The Hottentots who inhabit the Desert in what was once called Southwest Africa, down at the end of the continent, are the remnants of a race that once covered almost all of Africa below the Sahara. They are now almost extinct. They would be extinct if the white man had not come when he did.

This tiny remnant is now called the Capoid race. Today’s blacks, who took Africa from them only recently, are called Congoids.

Nobody cares. The Hottentots don’t have any votes or money, so nobody mentions it.

The black race of today did not give the Capoid race reservations and reparations when they took their land the way we did for the Indians. No black man has ever felt the slightest tinge of guilt about driving the Capoid race off its land and out of existence.

None ever will.

In the days of slavery, that slavery we feel so guilty about, blacks were wiping out the Capoids and taking their land. When poor little Kunte Kinte was taken by blacks and sold to whites (no white man ever captured a black man the way the fictional television miniseries Roots depicted it), the poor little black race was committing full-scale genocide against the Capoids.

No black will ever feel the slightest tinge of guilt about this and no one will ever expect him to. There’s no money in it. - Bob Whitaker


The world was told that the White Government in South Africa was absolutely evil. Yet, the White people made a great nation of South Africa and Black people thrived and prospered there. Far from genocide, Blacks came from all over Africa to enjoy the prosperity, medical care, education, and relative freedom that the White people created there. They had it better in South Africa than anywhere else on the whole continent.

Meanwhile, in the rest of Africa, there were constant genocides, ethnic repressions, dictatorships, abject poverty, disease epidemics, wholesale crime and murder. So what did the Jewish dominated media focus on? Of course, the “evil” of South Africa.

While the world was gearing up the hate campaign against the White folks in South Africa in 1994, in the same year, 800,000 African, men, women and children were murdered by Hutu racists opposing Tutsi racists.

Well, the media had its way, the politicians had their way, and what do we have now, GENOCIDE coming to South Africa too! I know not too many people in the media worry about Genocide of Whites by Blacks, but make no mistake, after they finish with the Whites, the top tribe will kill the other tribes just like in the rest of Africa. Not only do White people, but Black people also have a lot to look forward to in the New South Africa!

Of course in terms of crime, the Whites aren’t the only ones being murdered by the thousands, it isn’t too nice a place for Blacks anymore, either! If you are a child, you are more likely to be raped in South Africa than in any other modern country. Of course, it was once modern, the European people made it that way, but no worry, it’s getting less and less modern with each passing day. Won’t be long till its in the stone age again, or maybe worse than stone age, with wholesale barbarism combined with modern weapons. God help ’em.

If the world could boycott South Africa for having separate racial development, should it not boycott the South African Government for the genocide going on against White people in that country today? More here:


China has been running the world’s largest and most successful eugenics program for more than thirty years, driving China’s ever-faster rise as the global superpower. I worry that this poses some existential threat to Western civilization.

When I learned about Chinese eugenics this summer, I was astonished that its population policies had received so little attention. China makes no secret of its eugenic ambitions, in either its cultural history or its government policies.

For generations, Chinese intellectuals have emphasized close ties between the state (guojia), the nation (minzu), the population (renkou), the Han race (zhongzu), and, more recently, the Chinese gene-pool (jiyinku). Traditional Chinese medicine focused on preventing birth defects, promoting maternal health and “fetal education” (taijiao) during pregnancy, and nourishing the father’s semen (yangjing) and mother’s blood (pingxue) to produce bright, healthy babies (see Frank Dikötter’s book Imperfect Conceptions). Many scientists and reformers of Republican China (1912-1949) were ardent Darwinians and Galtonians. They worried about racial extinction (miezhong) and “the science of deformed fetuses” (jitaixue), and saw eugenics as a way to restore China’s rightful place as the world’s leading civilization after a century of humiliation by European colonialism. The Communist revolution kept these eugenic ideals from having much policy impact for a few decades though. Mao Zedong was too obsessed with promoting military and manufacturing power, and too terrified of peasant revolt, to interfere with traditional Chinese reproductive practices.

But then Deng Xiaoping took power after Mao’s death. Deng had long understood that China would succeed only if the Communist Party shifted its attention from economic policy to population policy. He liberalized markets, but implemented the one-child policy—partly to curtail China’s population explosion, but also to reduce dysgenic fertility among rural peasants. Throughout the 1980s, Chinese propaganda urges couples to have children “later, longer, fewer, better”—at a later age, with a longer interval between birth, resulting in fewer children of higher quality. With the 1995 Maternal and Infant Health Law (known as the Eugenic Law until Western opposition forced a name change), China forbade people carrying heritable mental or physical disorders from marrying, and promoted mass prenatal ultrasound testing for birth defects. Deng also encouraged assortative mating through promoting urbanization and higher education, so bright, hard-working young people could meet each other more easily, increasing the proportion of children who would be at the upper extremes of intelligence and conscientiousness.

One of Deng’s legacies is China’s current strategy of maximizing “Comprehensive National Power”. This includes economic power (GDP, natural resources, energy, manufacturing, infrastructure, owning America’s national debt), military power (cyberwarfare, anti-aircraft-carrier ballistic missiles, anti-satellite missiles), and ‘soft power’ (cultural prestige, the Beijing Olympics, tourism, Chinese films and contemporary art, Confucius Institutes, Shanghai’s skyscrapers). But crucially, Comprehensive National Power also includes “biopower”: creating the world’s highest-quality human capital in terms of the Chinese population’s genes, health, and education (see Governing China’s Population by Susan Greenhalgh and Edwin Winkler).

Chinese biopower has ancient roots in the concept of “yousheng” (“good birth”—which has the same literal meaning as “eugenics”). For a thousand years, China has been ruled by a cognitive meritocracy selected through the highly competitive imperial exams. The brightest young men became the scholar-officials who ruled the masses, amassed wealth, attracted multiple wives, and had more children. The current “gaokao” exams for university admission, taken by more than 10 million young Chinese per year, are just the updated version of these imperial exams—the route to educational, occupation, financial, and marital success. With the relaxation of the one-child policy, wealthier couples can now pay a “social fostering fee” (shehui fuyangfei) to have an extra child, restoring China’s traditional link between intelligence, education, wealth, and reproductive success.

Chinese eugenics will quickly become even more effective, given its massive investment in genomic research on human mental and physical traits. BGI-Shenzhen employs more than 4,000 researchers. It has far more “next-generation” DNA sequencers that anywhere else in the world, and is sequencing more than 50,000 genomes per year. It recently acquired the California firm Complete Genomics to become a major rival to Illumina.

The BGI Cognitive Genomics Project is currently doing whole-genome sequencing of 1,000 very-high-IQ people around the world, hunting for sets of sets of IQ-predicting alleles. I know because I recently contributed my DNA to the project, not fully understanding the implications. These IQ gene-sets will be found eventually—but will probably be used mostly in China, for China. Potentially, the results would allow all Chinese couples to maximize the intelligence of their offspring by selecting among their own fertilized eggs for the one or two that include the highest likelihood of the highest intelligence. Given the Mendelian genetic lottery, the kids produced by any one couple typically differ by 5 to 15 IQ points. So this method of “preimplantation embryo selection” might allow IQ within every Chinese family to increase by 5 to 15 IQ points per generation. After a couple of generations, it would be game over for Western global competitiveness:


Recently Fidel Rivera wrote a letter saying he is a descendant of Spanish colonists who came in 1598, in which he claims Americans have to pay for what they did to Indians! Incredible. Apparently Rivera is ignorant of the atrocities committed by the Spanish and Mexicans. Millions of Indians in Latin America died due to Spanish conquest. In New Mexico in 1599, just one year after Mr. Rivera’s ancestors arrived, Spanish troops attacked the Acoma Pueblo, and after victory:

“Don Oñate ordered that every male above the age of twenty-five would have his right foot cut off and be enslaved for a period of twenty years. However, only twenty-four men actually received amputations. Males between the age of twelve and twenty-five were also enslaved for twenty years along with all of the females above the age of twelve. Many of these natives were dispersed among the residences of government officials or at Jesuit missions. Sixty of the youngest women were deemed not guilty and sent to Mexico City where they were “parceled out among Catholic convents”. Two Hopi men were taken prisoner at the pueblo; after each had one of his hands cut off, they were released to spread the word of Spain’s resolve.”

But it was not just these Indians who were enslaved. It was common practice for the Spanish, Mexicans, and New Mexicans to raid Indian tribes and capture slaves. These slaves were set to work in Mexican mines and on farms and in Haciendas. Of course the Indian women were raped—which is why so many Hispanic New Mexicans who claim to be pure descendants of the Conquistadors, are actually part Indian—a race many of them despise.

Although Mexico passed a law outlawing slavery, if you read New #Mexican history, you will find that many Hispanics retained their Navajo slaves as late as 1900—not surprising seeing how laws are commonly ignored by these people. While peonage was abolished by law in New Mexico by an Act Of 1867, there was a case reported as recently as 1967.

In spite of the Spanish history of cruelty against relatively peaceful Indians such as the Pueblo, the more warlike tribes such as the Navajo, Comanche, and Apache were too much for the Hispanic colonists. It took Americans to subdue these tribes and although people were killed on both sides and the Indians came out the worst, Americans did not amputate limbs or enslave these people as the Spanish did:


Why did exploratory rock-art funding dry up after it was discovered that Australia’s Aborigines were likely not the first inhabitants. And why were rock paintings destroyed that clearly showed a more sophisticated indigenous people were present prior to, and at the same time, as our Aborigines?

Hmmm, could it blow the concept of Aborigines as the first inhabitants out of the water? Could a refusal to fund further exploration have something to do with land rights, outrageous funding levels or Constitutional recognition?

Only around 5,000 rock-art sites are known out of a possible 20,000 and it’s troubling sites have been desecrated.

After the alarming findings of a Graham Walsh (who spent 40 years studying Australian rock-art) were first published, they sent members of the Left wing “Australian Archaeological Association” into a panic. Walsh proposed that the paintings were drawn by an Asiatic people prior to, and since, the last ice age… around a mere 15,000 years ago.

Consequently, on the 18th December 1995, the Association issued a media statement declaring that Walsh’s “interpretation” of rock-art was “racist”, thus funding was promptly discontinued.

But the enigma of these provocative rock-paintings lives on and cannot remain unexplained forever, despite the well-held belief that Australia’s Aborigines were Australia’s original inhabitants.

There is a glaring gap between what we are asked to believe and what rock paintings show:


The New Zealand Herald reported that,

“Racism is at the epicentre of another beauty pageant. A blonde, blue-eyed woman is at the centre of a new racism row after winning a Miss India NZ beauty contest and then being accused of not looking Indian enough.

Jacinta Lal, 21, was booed and has been the subject of complaints to organisers from Indian spectators.

Ms Lal, whose father is a Fijian SA/Indian and mother a New Zealander won the central district Miss India NZ contest in Wellington in April.

