Blog Archive

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Debunking Anti-white Blood Libels:

"The 90 identified African American serial killers compose 21.8%
of the sample of Black and White killers. This figure approximates
the 22% estimate made by Hickey’s (1997) sample of 337 serial
killers of all races operating in the United States across a 165-year
period. Far from being absent or severely underrepresented in the
ranks of serial killers, then, African Americans are represented among serial killers at a rate approximately twice one would
expect based on the average percentage of African Americans in
the population (approximately 10.5%) across the 58-year time
period examined."

So why all the hoopla about how whites are the only serial killers? Who is spreading this false message which tries to draw a false equivalence and moral relativism between black and white crime rates?

"A survey of more than 600 prime-time television programs
aired across 3 decades found that “nine out of 10 murders
on TV were committed by Whites. Only three in 100 murders on
TV were committed by Blacks. Blacks are about 18 times less
likely to commit homicide on TV than in real life” (Lichter, Lichter,
& Rothman, 1991, p. 198)."

Since jews control the media: ( We have what amounts to a blood libel against whites narrated by jews. By making us feel ashamed and guilty, they make it easier for whites to celebrate their own genocide and praise the coming 'enrichment' of their nations. Whites, after all, are just a bunch of serial killers. Unlike those soulful, spiritually wise blacks who would never do such things. The sooner all whites on earth are replaced by blacks, the better. Then and only then will the scourge of serial killing end.

Every time I've mentioned on some forum or other, the incredibly high black murder rates: "Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery."

And don't think these are just 'gang' shootings that leave innocent whites largely out of the mix: "Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black."

And don't tell me it's because they needed money from these whites and it's all about poverty. Poverty doesn't explain the need to rape a white woman:
"* Between 2001 and 2003, blacks committed, on average, 15,400 black-on-white rapes per year, while whites averaged only 900 white-on-black rapes per year."

(Don't be fooled by that number though, hispanics are treated as 'white' when they are the perpetrators of the crime, and 'hispanic' when they are the victim. Cute isn't it? It's just another blood libel made against white people, to blame us for the crimes of another race.)

Anyway, every time I mention black murder or black crime, some smart aleck gives the repartee -- What about serial killers? Those are all whites. Blacks only murder people in gang violence, it's because they're poor and competing economically over drug sales. They don't kill innocent people, or have any malicious or evil thoughts while they kill people. It's whites who kill for fun, whites are sadists and evil and kill innocent people -- truly heinous murder is a white male thing.

Except, it's all bullshit. Whites don't have any gangs, so you can rule out gang violence for the white victims of black crime -- 45% of all their crimes. Even if you want to believe that all black crime against hispanics and blacks is relatively harmless drug wars due to poverty, not any evil or sadistic feelings, this would only half the black murder rate. So blacks murder people 7 times as often, half of them innocent gang-related poverty-induced murders, for a total of 3.5 times as murderously and sadistically evil as whites. Blacks have twice as high a serial murder rate as whites, the most sadistic, evil, unfeeling and unwarranted murders of all. Under no circumstances, conditions, or in any field, are whites more murderous or evil than blacks. Blacks even commit twice as many 'hate crimes' as whites, a crime specifically invented to punish white racists! Amazing, but there it is:
"Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa."

The next charge will be that sure blacks are more murderous in their daily lives, but whites are more murderous when it comes to organized genocides, and that all the black murderers on earth can never make up the amount 'owed' to whites for all their genocides in the past. This is another libel. Whites didn't slaughter blacks by bringing them over in slave ships. As many whites died in the trans-Atlantic passage as blacks. Black slaves had no higher, or even a lower death rate than similar white indentured servants. In fact, the black population even after the slave trade was banned continued to grow, while enslaved, through natural domestic population growth. The death rate of black slaves was therefore low, hardly a Roman galley system of 3 years before you are overworked to death, or whatever silly crimes are commonly imputed to black slavery in North America.

Whites also didn't slaughter the Indians. The vast, near total majority of Indian deaths was due to disease. The germ theory of disease had not yet been discovered and whites had no idea they were spreading these diseases among the Indians, nor was there any way to prevent the Indians from dying by disease once whites landed on the shore. Unless whites morally should have quarantined north and south america off from the rest of the world forever, to avoid the transmission of any diseases that would kill Indians if the world ever set foot on the Americas, the plagues that swept the Indians were inevitable. They had evolved no immune response to these diseases and would have died no matter what timeline History followed. If the Chinese had landed in America, the result would be the same. If the Africans landed in America, the result would be the same. If the Ottomans had landed in America, the result would be the same. Whites are not responsible, simply for being the most intrepid explorers, of the genocide of the Indians. The Indians were doomed to die sooner or later, due to no human agency, but solely due to diseases we had no control over.

The idea that all disease was spread by intentional selling of 'small pox blankets' is another myth and libel. What we have is evidence that some English officers were considering using 'small pox blankets' as a tactic of war to kill Indians during the French-Indian war. It's not even known whether they did such an attack, but it's ludicrous to then translate that into an overarching tactic used starting in 1492 when Columbus just landed all the way to the 1900's as the main vector for all diseases Indians caught from whites.

As for whites killing Indians in war, I'm fairly certain the Indians gave as good as they got, and their merciless campaigns against civilians, women and children, and sneak attack massacres on pilgrims and settlers who had initially attempted peace and co-existence with them, gives me no sense of shame. They stole our horses and livestock, tortured their prisoners and mutilated people both living and dead, in shows of complete barbarism. The Indians wanted war, and that's what they received. When they wanted peace, we gave them peace. There are some sad stories in American history where Indians were pushed out of their land for the sake of 'greedy' farmers or 'greedy' prospectors -- but one has to understand that Indians were wasteful with their land and it's criminal to leave a continent nearly empty simply because Indians are too barbaric to switch to farming, intensive farming, or city-life and civilization.

Whites did not perform the Holocaust, it was again an accident of hunger and disease, due to war conditions and nobody's fault or intention, and it didn't result in the death of anywhere near 6 million jews -- nor are they chiefly responsible for the genocides in Russia -- these actions were primarily made possible, organized, and carried out by jews. Massive death rates occurred among whites in their constant wars like the 30 Years War, the 100 Years War, WWII, WWI, the Napoleonic Wars, the Religious Wars, etc -- but surely no one is going to claim that whites are uniquely prone to war and count all people who died during war as victims of 'murder' or 'organized genocide.' It's proven that in primitive societies, around 1/3 of all men are murdered in war. The number of whites murdered in war, even during WWII, did not approach this amazing total. This means white wars are actually more peaceful and less murderous than the wars fought in New Guinea, Africa, the Americas, and other assorted primitive stone age cultures that were occurring at the same time. Simply because we are more civilized and advanced, we have a much higher population, and thus more victims in our wars -- however this does not make whites especially murderous, evil, or sadistic like our detractors claim.

So what exactly are our genocides in the past? Our history of colonialism? We increased the native population of India, Africa, and Asia by the diffusion of our new technology and farming -- hardly a genocide there. The death rate of blacks imported to the Carribbean and South America? But now they form a large majority in those islands and have vast numbers in Brazil -- all we managed to do was increase the worldwide black population, and in places where they are vastly better off than if they had stayed in Africa -- hardly a genocide. The idea that whites have murdered so many non-whites in the past, that any amount of crime or genocides of whites is just 'karma' or 'vengeance' that we should accept willingly is another attempt at fraudulent propaganda. What exactly are they blaming us for? Spreading civilization to the far corners of the globe? Giving everyone technology like refrigeration, medicine, the green revolution, electricity, clean water, cars, airplanes, computers, satellites? Increasing the world's population from a tiny few to 7 billion directly as a result of our technological progress in food, energy, sanitation, economics and good government? The fact that whites have created stable political bodies across the world that engage so little in war, compared to the past, that it's truly an unprecedented age in history?

I suppose you could blame whites for the genocide of Iraqis starting since 1990. However, the actions of the USA against Iraq have largely been due to jews. The USA's middle east policy is completely controlled by jews and thus our decision to use sanctions, invade Iraq, and the like is all the fault of jews, not whites. Madeline Albright, our Secretary of State, famously stated she thought it was worth it to kill half a million Iraqi children, to try to deter Saddam from gaining WMD. Albright, of course, is a jew -- don't associate our kind with filth like her. Regardless, I have little sympathy for Iraqis, who started a war with Iran that killed a million people themselves. Maybe if they hadn't already invaded two separate countries, Iran and Kuwait, while amassing WMD and gassing the Kurds, the world would have dealt more sympathetically towards them. Live by the sword, die by the sword. The same for Vietnam. Though I feel sympathetic towards the million or so Vietnamese we killed during that war -- the whole thing becomes a farce when you realize the Vietnamese went on to murder millions more of their own people after we left. They hardly valued human life, and were freely murdering millions themselves -- people who have declared a total war and fight with genocidal intent like that, have no sympathy when they are killed in turn. Direclty because we lost the war in Vietnam, Cambodia fell to the Khmer Rouge and went on to slaughter 1/3 of all the people living there under Pol Pot. Are we supposed to feel sorry for fighting a war against Communism, attempting to prevent just those sorts of dictators from gaining power?

In any event, I don't count any deaths during war as 'murder', 'sadistic,' or 'evil.' War has a logic all of its own, and is not part of pathological psychosis, but is fought by completely normal, healthy, moral people for the sake of a variety of causes. Murder and war both result in death, but they are symptoms of completely different things. When blacks do murder, they are not thinking like whites on the battlefield. It is something much more degenerate, and should not be classed in the same category. Therefore this nonsense about whites make up for their peaceful natures at home with their warlike killings abroad, is just another attempt at a false equivalence, another moral relativist position which can't make distinctions between obviously different things.

Is there a single blood libel one can make against whites that actually withstands the light of day, objective reason, and a fair unbiased accounting of the ledgers? Is there even one crime we're really responsible for? As far as I can tell, it's one vast field of lies, leveraged against the best people on earth, who have spread not only wealth, power, knowledge, and peace to the rest of the world -- but also the ideas of justice, fairness, compassion, and romantic monogamous love itself, to the rest of the benighted and backwards world. The very accusations being leveled against us, would not have even been considered wrong in the past -- before western morality spread to these places. It is ludicrous to accuse us of crimes against the Incas/Aztecs, when the Incas/Aztecs were fine with human sacrifice and cannibalism against each other. This is obviously a situation where our own morality is being used against us, not because we are particularly immoral -- but because we're the only people who ever cared about morality in the first place.

I'm fine with admitting white crimes in the past, and apologizing and taking responsibility for them. I'm even fine with making amends and correcting the lasting harm they have done across the centuries that still exist in the present day. But first, prove we have done one! Prove we are actually responsible for something we should feel sorry about! Is there any substance to any of these claims? The moment you look beneath the surface to all these sensationalized accusations against whites: 'we're serial killers, we're genociders, we're warmongerers, we're Holocausters,' they all turn out to be false. And they all turn out to be presented and published by a hostile tribe in our midst, by an alien occupied media that has never had any interest in the truth. They're all simply the artillery of the jewish race in their attempt to genocide US. They are killing us with their lies, they make us feel ashamed and guilty, they make us respect and value other races above our own, they make us want to atone for crimes we never even did with the greatest crime of all, the death of the white race, the most moral and advanced people in history. The irony is overwhelming.

No comments: