"I am preparing a webpage that will include all of my posts that were lost during the recent, and surely accidental, crash of all the servers that MSNBC uses to store our posts, along with all their backups. It should be finished by tomorrow, and I'll have a link to it on my 'Posts' index page."

"Debate Restrictions"
Mon Nov 2 19:06:29

For as long as controversies involving race have been subjects of debate, liberals have tried to circumscribe discussions of racial issues by declaring their opponents' best arguments out-of-bounds. Liberals have tried to control discussions by framing the rules in such a way as to render their opponents' views inadmissible on account of "offensiveness."

Whether racists sometimes make good arguments, in the sense that they include statements that are both important and true, doesn't matter to liberals. It appears that truth is not a defense when liberals declare a statement to be "offensive." The clearer and better considered a racist's argument is, the more it threatens to expose the errors of the liberal position on race, and thus liberals are more inclined to call for the censorship of thoughtful racist arguments than for the censorship of poor ones.

Keep in mind that in many cases these are the same liberals who argue that anti-Christian themes in movies (such as Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ") and in art (such as Andres Serrano's crucifix in a jar of urine) ought to be protected speech despite their offensiveness to Christian fundamentalists. What blasphemous themes are to Christians, racist opinions are to liberals. The liberals almost always try to have a debate moderator censor racist arguments so that they will not have to present opposing arguments that they might not be capable of presenting.

Now, it isn't necessarily illegitimate to exclude points of view on a board. If the stated purpose of a board is to glorify a particular god, or a particular race, or a particular political philosophy, then it's perfectly all right for the board's owner or moderator to come along and censor posts inconsistent with the board's mission. You can legally criticize Jesus, but you shouldn't go into a church to do it. If you do, the preacher has the right to throw you out.

But when a board's stated purpose is to engage in debate, for the purpose of arriving at the truth, or at a better understanding of the facts, then a-priori restrictions on unpopular points of view are certainly underhanded attempts to "fix" the debate so that only the popular point of view can seem to win. The advocates of the unpopular point of view (who are racists in this case) will only be allowed to score small points with their lesser and more oblique arguments, while the liberals can bring forth their whole array of verbiage unfettered by any fear that they will come under the kind of fire that could get them banned from the board.

To give the liberals grounds for calling for the censorship of racist opinions, the rules of debate are written so as to exclude them. "Racist remarks" are ruled illegal, which rule can be used not only to exclude racial insults but can also justify the censorship of any argument that the liberals find too threatening to their belief system to deal with more forthrightly.

I have been lurking here for a short while, trying to decide whether posting on MSNBC is worth my time and trouble. I have not yet decided whether I want to wade in here with my own thoughts and opinions, especially since those thoughts and opinions might not last very long vis-a-vis the obviously biased content rules. But I did want to say that this "Race in America" board sounds like a propaganda wagon for multiculturalism dressed up in the clothes of a forum for race-related debate. If it is a propaganda board for multiculturalism, you should be honest enough to say so and to stop pretending that this board is something that it is not.

"Blacks at a White Girl's Halloween Party"
Tue Nov 3 10:31:25

On Tue Nov 3 07:10:53, Manatawoc wrote:

Dear Mr. Abbott,

Many have been banned from this site for protecting themselves, their race and their culture from detrimental insinuations and threats. Many of the men who post here, who are not white, would like to leave the impression that all white men are cowards, are unable to defend themselves in a fight against the thicker skulled black men, against the black and brown near apes, the bullies, who visit this site, and, with every intention of railing against the white man until he snaps.

So many times the manliness, the character of white men has been assailed with threats and accusations. Accusations concerning their, the white men who leave messages here, manhood, their sexual abilities, their sexual preferences. This is the blacks way of avoiding confronting the facts! The facts, which state, without any rational reason for it today, that black men, at least a fourth to a third of them, maybe more were the truth known, are robbing, raping, and murdering, white people in America, in the world, like it is, truly, going out of style!

A few nights ago, I was at a chaperone at a Halloween party that was expected to last until midnight, at which hour all of the guests were supposed to have gone home. We had 30 or 40 teenagers — they moved around so quickly that it wasn't possible to make an accurate count — and I was drafted into service as a chaperone, along with four other adults. As darkness fell, we were hard-pressed to keep all the teens at the party by preventing them from escaping, usually in pairs, into the woods beside the house or by scampering off down the street on the pretext of going trick-or-treating.

The party's host was a young White girl, and I was disturbed when two Blacks drove up. They were, of course, after what Black males are usually after when they mix with Whites: sex and loot. I kept my eye on them and noticed that they were more inclined to "paw" the girl guests — briefly, brazenly and with affected charm — than the White boys were. I never saw any of the White boys act improperly by taking such experimental liberties with the girls. When a young White couple paired off to hold hands and kiss, it was clear that they had had an affectionate relationship with each other for a long time. It was equally clear that the Black boys were after a little White nookie. They'd come up behind a girl and grope her, then pull back and say or do something Black-ly cute, and the girl would consider herself obliged to smile and not make any fuss over having just had a Black teenager's hands on parts of her body where they should not have been. Most of the girls were embarrassed or annoyed, but tried to cover their feelings. But two girls seemed favorably impressed by having themselves grabbed by the Black boys, and began to seek them socially at the party thereafter.

One of the Blacks tried to start trouble between me and another male chaperone by asking, loudly and in front of everybody, which of us would win if we were to fight each other. I defused this troublemaker's plan first by insisting that he speak English instead of Black slang and then by saying that the other chaperone was tougher than I was. In order for the Black's trick to have worked, my ego would need to have been so big that I would declare myself to be personally invincible, and, since that isn't true, the Black could have had a big, nasty laugh on me.

Wherever the Blacks went, they tried to be the stars of the show, the life of the party, by engaging in whoops and jumps, by monopolizing paraphernalia of amusement (a tire swing in the front yard, a stereo in the living room) and by talking down a lot to the White kids. When they took over the hostess's stereo system, they began deciding what music was going to be played on it — and all their selections were Black rap. The White kids, brainwashed as they were, mostly went along with it.

In addition to being a chaperone, I was also in charge of handing out candy to trick-or-treaters. One of the Blacks came along and would have stolen the basket where I was keeping all the candy if I had not prevented him from doing it. I think his intention was to use the candy to ingratiate himself to the other teens by passing it out among them as though it were a gift to them from him. I could be wrong, but that's what I think he had in mind. He did try to steal the candy, and I don't consider it likely that he wanted to eat it all himself.

None of the Black boys' behavior would have been taken seriously as criminal offenses by law enforcement. Not the attempted candy-theft. Not their sexual harassment of White teenage girls. If a White boy had done the same things at a Black girl's party, where the chaperones were Blacks, he'd have been either beaten up or hauled off to jail, or he'd have been both beaten up and hauled off to jail. Yet if we chaperones had beaten up the Blacks who groped the White teenagers, we'd have been the ones having to spend time in the jailhouse. We knew that society gives Blacks the benefit of a behavioral double-standard, and the Black teenagers at the party knew it as well. That is why they behaved as they did. In order for the chaperones to enforce their authority effectively, law enforcement would need to have been called first, so that things could be handled in the presence of official witnesses. No credit is given to Whites to conduct their own self-defense in a proper way. Blacks, of course, are not under this handicap with respect to asserting themselves in their own defense.

"Re: Blacks at a White Girl's Halloween Party"
Tue Nov 3 12:52:45

On Tue Nov 3 10:48:42, Conni wrote:

So, what is your point here Jerry? You have some people arrive at a party uninvited. Right? Why were they not asked to leave? It doesn't make sense to me. Are you just trying to vent your anger because you didn't do anything at the time. It sounds like you were not a very good chaperone to me. Girls were being man handled by boys, individuals were able to take control of the sterio. Why didn't you call the police? Sounds to me that you were quite intimidated by these young men.

Conni,

I would have liked to have thrown those two Blacks out of the party. There were five of us chaperones, and we certainly could have done it. We could have beaten them if they wanted a fight. We could have held them for the police if they really got out of line.

But in order for the chaperones to make a move, at least one of the girls would have had to protest. The Blacks' groping was a squeeze-and-back-off kind of affair, with them giving every appearance that they were merely "tickling" or "kidding" the girls. The time of contact between the Black hands and the White girls' bodies was very brief — a few tenths of a second, and then the Black was several feet away doing his cute capering. Unless a girl objected to the Black's behavior, it would look as if we chaperones were picking on the Blacks without just cause. We weren't even sure that the girls who had been groped wouldn't suddenly turn against us and tell us to stop being such racists. The Blacks would certainly have made a fuss about White racism, and if the media had got wind of it they would have made of us an example to cause other White chaperones to shudder in the future.

The game we must play is bigger than the events of the moment. We can't win the battle that will cost us the war. This battle would have been worth fighting if any of the girls had slapped the Black who groped her or had otherwise demonstrated outrage. Or if the Black had been less subtle about his groping so that it could not be excused as a tickle or as a joke, or if he had tried to remove a girl's clothing, or if he had been violent to her, then we chaperones would have been on him at once. If the hostess had complained to us that the Blacks had taken her stereo away from her and wouldn't give it back, we chaperones could have thrown them off the premises. But nobody complained to us. What we saw could have been "justified" as "kidding around" to, say, a jury brainwashed by the media.

We chaperones knew better because we had not only each of the facts in isolation, but also their context and relationship to each other. We had, for example, the fact that one of the Blacks had tried to provoke conflict between two of the male chaperones. We had, for example, the fact that one of the Blacks had tried to steal the trick-or-treat candy. We had, for example, the fact that the Blacks would "take over" control of the stereo, the tire swing, the TV remote control, and that none of the White kids were displaying similar aggression. We had all of our observations, which together told a story that no single fact would reveal all by itself.

But suppose that we'd had to fight the Blacks to make them leave. Getting the correct picture across to a judge whose re-election prospects were in the hands of the Jewish media, or to a jury whose members had been targeted for years by that media's equality propaganda, all the while being targeted by anti-racism screeds in the pre-trial press publicity, is an entirely different matter.

The Blacks played their games well. They masked their aggressive and predatory doings with window-dressing behavior so well that the chaperones could take no action without a request by the hostess or by the other party-goers. After the Black who had tried to provoke trouble between me and another chaperone realized he had failed, he backed off. The other chaperone said, "That's a troublemaker." But immediately one of the White kids said, "Aw, he was just kidding." No — no indeed — that Black had not been kidding. His attempt to provoke conflict had been genuine, and the pretense afterward that it had been a joke was phony.

The Blacks' game was to disguise their predatory doings as jest in some cases and as leadership in others. These Blacks played their games well. I'm sure they have had practice. In order to get rid of them, we needed one of the kids to protest to us the Blacks' behavior, but none of them did.

"Re: When did white become a race?"
Tue Nov 3 13:37:20

On Tue Nov 3 12:55:33, Your Name wrote:

I think its funny how people classify white as a race. There are many races that are white in color so does that all mean they are the same race?

