http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/13/homicide-rates-country-murder-data
Here we have a helpful list of the murder rates around the world. At the top of the world are Columbia and El Salvador -- hispanics. After them is Cote d'Ivoir and South Africa -- blacks.
The list is even more impressive than that. The top 13 countries for murder are all hispanic or black. At number 14 you have Russia, that basket case of post-communist oppression that has never recovered since. Then the list proceeds as before, listing hispanic and black countries in Africa, Central America, or South America, on down to number #26, the Philippines. The Phillippines might be due to the insurgency waged by the muslim separatists on the island. Or it might just be that the muslims are thugs, or the Phillippines could just be an example of none-too-bright southeast asians being typically none-too-bright.
After this you must go down to #32 to meet the next non-hispanic, non-black country, North Korea. Well, we can chalk that up to communist terror and move on. You must then descend until #51 to get the next non-hispanic, non-black country. Burma. That dictatorial isolationist regime that's as poor and dumb as a door nail. Quickly after this in non-hispanic, non-black states is #53, Papua New Guinea. I can't say much about this, except the tribes there still practice cannibalism and raid each other with spears, so I guess it's not too big a surprise.
Next on our list of non-hispanic, non-black murder rates is #61, Mongolia. Everyone knows the mongols are bloodthirsty, so I guess that's good enough an explanation for me.
#65 is Kazakhstan. I suppose the combination of communism and Islam wasn't very salubrious for this country's murder rate.
#67 is East Timor. Poverty? Post-Traumatic-Stress-Syndrome from the attempted genocide of them by Indonesia? Typical southeast asian stupidity?
#75 is Lithuania. Communism's lasting effects? But from here on it trickles out, most of the countries are non-hispanic and non-black, mostly because we have already listed practically every hispanic and black country that exists.
The USA's murder rate stood at 5.9, just below Cuba and just above Chile. Compare this to Japan, who stands at the bottom, with a murder rate of .5. That's right, in Japan, for every 200,000 people, one is murdered per year.
A lot of lessons can be gleaned from this table.
Lesson #1: Hispanics are just as deadly as blacks. South and Central America are liberally interspersed with Africa in no apparent pattern, and Latinos even lead the pack, ahead of even South Africa.
Lesson #2: Out of the top 75 countries, only 9 are non-black, non-hispanic. IE: 12%. 88% of countries with high murder rates are black or hispanic. They are the overwhelming source of the problem that is crime on Earth.
Lesson #3: The highest murder rate is 61.1 per 100,000, in Columbia. Or in other words, .06% of the population is murdered every year. If your 'natural' lifespan is 70 years, your chance of being murdered somewhere in there is 4.28%. Perhaps a little frightening, but teenagers have probably taken far higher risks with their lives in all sorts of damn fool stunts. But even this is not accurate, because everyone knows crime tends to affect gang members, drug users, poor people, and all that ilk disproportionately. IE, if you keep your nose clean and stay out of trouble, the likelihood that you will be murdered is probably half this. So now we're talking 2.14%. People have far more to fear from smoking or heart attacks than murder, even in the most murderous country on Earth.
Lesson #4: In the age of tribal warfare, where the food supply was limited and hunter gatherers had to kill their enemies to feed themselves, around 33% of males died by murder. This translates to 16.5% of the general population. This is four times as high as the current highest murder rate on Earth, Columbia, at 4.28%. People evolved to be unruffled and undisturbed, to think it natural and quite safe, to live in a country with a murder rate 4 times as high as the current highest rate on Earth.
Lesson #5: So long as non-black, non-hispanics can stay segregated from blacks and hispanics living in their country, there will be no increase in risk to their lives. It is far easier to just move to an upper class area where poor blacks and hispanics can't follow, than fight a revolutionary war to stamp out crime.
Lesson #6: Muslims are less criminal than whites, or at the very least extremely peaceful, in their own lands. What we are seeing is not a racial problem, endemic to the population. It is either jihad, an active desire to wreak havoc on the infidel, or some sort of liberal explanation -- the pain of losing your roots, culture shock, poverty, not fitting in (racism?) -- that is causing muslims in Europe to resort to crime. I do not think it is jihad. Very few people are motivated by their religions to do anything in life, other than mouth hypocritical prayers and lying oaths they never heed again. Christians are just as likely to be sluts as atheists, and the same goes for their criminality. No one takes their religion seriously anymore, it's just window dressing. I don't see how Islam can survive the secularism of Europe, where everything is mocked and deconstructed, and pleasure is the only game in town. You will find that muslims in Europe probably never go to their mosques, listen to rock music, drink alcohol and fornicate outside of marriage. They will still call themselves muslim, but their religion controls their behavior in no way.