Festival organiser Dharmesh Parikh said he had received complaints questioning Jacinta Lal’s eligibility to be in the pageant.”

Hypocrisy, hypocrisy and more hypocrisy!

People of colour do their best to appear Caucasian. I’m in fact 1/4 Indian and can tell you my half-Indian aunts spend their entire lives bashing whites while simultaneously bleaching their skin.

Indians as a people, value fair skinned Aryan members of society so much their entire film industry is designed around sourcing the whitest possible men and women to dance, sing (lipsync) and smooch on screen. The same’s true in the Mid East, Levant, Greece, even Italy and Spain.

Indo-European looking Indians can certainly be some of the most beautiful people on the planet-something every Indian (Dravidian & Indo-European) is quite proud of, however when an Anglo-Indian (generic term for half white) is chosen as Miss India New Zealand all hell breaks loose.


Because Indians are racist and have a dreadful inferiority complex.

I discovered as much on a trip I took to Calcutta to meet my Indian relatives back in the summer of 2004. After spending the month under the Bengali sun, I was tanned something fierce-something I was actually quite chuffed with due to the fact that in my own deluded mind I thought I actually fit in.

When I asked my Bengali aunt if I was starting to look more Indian – in the kindest manner possible, she scowled and remarked, “You’ll always be white in our eyes.”

I’ll never forget it. The contempt for my predominantly English ancestry was palpable – and this was from my own aunt!

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

‘Bloody Gay Britishers’ was something I’d hear coming out of my granddads mouth, in spite of the fact he lived and worked in Britain for the better part of his adult life, married a British woman, had half English kids, and 3/4 English grandkids.

Although the manner (unpleasant, but NOT racist) in which he was treated when first entering university in Britain as a graduate student in the 1950’s might have had something to do with his hostility-much of it stemmed from his own prejudices against British people.

With that said, my granddad had an inordinate amount of respect for ‘supremely civilised Britisher.’

His opinions of  the ‘lesser non-Western Europeans’ moving to Britain from the East, were extreme to say the least.

Of blacks? Oh dear…

When members of my extended Indian family visited us in Britain when I was a kid, they commented at the number of ‘monkeys’, or blacks there were in London and how they didn’t feel safe around ‘nee-grows’. I recall my aunt looking like she swallowed an entire pickled lime when she came face to face with an African taxi driver.

When I, a tad more liberal than I am now, expressed my displeasure with her contempt for the negro fellow, she rambled on about her being Aryan, and blacks being descendants of baboons.

Gandhi, as I was often told, referred to black South Africans as ‘savage beasts’ and expressed his desire that the English ‘rid the continent of the negro animal.’

To say my Indian family was racially, ethnically and most of all religiously (they LOATHED Muslims) conscious, would be an understatement of the grandest proportion.

So the news coming out of New Zealand doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.

In India, the hatred sits with upper and middle class Indians and Muslims. In the West, it’s in pretty much all Indians.

Finally, what in god’s name is there even a Miss India New Zealand beauty contest?

Doesn’t anyone else see a problem with this?

Why are you 100% whites so afraid to speak the truth!

Can you imagine a Miss White Australia? or Miss Blonde Britain?

Liberals facilitate the ability for outgroups to make a mockery of the nations they inhabit and they’ve done a fine job of it.

Wake up before it is TOO late!

Note – the vast majority of the men that voiced their disapproval publicly, had Islamic surnames.

The hate and hypocrisy continues:


North Sentinel Island, located in the Bay of Bengal, between Myanmar and Indonesia, is home to an isolated tribe that has never been colonised or even made contact with. These people are one of the last Stone Age tribes on Earth whose culture has been completely untouched by modern civilization.

Despite the fact that the island formally belongs to India, no one dares to visit it and approach the Sentinelese tribe. The reason is their extreme violence and hostility – anyone who has ever tried to come ashore the island was attacked or even killed:

Whites Are Privileged

“The irony of American history is the tendency of good white Americans to presume racial innocence. Ignorance of how we are shaped racially is the first sign of privilege.” – anti-White jew Tim Wise

Whites are privileged to be unfairly discriminated against through affirmative action and diversity quotas? Whites are privileged to be victims of rape, home invasion, murder, “the knockout game”, and other forms of unreported (or under-reported) violence and hatred from non-Whites in our lands? Whites are privileged to watch TV shows, commercials, and movies, which portray White characters as utterly evil or bumbling idiots, and which also advocate race-mixing as a most noble act? Whites are privileged to have our countries (and only our countries) flooded with hordes of every different race under the sun? Whites are privileged to fund the housing, healthcare, schooling, food stamps, and booming birthrates for the non-White and illegal immigrant populations in our lands? Whites are privileged to send our hard-earned wealth to Africa and non-white countries around the world, while our people at home are starving and without homes? Whites in America are privileged since 2012 to have less than 50% of the babies born in the country? White children in America are privileged to become a minority in the school system by 2019? And MANY White people are privileged to be REALLY poor?

Whites are so “privileged” and “well-represented” in our society that we aren’t even able to organize as White people, advocate for our interests, and have pride in ourselves without being called racists, bigots, Neo-nazis, white supremacists, haters, and a slew of other pejoratives intended to discredit us.

Almost the entire Western media and political establishment takes anti-White positions. They will refer to “undocumented migrants” instead of illegal immigrants now. Try sneaking into Mexico, telling the authorities that you’re an “undocumented migrant”, and that you would like benefits for housing, medical, schooling, and food.

They argue that we are privileged because Whites have historically done well for ourselves. We are not privileged; we are prodigious. We did not get to where we are because the world was handed to us on a platter. Our ancestors worked hard to make sure we have a future. We should not feel guilty for our achievements.

While we are talking about “privilege”, why are we not allowed to question the incredible over-representation of jews in positions of power? In America, jews are estimated to be around 2% of the population, but are 5 of the top 10 richest people in the country.

America’s Richest People:

  1. Bill Gates (White)
  2. Warren Buffett (White)
  3. Larry Ellison (Jewish)
  4. Charles Koch (Jewish)
  5. David Koch (Jewish)
  6. Christy Walton (White)
  7. Michael Bloomberg (Jewish)
  8. Jim Walton (White)
  9. Sheldon Adelson (Jewish)
  10. Alice Walton (White)

And have you noticed that the mainstream media, which constantly pushes the anti-White agenda, is almost entirely controlled by jews? The chart above shows who seeks complete control of your mind. jews = red.

While jews use genetic testing and border security to keep Israel “pure”, they use their power and influence in White lands to continuously flood us with non-White immigrants. More here:


The culture of rape in South Africa is nothing new, with horrifying stories involving babies being raped to prevent HIV infection, even the elderly, gang raped for sadistic enjoyment, lesbian corrective rape, white schoolgirl animal crush porn, common topics of discussion at the EKP and at dinner tables in conservative homes across South Africa (SA).

SA is a hotbed of crime, gang turf wars, drug trafficking, murder, mayhem and criminality.

Since the fall of Apartheid, SA has become synonymous with human rape, murder, lawlessness, corruption, black on non-black crime, racially motivated farm murders, black on white crime, HIV, and now in particular, dog rape.

Yes, as hard as it might be for westerners to comprehend, the gang rape of street dogs by packs of feral black males is actually a serious issue in South Africa.

It’s hard for most westerners to grasp the concept of a human being raping a dog, as it isn’t something most of us can even envision, but it happens….and OFTEN.

We need to accept the fact that we westerners-those of us living in Western Europe and the new World (New Zealand, Australia, SA, the US, Canada etc), see animals quite differently than people living in Eastern Europe, Africa, the mid East, Asia and South America.

In fact the manner in which most westerners still respect animals is one of the most important aspects of western culturalism, and an integral part of what distinguishes us from other cultures. Sadly, along with most of our other morals, it too is degenerating.

But before we get to the dog rape epidemic plaguing South Africa, I’d like to say a few things about the accusation that the EKP are white supremacists and racists.

The EKP is NOT a racist organisation. In fact we have dedicated full sections of our site to exposing white degeneracy, have covered whites in the US, South Africa and Britain raping rabbits, Poles hunting swans (Poles are one of our favourite targets due to the mess they’re making in my native Britain), and English aristocrats murdering rhinos on safari-exponentially more often than we’ve come down on blacks in Africa for raping street dogs!

Just as Adolf Hitler’s NSDAP saw the importance of passing the first animal rights legislation the world has ever seen (historical fact), the EKP condemn all forms of degeneracy, regardless of the race of the person perpetrating it.

We focus our efforts on shaming people engaged in deviant behaviour as well as fighting for a return to decency as it’s our noble duty as proud stewards of our noble civilisation.

Unlike other sites focusing on race ad nauseam, we broach an array of topics-one of which includes covering animal cruelty perpetrated by people of all races.

I don’t think dogs particularly care about the colour of the person abusing them-neither should we. 

The fact we have an entire category dedicated to white degeneracy, should tell you what the EKP are, and what we are NOT.

So, just how bad of a year has it been for dogs?

From being shot on sight across eastern Europe (because Bolshevised Easterners don’t know how to neuter their pets and think putting on a good Olympics trumps humanity), to being beaten to death for barking too loud across the US, even raped in Africa and the Mid East, dogs had a miserable 2014.

Although degenerates of ALL races can be cruel to animals, and as stated, WE COVER those stories, people hailing from Africa and Islamic nations, indubitably abuse animals worse!

One thing that distinguishes us from our oppressors and less civilised people we are often forced to share our lands with (of all colours), is how people of Western European origin living in the old and new worlds, generally treat animals.

Sadly, that’s changing.

As our societies degenerate, we are witnessing more and more cases of savagery perpetrated against animals in western culture, as evidenced by the animal crush porn we covered last month (they were WHITE), but again, NOTHING compares to the manner in which our black and Muslim population, at home and abroad, sees and treats animals:


Nelson Mandela is dead, and South Africa without “Madiba” will be much the same as it was before: a wreck of a country with slowly collapsing infrastructure, high crime, and the slow-motion genocide of Afrikaners.

None of this much matters to the opinion makers of what used to be the West. For them, the true hallmark of leftist totalitarianism isn’t brutality—it’s kitsch, and we’ll see plenty of that. Mandela will be on every magazine cover, the Internet will be drowning in sentimental schmaltz, and Facebook will be littered with sanctimonious status updates.

The truth is, the saintly visage of Mandela—all crinkly eyes and warm smiles—conceals a violent past as a terrorist. He was the founder of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the African National Congress, and played a key role in the ANC’s embrace of armed struggle after a “general strike” failed miserably. The first terrorist attacks took place in 1961. In 1962, Mandela left South Africa on an international trip to win support for a violent struggle against the South African government. He negotiated for aid for the African National Congress with various anti-Western governments, including East Germany and Communist China.

