A repost of an important article

“Making Sense of the 2010 Census; Who’s White, Who’s Not” By: John Harrison Sims - June 2011

Those of us who care about the future of our country and our people have no source but the US census for information about demographic change.
The problem, of course, is that for years, the racial categories for the census have been neither scientific, consistent, nor rational.
Therefore, it takes some sleuthing to get a sense of the actual number of whites in America — those I would define as descended on both sides from white-skinned people of European origin.
One problem is subjectivity. Before 1960, census takers, who were known as enumerators, looked people over and determined their race according to instructions provided by the bureau.
Since 1960, respondents have chosen their own race, and this makes the statistics less reliable.
Back when the country was essentially white and black with a few Indians, census categories were reasonably clear, and people of pure Spanish ancestry were categorized as “white” wherever they were born or came from.
Hispanics, however, began to bedevil the process earlier than most people realize. A “Mexican” category first appeared in instructions for enumerators for the 1930 Census, and was described as “a racial mixture difficult to classify.”
Anyone enumerators found who was “not definitely white, Negro, or Indian . . . should be returned as Mexican (Mex.)”
The Mexican government lodged a formal protest with the State Department for the perceived slight of being considered non-white.
Therefore, in 1940, the Bureau dropped the Mexican category and told enumerators that “Mexicans are to be regarded as white unless definitely of Indian or other nonwhite race.”
The same practice was followed in 1950. In 1960, the first year Americans chose their own race, there was no category for Mexicans or Central/South Americans. Presumably, they called themselves “white.”
“Hispanic” appeared for the first time in the 1970 census with the question, “Is this person’s origin or descent . . . Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, other Spanish, or none of these’.”
Ever since, as if the Census Bureau were celebrating the enormous growth of the Hispanic population, the very first question it asks about race or ethnicity is whether someone is Hispanic (on page 3 for Question 8 as it appears on the 2010 Census form.)
2000 was the first year the census used the term “Latino,” which now appears to be a permanent fixture.
At this initial separation, those who are not Hispanic check “no” and go on to the next question that asks specifically about race.
Those who check “yes” have four choices: Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin.”
Anyone in the “another” category is supposed to write in his nationality of origin.
There is room for more than one, so someone whose father was Colombian and mother was Dominican could write in two nationalities.
Both Hispanics and non-Hispanics answer Question 9, the race question.
The Census Bureau tells us that Hispanics can be of any race, but it is clear that the form pushes them to call themselves white — most are obviously not black, or some other category such as Chinese or American Indian.
Hispanics do have the option of choosing more than one race or the “some other race” category.
“Some other race” first appeared in the 2000 census, and that year, 42% of Hispanics chose it.
The information about what race they claimed to be — Latino, Hispanic, Mexican— is not easily available, but 97% of the 15.3 million people who chose that category , 5.5% of the population — were Hispanic.
Forty-seven percent of Hispanics said they were white, with the remaining 11% scattered among other races.
A dark-skinned Dominican, for example, could conceivably describe himself as black.
Understandably, Hispanics complain about the race options available to them. Who wants to belong to “Some other race?”

In a March 11, 2011, letter to USA Today, a Hispanic whose family emigrated from El Salvador complained that most people like him “had no choice but to select “white” as their race.”
He asked his local census office for advice, and a representative explained that there was no better option for him than to choose white. He didn’t like that: “To me, white doesn’t really describe my race at all.”
In the 2010 census, the “some other race” category had grown to 19.1 million people, or 6.2% of the population.
Again, it is not clear what “other race” people claimed, nor is it possible at this point to learn what percentage of those who chose that category were Hispanic. However, there is no reason to believe it was very different from the 2000 figure of 97%.
Of course, the census would be even more misleading without “sone other race,” because even more Hispanics would be forced into the “white” category, making the country appear less Third-World than it really is.
Between 2000 and 2010, the Census Bureau tried to drop “some other race” — one wonders why — but Congress intervened in 2006 to keep it. That was unusual.
Executive-branch agencies such as the Office of Management and Budget usually set race categories; not Congress.
On the other hand, a growing number of Hispanics like to think of themselves as both Hispanic and white.
According to Roderick Harrison, a demographer at Howard University and a former chief of the Census Bureau’s racial statistics branch, this means they “can identify as white without feeling that they are . . . in denial about their Hispanicity.”
Slightly more than half of all Hispanics in fact call themselves white, and this greatly inflates the figure for whites.

The Most Common Multiple Race Mixes: White and Some other race 32.3 percent White and American Indian 15.9 percent White and Black 11.5 percent White and Asian 2.7 percent

Even more surprising, no fewer than 46% of the foreign-born population in the United States claim, at least on their census forms, to be white.
What they might claim for race-preference purposes could be a different matter, but it suggests there is still a strong attraction to the idea of being white.
The Census Bureau has “no biracial or mixed-race” category, but it does let respondents choose more than one race for themselves and their children.
This, along with “some other race,” was the other big innovation introduced in 2000, and it was a response, in part, to the fact that in the 1990 census, half a million people disobeyed instructions to choose a single race, and chose more than one.
In 2000, when they first had the opportunity to do so, 2.4% of Americans chose “multiple races.”
In the 2010 Census, the “multi-racial” category increased slightly to 2.9%.
This is still an underestimate, since many mixed-race people identify with the race of just one parent.
In reality, the number of people who can claim both white and black ancestry is far greater than those who can claim to be white and Asian.
Clearly, many prefer to call themselves black rather than multi-racial.
The government, at least unofficially, seems to be pushing this new, “multiple-race” category.
In December 2010, before the results were in, Robert Groves, head of the US Census Department, was looking forward to a sharp increase. “I can’t wait to see the pattern of responses on “multiple races,” he said. “That’ll be a neat indicator to watch.”

The Asian section of Question 9, the one about race, is undoubtedly the most incoherent part of the whole census form.
Most people agree that white and black are races. (The inclusion of “Negro” as an option for black is not a careless anachronism. The Census Bureau surveyed a lot of blacks and found that many of them like to think of themselves as “Negroes.”)
Most people would also agree that American Indians and Eskimos are yet another group different from blacks or whites. But there then follow 11 different racial categories just for Asians. Virtually no one besides census bureaucrats thinks Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese are “races,” and the form goes on to underline this strange thinking by adding in the “Other Asian” section, “Print race, for example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai . . .” These are, of course, nationalities, not races, and it is odd that Asians and Hispanics can list nationalities but whites and blacks can’t.

In 2009, the US Commission on Civil Rights actually recommended that whites be given “analogous opportunities” to specify any sub-group to which they belong, such as Irish, Swedish, or Arab. Otherwise, some may be left with the impression that sub-groups, ethnicities, and ancestries within these categories [white and black] are less important, less worthy of attention or unlikely to suffer from discrimination on account of national origin. These are not impressions the Census Bureau should wish to leave. The Census Bureau rejected this advice. Maybe whites will get that option when African immigrants get the option of writing in an African nationality.

The “black” category has traditionally been a consistent group composed of former slaves, but immigration is changing even this. Of the 37.3 million American blacks, more than 8% were born outside the United States; the figure was just 1% in 1960. Half of all foreign-born blacks are from the Caribbean and 34% are from Africa. There are now more than one million genuine African-Americans, in the sense that they were born in Africa and immigrated here. That is well over the estimated 800,000 Africans who were brought to North America during the slave trade.

The black and white categories suggest another — brown — and even though many Hispanics informally call themselves “brown,” that is not an option for the Census Department. Hispanics are therefore the largest group that does not fit logically into any of the department’s “races,” but there are others, and this means confusion for three more rapidly growing population groups: South Asians (e.g. sub-continental Indians, Pakistanis), North Africans, and Middle Easterners. South Asians, according to the lower part of Question 9 on the census form, are treated as a subset of Asians. This means Northern Chinese and dark-skinned Dravidians from southern India are lumped together as “Asians,” even though they are listed on the census form as different races; Chinese and Asian Indian. Arabs and Middle-Easterners obviously should have a category of their own. If Hmong and Laotians get their own designation, surely Arabs deserve one.

Instead, by calling them “white,” the government has made that racial category so broad as to be almost meaningless. Thus, by Census Bureau decree, as soon as they set foot in the United States, Yemenis and Libyans become “white.” This may be flattering to them but bewildering to Americans, the vast majority of whom have no idea that, according to the government, their new Middle Eastern neighbors are fellow whites.

And consider the Pashtuns. This dark-skinned Islamic tribe straddles the Afghan-Pakistani border. According to the Census Bureau, Pashtuns who come from Afghanistan are white, while their cousins who come from Pakistan are Asian.

National Racial Percentages - 2010: The Census Bureau now releases two sets of data.
One divides the population into seven racial categories but ignores Hispanics.

The results for 2010 are:
Racial Percentages (without Hispanics):
White 72.4%
Black 12.6%
Asian 4.8%
American Indian / Alaska Native 0.9%
Hawaiian / Pacific Islander 0.2%
Some other race 6.2%
Two or more races 2.9%

The second set of data lists Americans according to whether they are Hispanic or not, and results for 2010 are as follows:
Hispanics of any race 16.3% - 50.3 million
Non-Hispanic white 63.6% - 196.6 million
Non-Hispanic of other races 20.1% - 61.8 million
Total Population of the United States 308.7 million

Most American Hispanics are from Mexico and Central America, where there are few whites, and the whites rarely immigrate to the United States.
Latin Americans also have an expansive conception of whiteness. Therefore, even though when they are forced to choose between “white,” “black,” and “other” about half of all Hispanics call themselves white, most whites would not put themselves in that category.
Combining these two sets of data these are the results:
More Meaningful Racial/Ethnic Figures:
White/non-Hispanics 63.6%
Hispanic 16.3%
Black 12.6%
Asian 4.8%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.9%
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or more races 2.9%
The “some other race” category has been removed because it mostly overlaps with Hispanics, and what remain are the racial/ethnic groups that make the most sense to Americans.
The total adds up to 101.3% because the small number of Hispanics who identify as Black, Asian, or American Indian has not been removed from those groups. The Census Bureau could make that adjustment and release more meaningful numbers but it does not.