Jihadis tend to be highly educated, highly devoted idealists. There is very little overlap between this group, and common thugs who do street crime. They are doctors, like in the London plot. Or army majors, like at Ft. Hood. The threat of terrorism from these lone fanatics is so vanishingly small, that worrying about it is about as rational as worrying about an asteroid killing you. The threat of islamic terrorism is completely overblown and hyped, so as to achieve a political agenda. For the neo-cons, this is to invade the world. For white nationalists, it is to restrict immigration. It's all a con-game, like in 1984, where all the countries stayed in permanent war. They must keep you afraid so that you will stay controlled, so that the government agenda can keep grinding on and on without any opposition.
I think a third perspective must be taken on this, a Darwinian perspective. Muslims find themselves competing with non-muslims for access to money, status, and women. Naturally they become hostile and deadly to their racial competitors, and seek to assert power and dominance over the out-group. While they are completely at peace around 'people like themselves' back at home, they have been transformed into a feral sort of pack hunting predator in Europe, simply because there is now an outsider competing for their turf. Since Muslims cannot win a fair competition for money, status, or women -- (their IQ is too low, they are uglier than us), all they can do is resort to violence to try and even the odds. Hence, crime in Europe, especially rape and gang rape, the most basic assertion of darwinian dominance possible, explodes. There is probably very little difference between muslim youth crime, and gypsy youth crime. Same low IQ, same foreign race status, same pack behavior. So much for the threat of 'islam.' So much for people opposing someone's 'beliefs,' not their 'race.' This fig leaf which is used, which ostensibly claims that if all muslims would just convert to Christianity, it wouldn't matter how many immigrated to Europe, (and who believes anyone is really saying that? who believes opposition to muslim immigration is really that shallow?) is obviously just a cowardly opposition to immigration on the basis of racial competition. Until we identify the real problem with muslim immigration, we will be completely unable to effectively argue against it.
Here's why: People can sense dishonesty instinctively. When you start going on about the dangers of Islamic terrorism, everyone knows you're inherently dishonest, because there is no danger of Islamic terrorism. It is such a vanishingly small threat, that fighting to ban asbestos in buildings makes far more sense. If you argue about muslim crime, they will instantly point out that the most criminal muslims are the least religious, and that Muslim nations have some of the lowest crime rates on Earth, so Islam can hardly be the source of crime. Then people will say: "Face it, you're just racist, all of this crap about Islam is a lie."
And they will be right! The only real argument is: "To arms, to arms, our race is under attack! The foreigner has come for our land and our women! To arms, to arms! Up, countrymen, and let's make a slaughter of it!" This instinctual self-defense of the homeland, of the gene pool, is highly laudable, and the only basis for survival (that's why we have such instincts in the first place, they evolved, because everyone who lacked them has died out long ago.) But this irrational desire to live can even be multiplied in strength by the quite rational argument, that we should not allow the inferior to supplant the superior, and in the case of muslim immigration, we are allowing just that. The total level of human happiness and progress will decline, if we allow such a thing to happen. Even this is a racial argument though, because it insists on races having inherent, hereditable natures -- personality, behavior, and IQ -- and that the white race is superior to the brown race in these fields. If characteristics are mutable and not racially fixed, then whatever faults muslims have, they can be removed by education and other liberal programs, there is no reason to make a fuss about such minor, temporary problems, or discriminate against or deport people on such a flimsy basis.
Either you fight with full sincerity and honesty, without apologizing or feeling guilty for the foundation of your reasoning. IE, either you stand simply and forthrightly as a racist, or you are a coward and a liar, and no one should listen to you, because none of your arguments make any sense. Basically it's like this: IF racial differences and darwinism are true, then racism is the only possible effective state policy. IF racial differences and darwinism are not true, then liberalism is the only rational and effective state policy. Anyone squirming around inbetween these poles is a non-entity, irrational, and should be ignored.
