Egypt and Babylon and Greece to every side of them, they were a backwater who achieved nothing. Foolishly revolting against the much mightier Rome, their ancient kingdom was destroyed and the people scattered.
From there Jews filtered into many foreign nations, where they always made nuisances of themselves by keeping apart and not assimilating into their host nations. The jewish ethnicity is still genetically distinct after thousands of years of living among their host populations due to a practically religious refusal to interbreed or convert. In a deeply Christian land, maintaining their Judaic faith was an assault on the homogeneity and cohesiveness and Christian-ness of the land. In an otherwise ethnically pure state, Jews from the middle east created another dividing line that otherwise the hosts wouldn't have had to put up with. Instead of everyone being related by blood and culture, there were all the people related by blood and culture and faith--and the unrelated, unassimilated, unconverted jews. Jewish customs like eating and dressing habits made sure they could never adopt the contrary habits of their hosts. To top it off, they always took annoying jobs like moneylender, tax collector, or some other disagreeable role sure to annoy their hosts. The result was constant uprisings and pogroms against jews wherever they went, universally, in every land. Spain, Poland, Russia, the Roman Empire, Germany, the Ottomans, it didn't matter. Eventually the jews would be rounded up and massacred, chased out, or something. Obviously, the people back then were antisemites. However, when everyone across all history is an antisemite, it is not enough to simply dismiss them as antisemitic. Rather, they were anti anyone breaking up their otherwise homogeneous and harmonious society, and the jews were especially adept at pissing people off with their refusal to assimilate or interbreed in any way. However, at the same time, rulers and elites liked Jews. All the way back to Joseph being an advisor to the Pharoah in Egypt, rulers have liked having jews in their community and government because of how effective they are. These rulers were constantly inviting Jews to come to their country whenever they were being chased out of the previous one. Jewish industriousness and efficiency translated to higher revenues and incomes, Jewish bankers translated to loans to the government, Jewish bureacrats translated to tighter control of the country, and so on. Jews were a boon to the elites and a bane to the people. The constant push and pull of these two contrasting desires is the reason Jews were never quite fully accepted, or quite fully rejected, throughout their thousands of wandering years. Due to Jews being high IQ and a culture of hard work and striving to excel, they could take any position and do it better than anyone else could. This led to massive discrimination against jews as the host nations protected their power, prestige, jobs, property, and so on. Discrimination against jews was simply the only way to beat them, otherwise the cream rose to the top and they would have had the whole kingdom for themselves. These people saw no reason why foreigners, aliens not related by blood or culture, should gain the highest power, prestige, and wealth in their own homeland, and therefore used force to defend these goods for themselves.
The latest Jewish roundups and pogroms occurred in the late 20th century, when Europe mostly went along with Nazi Germany's goal of wiping the jewish ethnicity out, and after the creation of Israel the arabs ethnic cleansed all the jews to Israel and then tried to ethnic cleanse Israel into the sea. These rather vehement versions of the cycle were complicated by the new addition of jews ceasing to be a nuisance and beginning to become a menace. The menace to the arab states was obvious, jews were invading and conquering their land the arabs had held for thousands of years, and destabilizing arab states by making visible all the superiorities of jews over arabs and Israel over the rest of the middle east. Since more was at stake, arabs were more antisemitic than normal and called for more drastic solutions. Israel continues to take more land for itself from the Arabs by building settlements on the occupied territories and not allowing them their natural right to self-determination, and continues to destabilize the middle east both by example (a democracy in the middle of dictatorships, a rich country in the middle of poverty, the Judaic faith in the middle of Islam, etc) and direct action like bombing Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Again, you do not have to resort to prejudice to explain their antisemitism. Anyone in their position would be antisemitic, it would be unnatural not to be.
What about Nazi Germany? Well, taking a short history lesson it's obvious why their anti-semitism had grown from nuisance to menace too. A jew, Karl Marx, had invented communism, a social system which if instituted spelled the doom of everything classical, traditional, and good Germany had built up. A jewish conspiracy had attempted a communist coup on Weimar Germany just years before. The mainly or at least extremely disproportionately jewish bolshevik revolution had managed a communist coup on Russia and had slaughtered thirty million whites in that region in an even ongoing process in the 1930's. Jews had managed a communist coup in Hungary and slaughtered some more people there before being stopped as well. Meanwhile Jews in Germany were like usual the moneylenders of a poor and destitute German nation in the midst of a depression. There is nothing more obnoxious than looking around at all the successful, rich jewish businesses in Germany where the average German, related by blood, culture, and religion was dying of influenza, starvation, having to whore their women out, unemployed, and so on. So when you combine one of the worst depressions in German history, the continuous fact that jews outperform whites and take obnoxious jobs, the continuous fact that jews never assimilate and never intermarry, and now the added problem that jews were openly plotting to take over the country like the bolsheviks and slaughter millions of germans once they got power---and you have yet again, what do you know, antisemitism! In one of its most developed forms!