All of the races of the human species probably originated in Africa several million years ago, having evolved through primate ancestors that, through other branches, also evolved the modern apes. About 200,000 years ago, some groups or tribes of homo sapiens left Africa and began stepwise migrations into Arabia, Mesopotamia, India, and the southern rim of Asia, dropping off civilizations of settled peoples that eventually initiated a new wave of migration and colonization. In general the migrations pursued the seacoast and river valleys. After reaching the region where Vietnam is today, the migrations turned northward and, about 80,000 years ago, the proto-chinese peoples splintered off the march of migration and settled their part of the world. Later, around 60,000 years ago, the proto-Amerindian group and the proto-Aryan group parted ways, with the former going eastward across the Bering land bridge into North America and the latter heading westward across northern Asia, possibly at the very glacier's edge, to become the ancestors of the modern White race.

The different peoples spent the past ten or twenty thousand years in differing climates and geographies. Adaptations that were necessary in some areas were not needed in others, and skin color differences are only one of many such differences, which taken together constitute what we mean when we refer to "race."

I am half-Irish and half-Indian (Native American, whatever) what race am I? I guess I am just in a whole different class just like the Samaritans.

No, it means that you are a hybrid of two races, and you don't really belong biologically to either of them. Culturally, of course, you may make your choice, but that is not possible in a biological sense. You get the genes you get.

I'm not strictly "pure" myself. I'm mostly Irish Celt, but I also have Saxon ancestors. But these two tribes — Celt and Saxon — have a common ancestral tribe that lived in Europe less than 10,000 years ago and they both lived in Europe for long since they splintered. Your ancestors don't merge until you go back about 60,000 years, and for most of the time since then they lived on different continents, so evolution had more room to play with different adaptations with the two tribes of your ancestry than with mine.

Maybe one day there will be so much cross breeding that there will be just one race? Everyone will have a little bit of race in all of them. But then they would just pick on fat, skinny, small, large people.

No, cross breeding does not produce a new race. A race is adapted to a mode of existence, with biologically refined ways of dealing with the challenges of living. Hybrids don't have that. For one or two generations, they may have a compensatory hybrid vigor, but that usually does not breed true.

"Re: Blacks at a White Girl's Halloween Party"
Tue Nov 3 14:18:21

On Tue Nov 3 13:21:05, Conni wrote:

Oh, I see, so the hostess had no problem with the blacks being there or their behavior. Right? The guest (kids) had no problem with the blacks or their behavior, but YOU had a problem with it, and YOU were unable to do anything, is that what your saying?

Yes, that's correct. The hostess was a teenager. The attendees were all teenagers. We adults were in charge and the hostess was not.

However, we allowed displays of affection at the party that would have been okay in Sunday School. We knew that most of the girls did not really like being groped by the Blacks, but the behavior was superficially decorous and could have been explained away as a joke. We knew, or we strongly suspected, that the reason for the girls' reluctance to confront the groper was that he was Black and that she did not want to be considered racist.

But we had to have a protest before we could act. We needed a sign that the Black was grabbing someone who did not want to be grabbed. If the grabbing had been cruder, as in being violent or more obviously lewd, we could have evicted the Blacks without such a protest. But the design of these gropes was not, precisely, to give the Blacks the thrill of touching a young woman's body. These gropes were too brief — touch and gone — to have been intended for that purpose. Rather, the idea (or so I believe) was to get the girls "used to" the idea of being touched by Black guys, to bring down the barriers that would make a girl slap a guy who got too familiar too quickly. And to assist in that barrier-lowering the Blacks took advantage of racial pressure.

I think that the White girls would have protested if a White boy had done what the Black boys did, but then the girl would have been free to be honest about her feelings, without that pressure to conform to multiculturalism's anti-racist agenda.

For the same reason, I think that if a White boy had tried to provoke trouble between two of the chaperones, none of the other party-goers would have opined out loud that the instigator had been merely joking. But since it was a Black boy who did that, the Whites felt a pressure to exculpate him with the idea that he was only joking.

And if what the Black teenagers did at the mostly white party had been done by White teenagers at a mostly Black party, the outcome would have been much different. The White involved would have been attacked physically, I think. Possibly he would have been seriously beaten. When the police became involved, the Blacks would one and all be exonerated on the basis of their accusations, which the media by that time would have picked up and retold as if it were the Unquestionable Truth. The Blacks at a Black party would have been more forceful more quickly against a White offender, precisely because they'd know in advance that the media, and probably the police as well, would be on their side if they should by some chance become involved.

On the other hand, Whites are not Blacks, and I don't think that many White teenage boys would do any such thing at a Black kid's party.

The fellow who wrote and told me that I'd failed as a chaperone might be right. Maybe I should have pounced on the Black regardless of the opinion of anybody else, and evicted him for touching a teenage girl improperly. That poster had a good point.

You, though, don't. I'm sure that lots of those teenagers would have liked to pair off and head for the woods or an upstairs bedroom for an indecently good time. The purpose of chaperones is to keep that kind of thing from happening. Kids don't have complete sexual freedom, neither should they have it. And just because a teenage guy wants to, and a teenage girl wants him to do it, doesn't mean the responsible adult on the scene should allow it to happen.

My failure was hesitating to take forceful action. That hesitancy was caused by my thinking beyond the moment to what might happen once I, helped if necessary by other chaperones, had kicked the offending Blacks off the property.

For one thing, the kids might have turned against us en masse. These Blacks were unscrupulous, but they were popular, and kids sometimes don't have their values taught to them carefully.

For another thing, evicting the Blacks might have required violence, and violence by Whites against Blacks is usually sensationalized by the media in a way that puts the Whites in the wrong. The media uses both a selective presentation of fact as well as a distortion of the facts they present, in order to give false appearances to these situations.

"Racial Discrimination and Survival"
Tue Nov 3 14:31:33

Race is not a social convention; it is a biological fact. Race (or breed) exists in many species, and it exists in ours whether you wish to admit it or not. The fact that races exist is obvious despite the fact that mixed-race persons and other in-betweens also exist. Liberals are people who have allowed a destructive moral and social philosophy to form their political convictions, to confound their view of the world, and to corrupt the way in which their minds operate on information gathered by their senses.

The White Race originated in a harsh, cold environment. Evolution for Whites included a group selection favoring a certain amount of altruistic, reciprocating behavior, which led to their having an inborn feel for concepts like justice, fairplay, honor, duty and loyalty. White groups, living at the glacier's edge, often found altruism with reciprocity to be an advantageous way to live. It allowed evolution to operate through "kin-selection," in which an individual's sacrifice for his genetic relatives results in the preservation of more of his genes than would have resulted by more selfish behavior. The Libertarians might not admit it, but it's nonetheless true that early European tribes whose members helped each other, sometimes at the cost of personal sacrifice, survived better than those who were motivated by the principle of ego.

Whites became civilized and grew very powerful. We dominated the world. But at some point or other we made two mistakes. One of them was our participation in slavery. We did not start slavery in Africa — the Blacks did that themselves. But we bought slaves there, and we took them to our lands, where they have been no end of trouble and expense to us. Our other mistake was becoming culturally arrogant. In our arrogance, we assumed that the morality proper for White people is also proper for non-Whites, that the way Whites live is also the way non-Whites should live, and that our religion would be better for them than their own native beliefs.

Were we ever wrong. We mistakenly extended our in-group altruism to groups who had no intentions to reciprocate. We let the Jews persuade us that racial differences either do not exist or are not important, as a result we lost political control of our own countries to them. We can get it back, if we try hard enough, but first it is necessary to convince enough of our people that the liberal propaganda they've heard on the TV all their lives is hogwash. That's difficult because of a human evolutionary trait that makes us trust the familiar with the presumption of truth. We believe what we have always believed before, or what we've long been told. During our evolution, this trust carried survival advantages because our experience was with nature itself. But in our modern world, much of our "experience," practically everything we know about the world beyond our own neighborhoods, comes from the media pseudo-reality with which the Jews have been bedazzling us for the past several generations. In a situation such as this, our biological habit of trusting the familiar betrays us, because many people are "familiar" with a glamorized and false picture of natural law and of human nature.

We rush to sacrifice our money in an orgy of alms-giving every time we're shown hungry Black African children, while similarly hungry White children in our own Appalachian mountains remain unfed. Charity is something that should begin at home. Institutions established by White people should serve White people first, foremost, and — apart from a specific mandate to do otherwise — exclusively. Given enough time, the practice of undiscriminating altruism will destroy the White Race. The other races will bleed us dry, and then they will sweep us away. It is probably the relative shortness of the human lifespan, compared to the march of events in history, that allows Liberalism, with its denial of the consequences of defying natural laws, to exist. You, personally, haven't seen Big Things happen, so you figure that Big Things just don't happen — like racial extinction.

If Whites do not check their altruism by bringing it back within the bounds of their own group, by "discriminating" on the basis of race, then Whites will be displaced by groups who consistently act in their own self-interest (i.e., by groups who are "more racist" than Whites are). One way or another, racism will exist in the future. The only question is whether there will be any Whites left in the world, or whether we will die out. Nature tests all living things, and its tests are always fair. Nature did not ask you for your preferences when it was making us. Ethnic and racial groups in proximity to each other always compete, and those who would survive had better learn to be serious competitors.

"Hello, Costello"
Tue Nov 3 14:49:18

On Tue Nov 3 11:20:43, Lou Costello wrote:

You scummy comedian. Don't you know Abbott was better as a straight man?!?!?! Unlike Erik Shen, I am here to bust you out - to reveal you as intellectual trash and social vermin. I am here to step on your feeble attempts to articulate lies and appeal to weakness. I am here to get you to Step up or Step OFF - way off.

I accuse you of decontextualizing crime.

First, if crime is an issue, you make a pretense for discussions of justice and justice does not begin in the context of halloween parties but in the context of the lives lived by the human family - wealth, human, liberty, freedom, etc.

So let's begin with how whites, your people, have come to their lofty material status in this world. You pick the country (America, Argentina, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Australia, Switzerland - pick one of these or one of your choice) and we will start a real debate. You pick Abutt. Let's get it on.

I accuse you on faking the funk. Faking the funk is strictly forbidden. So let's talk about crime. I am waiting.

I recognize an agent provocateur when I see one. We get them all the time on the alt.politics.white-power newsgroup. But such as you can be useful to us now and then, and by bringing up crime and challenging me to make an issue of it, you have served me. Thank you.

The country we will discuss first is the United States. First, let me refer you to my major sources of data.

I have more sources, but these will do to start with. Since the discussion will be a long one, it will be proper to start a new thread, which I will begin writing immediately.

"Race and Crime in the United States"
Tue Nov 3 17:07:23

Lou challenged me to make an issue of this relationship, and so I shall. Lou said:

Unlike Erik Shen, I am here to bust you out - to reveal you as intellectual trash and social vermin. I am here to step on your feeble attempts to articulate lies and appeal to weakness. I am here to get you to Step up or Step OFF - way off.

I accuse you of decontextualizing crime.

First, if crime is an issue, you make a pretense for discussions of justice and justice does not begin in the context of halloween parties but in the context of the lives lived by the human family - wealth, human, liberty, freedom, etc.

So let's begin with how whites, your people, have come to their lofty material status in this world. You pick the country.

Whew, such bragging. I had written a post in which I related my observations of two young Black teenagers who attended a mostly White party hosted by a White teenage girl. I reported that the behavior of the Blacks was improper, but that it was calculated not to appear so. Among other things, the Blacks attempted to incite violence, attempted to steal property, and (in my opinion) committed sexual harassment against a number of young White women. Now I didn't attend any Black Halloween parties, so I couldn't say whether there were any White teenage boys doing similar things there. I suspect not. Between the races there are behavioral differences as well as physical ones.

But Lou has accused me of being unfair: "of decontextualizing crime." I believe that he means that my anecdote casts Black people in general in an unfairly bad light. I believe that Lou is saying that I happened to see an atypical Black and improperly generalized from him to the entire Black race. I believe that Lou is implying that, if more data about more Black people were available — not merely what I saw at a Halloween party — that all apparent behavioral differences between Whites and Blacks would disappear. I think that's what he meant. If he meant anything else, he sure has a funny way of talking.

I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that non-White Americans, in general, are more criminally violent than White Americans, in general. As I said a short while ago, in a reply to Lou Costello, these are my major sources of data in connection with the relationship between race and crime in the United States.

CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES, 1995
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/crimeus/crimeus.htm

STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1996
http://www.census.gov/prod/2/gen/96statab/96statab.html

COUNTY-LEVEL BREAKDOWN IN CRIME RATES
http://www.lib.virginia.edu/socsci/crime/crimes.html

POPULATION ESTIMATES, BY RACE, FOR US COUNTIES
http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/co_crh.html

CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1995
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpius95.pdf

Here are some statements that you can prove with those documents:

The average Black American commits murder 7.9 times as often as the average White American.

The average Black American commits rape 4.4 times as often as the average White American.

The average Black American commits robbery 9.6 times as often as the average White American.

The average Black American commits assault 3.9 times as often as the average White American.

Table 2.6 in the FBI publication "Crime in the United States, 1995" contains information that permits a breakdown of crime rates by both race and age groups.

In the 9-12 age group, there were 12 murders committed by White children and 17 murders committed by Black children, across the United States in 1995. Demographic information from "Statistical Abstract of the United States" tells us that there were 12,074,000 White Americans and 2,349,000 Black Americans in that age group in that year. That's 5.140 times as many White children as Black children aged 9 to 12 in the United States in 1995. When you divide the number of murders committed by White Americans in this age group by the total number of White Americans in this age group, and divide the number of murders committed by Black Americans in this age group by the total number of Black Americans in this age group, you get the rates of murder perpetration for the Whites and for the Blacks, respectively, aged 9 to 12. When you divide the rate for one race by the rate of the other, you discover that the average Black child, aged 9-12, committed murder about 7.3 times more often than the average White child, aged 9-12.

In the 13-16 age group, there were 492 murders committed by White teenagers and 723 murders committed by Black teenagers, across the United States in 1995. Demographic information ... tells us that there were 11,677,000 White Americans and 2,301,000 Black Americans in that age group in that year. That's 5.075 times as many White teenagers as Black teenagers aged 13 to 16 in the United States in 1995... When you divide the rate for one race by the rate of the other, you discover that the average Black, aged 13-16, committed murder about 7.5 times more often than the average White, aged 13-16.

In the 17-19 age group, there were 1117 murders committed by White teenagers and 1675 murders committed by Black teenagers, across the United States in 1995. Demographic information … tells us that there were 8,697,000 White Americans and 1,647,000 Black Americans in that age group in that year. That's 5.281 times as many White teenagers as Black teenagers aged 17 to 19 in the United States in 1995… When you divide the rate for one race by the rate of the other, you discover that the average Black, aged 17-19, committed murder about 7.9 times more often than the average White, aged 17-19.

In the 20-24 age group, there were 1398 murders committed by Whites and 2067 murders committed by Blacks, across the United States in 1995. Demographic information … tells us that there were 14,528,000 White Americans and 2,669,000 Black Americans in that age group in that year. That's 5.443 times as many Whites as Blacks aged 20 to 24 in the United States in 1995... When you divide the rate for one race by the rate of the other, you discover that the average Black, aged 20-24, committed murder about 8.0 times more often than the average White, aged 20-24.

In the 25-34 age group, there were 1733 murders committed by Whites and 1711 murders committed by Blacks, across the United States in 1995. Demographic information … tells us that there were 34,027,000 White Americans and 5,475,000 Black Americans in that age group in that year. That's 6.215 times as many Whites as Blacks aged 25 to 34 in the United States in 1995... When you divide the rate for one race by the rate of the other, you discover that the average Black, aged 25-34, committed murder about 6.1 times more often than the average White, aged 25-34.

In the 35-44 age group, there were 1108 murders committed by Whites and 771 murders committed by Blacks, across the United States in 1995. Demographic information … tells us that there were 35,081,000 White Americans and 5,088,000 Black Americans in that age group in that year. That's 6.895 times as many Whites as Blacks aged 35 to 44 in the United States in 1995... When you divide the rate for one race by the rate of the other, you discover that the average Black, aged 35-44, committed murder about 4.8 times more often than the average White, aged 35-44.

In the 45-54 age group, there were 479 murders committed by Whites and 302 murders committed by Blacks, across the United States in 1995. Demographic information … tells us that there were 25,852,000 White Americans and 3,122,000 Black Americans in that age group in that year. That's 8.281 times as many Whites as Blacks aged 45 to 54 in the United States in 1995... When you divide the rate for one race by the rate of the other, you discover that the average Black, aged 45-54, committed murder about 5.2 times more often than the average White, aged 45-54.

In the 55-64 age group, there were 192 murders committed by Whites and 115 murders committed by Blacks, across the United States in 1995. Demographic information … tells us that there were 18,355,000 White Americans and 2,124,000 Black Americans in that age group in that year. That's 8.642 times as many Whites as Blacks aged 55 to 64 in the United States in 1995... When you divide the rate for one race by the rate of the other, you discover that the average Black, aged 55-64, committed murder about 5.2 times more often than the average White, aged 55-64.

Averaging across all the age groups, the average Black American committed murder about 7.3 times more often than the average White American did. Compare this to the 7.9 ratio obtained above from other government sources. Close, huh? In year after year, in study after study, Blacks are committing murder at rates that exceed the White rates by a huge amount — not just by a little bit. Not just by a few percent. Not even by merely *double* the rate. For every person murdered by an average White, seven or eight people are murdered by an average Black — speaking generally, of course. But then, that is what I was challenged to do by Lou Costello.

Crime statistics are full of caveats and quibbles. The murder totals that you can add up from the above paragraphs aren't quite consistent with totals from other sources. The reason is that crime statistics don't always count the same things. Sometimes they count perpetrators. Sometimes they count the victims. And sometimes they count the number of charges in that crime category that were filed. For example, when several gang members get together on a killing, several or all of them might be charged with the murder and/or other crimes, so there is naturally some mismatch in the numbers. I say this because that mismatch will become obvious now that I want to talk about race-of-perpetrator ratios for interracial murders, rather than race-of-perpetrator ratios for murders regardless of the victim's race.

Table 2.8 in the FBI publication "Crime in the United States, 1995" gives the following information for murders in the United States in 1995:

1. Of 10032 total US murders in 1995, Blacks committed 5175 (51.6%) and Whites committed 4476 (44.6%).

2. There were 1303 interracial murders (13% of total murders), of which 753 were committed by Blacks (57.8% of interracial murders) and 352 were committed by Whites (27.0%).

3. There were 699 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (53.6% of interracial murders) and 281 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (21.6%).

4. The Black per capita murder perpetration rate was 7.6 times higher than that for Whites.

5. The Black per capita interracial murder perpetration rate was 14.0 times higher than that for Whites.

6. Blacks killed Whites at a per capita rate that was 16.2 times higher than the per capita rate at which Whites killed Blacks.

The Black teens that came to the White girl's Halloween party, the one where I helped to chaperone, probably have never killed anybody. That's not certain, of course, but it's the way I'm betting for now. But they were more rambunctious, louder, less principled, and less respectful of authority and of other people's rights than any of the White kids were. Their behavior and the general picture we get from the government's crime statistics all paint parts of the same picture: Blacks are more violent than Whites. I can extend this argument to include Mestizos as well. If you will kindly view the chart that I have prepared at

http://members.tripod.com/~Jenab/JABP/correlate2.jpg

You will see graphed points corresponding to the 50 US states and the District of Columbia. The points are labeled by the state's two-letter abbreviation in some cases, and they are color-coded to reflect the crime rates. The graph's horizontal axis measures the percentage of the state's population that is Black, and the vertical axis measures the percentage of the state's population that is Hispanic.

Study that graph for a while, and see if you can come up with an explanation for the consistency of the pattern that doesn't involve racial behavioral differences. The data comes from "Statistical Abstract of the United States." It is the truth. You liberals don't have to like it. It's true anyway.

"Re: Jerry Abbot's failure...."
Tue Nov 3 18:02:43

On Tue Nov 3 16:25:09, Steppin' Razor wrote:

The fact remains that at the base of your protestations lies a simple fact: You were a coward. You can use any excuses you want, but when it comes down to it, you FAILED to be a good chaperone and now you're making excuses!

Probably, I should not have chaperoned for the first time at a party of teenagers this large. I wasn't as good a chaperone as I should have been, but I doubt that I erred in relation to the Black teens who became overly familiar with the White girls.

An authority must not overstep its limits. If it does, it either goes under and ceases to be an authority, or extreme measures (violence) must be used to re-establish it. And even then it is not a respected authority, but a feared and resented one.

As to the question of whether or not I should have "pounced," the answer that I reached was based on practical, tactical considerations, rather than on moral absolutes. Suppose that I tried to evict the Blacks, but nobody would back me up? Suppose I had the help of the other chaperones, but the teenagers rioted? Suppose that I called the police before doing anything else, but when they arrived none of the young women would admit to having been groped? Any of these things could have happened.

The Blacks were popular at the school from which all the kids had come. I believe they were leading sports figures there. But their talent in basketball or football doesn't mean that they were principled people, and I happen to know that they were unprincipled. They tried to steal. They tried to incite violence. They touched young women inappropriately. Yet I could not evict them until I heard a definite protest from one of the girls that would commit her to a position of protesting what the Black had done.

The basis of your relating this story is to essentially WHINE! That's it! You're WHINING that the hostess of the party and even those other white kids REFUSED to acknowledge your same BIASED opinion. You are enfuriated that your RACIST attitude is held SOLELY by you!

Oh certainly I am a racist. But it wasn't racism that let me recognize that the Blacks were troublemakers. A would-be thief is a troublemaker and it doesn't take a racist to say so. A would-be instigator of violence is a troublemaker, and it doesn't take a racist to say so. Someone who usurps control over the property of others is a troublemaker, and it doesn't take a racist to say so. And I wasn't trying to make any converts to racism at the party. I was trying to keep order until midnight when all the kids would go home.

You generalize and claim it was only the black kids who were acting innapropriately, but in the same vein you are incapable of explaining WHY those white kids felt those black kids were POPULAR! You yourself admit to their popularity!

I answered this a short way up. The Black kids were local sports stars. I don't know the details, but I heard that much. That is why they were popular. It had nothing to do with the state of their moral development. Of course you probably already knew that popularity and goodness have little to do with each other, but on the other hand your intention was to post a smear screed. A lot of that goes on in this board.

It's sad, really, that you couldn't have the STRENGTH to stand up for your own EVIL BELIEF system. That you couldn't show everyone at that party just how hateful and angry of a man you are.

Let me see if I have understood you. You are saying that I erred staying calm in a situation that called for violence? Or are you saying that I erred in staying calm in a situation that DIDN'T call for violence? My belief system told me to watch and wait, to keep an eye on the Blacks who had come to White kid's party and who had behaved badly in my sight already.

"Re: Race and Crime in the United States"
Tue Nov 3 18:23:07

On Tue Nov 3 17:24:28, race&crime wrote:

Do you know how many times we have heard this. you have to do better, you stats could come from anywhere as you don't say where. and by the way I, AM WHITE. SO tell us something we don't know.

What you said is not true, race&crime. My stats could NOT have come from "anywhere." They could ONLY have come from where I said they did. Why? BECAUSE I NAMED MY SOURCES. I did better than name them: I provided links so that you could *download* them. You can get the same data that I used, from the same source that I got it from, and repeat my study for yourself. You, sir, are a liar and a bad one at that. Let me repeat the data source links for you (and this is a direct copy-and-paste from the post that you were replying to):

CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES, 1995
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/crimeus/crimeus.htm

STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1996
http://www.census.gov/prod/2/gen/96statab/96statab.html

COUNTY-LEVEL BREAKDOWN IN CRIME RATES
http://www.lib.virginia.edu/socsci/crime/crimes.html

POPULATION ESTIMATES, BY RACE, FOR US COUNTIES
http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/co_crh.html

CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1995
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpius95.pdf

Now I haven't finished with this subject. There is more important information in the government statistics that I have not yet touched on. I'll post on this subject again, unless the censors ban me first. But I do wish that certain liberals would stop trying to deceive people.

"Re: You can survive without killing others!"
Tue Nov 3 21:12:00

On Tue Nov 3 14:31:33, Jerry Abbott wrote:
Race is not a social convention; it is a biological fact.

On Tue Nov 3 15:49:38, Steppin' Razor wrote:

SR: This is a lie. All work by anthropologists to geneticists proves otherwise. RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. And the case that proves it most simply is that THERE IS NO DEFINING FACTOR for a race.

Jerry Abbott: SR is the one who is wrong. Encyclopedias published before the 1940s detail many Black versus White racial differences other than the coloration differences caused by skin pigmentation. This work was meticulously done according to the best scientific standards. The observations of racial differences recorded in those earlier articles are accurate ones. Encyclopedias published more recently have discreetly censored most of that information.

To be sure, there is no SINGLE defining factor for race, and nobody ever said that there was. There are, however, lots of tributary differences that tend to run together in the same racial stream, and taken together these differences are "race." Blacks are not just people with darker skin than Whites have; they also have thicker skulls, longer arms, wider teeth, longer jaws, better jumping ability and, on the average, somewhat lower intelligence, as compared with Whites.

NO ONE can agree when a black man ceases to be black or a white man ceases to be white (or begins to be, for that matter). Race is NOT a BIOLOGICAL fact. It is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT based on SKIN COLOR and PRIVILEGE.

Jerry Abbott: It is certainly possible for a society to construct a caste system, or an aparteid system, based on racial differences. But in such cases, the racial differences usually cause the cultural adjustment, not the other way around.

Jerry Abbott, quoted from an earlier post:
Race (or breed) exists in many species, and it exists in ours whether you wish to admit it or not. The fact that races exist is obvious despite the fact that mixed-race persons and other in-betweens also exist.

SR: Well if there are mixed race persons, HOW CAN THAT BE? Surely they are not the product of some BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE!

Jerry Abbott: A doberman can mate with a collie, and the female will have puppies. The mating was prompted by the usual biological urges. The puppies are neither collie nor doberman. It works about the same way with humans. I don't see what you thought your point was.

Jerry Abbott, quoted from an earlier post:
The White Race originated in a harsh, cold environment. Evolution for Whites included a group selection favoring a certain amount of altruistic, reciprocating behavior, which led to their having an inborn feel for concepts like justice, fairplay, honor, duty and loyalty.

SR: As if other people didn't have this?!?!? Native Americans had a system of honor. Asians had a system of honor. The ludicrous assumption that these traits solely belong to WHITES is a FALLACY.

Jerry Abbott: And just where did you detect the word "solely" in my writing? I was describing the system of honor developed by Whites, and how it came to be developed.

Jerry Abbott, quoted from an earlier post:
White groups, living at the glaciers edge, often found altruism with reciprocity to be an advantageous way to live. It allowed evolution to operate through "kin-selection," in which an individual's sacrifice for his genetic relatives results in the preservation of more of his genes than would have resulted by more selfish behavior.

SR: Somehow, the OPPOSITE of your above statement rings more true.

Jerry Abbott: It is not clear whether you are disagreeing with the phenomenon of kin-selection, or whether you are disagreeing with my claim that White ancestral tribes (the Celts and their progenitors) practiced it.

Jerry Abbott, quoted from an earlier post:
The Libertarians might not admit it, but its nonetheless true that early European tribes whose members helped each other, sometimes at the cost of personal sacrifice, survived better than those who were motivated by the principle of ego.

SR: That's still true today....

Jerry Abbott, quoted from an earlier post:
Whites became civilized and grew very powerful. We dominated the world. But at some point or other we made two mistakes. One of them was our participation in slavery. We did not start slavery in Africa the Blacks did that themselves. But we bought slaves there, and we took them to our lands, where they have been no end of trouble and expense to us.

SR: Sounds like bad karma. I agree that it was a mistake, but why stop at TWO mistakes? Why not continue? i.e. The destruction of the environment, the invention and implementation of nuclear devices, the evolution of COLD WAR, not to mention sheer ARROGANCE.

Jerry Abbott: Jewish spies gave American atomic secrets to the USSR in 1953, thus beginning the Cold War and forty years in which the world could have been destroyed at more-or-less any moment. That danger, by the way, has not passed. It has only shifted to a different part of the world.

Jerry Abbott, quoted from an earlier post:
Our other mistake was becoming culturally arrogant. In our arrogance, we assumed that the morality proper for White people is also proper for non-Whites, that the way Whites live is also the way non-Whites should live, and that our religion would be better for them than their own native beliefs.

SR: Well, I HAVE to agree with your enlightened statement here.

Jerry Abbott: Then perhaps you will agree with the need to undo the damage that was done by those policies. Undoing the damage means separating Blacks from White influence, and from White support, so that they can return to the ways natural for them. If they can raise themselves up to civilization, without any help from us, then let them do so. We Whites won't mind. If they can't, then they can't. They weren't civilized when we found them in Africa, and if they can't do better than jungle conditions once they are apart from us again, then we Whites will not be to blame.

Jerry Abbott, quoted from an earlier post:
Were we ever wrong. We mistakenly extended our in-group altruism to groups who had no intentions to reciprocate. We let the Jews persuade us that racial differences either do not exist or are not important, as a result we lost political control of our own countries to them. We can get it back, if we try hard enough, but first it is necessary to convince enough of our people that the liberal propaganda theyve heard on the TV all their lives is hogwash. That's difficult because of a human evolutionary trait that makes us trust the familiar with the presumption of truth. We believe what we have always believed before, or what we've long been told. During our evolution, this trust carried survival advantages because our experience was with nature itself. But in our modern world, much of our "experience," practically everything we know about the world beyond our own neighborhoods, comes from the media pseudo-reality with which the Jews have been bedazzling us for the past several generations. In a situation such as this, our biological habit of trusting the familiar betrays us, because many people are "familiar" with a glamorized and false picture of natural law and of human nature.

SR: The question remains... Is the propaganda espoused by the media AN IMPROVEMENT over the way Whites have acted in the past? Is it an IMPROVEMENT to encourage your people to live in HARMONY with others? Is it an improvement to discourage savage behavior? THAT is the question.

No one is calling for the destruction of your culture or ways, only of your destructive behavior. And frankly, you should consider it an improvement. A cleansing of your bad karma, per se.

Jerry Abbott: No, that's certainly not true. Non-Whites have been heard saying that their goal is the destruction of the White race through racial mixing. And the danger inherent in that might not be obvious. With a very few exceptions, human progress comes only from the most able and most motivated people. Anything that melds together the best with the rest is contra-survival for the species, and a general mixing of races would eventually sacrifice both the "slow-pokes" and the intellectual elite in favor of the mediocrities. But as far as advancement goes, the mediocrities matter no more than the slow-pokes do. If Man is ever going to reach the stars, it must not douse its spark by racial mixing, because the torch cannot be relit once it has gone out. The prevention of persecutions, pogroms and ethnic cleansing is undoubtably a good thing, but it is not the best thing, since it would be better for Mankind to survive with violent ethnic competition than to become extinct through its efforts to prevent them.

Jerry Abbott, quoted from an earlier post:
We rush to sacrifice our money in an orgy of alms-giving every time were shown hungry Black African children, while similarly hungry White children in our own Appalachian mountains remain unfed.

SR: I agree with you! Why should I send my money to Africa when there's someone down the block digging through a garbage can?!?!? I agree with you! Why send my money to black kids in Africa when there are black kids in my neighborhood who will grow up to be thieves in order to survive, unless they have better opportunity!

Jerry Abbott: In the next paragraph, I indicate that charity begins at home, not only in a geographical sense (which is trivial), but in a biological sense that is better related to natural laws than geography ever could be. If my brother goes to China, he is still my brother, but a Black man will never be my brother even if he is my next-door neighbor. If my brother writes from China and asks me for a thousand dollars, he'll have it at once. The Black next-door neighbor won't get a dime from me unless his reputation for paying back loans is better than most Blacks' reputations are in that regard. I don't want my government forcing me to do what is unnatural for me, and I believe that most people feel the same way. I suspect that when liberals speak of charity, they aren't really talking about their own time and money — they're refering to mine. I am White. I am kin to Whites. I will help needy Whites rather than needy persons of other races.

The best solution to Black thieves who steal to survive is not to have any Blacks around. You don't need to kill the Blacks to have a Black-free neighborhood. You only have to EXCLUDE them from the neighborhood. You don't have to "Holocaust" Blacks to have a Black-free nation. You only need to implement racial nationalism and establish separate racial homelands for the races. That would end all racial discrimination because there would be no opportunity for it to be exercised. When everybody available to you for hiring is of the same race as you are, the question of whether you are hiring people with racial fairness cannot arise. The creation of separate racial homelands (a "Zion" for every race) would end the debate over whether "White racism" were "keeping Blacks down," since any failure of the Blacks once they have their own country, with all-Black leaders, with all-Black businesses, with all-Black society, cannot possibly be blamed on anyone who is White.

Jerry Abbott, quoted from an earlier post:
Charity is something that should begin at home. Institutions established by White people should serve White people first, foremost, and apart from a specific mandate to do otherwise exclusively. Given enough time, the practice of undiscriminating altruism will destroy the White Race. The other races will bleed us dry, and then they will sweep us away. It is probably the relative shortness of the human lifespan, compared to the march of events in history, that allows Liberalism, with its denial of the consequences of defying natural laws, to exist. You, personally, havent seen Big Things happen, so you figure that Big Things just dont happen like racial extinction.

SR: If the threat ever arose, we would have to take care of it as a collective. The relationship of AMERICANS is too intertwined for any part of it to come to harm without its affecting the other parts. Just like a shark and the sucker fish that clings to its back. Both serve a function. And one cannot survive without the other, regardless of how much one might believe so....

Jerry Abbott: I do not believe that that comparison is valid. It is convenient to you, SR, but it is not a good comparison because the Blacks do not return to the White race anything that would justify their maintenance though government entitlement programs.

Jerry Abbott, quoted from an earlier post:
If Whites do not check their altruism by bringing it back within the bounds of their own group, by "discriminating" on the basis of race, then Whites will be displaced by groups who consistently act in their own self-interest (i.e., by groups who are "more racist" than Whites are). One way or another, racism will exist in the future.

SR: Only in so far as you act it out or ALLOW it. If racism were eliminated by EVERYONE today, it would CEASE to exist. And that is easier to do than to bring all whites or blacks together as one collective force. Put an end to ALL racism. That solves ALL problems.

Jerry Abbott: And if gravity did not apply to human beings, we could all fly by flapping our arms. The point, SR, is that there is no sense in wishing that the laws of nature were other than they are. You aren't going to change them, and you aren't going to engineer the human species into accordance with your tastes. Ethnic groups in contact will compete; there never has been an exception, and there never will be. Even the pretense of non-competition is itself a competition strategy.

Jerry Abbott, quoted from an earlier post:
The only question is whether there will be any Whites left in the world, or whether we will die out. Nature tests all living things, and its tests are always fair. Nature did not ask you for your preferences when it was making us. Ethnic and racial groups in proximity to each other always compete, and those who would survive had better learn to be serious competitors.

SR: Another fallacy. Ethnic and racial groups CAN live together. Competition is GOOD! But when that descends into discrimination or violence, EVERYONE loses.

Competition in business is good. Competition in nature can produce good results, but the methods are somewhat harsher. The former employs exchanges of money, with the winning companies driving the losers out of business. The latter involves fighting and killing, with the winner either making a meal of the loser's carcass or appropriating his possessions. Ethnic competition is in nature's realm. It is always going on, but the only criterion for victory is survival — not goodness, not nobility, not artistic talent. If those nice things, and others, are to continue to exist in the world, then the social, political and economic organization of their best practitioners should ensure that they survive. No one else will assume that responsibility, and anyone else who offers is a trickster trying to take you for a sucker.

"Race and Crime in the United States #2"
Wed Nov 4 22:17:12

My first post on this subject can be found at
http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/msnbc-america/posts/lh/19797.asp

[Jerry's note, written 21 November 1998: This post, and most of my others, was lost to the MSNBC "Race in America" BBS due to a software error that MSNBC staff claims was accidental. Fortunately, I routinely copy all my posts locally, so they could be uploaded to a more reliable server at a later time.]

It's not especially hard to figure out that Blacks and mestizos do more than their share of killing and assaulting, robbing and raping, and generally running amok. Your own experience tells you that that's the way things are. But did you know that the US government keeps statistics that confirm your informally acquired impressions about non-Whites?

According to data kept by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Blacks are out-performing Whites in every major violent crime category, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

A study of U.S. government crime and demographic information, averaging data for the years 1993 and 1995, shows that

The average Black commits murder 7.9 times as often as the average White.

The average Black commits rape 4.4 times as often as the average White.

The average Black commits robbery 9.6 times as often as the average White.

The average Black commits assault 3.9 times as often as the average White.

Of course, the media tries hard to paint the opposite picture. To illustrate the anti-White bias of the Jewish media in reporting race-related crimes, let's consider how those media handled two very similar crimes in the same American city. The city is Fayetteville, North Carolina. The first murder was perpetrated by a White soldier named James Burmeister in December 1995, and the victims were a Black drug dealer and his girlfriend. The second murder was perpetrated by members of a Black-Hispanic gang called the Crips on 17 August 1998, and the victims were two young White women named Tracy Lambert (age 18) and Susan Moore (age 25). The first murder was an instant national and international news sensation. It was featured in the New York Times, in the Washington Post, in the Wall Street Journal, and on the nationally aired television network news. The second murder was featured only in the local news. If it were not for White nationalist users of the Internet, few people outside of Fayetteville, North Carolina, would have ever heard about the fates of Tracy Lambert and Susan Moore. And this contrast is not an isolated quirk of media news coverage: it is systematic, and it is nation-wide, if not world-wide. Whites are made to look worse than they are, in general, by an over-emphasis on the crimes that some Whites do. At the same time, Blacks are made to appear better than they are, in general, by an under-reportage of the crimes that some Blacks do.

Hate crime is not a particularly White phenomenon. Mostly, it is a non-White phenomenon. Whites are the major *targets* of racially-motivated crimes; they are not the major perpetrators.

Please note that the "Whites" in tables of data taken from U.S. government sources, unless otherwise noted, include Hispanics and God-only-knows what else. This is an internal policy of the Department of Justice, allegedly (you be the judge) for simplicity, whereby mestizos, Arabs, certain Filipinos and practically any non-Asian criminal whose skin albedo is higher than that of Negroes are lumped into the "White" category along with persons of true Aryan descent. This has the effect of making real Whites (Aryans) look more violent and less lawful than they really are. The combined category of "Whites" includes about 85% of the U.S. population. Aryans alone are 73% of the population of the United States. Have a look at some of the people the FBI is calling "White" these days.

Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, an FBI "White" who is really an Arab
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/fhimah1.jpg

Victor Manuel Gerena, an FBI "White" who may be a Mulatto
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/gerena1.jpg

Agustin Vasquez-Mendoza, an FBI "White" who is really Mestizo
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/mendoza1.jpg

Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi, an FBI "White" who is really an Arab
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/megrahi1.jpg

Apparently the Justice Department is trying to fool everyone into thinking that Whites commit more crimes than they do by grouping them together with non-Whites (such as Arabs, mulattos, mestizos, and certain Pacific Islanders) within a category that is deceptively labeled "Whites." As of this writing, it is still possible to reconstruct the actual relationship between race and crime using crime data and demographic information distributed to the public by the federal government. In the future, however, this sort of analysis might become impossible. Statistical data revealing the facts of racial differences may someday be regarded as classified information and treated in the same manner as military and police intelligence currently is: against the law for any "uncleared" American citizen to possess.

In 1994, the FBI changed the way it copes with the fact that some police jurisdictions are more efficient than others at reporting arrests for violent crime activity to the federal agency. Earlier, the FBI merely reported known arrests and labeled the gaps as such. But since 1994, they have begun "guessing" about the data that "should" have been reported, if the less-efficient jurisdictions had performed more efficiently. You readers who have had a science course or two know the invalidity of substituting guesswork for experimental data, and those of you who understand basic numerical analysis understand the risks of error in extrapolation.

Nonetheless,

How are crimes estimated for publication in Crime in the United States?

Due to the fact that not all law enforcement agencies provide complete data for a given year, it is sometimes necessary for the UCR Program to generate crime estimates at the local, state, and national levels. Using the known crime experiences of similar areas within a state, the estimates are computed by assigning the same proportional crime volumes to non-reporting agencies. The size of an agency, type of jurisdiction, e.g., police department versus sheriff's office, and geographic location are considered in the estimation process.A similar procedure is used for national arrest estimates. [Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucrquest.htm ]

Two major changes to the UCR county-level files are being implemented with the 1994 release data. A new imputation algorithm to adjust for incomplete reporting by individual law enforcement jurisdictions has been adopted. Also, a new Coverage Indicator has been created to provide users with a diagnostic measure of aggregated data quality in a particular county. These developments are described in greater detail below. The changes have been instituted in response to comments from a number of users and after almost a year of discussions by UCR file users, the Uniform Crime Reports Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. [Source: http://www.lib.virginia.edu/socsci/crime/ ]

Notice that the racial composition of a jurisdiction isn't among the factors that the FBI will consider when making its "guestimates" about how to fill in the gaps in the data reported by local police and county sheriff's departments. Let's consider two counties in about the same area: Fulton County and Gwinnett County, both near Atlanta, Georgia. The two populations have large differences in racial composition, with Fulton County being mostly Black and Gwinnett County being mostly White. Predictably, they also have large differences in violent crime.

In 1990, Gwinnett County had a total population of 352,910 — of which 89.4% were Whites (real ones) and 5.2% were Blacks. Gwinnett County had 13 murders, 94 rapes, 372 robberies, and 637 aggravated assaults reported to the police during 1990.

In 1990, Fulton County had a total population of 648,779 — of which 46.8% were Whites (real ones) and 50.1% were Blacks. Fulton County had 227 murders, 794 rapes, 6542 robberies, and 9178 aggravated assaults reported to the police during 1990.

There you have it: two counties in the same state, side-by-side, sharing portions of the same major American city, having much history and commerce in common. The biggest difference between them is racial demographics. The mostly Black county has much more crime than the mostly White county does.

The numbers suggest, furthermore, that many of the violent crimes in mostly White Gwinnett County are being perpetrated by the Blacks who do live there. Consider: Fulton County had 17.7 times as many Blacks as Gwinnett County did. Multiplying the crime totals for Gwinnett County by 17.7, we get these predictions for Fulton County's crime totals: 230 murders (the actual number was 227), 1664 rapes (the actual number was 794), 6584 robberies (the actual number was 6542), and 11275 aggravated assaults (the actual number was 9178). The relative errors for these predictions are: 1.3 percent for murder, 109.6 percent for rape, 0.6 percent for robbery, and 22.8 percent for aggravated assault. So the guess that Blacks are responsible for most of the crimes that do occur in Gwinnett County is a lousy guess for rape, but it is a pretty good guess for aggravated assault, and it is an excellent guess for murder and robbery.

Do you think that my comparison of these two counties is unfair? Do you believe that I went through the data in order to pick the two counties in Georgia that fit my thesis the best? Do you imagine that if more counties in Georgia were studied, that the correlation between the percentage of Blacks in the population and the rate for violent crimes would disappear? If you imagine such things, then prepare to have your illusions dispelled. Have a look at my graphic at

http://members.theglobe.com/Jenab/images/gakills.jpg

Do you think that my study of the counties in the state of Georgia is unfair? Do you believe that I went through the data in order to pick the one state in the country that fit my thesis the best? Do you imagine that if some other state were studied, that the correlation between the percentage of Blacks in the population and the rate for violent crimes would be substantially different from that for Georgia? If you imagine such things, then have a looks at the correlation for Alabama in the following graphic:

http://members.theglobe.com/Jenab/images/alkills.jpg

Do you think that these two states are both anomalous? Do you believe that the relationship between the percentage of the population of an area that is non-White, and the rate of violent crimes that occur in that area would be substantially different if all the study were broadened by, for example, including every state in the United States instead of a few counties in Georgia or Alabama? If you imagine such a thing, then have a look at these next graphics.

http://members.tripod.com/~Jenab/JABP/correlate.jpg

http://members.theglobe.com/Jenab/images/usblakil.jpg

And, of course, feel free to have another look at the graphic that I linked to in my earlier post on this subject:

http://members.tripod.com/~Jenab/JABP/correlate2.jpg

You can make arguments at the fringes of the debate, but not over the core issue. You can validly question whether the correlation between racial demographics and crime rates is linear or non-linear. What you cannot validly do is assert that there is no correlation. Non-Whites are more criminally violent than Whites.

Do you suppose that I am over-simplifying? Do you believe that poverty is the root cause of crime, rather than racial behavioral differences? Then how do you explain West Virginia — one of the poorest states in terms of median family income, but one of the Whitest states in terms of racial demographics, and guess what? It has one of the lowest rates for violent crimes, not one of the highest. On top of that, how would you explain the fact that most violent crime is, according to the FBI, perpetrated by Blacks while, at the same time, most of the people living below the federal poverty line are Whites? Poverty is not the prime cause of crime. Race is. Non-Whites are more criminally violent than Whites.

ADDENDUM [Wed Nov 4 23:54:09]

The least-squares curve fits to the "racial composition versus murder rate" graphs for data from the most populous counties in Georgia and in Alabama was based on the exponential form:

Y = A multiplied by (B raised to the power of X)

where A, B are constants determined by the data, X is the percentage of the population that is non-White, and Y is the predicted number of murders per 100,000 population during the FOUR YEARS of 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993.

I chose the exponential model, rather than the linear one, because it gave smaller residuals. That is, the exponential model fit the way the data happened to be going better than the linear model did, in these cases.

The curve fit for Georgia had:

A = 11.1973, B = 1.04516

The curve fit for Alabama had:

A = 13.2727, B = 1.04551

Then I tried using both of these curve fits to predict the murder rate for the District of Columbia. If my hypothesis that criminal tendencies are mostly race-related, it should be possible to estimate the crime rates of other areas, at least roughly, by extrapolation. Yes, I know extrapolation is risky, but the risk here is to my hypothesis, not to society.

The District of Columbia is 71% non-White, and about nineteen out of every twenty of those non-Whites was a Black. Setting X=71 for my two curve fits, I obtain the following predictions for the murder rate of the District of Columbia.

Using the Georgia curve fit, I predicted that there would be 257.7 murders in the District of Columbia per 100,000 population per FOUR YEARS (specifically, 1990-1993). Dividing by four, that's a predicted annual murder rate of 64.4 murders per 100,000 population.

Using the Alabama curve fit, I predicted that there would be 312.8 murders in the District of Columbia per 100,000 population per FOUR YEARS (specifically, 1990-1993). Dividing by four, that's a predicted annual murder rate of 78.2 murders per 100,000 population.

In 1990, there were 472 murders in the District of Columbia. The population of DC that year was 606,900 persons. Thus the actual murder rate for DC in 1990 was: 77.8 murders per 100,000 population per year. (In 1991, 80.6. In 1992, 75.2. In 1993, 78.5.)

The upward swinging, exponential models used to curve fit the data from selected counties in both Georgia and Alabama produce good predictions for the murder rate in the District of Columbia, suggesting that as the proportion of Blacks in the population of a region increases, only a part of the rise in "Black violence" is due directly to the increased concentration of Blacks. An extra criminal factor seems to enter the picture as Blacks acquire the political clout necessary for determining the laws and culture of the region; i.e., as Whites lose that same power. In the affairs of state as well as in ghetto life, it would appear that Blacks are their own worst enemy.

This hypothesis could likewise explain the sudden surge of violent crime rates in South Africa after the change to Black rule in that country, and likewise for other African countries that were once under White rule and relatively peaceful that afterward changed to Black rule and are now relatively quite violent.

"Re: Race and Crime in the United States #2"
Thu Nov 5 00:08:38

On Wed Nov 4 23:25:52, Laine wrote:

Jerry, once again you have outdone yourself with your research and statistics. Yes, yes, yes, blacks commits crimes - violent ones. But what is your point? You can throw figures around all you want, but the fact remains that whites rape women, steal purses, beat their wives, molest their children, hold up mini-marts, smoke crack, abuse/kill their kids, have abortions, sell/buy/manufacture dope, drive drunk, and many, many, more things. Sorry, you have no room to throw stones on this one.....white is not a crime-free race.

Laine, you pulled this deceptive stunt once before, and now you have done it again.

Neither I, nor any other racist, has ever said that Whites are perfect people or that the White race is always completely lawful. You have imputed to me a claim that I never made.

The point that I was making is not that Whites are always good and that only Blacks commit crimes. My point was that Blacks commit more crimes than Whites do. On the average, Blacks commit several times the number of crimes than Whites do. For that reason, the safest neighborhoods to live in, to travel through, to conduct business in, etc., are the neighborhoods with the highest percentages of Whites in them. I was not saying that someone will always be completely safe in a White neighborhood; I was saying only that he was nearly always SAFER in a White neighborhood than in a Black one. If your English grammar teachers forgot to teach you the difference between a comparative and a superlative in high school, then you might consider re-enrolling in one until you deserve to graduate.

"A Misconception on the Racist Side"
Thu Nov 5 08:22:34

On Thu Nov 5 03:50:05, Manatowac wrote:

And isn't it true that blacks in America do commit more crimes against whites than they commit against their own kind of people?

No, that isn't true. It is a common misconception among my fellow racists that Blacks target Whites more than they victimize other Blacks. The reality is that Blacks commit violent acts against members of EVERY race, including their own race, at higher rates than Whites do. Most of the victims of Black perpetrators of violent crime are other Blacks.

Having said that, however, it is also true that Blacks victimize Whites with violent crimes much more often than Whites victimize Blacks. It is true, furthermore, that there is an on-going propaganda effort by the largely Jewish-owned mass media to create the false appearance that interracial violence is mostly a matter of White villains and Black victims, when in fact the reality is the other way around. The purpose of this media deception is probably to keep White people feeling guilty so that the Jews can manipulate them more effectively into accordance with Jewish social policies.

This is unprecedented in history and could not be so were it not for the press hiding the true facts in order to farther the Jewish cultist, who really do own most of Americas medias, agenda. An agenda which sees for America an end to white majority leadership and a world capital in Jerusalem.

That is probably true.

Has not the end of majority leadership in America already been announced by President Clinton- yes, it has.

President Clinton publicly endorsed immigration policies that would create a non-White majority in America, thus ending the majority of White people. Clinton said that opposing this immigration policy would be "un-American."

Will black America be better for it when this occurs? Of course not just look at Africa today. Will whites be better off when blacks more evenly share in the population figures? Of course not just look at South Africa.

Right. Contrary to the (distorted) picture of South Africa sometimes broadcast to the American public by the mostly Jewish media, the economic and political situation there is bad and getting worse. Violence by Blacks is running rampant, and the government of Nelson Mandela either can't or won't do much about it. Mandela made promises to build infrastructure for millions of poor Blacks that he has not been able to keep, primarily because Blacks (usually) don't manage economies as well as Whites can, and because Blacks (in general) are not as productive as Whites are. South-African Blacks were better off, were safer and had materially better lifestyles, during the days of Apartheid, when White taxpayers were subsidizing them in their designated living areas. The Whites were betrayed by their president F.W. DeKlerk, who tricked them into voting to give Blacks the vote. Once a non-White majority had political control of South Africa, that country was doomed. For a while, the Jewish media and the Black government of South Africa will be able to maintain the illusion that nothing has gone wrong with South Africa's politics and economics. One thing Blacks *do* know how to do is to put on a dog-and-pony show for the sake of appearances. But because of the Internet, that illusion will crumble away much more quickly than it would have otherwise, for the same reason that the Jewish media can no longer suppress the truth about Black-on-White violent crimes that it would dearly love to suppress.

Will white men in America allow this trend of black on white crime in America to continue unabated? Of course not just look at Serbia.

That is an excellent point. Ethnic groups in close contact with each other will complete in ways that are often destructive and sometimes violent. The ONLY way to prevent that destructiveness AND keep society free is to separate the races, not merely into different rooms, but into *different countries.* Let the Blacks have an all-Black nation, with all-Black leaders, with all-Black employers, with entertainments featuring as many Black heroes and non-Black villains as they want. Let the Whites have an all-White nation, with all-White leaders, with all-White employers, with entertainments featuring as many White heroes and non-White villains as they want. Who will be insulted? Foreigners? Let the foreigners console themselves with their own culture and not concern themselves with the trappings of another. There would be no racial discrimination because there would be no opportunity for it to arise. Racial nationalism makes sense. It is the way to prevent either of two rather miserable alternative fates from befalling us.

Because ethnic groups in contact always compete, the only way to prevent violence from breaking out between the competing groups is via the police power of a sufficiently strong national government. I believe that one of the reasons for mixing the races everywhere, such as in public schools through busing and in places of employment though Affirmative Action programs, is to "manufacture" the social need for this police power and thus for a consolidation of power in the federal government. The New World Order is hungry, and it wants to grow, and so it imposed on us racial mixing to give itself a pretext to flex its police muscles, depriving us of our freedom, while at the same time wearing a humanitarian "civil rights" mask and voicing expressions of phony concern through its propaganda engines: the media.

Unless the government reverses itself and begins a program of separating the races while it still has the strength to do so, unless it abolishes all its plans for multiculturalizing America and replaces them with plans for genuine racial nationalism, the government will have to continue increasing, and increasing, and increasing its control over the behavior of its citizens with police power, and ultimately with military powers to reinforce its authority when the ordinary police powers prove insufficient to maintain order.

If the government ever stumbles, if it ever loosens up the forces of repression WITHOUT separating the races first, then what happened in Yugoslavia in the early 1990s may well happen here. First, Blacks in the cities will riot, and, in the beginning, the Whites will be taken by surprise and be massacred. But subsequently, the White American people will — a long last — recrystalize, and we will be a fighting race again. Once that happens, there will be no stopping us, no army in this world able to stand against us. The best armies in the world will join us. Most of the powers that once belonged to the New World Order will belong to us.

That is essentially the future described in Dr. William Pierce's book, The Turner Diaries. It doesn't have to happen that way. A more peaceful solution is possible. The window of opportunity to implement a program of racial nationalism, a homeland for each race in America, is still open. There is still time for us to work things out peacefully. We White racists, and most of the Black racists, would like to see things worked out without killing and bloodshed. But we can't do it while the masses of our peoples are undecided, or while they remain brainwashed by the Jews' bogus egalitarian propaganda. The control of the media by the Jews is the foremost danger to Americans today, both White and Black.

So if the Government nor the medias protest what will eventually happen? Look at Russia today and see the future of America. Should us black and white male adults today be proud? No, but we will see our male children equally in chains.

Right. The only mistake I've seen in your post is the commonly held, but erroneous, opinion that Black murderers kill more White victims than Black victims. Other than that, everything you've said seems correct.

"Re: Jerry Abbott: Explain this."
Thu Nov 5 15:41:00

On Thu Nov 5 07:31:58, Dave Mustaine wrote:

Explain Hawaii, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, Austin Texas and Atlanta. These cities and states are chock full of minorities yet have lower rates of crime then the mean.

Hawaii's non-Whites are not Black or Hispanic, but Polynesian. I have not studied Polynesian criminal habits in detail. The races each have their own behavioral inclinations, a mean round about which the bulk of a race will cluster. Perhaps Polynesians are nearly as lawful as Whites. That doesn't carry over to Hispanic mestizos and negroes, however, and those groups do exhibit consistently higher rates of violent criminal behavior than whites do.

Areas like silicon valley have probably filtration procedures in place to weed out troublemakers who tend to be bad for business. Unless you are one of those in charge of doing the weeding, you don't know how many troublemakers of each race had to be dealt with.

How strange it is that you should mention Atlanta. I already had done so. Some parts of that city have more violent crime than other parts do, and in particular the mostly Black Fulton County part of Atlanta has much more violent crime than the mostly White Gwinnett County has, both in absolute totals and in crime rates per 100,000 population. And that's true for murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

The anomalies that you may be noticing are the result of differences in the ways the law works in special places — the overall trend, namely that Blacks and Hispanics are more violent than Whites, is still true in general, and the data is clear on that point. The trend is too general, too comprehensive, to be denied by any special cases you may have to point to. I could give you a few others that you didn't mention.

For example, consider the state of Mississippi. Of all the 50 states, Mississippi has the highest percentage of Blacks: 35% of the population. While Mississippi does have a higher rate of violent crime than a typical rural state that is nearly all-White (such as Iowa or North Dakota), it has a much lower rate of violent crime than you would expect from the trend-line created from the crime rates and racial demographics for the other 49 states. In other words, the Blacks in Mississippi are remarkably well-behaved — FOR BLACKS. Meanwhile, in neighboring Louisiana, the Blacks are remarkably less distinguished by good behavior.

A similar thing is true for Virginia. The Blacks in Virginia are relatively law-abiding (for Blacks). Meanwhile, in the nearby District of Columbia, the Blacks are running amuk with vicious, violent crime. Washington DC, is under Black rule. I don't mean the US federal government that happens to be seated there, of course. I refer, rather, to the local governing council and to the administration of the City of Washington, DC. That's the reason for the difference in Black behavior in that case. In Virginia, the Blacks are subject to an enlightened White rule. In DC, they are the majority and can therefore revert back to ways more natural to the Black race.

Opposite anomalous situations may also be found in the data, and Washington DC is one of them — the Blacks in that city are even more violent than the trend line would have predicted. As I said, the most likely reason in that case is that Blacks under Black rule are not held to lawful conduct as well as they are under White rule. But in other places where Blacks are even more violent than Blacks usually are, there can be other causes of the excess. For example, the state of Massechusettes has MORE violent crime that would be predicted by the trend line. The demographics for Massachusetts are similar to those for Rhode Island and for Kansas, but the overall violent crime rate in Massachusetts is about twice that for either of those other states. The reason, probably, is that there is something wrong with the way the law works in Massachusettes.

Despite countervailing exceptions and anomalous situations, the general trend — that Whites are less criminally violent than Blacks, and that White areas are safer than non-White areas — is still true.

BTW: Have you been to the OZARKS before? Its an area of the SE U.S.A. It's almost 100% white and one of the most economically depressed areas of the nation. Given the idea that Whites are superior to all others, this place should be the richest area of the nation. Explain.

I haven't sufficient information to do so, as yet. While I am gathering it, suppose you entertain us all by explaining why Whites were exploring the Earth while Blacks were eating each other in Africa. Or maybe you'd care to explain why Blacks today make "jungles" wherever they live in their masses, not merely in a few isolated spots.

"Re: Jerry Abbott: Explain this."
Fri Nov 6 11:42:11

On Fri Nov 6 05:10:23, kage-dono wrote:

let's see, massachusettes has more violent crime, majority white population, but the reason is the way the law is written and not the whites who commit the crime.

Folks, let the above statement stand in your memory as an example of the way the 'Politically Correct' will twist facts and sneak in bogus propositions. As his statement is written, I can't reply to it with either a yes or a no, since one of his tongue-in-cheek assertions ("...the reason is the way the law is written") is true and his other assertion, the sneaky one ("...and not THE WHITES WHO COMMIT THE CRIME") is misleading.

The Whites don't commit most of the crime. Not in Massachusettes, nor anyplace else where Whites and Blacks both live. One of the advantages of having the facts ready to hand is being able to call these liberals on their false claims and assertions time after time. If you're not one of those people with such a short memory that you voted twice for Bill Clinton, if you remember who attacked the USS Liberty in 1967, then your memory is probably in good order and you don't need this reminder about the liberal penchant for distortion and falsification.

Have a look at the following graph:

http://members.theglobe.com/Jenab/images/makills.jpg

I just got finished putting it together and uploading it to one of my websites. If you would like to check my work, you'll find the data at these locations:

County-Level Breakdown in US Crime Rates
http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/crime

Population Estimates, by Race, for US Counties
http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/co_crh.html

The pattern that holds for the other states that I've studied, as well as for the United States in general, also hold true for Massachusetts. The highest rates of violent crime occur in the regions having the highest percentage of non-Whites in the population.

Undoubtedly, the writer kage-dono believed that he could use a northern state, such as Massachusetts, with a relatively low minority population and a relatively high crime rate, to overturn my thesis that non-Whites are more violent than Whites. Yet, when you look closer, and examine the data at the county level, the facts become clear. The Whites in Massachusetts aren't especially violent for Whites, but the non-Whites in Massachusetts are indeed violent (even) for non-Whites.

Even if this had not been the case — even if Massachusetts had been a real exception to the rule that covers the US in general and nearly every other state — then all kage-dono would have found was an exception to the rule. He would not have overturned the rule. As things are, he has not even found an exception.

i think your bias is showing,again.

What a laugh. The guy with the facts is showing his bias by drawing reasonable conclusions from them. The guy without the facts points fingers and writes accusations about that alleged "bias." That's a liberal for you!

also many whites are leaving the ozarks for greener pastures, they are replaced by mexican workers who will do the jobs in that area. note; whites are leaving on their own accord, mexican are replacing them because the whites don't want the low-paying jobs. the residents are somewhat relieved, it could have been blacks.

Both Blacks and mestizos exhibit higher rates of criminal violence than Whites do, but you're correct that the Blacks seem to be, in general, somewhat the more vicious of the two.

oh, they don't have jungles in africa, it is called the bush and it makes up only 10% of the continent. a lot of whites still live there from colonial times in places like south africa, zimbabwe,kenya, namibia. i guess these folks are 'albino' jungle bunnies.

"The jungle" is a euphemism for a lifestyle in any climate or terrain that is marked by a persistent lack of progress and innovation, and a persistent problem with low literacy and high crime. Racists don't really believe that Black Africans live in trees and swing from the vines like Tarzan.

"National Socialism"
Sat Nov 7 08:14:42

Subject: Re: LYCIA GET A LIFE AND GROW UP YOU GERMAN NAZA!

On Thu Nov 5 20:12:56, THE ONE wrote:
Lycia, you are lost, and I soon hope you will, be found. Wake up and smell the coffee, you moron.....

What is a Naza? Is that one of your African terms? Btw, I am a separatist, not a Nazi. I know exactly where I am and where I stand. You seem to be the lost one. You don't like the message so you resort to attacking the messenger. When have I called you names? We disagree but there is no point in childish tactics.

Victory and Valhalla!!
Lycia

Folks, I believe that most of you aren't really all that acquainted with National Socialist ("Nazi") political views. For a substantial fraction of you, especially those of you who are liberals, the word Nazi has become a cheap smear word void of any real intellectual content. But, once upon a time, there was a valid, vibrant political movement based on National Socialism. It is important to remember, when listening to all of the exaggerated claims of how "savage" the Germans were, that although a nation may act aggressively in what they perceive to be their own interests, NO ONE is a villain in his own eyes. If you keep that truth in mind, you'll be prepared to recognize the distortions and the exaggerations for what they are.

In order to acquaint you with National Socialism's philosophy and methods — and for some of you this is long past due — I refer you to a webpage containing an accurate summary of National Socialist views:

National Socialism FAQ

"Re: National Socialism"
Sun Nov 8 08:40:11

On Sat Nov 7 08:14:42, Jerry Abbott wrote:

In order to acquaint you with National Socialism's philosophy and methods — and for some of you this is long past due — I refer you to a webpage containing an accurate summary of National Socialist views:

National Socialism FAQ

On Sat Nov 7 10:41:16, Lycia wrote:

Heilsa Jerry,

Thank you for the URL. I did read it and agree with most of what it says. I wonder at the productivity of trying to reclaim the term NAZI when it has been so vilified in today's culture. Just as many Wiccans do not use the term "Witch" do define themselves, I do not use "Nazi" and much for the same reason. There is no point-IMO-to alienating people before they have a chance to hear the message. National Socialism as a philosophy has been adopted and adapted by many organizations like the National Alliance which I have so recently joined. We as a race are constantly evolving organically, I think our terms need to do the same. Otherwise, we become embroiled in semantics and nothing is accomplished.

There is much agreement with you in the White nationalist movement, Lycia. Although we know that Adolf Hitler has been villified far more than he deserved, although we know that Germans of the WW2 era, both individually and collectively, have been fraudulently blamed for sins that they did not commit, there is a general consensus among White nationalists that it would be a tactical error, for psychological reasons, to attempt to clear the term "national socialism" from the slanders that have been heaped upon it over the last six decades by the Jewish media.

"National socialism" is a label that stands for certain specific philosophical and political ideas. When each of those ideas is presented to the average person, in detail and without the label-packaging, that person will usually agree that the ideas are good ideas, or at least he will agree that the goals at which the ideas are aimed are worthwhile goals. Hand him the term "National socialism," though, and he will recoil in the way that the media have programmed him to react, reflexively and thoughtlessly, with distaste and with hatred. It can be compared with the Pavlovian experiment in which dogs were trained to salivate when hearing the sound of the bell that had always rang just prior to their feeding time.

So you're right. First struggle, and then we will see what can be done to clear national socialism of the misconceptions and the lies.

Jerry Abbott

"The short answer you asked for"
Sun Nov 8 10:13:41

On Sat Nov 7 15:27:09, LITTLE FRAUD wrote:

well, I, heard the jews a name few times but, how can this be? We are the master race, and far superior to the blacks so why is all this going on? why is all this going on?

May be we are not so great after all. The jews have the control of the media,banks and money, so how come if we are so great? Is some one going to answer me? on this board I,am always hearing how superior, we are WATING FOR A ANSWER NOT A BOOK.

Jews are very clever people. So are Whites. But the cleverness of Jews is usually not the same as the cleverness of Whites.

Whites are clever in producing, crafting and innovating. That is why almost all White countries, left to themselves, produce an abundance of goods in an ever-upward spiral of quality and technological complexity.

Jews are clever at gaining control of what other people have produced, crafted and invented. Jews are clever at harnessing the talents of others and taking for themselves the rewards and the credits for exercising those talents.

There are exceptions, of course, but not as many as the publicity (from the Jewish media) would have you believe. For example, Einstein was a Jew and a great scientist who deserved his reputation for brilliance. Yet there are other great scientists whose work was just as important and as difficult as Einstein's work was, of whom you have never heard. Why have you not heard of them? Because they were not Jews.

You've heard of a numerical distribution called "The Bell Curve," haven't you? Did you know that this distribution has another name: the Gaussian distribution, after Karl Friedrich Gauss, the (White) German scientist who discovered it. Gauss also made important contributions in the fields of electromagnetism, celestial mechanics, and mathematical analysis. You didn't know that, did you? Why not? Because Karl Friedrich Gauss was not a Jew.

You probably think that Einstein came up with the theory of relativity all by himself. The Jewish media want people to think that, so they "sell" Einstein to the public as though he alone were the scientific thinker to revise Newtonian physics. But he wasn't. Einstein built upon ideas by White physicists, notably the Dutchman Hendrick Antoon Lorentz and the Irishman George Francis Fitzgerald. Einstein's contribution was important, but he didn't do it all by himself. You've heard about Einstein because he was a Jew.

But unless you studied physics in college, you did not hear about Lorentz and Fitzgerald because they were not Jews. Being a brilliant thinker and an important contributer is not what gets a scientist celebrity status; it is not what makes his name popular in the way that Einstein's name became popular. Because the media is in Jewish hands, the most important criterion is whether the scientist was Jewish or non-Jewish.

The same thing can be said for the "Salk" vaccine. Most of the preliminary work was done by White scientists, and Dr. Salk came along and completed the final stages of synthesizing the polio vaccine. Nearly every genuinely praiseworthy achievement by a Jew is the tip of an iceberg of struggle by mostly White builders, inventors and thinkers. The reverse, however, is not true.

Thus, Jews "take control" not only of material goods that they did not produce themselves, but also of the credit for ideas and progress that they did not make themselves. It is more often a matter of emphasis and selective omissions than of outright Jewish lying — though, to be sure, there is a certain amount of outright Jewish lying. Over time, this control leads incrementally to a distortion of history in favor of the Jews and their interests. Once one of their pseudofacts has become established, correcting the error in the opinions of ordinary people is one of the most difficult and challenging of tasks.

"Re: lets talk about the rule of conduct"
Wed Nov 11 15:32:28

On Wed Nov 11 12:57:30, reasonable debate wrote:

.......and reasonable debate vs. hate doctrine and how hate speech will force the repeal of the 1st admendment right, let call it marshall law. how hate speech has caused destruction and death of innoccent people or group, how in germany a person or group of people can be arrested for their messages of hate.

The hate speech laws you refer to are more correctly termed "gag laws." Their purpose isn't to stop hate — that is not what they do. Their purpose is to terrorize people into remaining silent about ideas that are unpopular with the influential people (usually, Jews and gentile liberals) who caused those laws to come into existence.

When the Jews wish to loot a nation, they first cause the country's legislative houses to enact laws against "hate speech." Once the laws are in place, the Jews bring forward claims that they are "owed" money that their kin "lost" to the Germans in World War 2 because of "the Holocaust." The political leaders in the targeted country will hardly ever oppose the Jews' claims by saying that they are exaggerated or fictitious, as they often are. Instead, they nearly always pay up without a fuss.

If any citizen protests that the Jews do not deserve to get his tax money from him, essentially at the point of a gun held to his head by his own government, the Jews will cry "hate speech!" and "anti-Semitism!" and the dissident will be hauled off to jail.

In the United States, these laws are not yet fully in place. I won't be arrested for writing this post, for example, unless I travel to Germany where, like Hans Schmidt before me, I would be put on trial for "offensive speech" even though that speech was spoken outside the jurisdiction of Germany.

But unless Americans rally around a nationalist banner very soon, the Jews, working through their Anti-Defamation League, will impose their thought control laws here too.

In December 1992 and again in February 1993, police in San Francisco and Los Angeles, California, raided the offices of the Anti-Defamation League and confiscated thousands of documents pertaining to classified information and police intelligence, illegally obtained by the ADL through its operatives with the help of a subverted police officer. In March 1993, the news of the raids was circulating through the presses of the "right wing" fringe media. The police in California began investigating the ADL's spying operations and were astounded when they discovered its sheer magnitude. The story even broke into the mainstream media, which ordinarily would strive to keep the lid on news so revealing about the Jews.

The raid was mentioned in articles in the Los Angeles Times and the New York Daily News, on 9 April and again on 13 April of 1993. Also in early April, the ABC evening news made brief mention of the raid that had occurred two months previously. They probably did that just to have something to point to, in case someone accused them later of covering for the Jews. As a news item, it was tardy and the coverage was very minimal in relation to the story's importance.

Anyway, it seemed that the ADL was on the brink of being exposed as a Jewish spy organization, operating with utter impunity on US soil. That exposure would have embarrassed a lot of very powerful people, since those people would be revealed as collaborators against the interests of the United States and its citizens.

It may be coincidence, but something happened at just this moment that effectively diverted the attention of most Americans away from the Anti-Defamation League spy scandal. April, 1993. Does anyone here remember what it was?

Jerry Abbott

"The Holohoax - that is what it is"
Thu Nov 12 18:04:29

On Wed Nov 11 16:59:14, Stuart Ringwalt wrote:

Are you implying that the "holocaust" never happened? Where are you getting that information from? I know people who went through hell because of it. Why does there seem to be all this anti-Semitism on the web? My God, you make it sound as if there was some type of conspiricy. By the way, there isn't.

The (Nazi) "Holocaust" is the most infamous example of Jewish lying and exaggeration known. For more than fifty years, we've heard the lies and exaggerations told and retold by the established information sources (government and media) that we've trusted to tell us the truth.

There were no Nazi homicidal gas chambers. That tale is a lie. There were gas chambers in the concentration camps, but they were used for lice disinfestation, not for killing people. The buildings identified by the Jews, after the war, as the "Nazi homicidal gas chambers" lack the quantities of cyanide compounds, most notably a ferric ferrocyanide compound known as Prussian blue, that can be found on the bricks of the delousing chamber.

Bricks get their red color from their iron content. Iron is why bricks are red. When bricks are exposed to hydrogen cyanide (a.k.a. hydrocyanic acid) for a long time, there is a chemical reaction that produces Prussian blue. During the operation of the delousing chamber, the bricks were so permeated with hydrogen cyanide that Prussian blue formed not only on the inward surface — the blue stains went all the way through the brick and appeared on the outward surface too. And those stains are still there: fifty-five years of exposure to the elements have not "washed them away."

Of the buildings identified as "Nazi homicidal gas chambers," there are two basic sorts: (1) buildings that existed during the war that were altered after the war to resemble (somewhat) gas chambers and (2) buildings constructed after the war while the Soviets controlled eastern Europe. The bureaucrats, commissars of the former USSR were mostly Jewish, by the way, and they did conspire with each other on this matter as they did on many another. In government, conspiracy is the RULE, not the EXCEPTION.

The "Holocaust" was exposed as a hoax partly by a chemical analysis of the bricks of the buildings that the Jews claim were used as "Nazi homicidal gas chambers." The bricks of those buildings do not show the level of contamination that would appear on the bricks of a building used repeatedly to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Instead, they show only traces consistent with a once-per-year fumigation. And not only these buildings show those minute traces: so do all the other buildings, including ones that *nobody* thinks was ever used as a "Nazi homicidal gas chamber," including the guards' barracks.

Of all the buildings, only the delousing chamber has the chemical stains consistent with use as a gas chamber. This building was too small to have been used to kill so many as the Jews were claiming were killed, so after the war they looked around for other buildings to identify. Fortunately for us, they forgot to arrange for the chemical staining of the bricks before samples could be taken from then and studied in Alpha Analytical Laboratories in Ashland, Massachusetts. For those of us who are in the know, the Holohoax (a hoax is what it is) is finished.

The absence of Prussian blue on the bricks of the alleged "Nazi homicidal gas chambers" is not the only evidence refuting the Holocaust claims. There is other evidence from ariel photography of the concentration camps made during the war. There is further evidence in the form of known forgeries in the "evidence" offered in support of the "Holocaust." A photograph of a big pile of dead Germans near Dresden, taken shortly after British and American airplanes bombed that city had its caption switched: suddenly, it was a picture of a big pile of Jewish bodies taken at Buchenwald. One of the living Germans in the picture, photographed near the morbid heap, survived the war and recognized himself: hence we learned of that particular forgery.

There were others. There were more instances of photograph caption switching. There were instances of photograph alteration. There were instances were Soviet troops dressed up in German military uniforms and had themselves photographed shooting Polish civilians in the Katyn Forest, in order to manufacture yet another war atrocity to blame on the Germans.

I'll give you an example of the brazen lying that has been going on to invent and to maintain the fiction of the "Holocaust." At the Nuremberg "trials," which really weren't trials because the "Holocaust" claims was assumed to be fact without a proper examination of the evidence, a Soviet officer introduced a jug of soap and alleged that the soap had been made by the Germans from the fat of dead humans. Was there any attempt to verify the claim that the soap was what the Soviet officer said it was? No. It was accepted into evidence as though the Soviet officer's claim was the unquestionable truth. A few years later, when Israel was declared to exist on top of Arab land, prominent Jews solemnly buried several bars of soap in consecrated ground, attended by all of the formality proper to the burial of honored dead.

Finally, in 1985, after four decades of lies about Nazis turning Jews into soap, the Yad Vashem Institute in Israel admitted that the story was false. We have historical revisionists (always villified in the media, especially when they are right) to thank for keeping the pressure on, for demonstrating that the Germans did not make soap from human fat, until the lies became impossible for the Jews to keep telling. They had to cut that part out of their Holocaust tales in order to maintain the semblance of credibility for the rest of their Holocaust claims, most of which are also false.

None of this is meant to convey that the Jews didn't suffer, occasionally unfairly, during World War 2. None of this is mean to convey that the Nazis didn't kill any Jews at all, sometimes contrary to civilized rules of war. But I am saying that there were no gas chambers. I am saying that the Jewish casualty totals have been exaggerated by a factor of at least ten. There were no "Six Million." The original plaque at Auschwitz claiming that 4 million Jews died there has been exposed as a lie, and the plaque that has replaced it, claiming that 1.5 million persons were killed, is also a lie. What is the truth? During all the war, 74000 persons, both prisoner and guard, both Jew and Gentile, died at Auschwitz, most of them from typhus and from malnutrition late in the war.

So where did the "gas chamber" myth come from? Well, yes the Jews of course. But what was the seed for the story? Nobody really knows, but remember that there *were* gas chambers in the camps: the delousing facility where clothes were disinfested of typhus-bearing lice. Clothing would be deloused periodically so that the camp inmates and staff would not be bitten by the fleas and get the disease. Perhaps one of the SS guards, trying to keep order in the camp through suggestive threats, pointed toward the delousing chamber and said "We hope that the prisoners will behave themselves, but, if not, there is always the gas chamber."

It wouldn't have worked that way, of course. If the SS wanted to kill a prisoner, shooting would be much less troublesome. But gas chambers are more morbid, and threatening to kill someone in some sort of protracted execution style is, for some reason, more prurient than just saying "Obey or be shot." Unfortunately, that very quality made the gas chamber rumor very effective war propaganda against the Germans, and after the war it was a simple matter for the Jews to put together a huge international "guilt-tripping" industry to justify their usurpation of the mass media and the transfers of White people's wealth to Israel through foreign aid programs.

"Re: lets talk about the rule of conduct"
Fri Nov 13 19:28:56

On Wed Nov 11 12:57:30, reasonable debate wrote:

.......and reasonable debate vs. hate doctrine and how hate speech will force the repeal of the 1st admendment right, let call it marshall law. how hate speech has caused destruction and death of innoccent people or group, how in germany a person or group of people can be arrested for their messages of hate.

On Wed Nov 11 15:32:28, Jerry Abbott wrote:

[...portions of my (Jerry Abbott's) reply omitted...]

Anyway, it seemed that the ADL was on the brink of being exposed as a Jewish spy organization, operating with utter impunity on US soil. That exposure would have embarrassed a lot of very powerful people, since those people would be revealed as collaborators against the interests of the United States and its citizens.

It may be coincidence, but something happened at just this moment that effectively diverted the attention of most Americans away from the Anti-Defamation League spy scandal. April, 1993. Does anyone here remember what it was?

On Wed Nov 11 18:52:44, Bill Roth wrote:

Surely you do not believe that the US started a war in the Middle East to cover up this story you refer to. While I will agree that the Jewish intelligence community is sophisticated, and that they seem to control a good deal of the media, I find it hard to imagine