The non-Hispanic white category is the closest approximation of the actual percentage of whites in the country.
There is some number of genuinely white Hispanics — those of pure Spanish heritage, Germans from South America — but they are greatly outnumbered by the North Africans, Middle-Easterners, South Asians, etc., who are counted as white.
There are no precise figures for these populations, but there are, for example, an estimated 2.5 million Arabs, 2 million subcontinental Indians, and half a million Pakistanis living in the United States.
In 2010, the non-Hispanic white figure of 63.6% was down from 69% in 2000. Keep in mind that due to the dynamics of mass immigration and high fertility rates among immigrants, the percentage of non-Hispanic whites gets increasingly smaller for younger population groups.
White newborns, for example, are a minority of their cohort the moment they are born.

The future of America is on display in California, where the non-Hispanic white population has fallen to 40.1%, and Hispanics have nearly outnumbered whites at 37.6% Whites are fleeing the state of California. Over the last 10 years, the number of white Californians fell by 860,537. During that period there were slightly more white deaths than births, but the bulk of the decline represents whites who left the state.

Welcome to the New America: On March 25, 2011, USA Today published an article called “Census: A New Face of America” by Haya El Nasser. Nasser starts the story thus: “The nation ended the first decade of the 21st century much the same way it did a century ago: as a strikingly more diverse and less rural nation.” Much the same way it did a century ago?
The article draws a crude and misleading analogy between the post-Civil War era of mass immigration and our own post-1965 period, without mentioning that nearly all of the immigrants from that earlier period were white, European, and Christian while only a tiny percentage are today. And of course, the U.S. is no longer a nation; it is an empire.

Only further into the article do we get the real story, with a quotation from Robert Lane, an urban sociologist from the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, “2010 brings the next step in the American story,” he says. This is the transformation of the U.S. into a post-European-dominated society. But even here, there is deception, since the article uses the inflated 72.4 figure for the percentage of white. That, of course is the category that includes all the Hispanics who call themselves white — willingly or not.
The more accurate, “non-Hispanic white” figure — which nevertheless inflated with Middle Easterners and North Africans — is 63.6%, and if immigration does not stop that number will keep falling.

Why Count by Race? Since the chattering classes think race doesn’t exist or shouldn’t matter, why does the government even collect race data? A “panel of experts” meeting before the US Commission on Civil Rights in Washington, DC, in April 2006 answered that question. According to Kenneth Prewitt, a former director of the Census Bureau, it is “to inform the government . . . of any population groups suffering from discrimination.”

Sharon M. Lee, a sociologist from Portland State University, explained that “racial statistics are now used to document racial discrimination, leading to new laws and policies to redress systematic racial inequalities.” But how does knowing the racial makeup of the country “document racial discrimination?”

Because according to the US government, everything should work by quota. If 16% of the population is Hispanic, 16% of everyone — from bum to banker — should be Hispanic. If fewer than 16% of the bankers are Hispanic, that is a prima facie case of discrimination, and the banks have to justify the difference. This is the primary official use of race statistics in the United States.
This, of course, is why every minority group wants its members to be counted (and wants them not to be counted as multi-racial). The more blacks there are in an area, the more jobs blacks can demand, and this puts pressure on the census.
As Miss Lee of Portland State pointed out to the Civil Rights Commission, “satisfying advocacy and interest groups” is an important reason to count by race, but maintaining “scientific and statistical standards of data quality” is “a difficult balancing act.”
Former census director Prewitt went on to say: “Many thoughtful Americans, myself included, wish that anti-discrimination laws were not necessary, wish that we live in a society that is truly color-blind. But if we are to create such a society we need to know what is happening to various population groups.”

That brings to mind the famous remark of a recent Supreme Court Justice that “in order to get beyond race we have to take race into account.” Of course, no society will ever be “beyond race” and government-enforced racial quotas just makes divisions even sharper.

Proving Discrimination:
Today, the purpose of counting Americans by race is to use the figures as the basis for detecting discrimination, but the process is not as simple as it sounds. At the same time, most professions require qualifications. If fewer than 16% percent of the bankers are Hispanic, could it be that fewer than 16% of the people who understand accounting are Hispanic? People who accuse whites of “discrimination” rarely consider that.

In fact, when different racial groups with genuinely equivalent qualifications are compared, researchers find that blacks and Hispanics often get preferential treatment.
As far back as 1987, Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware found that after controlling for IQ, blacks were more likely to be hired than whites. (The Practical Significance of Black-White Differences in Intelligence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10 (3), 510-512.) Virtually all of the hiring disparities attributed to discrimination are due to differences in ability and qualifications. Discrimination based on statistics is essentially a fraud, but because the government assumes that all groups are identical, it is a widespread, successful fraud.

Questions from a Mildly-Leftist Friend (repost from FB)

(Originally published on April 2, 2015) I was discussing some things with an old friend who got onto the Left side of the political equation back in high school, and has, sadly, never grown up since. The topic of a "White world" came up, in which White people had somehow managed to isolate and reorganize ourselves into our own exclusive Lands in N.America, A/NZ and especially Europe. We didn't talk about the specifics of how we would accomplish such a task, nor of the logistics involved in moving populations around to make it happen. Instead, he asked me what I thought would be the actual benefit of such a "repressively racist" [lol] society. I began by addressing the negatives.