The 20th century was practically the Jewish century. Everything was either done by the jews, or done to the jews, of any moment. The USSR was a jewish child, as was, as a byproduct of the USSR, communist asia, communist eastern Europe, communist latin america, socialist western Europe, and so on. Nazi Germany and the radicalized muslim middle east were reactions to the threats of jews. And last but not least, the USA was completely dominated by jewish thinkers/policies and remains so today. Behind every liberal media outlet--Hollywood, ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, Newsweek magazine, and so on--you will find jews in powerful positions and lots of them. Jews decide what white Americans read, see, and hear, at all times. They frame the debates, they create the 'consensus,' they even control the elections. On one side, they use enormous campaign donations to both parties, on the other, their media outlets give glowing praise to their preferred (always liberal) candidate and resoundingly condemn anyone who falls out of properly pro-jewish policies (like Ron Paul.) Jews do not stop at controlling the masses though, they have infiltrated into again, disproportionate amounts of the social sciences departments in all the universities, where they as professors indoctrinate white children to hate themselves and be pro-liberal-jewish-policies. Anyone who crosses Jews is immediately torpedoed and their political chances, their reception in public, their description in the media, etc is all shot to hell. Thus we see ridiculous things like both Mccain and Obama wearing yamahkas and praying at jewish temples---kowtowing to their masters. Not only do Jews torpedo anyone who crosses them now, but they have revised history and torpedoed anyone who ever opposed jews in the past. Nazi Germany is of course the first group demonized for their opposition to Jews, then next is anyone who opposes Israel (which is why it's still OK to criticize Islam and arabs and the middle east in the US media), then Christianity is next for all of their evil oppression of Jews and the Inquisition, and then comically Russia is castigated for oppressing the jews under the Tzars and even the USSR--even though the jews were practically the only ethnic group that was never massacred or targeted throughout soviet history. Putin is seen as anti-jewish and thus vilified by the jewish media, Ahmadinajad is anti-Israel and so of course he is lampooned, and so on. Everyone is good or evil, according to the media, based only and entirely on how good friends to Israel and jews they are. You can cure cancer, but if you insult a jew, too bad you're an anti-semite, the lowest of the low. Just look at Mel Gibson or David Duke or Le Pen or Hitler. Hitler, a man who killed far fewer people than Stalin or Mao (products of the jewish bolshevism), is reviled as the most evil man to ever live, the anti-christ, etc. But all he was, was the worst enemy the jews ever had. In terms of actual objective evil, he was a light-weight. Six million is an easy number to reach (just ask the jihadis or the mongols or the aztecs) and genocides are all across history. Nevertheless, since our education and media are controlled by jews, he is officially the greatest evil that ever lived.
Most jews aren't very smart, coming from the sephardic or oriental subgroups. However ashkhenazi jews are the smartest people on earth, clocking in at an average of 115, and they're the ones who lived in Europe and still live in the USA. Jews on average are as much smarter than whites, as whites are smarter than blacks. And because the tail ends of bell curves are more dramatic than the middle, the number of jewish geniuses drastically outnumbers the number of white geniuses. This is evidenced by the fact that nearly half of the important nobel prizes have been awarded to jews in the last century, while not even being 1% of the world population. This is why when allowed a free and fair competition, they take whatever power, influence, wealth, or prestige they want. For the first time, whites have not stood up for themselves and simply allowed this to happen. The results have been dramatic. Jews, doing whatever they please with their power to help themselves or their pet causes, lobbied hard for and achieved hate crime laws, the 1965 immigration act, the ADL and SPLC, the continuous socialist creep in the West towards their favorite government of communism, a virulent anti-anti-semitism that protects them from all criticism, billions of dollars of free foreign aid to Israel every year, and an insane foreign policy that, for the sake of Israel, has gotten us involved in a war with the entire muslim middle east. Iraq never posed a threat to the United States, but because they posed a threat to Israel, we invaded them anyway. The same for Iran, who has never wanted war with the United States. Regardless, the US seeks to war with Iran and Syria in order to protect Israel. The fact that these wars have cost us thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, all for the sake of non-white foreigners who have never done anything for us, is yet another display of the all-powerful hand of the jews. Indeed, one need not look far to see George W. Bush surrounded by jewish advisors like Perle, Wolfowitz, AIPAC, Cohen, and so on, heading into the Iraq war. And for some strange reason, one of the only democratic supporters of the Iraq war is the jew Lieberman, who is so pro Iraq war compared to his party that he left the party, just so he could support a war that helps Israel, his jewish homeland.
The Judaic religion is rather wretched. It is a racist spiel about how jews are the chosen race and destined to conquer the world, and that it's okay to slaughter any and all infidels who get in the way. Slavery was not banned, murder of women and children was condoned, and a million gajillion dumb laws were made to control jews in their daily lives. Jews also invented Christianity, which is a rather distinct break from Judaism. Nevertheless, Christianity contains and is weighed down by the Old Testament, while adding a uniquely diabolical twist of a heaven and hell to terrorize people with. The fact that all religions are false and both Judaism and Christianity are just delusions that have infected 1/3 of the world's population, is also thanks to the jews. These religions were probably better than the alternatives at the time though, and are dying out now anyway, so it's really not a bone worth picking with them. Christianity, wonder of wonders, does agree with the liberal jewish positions of 'we are all children of God' and 'we're all one big family' and 'we should be kind and compassionate to everyone' etc, since it too is just jewish philosophy.
So, let's add up the pros and cons of jews, and the reasonableness of being an anti-semite. As a pro, jews perhaps improved the primitive religions of the past to the more sophisticated Christianity. They enriched any land they lived in, were great at commerce, medicine, government, law, and any other field they're given a hand in. They created a modern, rich, free state in an otherwise sandy, mostly empty plot of land and transformed Palestine into Israel. They produced many great ancient philosophers like maimonides and spinoza and montaigne. And of course, they are some of the greatest scientists to have ever lived, Einstein and Johannes Salk and hundreds more all of the very top grade have led the progress of science for at least the last century. Some of their movies and tv shows are probably rather good, even if slanted and biased. Jews are good at every job they get, from actor to banker to doctor, and help everyone with their extreme skill and quality work that does business with them. These are the pros.
But the cons are simply too staggering. Jews across all time have been trying to invade and seize power other people's land. They then use that power to their advantage and the disadvantage of the natives every time. Simply the invention of communism and their proselytyzing of it has done the rest of the world so much harm it counteracts anything good they've done. But that wasn't the worst thing they did. The worst invention of all was egalitarianism. The belief that everyone is innately equal and interchangeable, that race doesn't exist, that sex doesn't exist, and all the rest, was again invented and propogated and proselytized by jews. (Note the jewish scientists Boaz, Gould, the Jewish historian Diamond and so on who denied race, IQ, or racial differences, and are the reason the truth of IQ and race has been so thoroughly buried into secret obscurity and successfully kept out of the popular knowledge.)The immigration policies that followed were all at the prompting and behest of jews, if not entirely of their making they had their full support behind them. And these immigration policies are in truth the worst con of the jews, because, they have made communism look like a maiden's kiss in proportion. The race replacement of whites with non-whites is a murder of around 500 million white people, in terms of opportunity cost, because every non-white in a country makes the country 1 less able to support a white (actually probably more, since not only do they occupy that niche, but they are routinely parasites that suck up the labor of 2 or 3 more whites who must also support them instead of their own children). The hate speech rules set up and enforced by jews like the ADL and the SPLC keep any argument against immigration off the table, and the jewish media continuously keeps whites in a stupor by saying it's all right and nothing bad is happening over and over again every day. Given that whites thus have a very natural reason to be anti-semitic, since jews are the vanguard of race-replacement and the extinction of whites, the most powerful, leadership position of our enemies the communist/egalitarians, with the highest proportion of genius thinkers who are thus the most effective snake-like persuaders and debaters, far greater than our own---held back only by their small numbers and our only true competition on this earth intellectually--anyone who is pro-white must also be anti-semitic. If jews changed sides and became the vanguard of whites and empowered and supported whites, and finally intermarried with us and abandoned their religion for a common shared atheism, all the antisemitism could be put aside and we could put this all behind us. As it stands though, it is us or them, and it is obvious that any nation which wishes to preserve itself, must first get rid of its jews. Jews are traitors and saboteurs to every country they live in. The first step one must take to revitalize their white nations, is to banish all jews and jewish-influenced thinking/media from said country. It is the poison in the well. Weak, barbarous minorities like muslims or blacks or even hispanics, are no challenge to the white race at all. In war or peace, we can outcompete them with both hands tied behind our back. With our minds screwed back on straight and no longer deluded by jewish lies and brainwashing, all the remaining necessary political actions would quickly follow. Thus it is that at some point in the evolution of a white nationalist's thinking, they always turn from white nationalist to antisemite. If you keep at the philosophy long enough, it is inevitable due to the simple facts on the ground. And that is why white nationalism will always be associated with antisemitism--because it inevitably is--because semitism is inevitably anti-white. The important thing to note is antisemitism is always a reaction to what semites are doing, it isn't prejudiced or conjured out of thin air. The only people to blame for antisemitism are the jews themselves. Blacks create the negative stereotypes about them by actually doing all those negative stereotypes. The same for jews. Prejudice isn't the fault of the prejudiced, but those among blacks, or jews, who make those prejudices generally true. The massive amount of antisemitism around the world and across world history, does not speak poorly of all those evil prejudiced people. No, it shows just how obnoxious and annoying jews are to everyone who ever meets them. At best they are tolerated, at worst they are genocided, but at no time does anyone ever like Jews. This can't be mere coincidence, not everyone wakes up in the morning and decides, "i'm gonna throw a dart at the ethnicity board and end up hating for no reason wherever the dart lands," and then the dart inevitably always landing on "jews." The particular, unique nature of jews is what causes antisemitism. They are their own worst enemy.