Lesson #7: Fighting crime seems like a winner, the most obvious winner possible, for white nationalism. But it isn't. this is because there isn't enough crime to affect anyone even as things stand. There isn't even enough crime in Columbia to affect the average civilian anytime in his life. So what if we fight crime? Crime isn't what people are worried about in the first place. If crime ever does become a problem, there are plenty of ways to fight it, like Giuliani did, even with a black and hispanic population. The real issues people are struggling with in their daily lives are: drugs, alcohol, broken homes, smoking, obesity, health care, unemployment, poverty, loneliness, adultery, divorce, etc. Who cares about crime? More people are hurt every day by what they inject into their own bodies, than what any criminal is trying to stab or shoot your with. White Nationalists proposing radical solutions to issues like black crime come off as nuts. "She swallowed the spider to kill the fly." What people need to understand is that White Nationalism is not just an answer to black crime (a non-issue in most people's lives.) It is an answer to the woes that afflict them every day, that really are clear and present dangers in their lives:
It is the answer to poverty. It is the answer to unemployment. It is the answer to vice. It is the answer to broken homes. It is the answer to loneliness. It is the answer to adultery. Basically, if white nationalism does not introduce a program that takes on the true powers, the true dangers that threaten our people, we are irrelevant. The true dangers that threaten our people are A) the libertarian creed that people can hurt themselves in any way they please, and don't have to morally answer to anyone for what they do. B) That sex, and marriage, is a personal issue, that divorce is a personal issue, that single motherhood is a personal issue, and people morally don't have to answer to anyone for anything they do in the entire field of courtship, love, romance, sex, reproduction, and child care. ((Which is the majority of life!)) C) The libertarian creed that the economy is perfect 'just the way it is,' and that the accumulation of 70% of the wealth into 1% of the population is 'natural and just.' That soaring unemployment is just the 'weak getting what they deserve,' and that the fraud of banks, lawyers, advertisers, and lobbyists is 'perfectly legitimate economic activity.' D) The liberal creed that immigration and reproduction are 'human rights' that cannot be interfered with, but are a completely personal issue, that no one has to morally answer to anyone for their choices.
What you really find, when you look into these issues, is that the true enemy is unaccountability. We have reached a point where no one has to take responsibility for their actions, or their impact on the health of the group. The rich don't take any responsibility for how their business activity affects the poor. Women don't take any responsibility for how their romantic choices affect the men they betray, or the children they hurt. Immigrants don't take any responsibility for how they affect the culture and well-being of their hosts. Individuals don't take any responsibility for how their vices hurt their families and the people who rely on them. Parents don't take any responsibility for the likelihood of their children being truly productive members of society, or just social burdens that others will have to carry. Everyone wants to toss the hot potato to someone else. Someone, somewhere has to pay the butcher's bill. Every time, someone has to pay. It's like karma. If something negative is released into the world, no matter how many times you toss the potato, someone is going to get hurt. Divorcing the people hurt, from the people causing the pain, is a gross injustice. It also creates a complete moral vacuum where the activity is left totally unchecked. IE, if the people who cause pain are also the ones feeling the pain, there is a negative feedback loop and eventually their bad behavior stops. But if the people causing the pain, and the people feeling the pain, are different, there is no negative feedback loop, and the behavior is completely unconstrained.
In a properly run society, those who cause pain are held accountable, and forced to feel an equal degree of pain, or even more, until their behavior adapts to the hard reality that they will not get away with this crap, or they are simply erased. In a moral anarchy like our country faces today, there is no consequence for wrong-doing or hurting others. Everyone is free to do whatever they want, to whoever they want, and no one will even call them a bad name for it. White nationalism is about restoring order and discipline to this vagabond world. To create moral rules and laws, where before there was only anarchy. The consequences will be swift and extremely beneficial -- just like restoring order to New Orleans after Katrina, or LA after the riots. Anarchy never works, it always brings out the worst in people, and until it is put down by force, it runs wild like a firehose gushing water and snaking around the ground uncontrollably from the sheer force of its life energy.
For the last century or so, we have attempted to give people complete personal freedom, ie, anarchy, as the standard for their lives. It has not worked. White Nationalism is the voice of sanity, calling people back to the recognition of authority, of law, of order. As it turns out, 99% of all harm done to people right now, is not due to crime, but completely legal activity. The real crime of the century, is that everything is legal. That's where our energy must be directed, and that's where people must discover there is another way.
No comments:
Post a Comment