A completely White culture is not a panacea for everything wrong. White people have proven, throughout our history, that human behavior is to drop to the lowest common social denominator when things go sour. By that I mean, when there have been confrontations, they've traditionally followed a predictable hierarchy, with Race at the top (against such invading forces as the Huns, the Mongols and the muslims), followed by ethnonationalism (Spaniards vs. British), then smaller groups engaging based on family or community ties. In any case, large groups of White people have done seriously bad things to other large groups of White people for a very long time. And still do today. That will never change.

On a personal level, there will always be bad eggs among our Folk. Thieves, liars, swindlers, those who misuse power in all ways. Corrupt politicians, shady real estate brokers, businessmen with their hand in the company till, used car salesmen, mass-market preachers...all the moral ills will still be represented. And the really dangerous guys will also be among us: murderers, rapists, robbers. Accounting for this: some people are reacting to a bad childhood, or personal or emotional abuse, some do bad things as a vendetta or a political expression, and some are just inherently awful or maliciously crazy, causing chaos wherever they go. A couple misalignments in the double helix can produce an error, but White society corrects those errors, in whatever way we need to.

But...

In a White society, one precept that always rises to the top is Order. White countries are orderly countries.

A White society is a scientifically progressive society.


White people have a curiosity about the world around them that is insatiable. We want to know everything that can be known. We find, or invent from thin air, solutions to problems. We study all aspects of everything. We, of all the beings on this planet, are visionaries and creators of things. We conceptualize and we build. We bring reality to imaginings. We send ships into space, travel to the bottom of the seas, and have conceived and constructed the largest human-built objects in history. There is literally nothing our Folk can't do, if, as my dad always said, we put our minds to it.


I firmly believe that, if Whites only had other Whites to interact with, only lived among White people, only worked for White companies, and lived only under governments which acted in our collective true best interests, we would achieve things we can't even imagine now. We could create a virtual, even literal, paradise on this Earth.

Not long ago, I traveled to the island of St. Martin/St. Maarten.

White Tourist St Martin

Whatever I was expecting to find there turned out to be wrong. Traveling around the island. seeing the amazing natural beauty of the mountains, bays and beaches, I thought about the potential that the Dutch and French settlers must have imagined for the place. Instead, greed was injected, plantations were raised, and Africans shipped in to harvest them. But after a time, when markets changed, the colonial powers all but abandoned the place. Today, St Martin is a sad place. Many rundown buildings, lots of property crime, a fair amount of violent crime, and decay everywhere. The contrast between the very few areas where White people still congregate, and the non-White population is stark. In many locations on the island, there are piles of garbage, bags of disposable diapers, pizza boxes, etc. dumped by the side of the road by the "locals".
I can't in my worst nightmare imagine a White culture living on that island which would allow this to happen, allow their Land to be despoiled by their own hands.

Black Local St Martin

We have, unfortunately, allowed a certain "group" to virally infect our Folk with their destructive messages, and, with the complicity of some of our fellow Whites, we got hooked on self-destruction.
We continue to pay the price for having gone down that path. In 1900, White people were almost a third of the population of our genus (including Homo africanus), and in 1956, when I was born, we were almost 90% of the population of the U.S. Today, those numbers are about 9%, and 60%. respectively. Our Lands, and most importantly, our Homelands, have been torn open and invaders who hate us have poured in. And yes, the same cabal that first put wrong thinking into our minds was solely responsible for this breach. This is an attempt at first degree murder of the White Race. This is Genocide.

And yet, we wait, we watch the Electronic Rabbi in the living room, and we do nothing.

We do have a chance, a window, a slim possibility of reversing this madness and salvaging our Race. That window is closing as the population displacement intensifies. We're approaching the "now or never" stage. What we must do does not involve voting, writing to your local newspaper, angry posting on Faceberg, or sitting in your chair and fuming. It involves commitment, fortitude, drive, and organization, and it requires a belief in our invincibility. It will result in huge pain and will, as all noble endeavors do, demand the shedding of blood and the loss of many lives.

Is the White Race up for such a challenge?

"Let this be the hour, when we draw swords together"

Down the stretch

March, 2019. I've had a good life so far, not all smooth sailing, but here I am, a distance beyond my 60th birthday. I am retiring at some point this year and have gotten accustomed to spending less and smelling the roses more. One of the great virtues of having many more decades behind oneself than ahead, is reaching a point where the social lubricant runs dry, and it's time to lay out observations of the world.

I grew up in a very different country, in a somewhat different world. Things had already begun to go south with the end of WW2 and the rise of the hard Left, germinating in the Frankfurt School, being perfected in various other theaters, and being applied first and foremost to the academic world by way of infiltration and indoctrination. And the framework for where we find ourselves today was formed. But we enjoyed ourselves as kids, played hard at cowboys and Indians, and war, and later, tackle football. Living near rivers and the ocean, we fished a lot and were on the water a lot. We used our imaginations a lot. We got in trouble while stretching our wings, fairly frequently. My dad and I used to go to an abandoned quarry with some other guys, and shoot pistols and .22 rifles. In central New Jersey, today a police state if ever there was one. I learned a lot about guns, especially how not to hurt myself or other bystanders with one. Boys and girls were the only two sexes, and we liked each other a lot. Boys still met a girl's parents before dating her, especially among the Italian-American community. Communism was a killer code they practiced in the USSR, and East Germany, and Red China. Millions were murdered under those governments, many of those simply for disagreeing with those governments. Or just wanting to be left alone.

We live in a world which is experiencing a group psychosis, led by greedy narcissists. They're the prisoners who believe everyone else in the Big House deserves to be there, except themselves. We are dealing with people who are irrational, unhinged, maybe even clinically insane. There are some alphas, but mainly ultra-low-T beta pseudo-alphas trying to right an inferiority complex that started with the first time someone refused to go out with them (while chuckling softly). Their rage at the world runs deep. They are the highly willing, incentivized Useful Idiots. Couple them with the sociopathic puppet masters who will play every point from every conceivable angle to confuse the masses and destroy whatever Gentility they don't like, and you have a world now spinning sideways on a clear track into inversion. Biological boys can (should?) become "trans-women", legally change their gender to "Other", and press charges if you fail to use the correct "gender pronoun" when you address them. As "toxic-masculinity" driven 3rd Wave feminism helped launch the MGTOW movement, the blowback is on its way. We just saw New York Democrats declare that babies, living babies, who failed to be terminated in the birth canal, are not yet human, and may (should?) be allowed to die by withholding any medical treatment from them. They also revised that pesky "double homicide" statute, you know, the one that says murdering a pregnant woman is murdering her unborn child as well. The kid got the axe, no pun intended.

One of the courts has ruled that conscripting/drafting only men for military service is not allowable, and that women must be subject to a draft as well, should one be instituted by those peace-loving folks like Ted "Shalom" Cruz or Tom Cotton of Arkansas, or any member or affiliate of the Bush, Cheney or Clinton families, or any representative of Raytheon or Halliburton. This is not only antithetical to American history but illogical from a group survival standpoint. Someone commented that the reason Germany is in steep decline is because of a break in the normal natural selection process. After WW2, many German women were raped (some estimates claim as many as 80% of all girls/women 12 years and older). Those that didn't die in the process and were not impregnated were rendered sterile in some cases. But the families that eventually were formed to begin postwar re-population were of stunted variety. Apart from the men who were killed outright in the war, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, died in Allied camps afterward. Because the soldiers were the fittest males, this had the effect of removing all of the prime male breeding stock, so women married available men. Some married Allied soldiers, often just to get out of a war zone. Some were appropriated by the Soviets and their fellow travelers. But those who married other Germans were marrying the older men, the physically impaired, the emotionally unstable. In short, all the men who'd been left behind when Johann, Klaus and Friedrich went off to fight. But they adjusted, stepped into bigger shoes, and became de facto primary masculine men, and over time, they had a good number of children. When the women are sent to war and killed (or worse for them, captured by very likely 3rd World troops who are not beholden to Western standards of behavior, or the Geneva Convention), they stand a good chance of dying in combat when natural differences between the sexes becomes evident. Women who are good CQ shooters have better odds of staying above ground. Still, many will die. If it's a "war to end all wars", not enough may come back to provide a quality set of chromosomes. Women who could not fight will take on most of the baby-carrying duties. But with the push toward infanticide being "acceptable", will those babies make it out alive?

More than anything else, the people clinging so desperately to their poles of power want control. They want humanity to operate like water from a faucet, available at all times for any reason. You can't argue with them, criticize them, organize against them, or legally resist them. They are narcissists who can't resist trying to put their boot on every neck they see.

As I said, I am at an age where I must be honest with myself and the world around me, the world that makes less sense than a late lunch at Dr. Lecter's place. I want our elected officials cleared out, and I want to start with a clean slate. I want anyone who's trying to harm or destroy me and mine, that is, Europeans worldwide, to be taken down, thrown out, tossed off a balcony, struck by a train or hanged from a scaffold in the public square. I want all of the useless non-contributors and their enablers out of my wallet. I want those who demand a "universal basic income" while doing nothing at all to earn it, pressed into involuntary servitude, building the southern border Wall. I want to see politicians who advocate violence against individuals or groups not like themselves, hunted down and beaten to within an inch of their lives, then banned from politics forever. I want the MEN of this world to look at what this world and its operators are doing to them and their families, to see the dangers of uncontrolled, mass invasion into their lands. The gates have been breached, and it's time to start the incredibly difficult process of turning the engines of the ship of state full astern. Where we're at, and where we're going, doesn't end with ending the madness, but in reversing the inflow, outward. As has often been said in the U.S., our Constitution is not a suicide pact. The lunatics and children have had a fairly long run, but it's time for mommy and daddy to take the wheel again so we can get home again. Like all good medicine, it's going to be bitter going down, and blood will flow as it does in all social convulsions. But hurt it must.

Goodnight, Sweetheart, it's time to go...

After seeing last night's monkeyshines in Baltimore, and the wave of apologists, enablers, race baiters and hooligans rushing to explain, define and cushion the impact of the rioting, I can only offer the following suggestion, to the Black people now in the United States:

We made a horrible mistake 300+ years ago, as a Race, we White people did. Without regard for anything more than an immediate need met, our European ancestors imported millions of west Africans into the Western Hemisphere, and many of them landed in this country. Over time, there was conflict between the African and the White populations. In places like Haiti and Jamaica, the White population was essentially eliminated, quite violently. In other places, like Bermuda, slavery was almost instantly abolished and the two Races cooperatively occupied their own spaces in the environment. In the U.S., slavery persisted for over a century, which, based on first-hand observation and interactions, cemented the negative perspectives on Race from a White point of view.

At that time, in the 1860s, the Congress had the option of acting on a proposal that Lincoln, among others, had raised, about preventing future problems by repatriating Black slaves to Africa, specifically Liberia (although Ghana was a second, more correct choice). But Congress saw the price tag and decided against the plan. Instead, the Reconstruction Amendments, which would have not existed had Blacks been shipped home, became the law of the land. They opened up a host of other ills, which will remain not a part of this discussion. They were freed (which would have been the case either way), but then they were given full citizenship and the right to vote. This unleashed an uneducated, quite low intelligence population into the polling places, where they'd make their mark for whichever candidate handed them silver or whiskey, often many times over the course of the day.

After emancipation, the tension between Blacks and Whites continued to escalate. Violence took place on both sides, with rape and arson being the Black weapons of choice, while Whites armed themselves and shot or hanged Black males. There have been Black riots at some level of violence for many decades. Black people are clearly not happy living near Whites, and are now even asking for fallacious "safe zones" where they can feel safe from White people. [sigh]

So, what I think needs to happen, must happen, is that Whites and Blacks need a divorce, a dissolution of any previous agreements, a clean slate to start anew.

I propose a choice of either of the following, by popular vote of the White people of the United States, to humanely break the racial deadlock. Option One is to set aside land in some part of this country to create a new, separate African country. All American-resident Blacks would have to abandon White America and relocate there. The border with this country would then be the most heavily guarded and reinforced in the world. I propose that this breakaway country should follow the purple-colored Black population concentration:

Option Two is, direct repatriation to a designated place in western Africa. This movement could be coordinated among White countries to include repatriation of Blacks out of Europe and A/NZ, as well as of Arabs, Asians and Khazars for that matter. Any resistance or interference in the peaceful relocation would be met with severe consequences.

So there you have it. You Blacks can be permanently and completely rid of Ofay, evil YT, white debbils, honkeys, "da man", whyteboyz, whatever you want to call us. And we can have one of the biggest, costliest anchors on our society removed for good and get moving forward building our world again, in peace.

Brother, Can You Spare A Trillion?

As I write this, the two wings of the One Zioparty are pretending to disagree on the financial elephant in the room: the debt load of the United States of America. As we hear endlessly on the mainstream media (MSM), it's approximately $14.5-trillion. A "trillion" is a "1" followed by 12 zeroes, a million millions.

To put this number in perspective, we can consider the "gross domestic product" of the U.S. In 2010, that number was ~$14.7-trillion. In other words, everything we built or otherwise produced ("goods and services") for the entire year, the output of all 153-million working people in America, produced revenues just slightly higher than what we owe in borrowed money. By itself, this is horrific.

However, there is also interest (usury) constantly accruing on this money. In 2010, we paid approximately $414-billion to cover this additional liability.

The dog-and-pony show we're now seeing in Washington is a reflection of this debt load. The U.S. Treasury has to periodically (biweekly, monthly, etc.) pay out certain obligations. These include the costs of social services, military operations, and...principal and interest on any debt.

There are essentially three ways for the Federal government to cover indebtedness: decrease spending, increase revenues or print more money. Of these, the Feds are always loathe to cut spending, because spending money garners votes (and, for some in government, results in kickbacks).

Increasing revenues involves increasing taxes, and while this can be a political nightmare, there are a LOT of taxes (and fees, which are de facto taxes) imposed by the Feds, and they are often raised quietly. In 2010, Washington collected about $2.16-trillion in taxes, but spent $1.2-trillion over that sum.

Lastly, the Federal government (or actually, its agent, the FED; the Federal Reserve Bank, which is neither a branch of the government, nor does it keep anything of value in reserve), has the unique ability to literally create money out of thin air.

Before 1913, when the Federal Reserve Act was illegally passed by Congress in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the money of the U.S. was backed by, or coined in, gold (and silver). These metals had secure purchasing power by weight, and the number of dollars in circulations was tied to the physical precious metals held in reserve by the Federal government. The paper money issued against those metals was labeled as either silver or gold "certificates", meaning they could be exchanged at any time for a specific weight of those metals.

Today, the "money" in circulation in America carries the label "Federal Reserve Note". A "note" is an instrument of debt. The FED charges the taxpayers $0.02 per paper bill produced, plus interest (the Treasury still coins money, but "street coins" are no longer produced in silver or gold). Because they are not backed by anything but "the full faith and credit of the U.S.", these notes are properly called "fiat money", worthless in themselves. They are the basis of all financial transactions in this country. Since 1900, mainly due to its transformation into fiat currency, the dollar has lost over 98% of its purchasing power.

Right now, Congress and the President are pretending to disagree about increasing the "debt ceiling". The Democrats want to add $2-trillion to the existing debt in order "to meet obligations". The Republicans, in the role of devil's advocate, want spending cuts which match the increase, at which point they will vote to raise the debt. This is where the disconnect comes into play.

Suppose you earn $50,000 per year. Your current debt load is, say, $5,000. You decide you want to buy a used car and increase your debt to $7,500. Your spouse says, fine, but we have to cut our spending by $2,500 to cover the increased debt. This is akin to saying that, yes, we can borrow an additional $2,500, but we will also drop $2,500 from our outlays. So the question that begs asking is, why not just redirect the $2,500 reduction in spending to pay for the car?

The answer, apart from the problem of already taking in less than they spend, is that Congress wants more money to spend now, and wants to pay it back later. That way, they say, we're only obligated to "small" payments over time, but we can cover our "obligations" now. The problem, of course, is not just that we are avoiding current liability, we're increasing future liability, PLUS, based on past performance, the government will continue to do this every fiscal year. They have willing allies in the MSM who are Chicken Little-ing about the devastating consequences of not giving Congress and the President more money.

In fact, the best possible action could be to fail to raise the debt ceiling. If this happens, two cascading results will follow. First, domestic budgetary obligations will still be met, for now, by increasing the money supply (this will further destroy the fiat dollar, but will mildly cushion the coming Crash). Dollars spent within the U.S. will still buy goods (which will continue to increase in price, the consequence of money supply inflation). Checks will still go out. But we will see a rapid decrease in available Federal government programs, either by abolition or offloading them onto the States. This will be politically based, with cuts against groups who are unlikely to vote in large numbers. Eventually, this will include cuts to the bone in "essential" programs, mostly New Deal leftovers like Social Security and unemployment compensation. Soon enough, the U.S. will be plagued by civil unrest leading to internal warfare as businesses shut down, the dollar goes into hyperinflation, and unemployment spikes.

Second, on the world stage, all of the creditor and other nations which continued to lend to the U.S., and/or float their currencies against the dollar (under the remnants of the Bretton-Woods Agreement) will experience meltdown. Economies around the world will collapse, and wars and other violence will break out as those in power scramble to maintain control.

Because we are past the financial tipping point, these things will happen no matter whether or not the debt ceiling is raised. Temporary injections of loan monies will only postpone the inevitable reality of collapse and crash-and-burn. We will be in "interesting times", as the Chinese say. Although I would have preferred to live out my later years in a quiet and secure America like that of 1900, I feel we've dealt with enough anticipation and trepidation, and the time for massive change is at hand, and welcome. Things will get much more difficult before they get better, so it's time to steel ourselves and take the plunge.

"No" to the debt ceiling increase.

Absolute Zero

Recently, a schism has developed within the body politic of White Nationalism (WN). On one side are those who believe that success can only come incrementally or at least semi-covertly, by disguising one's dedication to, adherence to, or even leanings toward, WN. The reason, they say, is that we are now floating in a sea of expected politically correct behaviors, and being open would subject them and their families to undue scrutiny and subsequent negative effects: social ostracism, potential loss of income, problems with the law, and so on. There's no question that most ostensible Whites do in fact actively seek to remain within the constraints of what's "acceptable", as it's circumscribed for them by the almost entirely jewish-owned mainstream media (MSM).

I am at a stage in my life where I am at the cusp of leaving middle-age behind and being roundly considered "old". In years past, I might, if my mind remained sound, have expected to be elevated to a position of relied-upon sagacity in my family, as an "elder". I would have been expected to impart my lifetime of knowledge, gained through trial, to the younger members of my Folk. And so I do, when asked, which isn't often.

However, one freedom allowed to me now is that I can remove certain encumbrances without derision. I am past the point of "keeping up with the Joneses". I can drive a 10-year-old car with faded paint and it doesn't matter to anyone. As long as I am not a "burden" on anyone, I am free to live what years remain as I please. This has a wonderful side effect as well.

The schism I mentioned earlier has a second side, a side which requires immediate, potentially violent action to correct political mistakes which had already outgrown their usefulness when they were conceived. A side which requires that a majority must never become a pawn of minorities living within its Land. A side which demands that Whites have physical space, political systems and a social standard which promotes and defends the health and future of our local majority. A side which will fight to the death to restore the paradigm which places our Folk first, again.

White people make up less than a tenth of the world's six billion resident hominids. We are very much a minority in planetary terms. That has always been true; even in 1900, those of European descent were less than 1/3 of the world's peoples. In itself, being fewer than others has never been a major obstacle to our Race.

But the problem we face now, on several fronts, is one designed to kill our Folk and drive our memory from this world. Our Lands, White-majority Lands, are being overrun with non-Whites. Our people are being groomed for breeding with other Races, other non-European ethnics. Our history is being perverted and denigrated, pushed toward the scrap heap. And our children are being told, repeatedly, that they, as Whites, are subsidiary to everyone else. Again, this is happening in Lands in which WE are still the majority.

This is not confined to the the former "colonies", the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It is also in full swing in the homelands of our Folk. Open non-White immigration is rampant in Europe. Non-White policies are making Europeans outcasts in their own countries. Sharia laws in Britain, White no-go zones in Gothenburg, Sweden and Rotterdam, Netherlands, criminalization of even the questioning of the orthodoxy of the jewish experience of WW2...these are in place at this moment. A generation ago, Europe was safe, clean and beautiful. I visited much of the continent almost 40 years ago, and it was all of those things. Having come from a multi-racial America, I was amazed and uplifted to see nothing but White faces greeting me.

White Folk are in the midst of a war of conquest, directed by those of a certain Middle Eastern ethnicity which has co-opted our Racial identity. It's being fought under guises of "tolerance", "fairness", and multiculturalist theory. It is waged on the battlefields of religion, education and social norms. Its goal is the wholesale destruction of all things White and European and their replacement by jewish materialism, consumerism, duplicity, spiritual emptiness and absolute political correctness within the purview of neo-Communism. The physical ancestors of these oppressors honed their skills in the Soviet Union, in the 3AM raids on the homes and families of their enemies, in their death squads and political police tactics. Those basic premises have not changed, and we remain in their cross-hairs.

So for my part, I am reducing my material possessions to a minimal level, thus reducing my financial needs at the same time. I am learning to live on less food, in a smaller space, with fewer personal contacts and lowered expectations. The material possessions include my firearms, medical kits, E&E materials and other equipment which can help me make do with very little. I've spent many hours reading through and digesting military texts, survival blogs, and equipment manuals. I've watched hundreds of useful videos. Many hours have also been spent improving my physical capabilities.

One thing I've absorbed is the ultimatum mindset of the Spartans, a life directed toward the possibility of dying valiantly for one's tribe, one's Nation, for a worthy cause and against a worthy opponent. All of our ancestors believed in such a thing as a "beautiful death", a ticket to Valhalla, a chance to feast with other noble warriors forever.

So all of my actions have been toward one purpose: so that when the time is right, when the impending, perhaps final war against the Enemies of the European People begins in earnest, I will be all-in. Nothing left to lose makes me free to fully engage. And in that, perhaps I can, in my small way, offset the White man whose HDTV or ball game on Sunday is more important to him than the future of our Race, and who has already accepted his fate.

Shouldn't We?

Since the horrific murder on April 3, 2010, of South African AWB Leader, Eugene Terre'Blanche, the Black communist government of South Africa has been "urging calm" (they do have a World Cup audience to fool), while both allowing Black racist Julius Malema to preach a message of killing White farmers (Boers), and doing nothing to stop Black criminals from actually killing Boers. It is clear from everything I am reading (and almost none of it is in the jewish-owned "mainstream" U.S. media, of course) that Whites in South Africa, and in Africa generally, are living with a sword hanging over their heads.

I came across this article yesterday. Fifteen Blacks entered a Boer home, restrained the husband while they subdued and gang-raped his wife (apparently in front of him), [sexually?] assaulted his four year old daughter, then beat the man to death. Nothing was taken from the home, so this was clearly a "hate crime" based on the victims' Race. In South Africa, it's just business as usual. Of course, even if this happened in America, Whites are not protected by "hate crime" laws; non-White U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said so publicly.

As a member of several White Nationalist forums (or, fora) and online groups, one often sees the phrase, "We should...":

"We should vote this guy out!", or "...close the borders!", or "...abolish the FED!", or "...join a Tea Party!", etc., etc.

Well, we are now seeing unrestricted killings of our White Folk in Africa. Zimbabwe, South Africa, parts of Congo, Tanzania and Kenya. The Black governments are in power and the international media is not covering nor condemning it. White people in these places, many of whom have family roots there going back several hundred years, are subject to slaughter on a whim. The perpetrators won't be punished. There is, in Africa, a license to hunt Whites.

So is this enough? Is it a strong enough message to change the word from "should" to "shall"? Is it enough to get White men and women around the world thinking, "My family is being wiped out in South Africa, so I shall help them in any way I can"? Is it enough to spark an armed rebellion against not only the African Blacks killing innocent Whites, but also against the swine who are abetting the genocide against our Boer Kindred, while at the same time, are holding the borders of Europe and the other majority-White lands open to Third World invasion? Are those two acts not simply two sides of the same anti-European mission?

It's no longer, "we should". It's now, "we must". White people talk about "the sh*t hitting the fan", "when we're in the last days", or "when a race war comes...". The fan is thoroughly hit. At just 9% of the world's population and falling, we are potentially in our last years. And as the news of the decimation of the Boers continues to pile up, we are unmistakably in an ominous and deadly war for our survival.

Helping our Race survive by any means necessary, taking any risks necessary, in what may be our final chance to ensure our Racial survival: shouldn't we?