Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
All of this happened back in July, and at first I had no plans to say anything about it. After all, it's the sort of thing that happens all the time in this wonderful, multicultural America we live in. Everyone understands that and accepts it, so it didn't seem like a very promising topic. In fact, I was surprised by the amount of media coverage the crime received. It was nowhere near as much coverage as there would have been if a group of Whites had attacked three young Blacks, of course, but still it was much more coverage than these Black-on-White racial crimes ordinarily receive from the controlled media. I think what caught the attention of the media in this case was the fact that there were three victims. Just one White girl being gang-raped or one White boy being murdered would have received only momentary and strictly local notice.
More than that, though, was the way in which the crime happened: it's the sort of thing which most White Americans -- certainly those who live in large cities and drive to work every day -- have nightmares about: accidentally taking the wrong freeway exit while coming home at night and ending up in a Black neighborhood. That nightmare scene was the key element in Tom Wolfe's best-selling novel, Bonfire of the Vanities.
I had no plans to comment on this racial crime until someone sent me an account of it from the July 21 issue of Time magazine. The first thing that caught my attention in this Time article was the headline. It said: ". . . three white teens are allegedly assaulted by a group of Black youths." "Allegedly." I think it is reasonable to use that word in talking about a specific suspect who, prior to his trial and conviction, is only "alleged" to be guilty. In the case at hand, however, there was no question at all that an assault had taken place. There were three White teenagers with bullets in their heads, one of them dead and one of them raped, and the shooting and raping had taken place in an all-Black area. There was no question at all about the race of their assailants. The use of the word "allegedly" in the Time story clearly was an indication of unwillingness to accept the Politically Incorrect facts of the Black-on-White assault, and it set the tone for the whole article.
Suppose the attackers had been White and the victims Black. Do you believe that Time would have used the word "allegedly"?
Other things in the Time story also caught my attention. The three White victims are in several ways typical of the worst elements of White society today. They are the type who wear baseball caps backward with baggy shorts and hang around shopping malls with nothing useful to do except swap cards with photos of Black basketball players. Everything they know they have learned from watching television: mostly MTV. And their parents seem to be no better. Their parents certainly did nothing to prepare them for life in multicultural America. The kids had no idea of the danger they were in when they got off the train in a Black neighborhood. Their Politically Correct parents had never warned them.
The most sickening part of the Time story is the revelation that the mother of the murdered White boy has two other children -- by two Black fathers. Time considers this ironic: that this good woman, who has tried so hard to be a true multiculturalist, a true Clintonista, and has kept her son free of any sense of his Whiteness, has lost him to a group of misguided Black youths.
I'm reminded of Nicole Brown Simpson, whose parents never warned her either about Blacks -- who, in fact, seem to be proud that they raised her without any sense of racial identity. If only all of the White victims of Black savagery who are raped and murdered in this country every year could be those who are lost to our race anyway!
Unfortunately, that's not the case. It is depressing contemplating the situation of White Americans today. And it doesn't do any good to rage at their lack of courage or their lack of understanding or even to promise ourselves that when the revolution comes we'll roast everyone connected with Time magazine over a bonfire. We'll never have a chance to build that bonfire and roast any of the deceivers and betrayers of our people unless we are able to help White Americans improve their situation first. And I've always believed that knowing the truth, knowing the facts, is the way for anyone to begin improving his situation. So let's look at some facts: some racial facts.
And let's not begin in some backwoodsy backwater like Flint, Michigan, but instead in the national showplace of Clintonism and multiculturalism, the world center of diversity and affirmative action: Washington, DC. I've never been to Flint, but I lived in Washington for 18 years. I still have the stench of the place in my nostrils. Washington is 70 per cent Black. Some of its inhabitants like to refer to it as "Chocolate City." Some Whites in the suburbs call it "Zoo City." One of the reasons there are so many Blacks in Washington is that it is ground zero for equality and the New World Order. It is a good city for them, with lots of gravy and chitlins. In the first place the Federal government subsidizes the operation of the city to the tune of about a million dollars a day, because it can't afford to let the nation's capital sink back into the jungle and begin looking like Kinshasa or Port-au-Prince. In other words, we taxpayers around the country are paying for the upkeep of the place. The Washington city government is almost entirely Black, with a Black school officials, a Black mayor, and so on. The city's schools are staffed with Black teachers and Black principals: all sorts of role models for young Blacks. Furthermore, the Federal government, which is by far the largest employer in the area, is heavily overloaded with Black employees. There's an abundance of undemanding jobs with high salaries and lots of benefits. And on top of that the welfare is good in Washington. Handouts are easily available for everyone, because the government doesn't want people sleeping in empty shipping cartons on the sidewalk in front of the White House. Makes a bad impression on foreign tourists.
So anyway, with all of this benevolence and special attention from the Great White Father, maybe you'd expect our colored brothers in Washington to be on their best behavior. Maybe you'd be expecting them to want to prove to the world that they really are our equals. Well, the truth of the matter is that they behave in Washington about the same way they behave in Flint -- or in Kinshasa and Port-au-Prince. Fifty per cent of the Black males in the District of Columbia between the ages of 18 and 35 are currently entangled in the criminal justice system. That is, they are in jail, they are out on bond awaiting trial on criminal charges, there is an arrest warrant out for them and the police are trying to find them, or they are on parole or probation after being convicted of a criminal offense. Fifty per cent. One out of every two.
And that does not include those who were formerly entangled in the criminal justice system: that is, those who already have served their sentences for a criminal offense and no longer are on probation -- like the mayor, Marion Barry, for example, who was convicted on a crack cocaine charge and finished serving his time several years ago. The fifty per cent figure I just gave you came from a study of the crime problem in Washington which was published in the Washington Post on August 26, 1997.
I don't have an exact figure for those who, like the mayor, are former offenders without current charges against them. It is reasonable to say, though, that most of the Black males between the ages of 18 and 35 you will meet on the streets of Washington, DC, are felons, with either current charges against them or previous criminal records. You wander into the wrong neighborhood in Washington -- which is just about any neighborhood outside of the heavily policed government area or the White area in the northwestern part of the city -- and you're likely to end up like those clueless White teenagers in Michigan, whose parents never warned them that Blacks really aren't the same as Whites.
Most of the White people who must spend any amount of time in Washington -- and those are mostly White employees of the Federal government -- aren't clueless. They warn each other about the reality of living and working in Washington. Of course, the warnings are usually given in a sneaky sort of way, without actually talking about race. Code words are used, because the Whites in Washington are at least as Politically Correct as Whites in the rest of the country. They feel obliged to maintain the pretense that they believe in equality, that they believe Blacks are no more dangerous or inclined to criminal behavior than anyone else. They want you to know that they believe that if a neighborhood is dangerous, it is only because of poverty. It certainly has nothing to do with race. Crime is an economic problem, not a racial problem, they will tell you.
They feel obliged to maintain this pretense, but they also want to stay alive. So they use code words and code phrases to warn each other. And then every once in a while the truth actually will slip out in one of the principal organs of Political Correctness, such as the Washington Post.
There are other clues as to the fundamental and profound differences between Blacks and Whites besides the vastly greater criminality of Blacks. There are the innate differences in intelligence, in problem-solving ability. I've talked about these intellectual differences on other programs. Again, like criminality, the difference in intelligence is something which is widely recognized by knowledgeable Whites, but very rarely talked about, because it is Politically Incorrect to do so.
Occupational patterns provide another clue. Originally, nearly all of the Blacks in America were engaged in agricultural work -- by necessity rather than choice, of course. They were plantation slaves. After the abolition of slavery, most Blacks initially remained in agricultural work, some as sharecroppers and some with small farms. In any event, the percentage of Blacks engaged in farm work was higher than the percentage of Whites in farm work. Over the past 130 years, however, that situation has changed radically. The change has been especially rapid since the Second World War, but it really began when government welfare programs became generally available. Blacks left the land and moved to the cities in far larger numbers than Whites. Today Blacks constitute 13 per cent of the overall population of the United States, but less than one per cent of the farmers. Less than one per cent!
Both Whites and Blacks have been moving from farms to cities since the Civil War, but proportionately Blacks have flocked to the cities much more than Whites. Why is that? Can it be blamed on White racism? Or does it have something to do with the demands on farmers in general, demands inherent in the nature of the work? I mean, how much crack cocaine can you smoke and still get the crops planted and harvested on time?
I'm certain that if Time magazine ever does an article on the disappearance of Black farmers in the United States they'll blame it on White racism. And I must admit, I haven't spent a lot of time trying to analyze this particular problem myself. I've just been struck by the statistic itself -- fewer than one percent of the farmers in the United States are Black -- without undertaking a big research project to discover why that is so. To me it's just another clue that Blacks and Whites really are different. The statistics on the race of farmers in the United States, by the way, are available from the Department of Agriculture in Washington. If there's one thing our government knows how to do, it is collect statistics: employment statistics as well as crime statistics.
White people ought to pay more attention to these statistics -- to these racial facts -- and less attention to the people at Time magazine and elsewhere who try to persuade us that these statistics don't mean anything, because we're really all the same, all equal. Time would have us believe that we ought not to warn our children to stay away from Blacks and not wander around Black neighborhoods. Time would have us believe that Nicole Brown's parents raised her correctly when they let her date Black football players as a teenager. Time would have us believe that the mother of the 14-year-old White boy who was murdered in Flint has behaved admirably by having two mongrel children by Black fathers, in addition to her now dead White child. That sort of behavior provides the diverse, multicultural home environment that we all need in order to grow up without racial bias, Time hints.
Sometimes I am as angry at these Politically Correct White parents, who send their children out into this jungle world we live in without any of the knowledge they need in order to survive -- as I am at the people at Time magazine who set the ideological tone for the parents. The difference is that the people who own Time magazine and MTV and the New York Times and the Washington Post and the rest of the fashion-setting media, spread their poison deliberately, with malice aforethought. They are mostly Jews, working in concert. Their aim is the total moral disarmament of White Americans. They want to make it impossible for us to defend ourselves racially. There is no question about what needs to be done about them.
I try to be more understanding with the fashion-conscious White parents who follow the Jewish media line. After all, most of our people are born with an innate need to be fashionable and without the sense of discrimination to be able to distinguish healthy fashions from unhealthy fashions. It is not bad that people feel a need to be fashionable. It is a part of the feminine spirit that we are born with. What is unfortunate is that in this era that feminine spirit is not balanced by a masculine spirit which discriminates between what is healthy and what is unhealthy, between what is beneficial to our people and what is hostile. In this era the feminine spirit is ascendant, and it is a spirit which tells us not to resist those who want to destroy us. It is a spirit which in the case of racial conflict tells us to yield, to surrender, to roll over on our backs and bare our throats to our enemies in the hope that they will spare us.
The fashionable, feminine line that these parents have learned from the Jewish media is that we are living in a world which is becoming increasingly less White, that soon White people will be a minority even in the United States, and that instead of doing whatever is necessary to reverse that situation and remain masters in our own land we should try to accommodate ourselves to it; we should try to ingratiate ourselves with non-Whites in the hope that they will tolerate us. Some of these feminized, fashion-conscious parents go so far as to welcome miscegenation: if we are willing to interbreed with the descendants of our slaves, these parents think, then surely they will forgive us for our Whiteness and let us live. And so they fill the minds of their own children with these poisonous ideas and then send them out into the jungle, the way Nicole Brown Simpson's parents did and the way the parents of those three White children in Michigan did.
I try not to be angry at fools and instead to save my anger for those who are consciously evil. In the long run foolishness will be its own punishment, but in the meantime it also will take a lot of innocent young people down with it.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page