Lastly, the retarded stooge whites who are the anti-anti-semites. These people, the useful idiots of the jews, go around attacking anyone who attacks jews, no matter what the reason or the position or the facts, simply because they were taught when they were kids that disliking jews was bad. No doubt by a jewish inspired curriculum and based on the jewish version of history. Anti-anti-semites are usually more violent than anti-semites. For instance groups like 'anti-fascist action' or 'Expo' in Europe. And of course, the Charles Johnson's of the world who would rather all Europe be driven to extinction than anti-semites gain power in Europe, because it might hurt the few dozen remaining jews in Europe there. The visceral hatred of anti-semites to the point that all whites are consigned to die, or all muslims are consigned to die, simply because they don't like jews enough, is the popular sport of anti-anti-semites. These people, inevitably not even jews themselves, become such proud champions and defenders of jews, and such traitors and despicable saboteurs to their own race and any attempt at their race's self-defense, that they might be the decisive group who plunge all 500 million of us to our doom instead of letting us save ourselves while we still have the chance. For anti-anti-semites, get this through your head: antisemitism isn't going away. It has existed everywhere, across all time, always. And it always will so long as jews continue to act the way they do, which is always--very terribly and very foreignly compared to the surrounding people. It is easy to reveal how evil and racist anti-anti-semites are. Simply ask them, that if it comes down to a choice, whether they'd rather all whites or all jews die. Or, give them the option, if some dictator came to power who saved the entire white world and enacted every policy you approve of, except that they holocausted all the jews as well, would you say this is a better outcome than white extinction or a worse? Once they inevitably say they'd rather all whites die than any jews were harmed, or that all whites should just die if they're mean to jews, it becomes clear that a jewish life, to them, is worth more than 50 white lives or so. This jewish calculus that supposedly is fighting against racism, is in fact one of the most hateful racist positions of all. Even if whites are hopelessly anti-semitic, to deny them any value or right to exist simply on this basis, or that there is anything else in life apart from loving jews, shows how nakedly racist and anti-white the anti-anti-semites are.
So I've set forth two premises. That antisemitism is natural and inevitable on anyone who is well enough informed or developed to care about the white race, and thus, about immigration, Islam, feminism, or any other self-destructive policy conservatives might worry about. Second, that anti-anti-semites who care about the white race, immigration, Islam, feminism, or any other self-destructive policy will out of spite and pique, instead throw away these important goals, just to screw over the anti-semites.
The conclusion is anti-anti-semites are race traitors who are going to kill us all. Antisemites are normal reasonable people perfectly willing to work alongside other whites who care about saving their country, no matter how they feel about jews. But anti-anti-semites only care about jews, and the white race be damned if they have to work alongside antisemites. Like the old testament story of Solomon rewarding the baby to the mother who refused to see it be split in two--it is obvious that the only true friends of the white race, the only true lovers of the white race, the only true preservers of the white race, are the anti-semites. The hatred and schismasticism and 'to hell with this then' nature of the anti-anti-semites, is quite content to watch the baby be cut in two, just to prove their point. And thus, they were only there to win points, to self-aggrandize, to act cool in the first place. Only the true mothers of the white race, the ones that care about the baby first and winning the argument second, are honorable men.
Now, for whoever thinks it is possible to like jews and whites simultaneously, or for jews and whites to live together in harmony, my answer is of course they can. But it must be the jews who change, not the whites. It is not whites who must get over their antisemitism and love jews despite what jews are doing to whites. It is the jews who must stop hurting whites, stop estranging themselves from whites, stop taking all the whites goodies by winning at every competition and job, basically, stop being jews and interbreed and discard their culture and become whites--if the whites are to accept them. And if they aren't willing to do that, they have no place in a white country, a pro-white country that exists for whites, must consist of pro-white people who exist for whites. That's just how it has to be. No more vilification of whites, no more vilification of anti-semites. Jews want to live in white countries? Fine, earn it. Don't want to? Fine, Israel's your homeland, you have automatic citizenship there, no one's stopping you, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Dear Lord I hope that's thorough enough---not that anyone will have read this far anyway. ^^. Now, for anyone who cares, comment away.