Among the countries that pledged him full support were Communist Cuba and the Egyptian government of Gamal Abdel Nasser, a fellow “anti-colonialist.” Mandela’s international activities also included detailed meetings on strategy with Algeria’s National Liberation Army. Perhaps most importantly, with Mandela acting as an international agent for the ANC, the Soviet Union provided massive amounts of financial and military aid to Unkhonto we Sizwe.

After this perverse version of international diplomacy, Mandela underwent intensive military training in Ethiopia, where he learned sabotage, bombing, and guerrilla warfare. Upon his return to South Africa, Mandela was arrested for leaving the country without a passport and for inciting a strike. Later, he was tried along with other members of the ANC in the famous Rivonia Trial. The government alleged 235 separate acts of sabotage.

Most importantly, the South African authorities captured documents about Operation Mayibuye, a plan for a sweeping military confrontation with the government. Mandela was found guilty, along with almost all the other defendants. Because of international pressure, Mandela was sentenced only to life imprisonment rather than death, even though the government believed it had prevented a bloody civil war.

Though Mandela was imprisoned before he could personally direct his organization’s campaign of terror, there would still be blood. Mandela’s group and the African National Congress went on to kill scores of innocent people, some via the infamous “necklacing” technique endorsed by Mandela’s wife, Winnie. The group became notorious for its bombing campaign, most notably the Church Street bombing which killed 19 people. The group also mined rural roads used by farmers, which killed at least 120 people, many of them black laborers.

In 1985, the South African government offered to release Mandela if he would repudiate violence as a means to bring about political change. He refused the offer. Mandela was later forced to admit that the African National Congress “routinely” used torture against suspected “enemy agents.” Many of the ANC’s violent activities were not directed at the apartheid government but against the Zulus and their political movement, the Inkatha Freedom Party. However, whites always remained a special target. Even after his release, Mandela was willing to indulge in musical fantasies about killing whites.

At the time of his trial, Mandela denied being a member of the Communist Party—something we now know was a lie. Mandela worked closely with the Communist Party of South Africa, and the African National Congress was sustained and supported by the Soviet Union. Mandela never renounced any of his ties with Communist leaders. Only last June, the Huffington Post, which is scandalized by just about everything sensible, casually reported on the close relationship between Nelson Mandela and Communist dictator Fidel Castro.

Because of these long-standing associations and violent tactics, Margaret Thatcher condemned the African National Congress in 1987 as a “typical terrorist organization,” and said anyone who thought they would ever run the government was “living in cloud cuckoo land.” The Conservative Party youth distributed propaganda calling for him to be hanged.

The United States listed the African National Congress as a terrorist organization until 2008, and President Ronald Reagan strongly resisted efforts to impose sanctions on the beleaguered South African government. In this, he was supported by most of the American conservative movement, although Republicans such as Newt Gingrich, Jack Kemp, and Richard Lugar argued for confrontation with the white government, promising it would “win Republicans the black vote.” (Some things never change).

However, as tempting as it is to simply point out Mandela’s past as a Communist terrorist, in some ways his reinvention as a “reconciliator” is worse. It is true that as President of South Africa, Mandela did not unleash a campaign of state directed violence against whites. Instead, he largely maintained the economic system for the benefit of those already in power, while systematically dispossessing middle class and working class whites, especially Afrikaners. Nor was this particularity surprising, considering Mandela and the ANC’s history.

Though the African National Congress was aligned with the Communists, they received far friendlier treatment from big business than did their nationalist Boer rivals. Secret meetings were held between the African National Congress and South African business leaders even as the guerrilla war continued, and British business interests were instrumental in setting up talks between Afrikaner elites and the ANC. No such efforts ever took place between the captains of industry and the would-be leaders of an independent Boer Republic, suggesting that business leaders feared Eugene Terre’Blanche’s concept of an economy run for the “folk” more than they feared black rule.

In the negotiations that preceded the end of white rule, the ANC, business leaders, and the ruling National Party formed a united front against Boer nationalists and Afrikaner patriots, even to the point of opposing leaders such as General Constand Viljoen, who betrayed a Boer secession plan in exchange for a promise that a Boer homeland would be considered. Once Mandela got the concessions he wanted, he refused any such consideration.

President Mandela and his new regime concentrated on reconciling whites to the new government by means of widely publicized symbolic efforts while stripping them of any collective economic, social, or political identity. Mandela won praise for letting “Afrikaner leaders” such as F.W. De Klerk serve in his government, but this was nothing more than continuing his working relationship with collaborators.

Poverty among Afrikaners has soared in the years since the end of apartheid, with thousands reduced to living in squatter camps. South Africa has one of the highest crime rates in the world and is famous for its gated communities and private security companies. The nation also has a high rate of HIV/AIDS infection, which isn’t helped by black government officials who think the cure is a diet heavy in garlic. Mandela’s response has been to criticize the media for focusing too much on crime. He did nothing to stop what is now widely accepted as the opening stages of genocide against Boer farmers, and implemented anti-white racial preferences even as whites became an all but powerless minority.

Mandela achieved a reputation for magnanimity, presumably because he didn’t simply try to kill all his political enemies, as many of his “democratic” colleagues did in other African countries. A great deal of this was simply media friendly gestures, such as Mandela wearing a Springboks jersey (a tale worthy of movie apparently) or honoring former State Presidents when they died. Mandela was smart enough to understand that South Africa depended on whites keeping their wealth and technical skill in the country; he wanted to squeeze the goose that laid the golden eggs, not kill it. Wealthy South Africans and business interests, who were his allies early on, kept the South African economy from collapse, albeit from behind gated communities guarded by private security forces.

Nonetheless, Afrikaners as a people have been destroyed. The names of Afrikaner heroes have been torn from towns, streets, and public squares, and replaced with those of “anti-apartheid” leaders. The collective white defense forces known as “commandos” have been outlawed, meaning that those unable to afford private security companies are left vulnerable to black violence.

Since Mandela refused any consideration of a Boer homeland, numbers alone ensure that Afrikaners are politically disenfranchised. More than 750,000 whites have left the country, but Boer farmers are trapped. Their wealth—their farmland—is illiquid. If they did try to leave, confiscatory taxation would leave them all but penniless. Mandela’s magnanimity consisted in keeping whites around to pay taxes to keep his one-party ANC dictatorship going, but denying them meaningful representation.

It will only get worse. His critics on to his left, including his murdering ex-wife, complained that black poverty has not notably improved since the ANC takeover. Because there is no thought to lifting the restrictions on white economic activity and thus creating more wealth for everyone, blacks are turning to their usual policy alternative: outright confiscation. Julius Malema, former ANC youth leader, is forming a new political party with the specific purpose of “fighting white males.” The government is even trying to stop charities from helping poor whites. South Africa is already exploring “land reform” on the Zimbabwean model, which has plunged the former Breadbasket of Africa into dystopian chaos—to the indifference of the world.

Even the largely symbolic magnanimous gestures, like keeping the Springboks, have been reversed. As the social norms of the state founded by whites fade away, everything declines. Today, the State President of South Africa is a polygamous Zulu who thinks you can wash away HIV with a shower, and he’s probably better than whoever is coming next.

Mandela deserves full responsibility for all of this. From the beginning, his dream was of a unitary South African state dominated by black voters supporting a leftist political party, with a thin crust of whites to fund it and keep it going. South Africa’s decline into criminality and chaos is simply these ideas playing out to their logical conclusion. Independence, apartheid, and even the terrorism of the AWB were all Afrikaner attempts to avoid exactly what has occurred: political dispossession followed by measures that will lead to collective economic and social extinction.

If anything, a sudden outbreak of anti-white violence upon Mandela’s death would be a good thing. It would give the Afrikaners—a warrior people if there ever was one—a reason to fight back. Instead, the legacy of Mandela is the slow genocide of the people who turned South Africa into a First–World nation in the midst of the Dark Continent. Though some whites will be suffered to live, work, and die for the benefit for their black masters, whites have no future in South Africa, and what few opportunities they have for even a decent life are shrinking every day. Mandela represented exploitation under the guise of magnanimity, murder in the name of democracy, genocide with a smile. We should mourn the old terrorist’s death only because he didn’t live to see his destructive work undone on the day when the Boers—and the rest of us—are once again free:


Setting off to spend a year teaching English in Zhejiang province in south-eastern China, I expected plenty of surprises. But what struck me most was something they tend not to tell you about in the guidebooks: the racism.

It started when I went around the classroom, asking pupils which city they were from. When I got to a slightly darker-skinned boy, his classmates thought it was hilarious to shout ‘Africa!’ It’s a theme. A girl with a similar complexion was taunted with monkey sounds; her peers refused to sit next to her, saying she smelt bad. I apparently erred when, teaching the word for wife, I showed my students a picture of Michelle Obama. The image of the then First Lady was greeted with sounds of repulsion: ‘So ugly!’ they said. ‘So black!’

In China, racism is a standard undercurrent of public debate. A few months ago, Pan Qinglin, a Tianjin politician, announced to reporters that he had found out how to ‘solve the problem of the black population in Guangdong’ — a province with a small amount of African migration. Warning that the new arrivals brought drugs, sexual assault and infectious diseases, he urged local policy-makers to tighten controls to prevent China turning ‘from a yellow country to a black-and-yellow country’.

The Chinese don’t make a big deal about their racism: it’s so commonplace it can seem almost cheerful. An advert for a detergent shows a black man chatting up a Chinese woman, only for her to shove him in the washing machine until he emerges a fair-skinned Asian. The advert aired for months before it was picked up by an English-language website and caused uproar. The company, Qiaobi, apologised — to its non-customers. Its analogy of black skin and dirty laundry made perfect sense to the Chinese:

Chinese racism is, in part, the extension of a long-standing association of wealth and pale skin: a country that was for centuries ruled by various subsections of its pallid northern population.

The history of China is also the history of proud isolationism: it has been keeping outsiders outside for generations. China was long the most developed country in Asia, and just as the Greeks stigmatised their neighbours as barbarians, the Chinese scorned theirs. The turn of the 20th century brought the grudging acknowledgement of western technological superiority, and with it a shift from the general policy of viewing all foreigners as inferior: an exception was made for westerners. The assumption that all westerners are white. 

To a British visitor, China appears astonishingly ethnically homogeneous: the Han ethnic group make up 92 per cent of the population, but walk the streets of almost any city and you’ll wonder where the other 8 per cent are hiding. The answer is: in ethnic minority enclaves on the fringes of some of the country’s poorest provinces. China has almost no citizens of non-Chinese descent: it is extremely difficult for expats to secure Chinese citizenship, so most are forced to leave as soon as their employment visas expire. China’s non-Han residents are members of the country’s minorities, who are almost always darker-skinned than their Han neighbours.

When development does come, it is often seen as centrally imposed Sinicisation. Efforts to ensure that Tibetan children speak fluent Mandarin, for example, have resulted in the arrest of those who promote the local language:

According to wildlife experts who spoke at the Wilson Center in June, Chinese demand for wildlife products is driving a global trade in endangered species. “Today’s tiger farms are basically feedlots where tigers are bred like cattle to make luxury products, including tiger bone wine and tiger skin rugs,” said Judith Mills, author of the book, Blood of the Tiger: A Story of Conspiracy, Greed, and the Battle to Save a Magnificent Species. Some of these operations are run as entertainment centers, where a few well cared for animals perform for tourists. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, cats are crammed into small concrete cells, bred for slaughter.

Mills stumbled on her first tiger farm in 1991 while investigating farms where bears were “milked” for their bile with a catheter inserted into their stomachs. “I will never forget when my main government minder turned to me and told me that China already had thousands of bears on farms and that it intended to farm bears and dozens of other endangered species,” Mills said.

“Today’s tiger farms are basically feedlots where tigers are bred like cattle”

“China’s farming of wild animals such as tigers, bears, and, more recently, rhinos, has not provided any conservation benefit to these species,” said Allan Thornton, president of the nonprofit Environmental Investigative Agency (EIA). Wild products are regarded as superior to farm-raised, and the legal market simply makes it easier to launder poached animal products.

During a recent EIA investigation in China, undercover agents spoke with three different ivory traders who all said that at least 90 percent of what they trade legally is poached, said Thornton. A common method of feeding illegal products into the market is reusing and counterfeiting government-issued permits. Meanwhile, about 96 African elephants are killed each day for their ivory, a rate that could wipe them out within a decade.

China is the largest market for illegal wildlife products – and the market continues to grow. “Wildlife species that are bred in captivity for commercial purposes make some products widely available, which drives up consumer demand and increases poaching in the wild,” said Sharon Guynup, an environmental journalist and Wilson Center public policy fellow.

In 1990, a global ban on international ivory trade was instituted by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which regulates the wildlife trade and is signed by 180 nations. The ivory trade collapsed and elephant populations recovered. Poaching in Kenya declined by more than 90 percent in a year. But in 2008, a “one-off” auction allowed a $15.5 million sale of raw ivory to China and Japan. At that point, poaching skyrocketed. In 2011, 25,000 elephants were killed.

This summer, the Chinese government amended its 1989 Wildlife Protection Law, further loosening restrictions.

The illicit wildlife trade is now considered the number one threat to many species. The disappearance of animals like elephants, that physically alter the landscape, or apex predators, like tigers, have broad impact on the ecosystems they inhabit.

“There’s growing awareness that the illegal wildlife trade is run by international crime syndicates,” said Guynup. “This $15 to $20 billion a year business is now the fourth largest source of criminal earnings in the world, after guns, drugs, and human trafficking operations… On the black market, rhino horn is worth more per pound than cocaine.”

Money made from the wildlife trade is reported to fund militant groups and wildlife trafficking is linked to drug cartels.

I’m not impressed with China. From what I’ve seen, there’s no social glue holding the fabric of the society together. At the end of the day, there is an absolutist authoritarian system running the show that is deeply and irredeemably corrupt. There are schemes on top of schemes, and scams on top of scams, and you’re never going to be able to trust the numbers that they feed you.

I agree with Donald Trump on his point. Regarding China, he has said, “They’re killing us on trade. They’re laughing at us. They have geniuses negotiating for them, and we have idiots.” He notes—correctly—that China has destroyed US industry with the active collusion of the business class here in America. In other words, the rich in America sold out their own country’s economy, and dismantled its manufacturing base, to make an easy buck with China.

To anyone with a sense of national pride, this is intolerable.

I see the same thing in Brazil, a country I visit often and means a great deal to me. In one recent trip, I was on a date with a girl who had tried to set up a clothing store in her city. But she just couldn’t compete with the Chinese product dumping. The Chinese use networks of immigrants (many illegal) to import huge shipping containers full of junk, and sell it at rock-bottom prices to destroy their competition.

The Brazilian government could care less, as long as customs officials get their payoff. Meanwhile the girl I knew lost all her savings trying to keep her business afloat.

A Chinese company (Hong Kong Nicaragua Development Group) is currently preparing to dig a canal through Nicaragua, in order to short-circuit the American monopoly on the Panama canal. The scale of the project is staggering. It will be three times as long and twice as deep as the Panama canal, and will require the removal of over 4.5 billion cubic meters of earth.

It goes without saying that the environmental consequences will be disastrous. HKND plans to begin near the mouth of the Punta Gorda River, and then cut a channel along 55 miles of the river. It will create, in the process, a 153 square mile reservoir. It will then go another 23 miles into Lake Nicaragua, and from there another 20 miles to the Pacific.

I know there will be readers who dismiss this article as an anti-China diatribe. So be it. But I don’t trust the Chinese government, its business elites, or its corporations. I see them as an army of scammers and plunderers swarming around the world, who profit from the stupidity and venality of the local elites. If anything, this is a diatribe against our own leaders.

Our own leaders have sold us out, in this as in so many other things. They do nothing while our industry gets outsourced, dismantled, or bought out.

This is not the stuff that great nations are made of. There’s nothing wrong with commerce, and there’s nothing wrong with seeking profits. That’s what industry was built on. But China takes things to an extreme. In China, money is God. To me, its people have embraced greed and mendacity in business dealings to a terrible extent, to the detriment of everything else.

The Chinese government and business leaders have sold their souls to the idolatry of cash. And this is why their cities are drowning in pollution and poisonous gases, why their government and leaders are corrupt, and why money is worshipped as a god. Until this changes, we should be very, very alert in our dealings with them.


Henry Yu, professor of history at University of British Columbia, believes that “Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States are settler colonies that were built around white supremacy.” He asserted this in a recent article, White Supremacy and the Foreign Investment Debate. According to him, White Supremacy is “an overt structuring of society that gives privileged access to resources to those who could be considered white.”

Elsewhere he has insisted that one of the “unresolved legacies of colonialism and white supremacy in British Columbia”,  are the “policies designed to erase non-English language use among children” in Canada. Mandarin, and other Asian languages should become official languages.

He believes the recent debate over Chinese investment in real estate in Vancouver is yet another example of the prevalence of White supremacism in Canada. Objecting to wealthy investors from mainland China is nothing less than “racial scapegoating”. What about the affordability crisis brought on by Chinese buyouts of Vancouver homes? According to him, the Canadian government should simply provide more public housing for Canadians who can’t compete with entrepreneurial Chinese foreigners. They should just learn to build public housing as in Hong Kong.

Inferiority Complex?

Now, why would someone seriously believe that Canada is ruled by White supremacists considering there is:

a massive bureaucratic apparatus pushing multiculturalism and special group rights for immigrants across Canada, Chinese have already been paid reparations for the head tax at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels, and non-Whites or “visible minorities” already constitute the majority in Vancouver, 51.8 percent, as of 2011, whereas Eurocanadians have been drastically reduced to 46.2 percent of the population, with projections showing that they will constitute “only two out of five residents by the year 2031”?

It is not as if Henry has not been extremely successful at the Anglo-created University of British Columbia, collecting over two million dollars in two recent grants: a $1.17 million project entitled “Chinese Canadian Stories”, and $950,000 from the Federal government to show that the Chinese were one of the founding peoples’ of Canada.

Why does he keep arguing, to this day, in every paper and every conference he goes, that Canada is a White supremacist nation and that Chinese millionaires should be allowed to buy out Eurocanadian natives out of their own cities?

I detect in him a psychological trait I have noticed among some professional non-Europeans inhabiting European-created lands. Henry is an ethno-nationalist, attached to his heritage and his race; and yet he feels uneasy in this ground, unsure about it, because deep down he knows he is inhabiting a European-created country, a land he craves to claim as his own. He can’t suppress the reality that Europeans were the actual creators of it, but as a Chinese ethno-nationalist, he can’t accept this reality, so he needs to be constantly harping against White supremacy as a way of fighting this disconcerting reality.

With these resentful feelings, and determined to advance the ethnic interests of the Chinese race, he has decided to make the most of White ethnomasochistic tendencies, falsifying the history of Whites, enhancing the role of the Chinese, and thus reclaiming for his people the Canada he wishes had been created by Asians.

“Pacific Canada”?

In an Op Ed piece in The Vancouver Sun (February 1, 2010), Vancouver’s Own Not-So Quiet Revolution, Yu claimed that the English language “stunts diversity”. Calling it a “colonial” language, he demanded that Asian languages, long “silenced” by “white supremacists”, be given the same official status. He then equated the presence of a high number of Whites in leadership positions in Vancouver with “the legacy of a long history of apartheid and white supremacy”.

Only our multicultural self-flagellation has given Henry the nerve to talk about Eurocanadian “apartheid” today, even though Chinese immigrants come from a country that officially engages in eugenics research, the Han majority in China, 92 percent of the population, has a monopoly control over all the institutions, prohibits immigration, and disallows any foreign purchases of real estate in their country. There are no minority rights in China; Mongols, Miao, Hui, Tibetans, and Uighurs are routinely described as superstitious, lazy, ignorant, and dirty.

Look at this video of an orphaned Uyghur kid beaten in China:

Look at this video of a Chinese toddler run over multiple times as locals watch and do nothing to help in China:

Yu enjoys taunting White Canadians that they are soon to become a minority in Canada, writing a few years ago:

“Our city [Vancouver] will soon be over 50 percent visible majority, with the vast majority of these non-whites of Asian heritage. Who is the minority in a city that has such strong historical and demographic connections to the Pacific?”

He claims to be a historian who has proven that this “new Pacific Canada” marks a return to a Canada that was originally Pacific, that it was only the “dominance of white supremacy in immigration policy” between the 1920s and 1960s that disrupted this original Pacific/Chinese orientation. The history of Vancouver, British Columbia, and Canada between the 1920s and 1960s should be seen “as an aberration” to the original, and future, Pacific Canada.

“I’m a historian, and what I’ve said builds on the past”, Yu brags. Yet he relies on two measly facts to support this outlandish claim that Canada was originally a Pacific nation; namely, that Chinese coolies built portions of the transcontinental railroad in the late 19th century, and that the proportion of the population in British Columbia that was Chinese in 1901 was 10 percent. That’s it.

Canada and Vancouver Totally Created by Eurocanadians

Sorry Henry: the historical record is incontestable: Eurocanadians were the supreme builders of Canada.

In 1901, 96 percent of the Canadian population was European in origin, and it remained 96 percent European as late as 1971, when all the institutions and modern infrastructure had been created from the ground up. In 1901, when the Chinese population was supposedly building everything across Canada, and Canada was supposedly “Pacific”, there were only 17,043 Chinese immigrants (born outside Canada) relative to a population of 5.3 million.

The city of Vancouver alone, which had the highest Chinese proportion throughout Canada’s history, was virtually a White European city from its beginnings in the 1870s to the 1980s. In the 1950s, when the city had been fully developed into a metropolis, the British accounted for about 75 percent of the population, and other Europeans accounted for about 18 percent, whereas the Asian proportion (Chinese and Japanese) accounted for only 3 percent.

Patricia Roy’s Vancouver, An Illustrated History (1980), exhibits a city that was overwhelmingly British in its architectural landscape, notwithstanding its Chinatown and Little Tokyo. All the major landmarks were British: the Post Office, built 1905-1910; Dominion Trust, the Canadian Pacific Railway station; Canadian Bank of Commerce; the Strand Theater and Birks Building, with their sidewalk canopies in 1933; the Tudor revival style homes in Shaughnessy Heights in the 1920s. The sports, the education, the legal system — every institution was British. The Founding Fathers of Vancouver, the Mayors, the magistrates, the school trustees, the chief constables, the physicians, the presidents of the Board of Trade were all British descendants.

Abiding by the historical record does not make one a supremacist.

Opportunism and Cheating

Yu is cited (in 2007) saying, with obvious pride, that Vancouver is

“now the most integrated Asian city in North America…in Vancouver, you can’t go to a neighbourhood now where Chinese aren’t living in significant numbers. It’s incredible.”

Notice how confidently he calls it an “Asian city” while classifying anyone who calls the city European a “white supremacist” even though the city was overwhelmingly European for most of its history.

Yu views Canada’s past strictly from the perspective of Chinese interests. He even says that the Hong Kong Chinese are a “new kind of immigrant” superior in education, in wealth and in expectations; they not only deserve the best neighbourhoods created by Whites, but they are too globally minded to be constrained to Vancouver only, but instead view this city as:

“a global city that is one stop within the Pacific world, with two-thirds of male Canadians of Hong Kong origin between the ages of 25 and 40 living and working outside Canada.”

These males “know that a key to making money is not to view the place you make money as necessarily the same place you live.” They are:

“residents with multiple homes throughout the world, creating great demand for real estate in Vancouver, but also leaving many condominiums unused for portions of the year.”

This is why Yu prefers the term “migrant” over immigrant — it captures this new type of opportunistic immigrant that corporations prefer, a global economic consumer who can move in and out of cities, find ways not to pay taxes, while showing no loyalty to the European-created cities they acquired citizenship from. They look upon Vancouver not as a city to which they are rooted, with memories of its landscape, its beautiful old British homes, but as a place to be bulldozed to make way for generic houses. This Facebook page documents in photographs how Vancouver has been vanishing right before our eyes.

Yu claims these migrants changed Vancouver “for the better”, they are “first-class citizens” (whereas, presumably, natives are second class). But should we be so sure that these migrants are “first class” in light of these reports in the mainstream media of recurring cheating by Chinese in exams, paying others to write exams, in one Canadian university after another, indeed everywhere in the West, purchasing university essays?

We at the CEC (Council of European Canadians) object to the use of the term “White supremacist” against the working classes, including Aboriginals, who worked so hard to create Canada. Yu is an ardent promoter of Chinese ethnic interests in Canada. He is inconsistent in the way he opportunistically borrows Marxist ideas to curtail Eurocanadians from pursuing their own ethnic interests. We object to this double standard. We believe in historical veracity, in the Western principle of individual rights; we oppose dog-eating, and child slave labour. We are for a clean environment and object to the “horrific practice of eating aborted fetuses” (SEE HERE: ) as a business for medical companies:


The issue of Asianisation may no longer be an issue of immigration. Even if we stopped Asian immigration tomorrow, we could still become Asianised – it would just take a little longer. Asianisation is a story of white genocide, it’s a story that people have forgotten about since Pauline Hanson uttered those immortal worlds “I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians” [1] and what howls of protest that statement did generate throughout the world and here at home amongst the multicultural elites and their empty-headed useful idiots like those who brought down the 1901 Immigration Restriction Act, commonly known as the White Australia Policy.

Our forefathers were very wise when they decided to implement ideas like the White Australia Policy. It was designed to protect the fledgling Australian society, Australian jobs and the Australian way of life. It was the faceless bureaucrats who decided to weaken the policy in the 1950s and 1960s, always fearful of the old chestnut that other countries would think badly of Australia, as if Asian countries in particular have some sort of high moral ground on which to stand against us.

What the establishment is doing is basically replacing white Australians with Asians. Both sides of government have been doing this for decades under an unwritten agreement that unless Australia becomes significantly Asian, Australia will be unable to engage with Asia economically. Business has also been urging strong engagement with Asia, as they like to have an endless supply of cheap labour and an ever growing consumer base – it’s all about the numbers. Neither government nor big business see Australia as a nation, to them Australia is merely an economic entity to exploit for their own profits.

One of the lines that pro-Asianists like to trot out is the one about Australia being part of Asia. Australia is not a part of Asia and if the multicultural apologists had been paying attention in geography classes at school, they would have learnt that Australia is actually a part of the region called Oceania. Oceania is the geographic region between Asia and the West coast of America. It consists of four sub-regions comprising of Micronesia, Melanesia, Polynesia, and Australasia. Australia and New Zealand form the basis of Australasia. I’ve never heard these people, who insist that Australia is part of Asia, call Australian Aborigines ‘Asians’.

The Australia we have today is a legacy of the white Europeans who discovered, colonised, built and developed Australia into a great nation. From the earliest days of Australian history, the Europeans have always been wary of the surrounding Asian hordes. Not all early Australians were so concerned to preserve their race or heritage; capitalists looking for easy exploitation were more than happy to import Asians as cheap labour, they were prepared to give away our future for a cheap bag of sugar.

Our forefathers had a strong sense of Australian identity, of who they were, and their confidence in this allowed them to think about how they could go about preserving that identity for future generations. The most obvious way was via the exclusion of non-Europeans from Australia. Our forefathers knew that to preserve liberty and democracy in Australia, they had to find a way to preserve racial homogeneity; they knew liberty and democracy could not be upheld or carried long-term by a miscegenated rabble: 


Believing their own propaganda, these intellectuals imply that second-generation immigrants have been entirely shaped by mainstream culture, so that the cultures immigrants bring with them to the UK are completely irrelevant. More here: 


If we were to collect the statistics of the amount of white people who have become victims of diversity crime ie crime that occurs as a result of state enforced multiculturalism, then the figures would be truly shocking. We are talking about every single type of crime including rape, murder and paedophilia. One prime and infamous example is the grooming and mass rape of young white girls in Rotherham at the hands of Islamic grooming gangs. The local Labour council, the police and social services all tried to cover up what was happening and allowed it to continue. Politicians should have been arrested and held accountable, again because it is the political (state) enforced multiculturalism that allows diversity crime to flourish and which leads to our people becoming victims. Where is the accountability? Are we supposed to just continue to allow our daughters to be targeted and our nation to be destroyed by politicians? More here:


Is the mainstream media deliberately fabricating a myth of white racism in America in order to cover up an epidemic of black-on-white violence? While most Americans are aware of the Trayvon Martin shooting in Sanford, Florida on February 26, 2012, very few know about the thousands of whites who have been brutally murdered, raped, beaten and robbed by blacks as the media keeps regurgitating lies about the Martin case. Are the lives of these innocent white Americans not important enough to report on, or is the media purposely inciting racial tensions for a reason?

Anyone who has paid attention to the Martin shooting knows that key information about the case has been distorted and fabricated. Evidence now shows that George Zimmerman had a broken nose, black eyes and lacerations to the back of his head. The police report stated that Zimmerman’s back was wet and covered with grass clippings. On the other hand, Martin’s autopsy revealed that Martin’s knuckles were scraped. Even eyewitnesses saw the six-foot-three-inch Martin viciously pummeling the five-foot-nine-inch Zimmerman in the face while he had him on the ground.

While this dog-and-pony show is going on, however, the mainstream media has been totally silent on atrocious crimes that have been committed by blacks on whites since the Martin shooting. Here are a few—from among dozens of incidents—that this newspaper has confirmed.

On February 27, the day after the Martin shooting, two black males in Detroit abducted and killed a white couple. The victims were found bound, shot and burned beyond recognition in an alley. Police are calling it a random “thrill killing.”

On February 28, in Kansas City, Missouri, two black teens attacked a 13-year-old white boy on his front porch as he was returning from school. They poured gasoline on him and set him on fire for no apparent reason, saying “You get what you deserve white boy!”

On March 14, a 20-year-old black man broke into the home of Bob and Nancy Straight in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He raped the 85-year-old Mrs. Straight and then beat her to death. Then he shot 90-year-old Mr. Straight in the face with a pellet gun and broke his jaw and ribs. He died several days later. The thug stole $200, a TV set and their Dodge Neon, which he drove to a nearby house where he went to hide. The police spotted the stolen car in front of the house and arrested him.

On April 1, in Jackson, Mississippi, a 31-year-old black man broke into a house to rob it and found a white woman inside. He forced her to lie on the floor with a blanket over her head as he shot her in the back of the head, execution-style.

On April 5, in Tunica, Mississippi, a 34-year-old black man checked into a hotel with his pregnant 25-year-old white girlfriend and their one-year-old child. The next day the woman was found dead on the floor brutally mutilated and covered with blood, as was the one-year-old child. The knife was in the room.

On April 15, in Las Vegas, a 22-year-old black man raped a 38-year-old white woman and her 10-year-old daughter. He then killed them by smashing their skulls with a hammer.

On top of all these brutal murders there have been a number of “flash mob” attacks across the country where anywhere from half a dozen to as many as a hundred blacks gang up on innocent people and beat them senseless. In at least 12 of these cases documented by this writer, the blacks have cited revenge for the shooting of Martin as the motive for the savageries, although in many cases the victims were also robbed.

One of these attacks occurred in Norfolk, Virginia, where more than 30 blacks brutally beat a white couple as another 70 blacks watched and cheered them on, a typical phenomenon in these black-on-white “flash mob” attacks. Martin’s name came up as the excuse for the brutality. The couple actually worked for the main newspaper in town, The Virginian Pilot, which has direct political ties to the Obama administration. That publication could not even be bothered to report on the attack of its own employees for two weeks—and even then it was only as an opinion piece written by a friend of the couple.

The couple said the police officer who responded acted strangely. After having been viciously beaten, kicked in the face and dragged by her hair, the battered woman was told by the officer to “shut up and get in the car.” He did not record any names of witnesses and said the attackers were “probably juveniles anyway. What are we going to do? Find their parents and tell them?” Pointing to public housing in the area, he said large groups of “teenagers” look for trouble on the weekends. “It’s what they do,” he told the couple:


Is it an expression of racial hatred?

There has been much debate about the very meager statistics on inter-racial rape. For years, incomplete but still informative estimates were available through the US Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey (see table 42 on page 55). Although these numbers are extrapolations based on small numbers of reported rapes and include verbal as well as physical sex assaults, it is clear that there is much more black-on-white than white-on-black rape.

In 2009, Barack Obama became president, and put Eric Holder in charge of the Department of Justice. Since then, the information on inter-racial crime from the National Crime Victimization Survey has been kept from the public.

While it’s going to be a long time before any kind of precise figures are had, most everyone in America would be willing to concede that there is more black-on-white rape than white-on-black. The implicit admission of this can be found in the standard liberal excuse: interracial rape figures are lop-sided because there are five times as many whites as blacks in the United States, so black rapists naturally find a lot of white victims. That might be plausible if the United States were well integrated, and if the average black man lived around a lot of white women. He doesn’t.

America as a whole is “diverse,” but most Americans live in neighborhoods with people of the same race as themselves. As a rule of thumb, the more racially diverse a city is, the more racially homogeneous its neighborhoods are. Therefore, if rapists choose their victims at random, that victim is likely to be of the same race. Most black rapists live in inner cities, and are especially unlikely to live around white women. In a country as segregated as the United States, all interracial crime at least suggests a certain degree of racial targeting.

Furthermore, celebrated black authors have written very explicitly about their desire to punish white women by raping them.

James Baldwin wrote:

[T]here is, I should think, no Negro living in America who . . . has not wanted to smash any white face he may encounter in a day, to violate, out of motives of the cruelest vengeance, their women, to break the bodies of all white people. . . .

Eldridge Cleaver of the Black Panthers wrote of his career as a rapist:

Rape [of white women] was an insurrectional act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women . . . I felt that I was getting revenge.

Amiri Baraka, originally known as LeRoi Jones and who was named New Jersey Poet Laureate in 2002, wrote in his poem “Black Dada Nihilimus:”

Come up, black dada nihilismus.

Rape the white girls.

Rape their fathers.

Cut the mothers’ throats.

And, indeed, some blacks have raped white women for reasons of pure, political hatred.

For a 179-day period in 1973 and 1974, a group of Black Muslim “Death Angels” kept the city of San Francisco in a panic as they killed randomly-chosen “blue-eyed devils” in what came to be called the “zebra murders.” Estimates put the number of white victims at between 15 and 73. Female victims were often raped before they were executed.

In 1992, Joseph Gardner of Charleston, South Carolina, and his two friends, Matt Williams and Matt Mack, decided to get “get even” for white oppression by murdering a white woman. They abducted Melissa “Missi” McLauchlin and brought her back to their trailer park. They raped her and put out the word that they had “captured a white woman.” Three other black men came and also raped her. Then they tortured her with bleach and hydrogen peroxide, shot her in the face five times, and left her to die by the side of a road.

In 2008, a white woman wept on the witness stand as she described her rape at the hands of a black man who broke into her apartment in Raleigh, North Carolina. He told her he was punishing her for the historic crimes of whites.

In 2013 Corey Batey, a black football player at Vanderbilt University filmed himself and some of his teammates as they raped a white woman at a party. Mr. Batey then urinated on her face, saying, “That’s for 400 years of slavery you b—-.”

In 2016 Lee Harris raped a white woman at knifepoint and told her he did so “because you are white.”

Blacks in other countries have raped white women for similar reasons. In Britain, a black illegal immigrant named Amos Moobeng raped a teen-age girl because she was white.

In Brazil, a black man named Sailson Jose das Gracas confessed to murdering at least 41 whites. As he explained: “Women for me has to be white, not black, because of my color. I got pleasure from them fighting, screaming and scratching me.” Das Gracas did not rape his victims; he masturbated after killing them.

Zimbabwe, where most whites have been driven from the country, “rape gangs” target the few white women who remain.

In prisons, black men rape white men out of hatred and a desire to dominate them. A 2001 report by Human Rights Watch concluded that tens of thousands of men are raped every year in the United States—almost all of them white prisoners raped by blacks. Some blacks make whites their sex slaves, whom they buy, sell, and rent out to other blacks.

“Within a week he was pimping me out to other inmates at $3.00 a man,” said a white who was forced to become a black inmates “wife.” “You can buy a kid for 20 or 30 dollars on most wings,” explained one convict. “They sell them like cattle.”

Sean Smith, a white man in a South African prison, said he was raped every day of his months-long sentence, often several times a day. “They did it not just as part of gang dominance but in my case it was showing supremacy over a white man—I was the only one there,” he said. By the end, he was HIV positive.

There is vastly more black-on-white than white-on-black violence of all kinds, not just rape. Of the estimated 650,000 black-white crimes of violence committed every year, blacks are the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This means that a black person, on average, is 27 times more likely to attack a white than vice versa. It is impossible to know how much of this sharp disproportion reflects deliberate targeting, but racial hatred surely accounts for some of it.

Over the course of a decade, John Floyd Thomas, Jr. raped and killed as many as 30 elderly white women throughout Los Angeles County, which means he was probably the area’s most prolific serial killer. He is black and every one of his victims was white. Was this a coincidence or was he, too, “getting even”? His Wikipedia page is silent about the race of his victims; this would be unthinkable in the case of white killers, such as Joseph Paul Franklinor Dylann Roof, who attacked blacks.

Even when blacks do not openly express anti-white animus, the sheer brutality of their crimes suggests something more than conventional criminal motives. When Curtis Vanceraped Anne Pressly, a white woman, he beat her so savagely with a garden tool that her “jaw was forced to the back of her head and cut off blood flow to her brain.” The mother of the victim found her lying in a pool of blood, gasping for air.

The black-on-white crimes that became known as the “Knoxville Horror” and the “Wichita Massacre,” were likewise cases of rape, murder, torture, and sexual humiliation so appalling that it is very difficult to believe the killers were not acting out of deep hatred for whites.

White-on-black rape is not unheard of. In Oklahoma City, a half-white half-Japanese police officer was recently convicted of targeting black women for rape. However, crimes of this kind rarely show the vicious brutality of the haunting cases noted above. White rapists simply do not seem to mutilate or kill their victims. The most famous black rape victims—Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum—turned out to be hoaxers, along with many others.

Whatever the exact numbers, there is no doubt that blacks rape whites far more often than whites rape blacks. It is clear that at least some blacks rapists hate whites, and rape is a particularly satisfying way for them to express their hatred:


The media have relentlessly fanned the flames of racial hatred, while engaging in a systematic pattern of misinformation and blatant suppression of facts surrounding the perpetrators and victims of crime. As a result, so-called “criminal justice reform” is now being proposed to release more criminals from jails, supposedly to make amends for the unjust “mass incarceration” of black men.

The figures come quickly but are never subjected to the necessary scrutiny. Last fall, for example, the George Soros-funded ProPublica published a claim that black youths are killed by the police at a rate 21 times higher than white youths. Mass media parroted that claim, but the data are incomplete and biased. They represent just 1.2 percent of police departments nationwide, and most reports come from urban areas, where the population is disproportionately black.

More reliable data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) suggest that in 2012, 123 blacks were killed by police using firearms while 326 whites, including 227 non-Hispanic whites, were killed. These data, however are also not entirely reliable, but represent a larger data set than the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR).

CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill, a racial agitator fired by Fox News for defending cop-killers, spread another misleading statistic about police shootings, claiming that “Every 28 hours, an unarmed black person is killed by police.” This too was trumpeted in the media. It became a twitter hashtag, “#every28hours,” and another mantra like “hands up, don’t shoot.” But it is demonstrably false. There were 313 blacks killed by police, security guards and other “vigilantes” in 2012. Dividing 313 into the number of hours in a year (8,760) yields 28. However, 177 of these “unarmed black persons” were actually armed with firearms. That leaves 136. Others may have been technically “unarmed” but were threatening the officer’s life, for example with their car—or as in Michael Brown’s case, attempting to take the officer’s gun. Many more were not the result of shootings, but accidents, e.g., during vehicular chases. Finally, some of the shooters were not police. When the hyperbole is removed, the facts present a much more reasonable explanation. Barring a small number of tragic mishaps, police shootings are usually justified.

Let’s look at the other side now. In 2013 alone, 49,851 officers were assaulted with firearms, knives and other weapons. Over the past 10 years, on average, 150 police officers have been killed in the line of duty every year. Fifty-seven of these were shot, stabbed, strangled or beaten. Of the 509 officers feloniously killed in the past 10 years, 46 percent of the perpetrators were black, despite their representing only 13 percent of the population. Do we call this a black war against the police?

Critics also argue that blacks’ 40 percent share among U.S. prison populations is direct evidence of institutional racism (see link). In a color-blind society, they charge, incarcerated black populations would reflect their 13 percent share of the general population.

However, if black crime rates were the guide, it would seem that blacks are, if anything,underrepresented in prison populations. Blacks exceed all other groups in murders committed in 2013. In prior years it was actually worse.

In 2007, the CDC broke out total homicide numbers and rates by age and race. The murder rate among blacks is similar to the rates in some of the most violent third-world nations (see below). No other racial or ethnic group comes close.

Finally, black-on-white crime is substantially greater than the reverse. The table below shows murders by race of offender and victim in 2013. Note that overall, blacks kill as often as whites, although blacks represent only 13 percent of the population. Note also that black-on-white murder is more than double the rate of white-on-black murder (409 to 189). Similar results were found for 2012, 2011, 2010 and prior years.

If these rates were to hold, and the roles were reversed—i.e., if blacks represented 64 percent of the population while whites comprised only 13 percent—black-on-white murder would have exceeded 2,000 killings in 2013, while white-on-black murder would have resulted in only 39 deaths. The table also shows that for all races, most murders were committed by members of the same race. This is because criminal violence usually occurswithin one’s own community. Finally, in the other categories of violent crime—rape, robbery and aggravated assault—blacks consistently committed about 40 percent of the total in2013, 2012, 2011, and 2010.

So the disproportionate arrests, incarcerations and shootings of blacks should come as no surprise. Their 40 percent representation among the prison population fairly reflects the proportion of crimes committed by blacks in the U.S. This is not evidence of institutional racism, but rather a social pathology evident within the black community. They have been committing crimes at the highest rate by far of any racial/ethnic group for decades. 

In recent years, blacks have committed unspeakably heinous acts against whites and other racial/ethnic groups. Probably most notorious was the brutal 2007 murder of a young Tennessee couple, Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian, who were on a date when carjacked by four men and one woman. Newsom was repeatedly raped while Christian was forced to watch. He was then taken out, shot, and lit on fire. They repeatedly raped Christian, then poured bleach down her throat, stuffed her in a plastic bag and threw her in a kitchen trash bin to die.

There was no national news reporting of this double murder, despite its singularly vicious nature. More recently, a 19-year-old Mississippi girl, Jessica Chambers, was burned alive by suspected black perpetrators, who poured lighter fluid down her throat, ignited it and left her to die. No arrests have been made although Chambers supposedly identified her attackers before she died.

Each year in cities across the country, officials brace for widespread violence associated with black events. Author and journalist Colin Flaherty has documented over 500 cases of black-on-white violence in 100 American cities in his 2013 book, White Girl Bleed A Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It.

Flaherty will be publishing a second book, “Don’t Make The Black Kids Angry: How white liberals and black media ignore, deny and encourage racial violence.” A pre-publication copy reviewed by this author adds further evidence to how this problem continues to be systematically suppressed by police, politicians and national news media.

Flaherty has reported extensively on the “knockout game,” where the goal is to knock a person out with a single, surprise blow to the head. Variants include “point ‘em out, knock ‘em out,” “knockout king,” “one hitter quitter,” “happy slapping” and Polar Bear Hunting. The perpetrators in all cases are black.

The knockout game is not a new phenomenon—the first reported case occurred in 1992—but in the past few years it has become much more widespread. At least seven people have been killed and hundreds, if not more, injured. Another new term is “flash mob,” where a group coordinates through social media to meet in large numbers, often to go on looting and vandalism sprees. Again, the perpetrators are almost always black.

Flaherty reports on mass mob violence that has been going on for decades. In 1989, 50,000 blacks descended on Virginia Beach, Virginia on Labor Day weekend to celebrate “Greek Week.” It degenerated into days of widespread violence and looting. Over 100 stores were damaged, 50 people were injured and 650 arrested. The National Guard had to be called in. Similar violence became associated with “Greek Week” for years afterward and has since spread to many other holiday weekends in Virginia Beach.

The Indiana Black Expo attracts 200,000 people annually and has been associated with widespread violence for over 10 years. After years of silence, the Indianapolis Star reported “a sense of dread” as the 2014 Expo date approached. They weren’t disappointed. Among other acts of violence, 10 people were wounded by gunfire in street violence. The 2011 Urban Beach Weekend in Miami Beach was characterized as a “rolling race riot.” Hip Hop performer Luther Campbell, a co-founder of the event, no longer goes, saying it is too dangerous. Many such events have been canceled because the local community demanded it, including Freak Nik in Atlanta, the Greekfest in Philadelphia, Black Family Reunion in Daytona Beach and others.

It doesn’t help when President Obama mocks America by enlisting race-hustler Al Sharpton as an “advisor.” In the Tawana Brawley case, Sharpton falsely accused white police officers of raping a black woman.

Acting on Obama’s orders, Attorney General Eric Holder has made reverse racism official administration policy. For example, in hearings regarding a new “hate crimes” bill in 2009,Holder stressed that “only historically oppressed minorities” would benefit. After dropping the infamous 2008 voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party, Holder made it clear that the Obama administration will not prosecute any voting rights cases against blacks. Former Civil Rights Division lawyer J. Christian Adams adds that Holder treats cases of racial bias against whites with “open contempt.”

Grade school kids, especially in inner city neighborhoods, are subjected to anti-white racist indoctrination. Students from Booker T. Washington Middle School in Baltimore, Maryland recently attended an event titled “Re-Claim, Re-Pair, Re-Form, Re-Produce—REPARATIONS Now!” at the historically black Morgan State University. Louis Farrakhan was the keynote speaker. He called whites “crackers” and told the audience:

As long as they kill us and go to Wendy’s and have a burger and go to sleep, they’ll keep killing us. But when we die and they die, then soon we’re going to sit at a table and talk about it! We’re tired! We want some of this earth or we’ll tear this goddamn country up!

There is even a college curriculum that focuses on “White Privilege,” and annual “White Privilege Conferences” are widely attended by teachers and students alike.

We are seeing the result of this indoctrination by academia and the media. In a Detroit courtroom recently, black thugs Fredrick Young and Felando Hunter were sentenced to life for the 2012 robbery, torture and execution of white teenagers Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla. When given the opportunity to apologize to the victims’ families in court, Young said:

I’d like to say sorry to the families of Aiyanna Jones, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and I want to apologize to them for not being able to get justice for their loved ones who was murdered in cold blood—and in respect for the peaceful protest, I want to say hands up don’t shoot. Black lives matter—that’s it, your honor.

Black author and political commentator Mychal Massie says black lives don’t matter, to blacks. In his video “Just How Much Do Black Lives Matter?” he states:

From 1882 to 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched. But from 1973 until the present time, a period of 42 years, 17.3 million black babies were aborted. Why don’t we hear about that? Did white policemen do that? That 17.3 million is equivalent to 45 percent of the black population today. So do black lives really matter?

Massie has a unique take on U.S. race relations. He objects strenuously to being singled out by race. “Words like ‘black community’ and being called a ‘minority’ are insults to me,” he told AIM in an interview. “I am an American. How can I be a minority if there are 300 million of me? That is segregation speech. It identifies black people as ‘different.’ People don’t think about these things until you mention them.”

Massie called Ferguson “an undeniable exhibition of the depravity of a people.” He makes the point that civilized people do not burn down their own homes and businesses, adding that Michael Brown was a thug terrorizing his neighborhood, who was going to get shot sooner or later by police or another gangster.

Massie was interviewed for this report. Read the full interview, here.

Famed civil rights icon Dr. Alveda King has a slightly different take. She says that Ferguson protesters did have a point, but that violence is never necessary. “To fix these problems,” she says, “we need to work together on conflict resolution, guided by God’s love, not war.”

Daughter of A.C. King and niece of Martin Luther King, Jr, Dr. Alveda King was also interviewed for this report. Read her full interview, here.

Black racism has been encouraged by outside communist agitators, many of them white. Since the turn of the last century, communists have manipulated the civil rights movement, and have been stoking the fires of discontent deliberately. Massie credits lifelong communist and Stalin admirer W.E.B. Du Bois with initiating the international communist movement’s effort to capitalize on black discontent early on. After a visit to the Soviet Union in 1927, Du Bois called it, “the most hopeful vehicle for the world.” Du Bois helped found the NAACP in 1909.

Bayard Rustin, who acknowledged that “blacks were ripe for [manipulation by] Communists,” helped found Martin Luther King, Jr’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s movement was corrupted after he was assassinated. Massie states, “Out of that group came Joseph Lowery and others who mouth complaints designed to stir the caldron of anger, victimology and rabid hatred for anyone who dares attempt to share the message of truth and life.” (Ed. Note: Lowery made news in 2012 when campaigning for Obama by saying “all white people would go to Hell.” He said it was a joke.)

The “White Privilege” concept was created by Noel Ignatiev, a hardcore Communist Party member and former Harvard University professor who founded the journal, Race Traitor.

White guilt has allowed the Left to dramatically expand the welfare state. Trillions of dollars have been spent on welfare. Yet, as Mitt Romney recently noted, under Obama “there are more people in poverty in America than ever before.” Many people are unaware, however, that the modern welfare system was designed by radical leftists to suck minorities intopermanent poverty, providing a reliable voting bloc for Democrats and sowing the seeds of discontent within the black community. It was inspired by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, two die-hard socialists, who advocated packing the welfare rolls in order to bankrupt and crash the system. They wanted it to fail. The Cloward Piven Crisis Strategy was formulated to create an army of militant, angry blacks that would serve as foot soldiers in the coming socialist revolution. Piven described the rationale as recently as 2011:

[B]efore people can mobilize for collective action, they have to develop a proud and angry identity and a set of claims that go with that identity. They have to go from being hurt and ashamed to being angry and indignant… So, a kind of psychological transformation has to take place; the out-of-work have to stop blaming themselves for their hard times and turn their anger on the bosses, the bureaucrats or the politicians who are in fact responsible.

Cloward and Piven sought to rig the welfare system for failure to provoke that anger. Their apprentice was Wade Rathke, the founder of ACORN. ACORN’s proud protégé was Barack Hussein Obama:


The wickedness of liberal politicians still amazes, as they continue their open borders, no-enforcement policies that directly cause the deaths and injury of innocent Americans. Liberals’ morality is a strange concoction in how they believe that the protection of foreign criminals is more virtuous than public safety for the citizens whose taxes fund the system.

A symbol of justice in America is a blindfolded woman holding a scale to indicate that the application of law should not depend on the nationality of the accused person. But liberal ideology decrees that diverse persons are victims and therefore require extra influence to be added to their side.

Illegal alien crime has been in the news recently, particularly because of the shocking Rockville High School rape by a pair of illegal aliens a few days ago and the stubborn resistance of Maryland officials to dismantle their dangerous sanctuary policies.

Interestingly, Univision reported that America’s top liberal, Barack Obama,contributed the kid-alien policy that led to the Rockville rape, and the tougher border enforcement of President Trump would have kept the illegal alien perps out.

Don Rosenberg, the father of an illegal alien crime victim, appeared on Fox News Saturday to discuss the continuing plague of sanctuary policies. More here:


In the past, Mexico had smiled pleasantly as it ripped America off for billions of dollars in remittances, highly expensive US-taxpayer-funded healthcare and other freebies, even while pretending to be a friend and good neighbor.

It’s getting harding for Mexes to maintain appearances when the new sheriff in Washington DC has told them that the US no longer accepts to their duplicity: criminals are being sent home and a sturdy wall will be built to keep invaders out.

Unfriendly Mexico has chosen to fight back. It announced the other day that it would aid its lawbreaking citizens by jamming American courts with illegal immigration cases. The Mexican government has allocated $50 million to help its US-residing illegals fight deportation in court and has instructed its 50 (!) consulates to provide assistance.

Meanwhile, nobody in the media finds it odd that Mexico prefers that its citizens reside outside their own country. Where’s the love, Presidente Peña Nieto?

The Mexican invaders themselves apparently find jail in the US to be preferable to freedom in Mexico, as long as they believe they will prevail eventually:


Marc Faber is a famous investment guru who has made his fortune and reputation by being hard-headed, objective, and cutting the bullshit. Now he is under attack for saying stuff that everybody actually knows to be correct.

In his recent newsletter “Gloom, Boom & Doom Report” Faber pointed out that it was better for the World economy that America had been settled by Europeans rather than Zimbabweans:

“Thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe, which it might look like one day anyway, but at least America enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority.”

Every single article in the mainstream media to report on this, is critical of Faber’s remarks. But, really, is there anyone anywhere who seriously doubts the objective truth of these comments and the fact that Whites settling the US was a massive boon to the global economy, and that things would have been quite different if the “founding fathers” had been Shona and Matabele tribesmen?

So what is all the fuss about?

I guess its a bit like, “Don’t say bad things about the retard kid at the back of the class.”

All the commentary criticising Faber’s remarks are essentially criticisms of his tone, not his facts. There is not a single attempt in all the negative articles reporting on this to say, “Hey, wait a minute, Mr. Faber, look at this fine example of Zimbabwean economic prowess.” That’s because there aren’t any, and any economic activity in those parts is mainly due to Chinese neo-colonial investment, which sort of works on the same principle as the bank seizing your house when you default on the loans.

Instead of actual criticism and refutation of Faber’s comments, all the commentariat can offer is to label them as “racist,” which is simply code these days for, “That’s true, dude, but you really shouldn’t be saying that. Be nice.” As such, all these pious articles that bandy around the R-word are simply implicit confirmations of Faber’s comments.

Are any of those people who are morally signalling on Faber’s comments actually investing in Zimbabwe themselves? That is what is known as a rhetorical question. It needs no answer because we have the answer already. More, here:


If white mobs harassed black people, screamed racist slogans and claimed that even the existence of black people was oppressive, no one would hesitate to describe that ugliness as racism. When #BlackLivesMatter racists do it, it’s excused, defended and even praised as a civil rights movement.

Racism is not civil rights. No group that talks about “white supremacy”, “white privilege” or “white spaces” is a civil rights movement.

It is a racist movement, and anti-civil rights.

Black racism hides behind alleged victimhood. Every act of bigotry, from name-calling to race riots to murder, is justified by the claim that every single white person is part of a conscious or unconscious conspiracy to discriminate against them. This claim, embodied by the racist term “White Privilege”, is classic racism. White people are not responsible for the fact that homicide is the number one cause of death for black males. White people do not sit around conspiring to deny black people jobs. If there is a job problem in the black community in America today it is because of the anti-business policies of a black president and the worst economic recovery on record.

#BlackLivesMatter activists are not victims of racism, they are perpetrators of racism. That is why they reject “All Lives Matter” and insist that only “Black Lives Matter”.  Every victimhood excuse made to defend this racist disdain for other races is a lie. The truth is that to black nationalists, only black lives matter. #BlackLivesMatter means that non-black lives don’t and that is the root of its racist violence.

Americans hesitate to call out this vile bigotry because they carry the stereotype of black people as victims. The left shrieks that black people can’t be racists because racism exists only as an institutional phenomenon and black people are institutionally powerless. Not only is this wrong, it is ridiculous.

The hypocrisy that has become the civil rights movement, the federal government implements institutional racism against white people – a fact that is never mentioned. America does not have a white supremacy problem. It has a black racism and lynch mob mentality problem. 

Conservatives don’t like to talk about black lynch mobs or black race riots. It’s an uncomfortable conversation, but it’s one that we need to have because without it we can’t even begin to deal with the racial problems we face and because the failure to have that conversation creates a vacuum the left fills by playing the race card against everyone in their way.  

The hardest truth that we have to deal with is the fact that much of “black victimhood” is just anti-white bigotry. Race hustlers use an exaggerated sense of racial vulnerability to justify racial aggression. If white people having brunch is a “white space” because white people are not people, but “white supremacy” incarnate, then white people are already dehumanized and can be attacked for almost anything. In our classrooms in our colleges to hate white people – oppressors, genocidal zealots - is a politically correct idea. 

Black cries of racism in the absence of actual white racism – as in Ferguson - says more about black racism than it does about white anything. The underlying problem is not white racism or even black racism, but black racial insecurity.

The left claims that racism is based on power and blacks have no power. Absurd on its face. Blacks have a lot of power beginning with the White House. Blacks control major American cities like Baltimore and systematically ruin them.

The first step to getting out of the corner the nation has painted itself in is to admit that black racism is real. It is not a minor problem. It has become the engine of racial tensions in America. It must cease to be a taboo to speak out and tell that truth:



We must stop great foreign aid giveaway and save our own broken country, says Ian Birrell

Rich people are getting richer while they pontificate about helping the poor.

This is the inevitable consequence of the daftest law passed in recent years: The decision backed by all mainstream parties to lash Britain to a discredited United Nations target.

Politicians thought they looked compassionate posing as saviours of the world, spraying vast sums of taxpayers’ money around the planet. Instead, they just look incompetent, ill-informed and out of touch.

This is borrowed money, driving up our deficit while our vital services struggle.

After more than four decades and $500 billion in international aid, much of Africa remains poor, worse off than it was. The same is true around the world: Aid flows profusely to governments with little or no inclination to control corruption and reduce poverty. Despite tough talk about “good governance,” it is still largely business as usual: predatory governments pretend to be promoting development, and the donors profess to be aiding it. It’s time to end foreign aid as we know it. 

Experts said there is virtually no way to monitor how nonprofits operate, nor for governments or disaster victims to hold them accountable for mismanagement.

“There’s a lot of waste and abuse that’s allowed to go on just because there is no accountability,” said Daniel Borochoff, president of the nonprofit CharityWatch. They exist in “a black hole” of accountability, he said, especially in the realm of international grants.

“It’s a mistake to look at these charities as purveyors of goodness,” he said. “You have to look at them as what they are, which is a business. People have very nice careers and retire with pensions from these groups:


The Black Elite Want Whites to Die: Will Smith Calls for “Cleansing” Trump Supporters Out of America.

Remember a few years ago when Oprah Winfrey let slip her fantasy of old white people dying?

“... they just have to die.”

Sorry old white people who dare remember an America when major U.S. cities like Detroit, Baltimore, Birmingham, Memphis, Atlanta, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Newark, Rochester, Chicago, Indianapolis, Orlando, Montgomery, Selma, Jackson (Mississippi), St. Louis, and Wilmington (Delaware) were safe places that middle-class white people could call ‘home’: Oprah Winfrey says you must die for the glorious new country to be safe from your pointing out the insanity of modernity has a cure.

The cure, of course, is white identity (where America is still white, America is great; where America is not white today, America must be made great again).

Winfrey’s close black best friend forever, Will Smith, has joined in the attacks on white people, noting white people who support Trump self-identify as those who “we get to cleanse... out of our country.”

Will Smith has a lot to be happy about, but is making it clear he’s less than thrilled with comments made by Donald Trump.  

While promoting his latest film, Smith made a stop in Dubai, where he addressed Trump’s stance that Muslim immigrants should be temporarily banned from entering U.S. “As painful as it is to hear Donald Trump talk and as embarrassing as it is as an American to hear him talk, I think it’s good,” said Smith. “We get to know who people are and now we get to cleanse it out of our country.”

Silly white man, you’ve been judged by the color of your skin, which automatically determines the content of your character in the eyes of blacks: More here:




The facts on the matter are staggering, it is well understood that Korean businesses were purposefully targeted, so much so that shop owners hung signs in their doors that read, "this is a black-owned business" to try and stay safe. On the first anniversary of the riot, even TheNew York Times wrote that, "Korean businesses were the primary target of looters and arsonists, suffering more than $350 million in damage, or nearly half the city's total." Continuing, the article states, "Of 2,100 Korean businesses burned or looted last year, fewer than one in four have reopened."

Korean families went so far as to ask relatives back home to send them desperately needed money, "self-defense patrols" were started, firearms as powerful as AK-47s were purchased en masse. One plainspoken man who was interview stated flatly, "I don't know why Koreans are always a special target for African-Americans, but if they are going to attack our community then [sic] we are going to pay them back." Another honest appraisal of the situation came from Carl Rhyu when he was interview by the Times in 1992, saying that, "I think the black people are jealous of the Koreans. They're lazy; we are working hard. They're not making money; we are making money." When polled in the spring of 1993, 40 percent of Koreans in LA said they would like to leave. 

A list of examples citing American Black treatment of Asian immigrants and Asian Americans, both during the '92 riots and otherwise could go on for quite a while. A more famous example would be infamous race hustler Marion Barry's comment, “We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops.”

Hate facts.

A strong bout of Asian-Black tensions rolled through the Bay Area two and a half years after aparticularly vicious series of crimes involving blacks targeting Asians. The matter got so bad that it even managed national headlines. Footage can even be found of Blacks openly admitting to purposefully targeting Asians. Even respected Asian organizations will admit that violence committed by blacks against them is a problem. Black on Asian crime is even bad enough that when Colin Flaherty wrote his book (White Girl Bleed A Lot) on contemporary street violence perpetrated by Blacks on Whites, he even included an often-overlooked chapter concerning Asian victimization. 

What makes this trend more interesting, when keeping the Arctic Alliance in mind, is that Asians rarely fight back – perhaps Derbyshire should rethink his, "Whites are pussies, Asians aren't" stance. Blacks regularly target Hispanics as well, but the inverse is quite true as well. That racial tension trend looks quite different, more like a war. Countless articles can be found on the battles Hispanic and Black gangs have throughout the US and particularly in LA: here is one, here is another, and another, etc. It's a topic for another time. The point is this: Hispanics, Asians and Whites are all regular targets of Black violence. Hispanics, unlike Asians and Whites, respond to this with large-scale violence. Furthermore, as any race realist will tell you, Asians and Whites are considerably less criminal than Hispanics and Blacks

If Blacks mistreat Asians and Whites in similar ways, and neither group is willing to employ equal levels of criminality in turn the way Hispanics do, than the solution must be political. A domestic political Arctic Alliance could very well be the solution, imagine a more or less united White voting block ushering in a government in California with a Giuliani style platform of law and order. No more blaming pilgrims for black violence:


It has always been my firmly and consistently held view that Jewry and China are the two cardinal enemies of the white race at present and for the foreseeable future. While the former remains the crux of almost all the internal problems of the white nations, the latter poses a long-term external threat as well as a challenge to the existence of the white race from a geopolitical, economic, military, and racial perspective in their competition for racial Lebensraum and limited resources.

Both of these groups harbor deep-seated and irreconcilable animosity toward whites, and the two menaces are coordinated and interlocking. It is thus no overstatement to observe that the Western nations face a dire situation of “having a tiger at the front door and a wolf at the back” (as in a Japanese proverb).

In the long run, striving to neutralize China’s menace requires a solution to the Jewish Question as a prerequisite, but in the course of removing this menace we must not forget to address the Chinese question at the same time. Achieving that certainly requires a great deal of wisdom, tenacity, determination, and resourcefulness, and calls for the full mobilization of whites. Knowing that our long-term survival hangs on nothing less than total victory over these two archenemies, we have no choice but to charge forward and fight.

The current domestic situation is characterized by the raging turmoil that has followed in the wake of Charlottesville. Faced with the combined weight and frenzied attacks of the Jewish-controlled Leftist-liberal establishment and its antifa foot soldiers, and amidst the timid, spineless forces in the “camp of the Right” falling over themselves to kowtow to the enemy by disavowing the White Nationalist movement and recriminate each other, it may seem like a luxury we can hardly afford to talk about the Chinese threat. However, it is my strong opinion that even while working hard to stabilize and fortify our united front in this unprecedented crisis, we must also pay due attention to the impending onslaught from China, because our Chinese enemy never rests and will surely capitalize on our current predicament and exploit it. In light of this, I’d like to offer a translation of a long post which was penned by a semi-official Chinese scholar and is currently being circulated on the popular Chinese online social platform, WeChat. It has been read and applauded by tens of thousands of Chinese, both the elite and commoners alike, and as such casts some light on China’s overarching imperialist ambitions and the utter ruthlessness of its long-term strategic planning:

Can Trump supporters LEGALLY SHOOT ATTACKERS? Learn more here:


Despite what you read in the news, there is no better time in the history of America to buy and carry a firearm.

While anti-gun legislation continues to make news, many states — and even public schools — are passing laws to ensure their residents’ and students’ Second Amendment rights are protected.

That said, once you make the decision to carry a concealed weapon, you should make sure that how you choose to conceal your weapon is both safe and comfortable for you: