Articles ##Genocide - TEAR DOWN GLOBALISM

LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AND UN

I am recommending a class action lawsuit against all levels of government who neglect, dishonor, disrespect and violate the rights of there own citizens while helping unwanted and unneeded immigrants or non-compatible refugees going back many years! Legal Actions against UN treachery that undermines the sovereignty of countries must take place! Our goodwill has been completely corrupted!

http://galacticfriends.com/immigration-watch-canada/

THE HIDDEN AGENDA BEHIND IMMIGRATION

The advocates of mass immigration will say things like “all countries have immigration” or “immigration doesn’t just happen in White, Western countries – it’s a global phenomena”. Such statements are highly deceptive, and yet the vast majority of people simply accept them.

Most people have heard of ‘guest-worker immigration’. This is the immigration system which operates in non-White countries from Africa and Asia to the Middle East.

One of the key features of guest-worker immigration is that immigrants are treated as temporary, economic residents. That is, they are granted permission to stay (i.e. temporary residence) and permission to work for a limited period (e.g. for 10 years on a limited-time visa), after which they are expected to leave.

A second, crucially important, feature of guest-worker immigration is that the total immigrant population always remains the same size, the total immigrant population remains fixed (once the required number of immigrants has been reached.)

The overall immigrant population will always remain the same size whether the immigration process continues for 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years. Furthermore, even if the immigrant population has a large number of births, their children will be returned home with their parents. Guest-worker immigration provides advantages of immigration without greatly affecting the demographic balance of the country deploying it.

Overall, guest-worker immigration is flexible. It makes immigration easy to plan and control. It is easy to increase or decrease the total number of immigrants as the country’s economy fluctuates. And, if desired, the total number of immigrants can be returned to zero – since immigrants neither become citizens nor permanent residents.

Guest-worker immigration treats immigrants as temporary, economic guest-workers right from the start. And, unsurprisingly, it is the most common immigration system in the world. It is the immigration of choice throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East – yet it isn’t deployed in even a single White, Western country.

Overall, citizenship immigration can be characterized by: • Endless inward immigration

• No expatriation process for immigrants – only illegal immigrants may be expatriated

• An ever-growing immigrant population

Unlike guest-worker immigration, citizenship immigration always leads to an ever-growing immigrant population because there is no expatriation process to keep the overall immigrant population in balance, almost all immigrants quickly gain the right to permanent residence or citizenship, any children born to them will automatically acquire permanent residence and/or citizenship too.

The total immigrant population will never stop growing because, few, if any, will leave. Most will become permanent residents or citizens, and those who acquire citizenship (including any children they may have) will no longer even be considered immigrants.

One system keeps the immigrant population static and unchanged, whilst the other system leads to rapid growth. Citizenship immigration leads to a rapidly growing immigrant population.

Overall, citizenship immigration creates conditions where the native population will become outnumbered by the immigrant population (i.e become a racial minority). Citizenship immigration has a social engineering component which is absent altogether under guest-worker immigration. In economic terms, guest-worker immigration is a far more flexible and efficient than citizenship immigration. Under guest-worker immigration, non-working immigrants can be expatriated, older workers are continuously replaced by younger workers, and the immigrant population itself is static – yet it can be intentionally increased or reduced as economically necessary.

Under citizenship immigration, because existing immigrants rarely leave, once the total immigrant population is large enough, it will continue to expand – even if further immigration is stopped altogether!

Citizenship immigrants are necessarily (as citizens) granted access to welfare, social security, pensions, medical and healthcare support, housing benefits and other costly public services. These are clearly additional social costs and overheads which reduce – not increase – the economic benefits available under guest-worker immigration. Indeed, under guest-worker immigration, these social costs and overheads are the privilege of citizens alone – and immigrants are rarely granted citizenship.

Guest-worker immigration leads to an immigrant population which is fixed in size. This makes it easy to plan for. Because the immigrant population is fixed in size, the additional budgeting is relatives small and easy to plan. Under citizenship immigration, on the other hand – where the vast majority of immigrants will acquire permanent citizenship – the costs will grow rapidly. Overall, there is a vast difference between planning for a fixed, static immigrant population and funding an ever-growing immigrant population.

Under citizenship immigration, non-working immigrants cannot easily be returned home – even if would be economically expedient to do so. Their legally protected ‘right’ to permanent residence and citizenship (in all and only White countries) mean that the immigrant population cannot be reduced without resorting to drastic measures, such as withdrawing permanent residence status or cancelling citizenship – measures which were economically unnecessary in the first place.

Overall, then, there are no economic advantages to offering immigrants citizenship and permanent residence – there are only additional costs and social burdens.

Under guest-worker immigration, the purpose of immigrants is to empower the economy. But under citizenship immigration, the primary function of economics is to endorse, justify, and (if necessary) suffer substantial economic losses for large-scale immigration and demographic engineering. We can gain an important insight into what has motivated citizenship immigration (rather than guest-worker immigration) by simply looking at which countries have implemented it. When we do, we find that all and only White, Western countries have implemented citizenship immigration. Why would any country choose an inflexible, economically inferior system of immigration which clearly and demonstrably changes the demographic make-up of the country – especially when a far superior alternative is widely available?

Choosing citizenship immigration over guest-worker immigration makes absolutely no sense – unless radically changing the demographic make-up of your country is the desired result. We are constantly told that immigration is an “economic necessity” – and yet it’s more expensive, more inflexible and it’s vastly more demographical harmful. White countries alone operate a completely different immigration system to non-White countries. The economic arguments are lies.

These days, demographic decline is a common justification for endless immigration into the West. It would not, therefore, be very surprising if pro-immigration advocates were to argue that the West needs citizenship immigration to prevent the demographic decline of their native White population. On the surface, this appears plausible, yet the ‘demographic decline’ argument has a serious credibility problem.

If citizenship immigration is the tool of choice to combat ‘demographic decline’, then why don’t rich, non-White countries like Israel and Qatar force their people to adopt it?

Qatar, for example, is a country with only 278,000 citizens, yet it has an immigrant population of over 2 million! Yet because Qatar operates a system of guest-worker immigration, the ethnic Qatari population is protected from race-replacement, despite being outnumbered 8 to 1 by immigrants! Qataris are a small statistical minority (compared to the immigrant population) yet their immigrants are temporary guests, not citizens. Qataris will neither become an ethnic minority in Qatar, nor lose their culture or sovereignty. So why should we?

The final nail in the coffin for the ‘demographic decline’ argument, however, is the openly hostile attitude of Western leaders to measures which might boost White birth rates and halt that decline.

When Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, won his country’s election in April 2014, he called for the total cessation of immigration into his country coupled with policies designed to boost native Hungarian birth-rates. The outrage which ensued was as caustic as it was immediate. The EU Minister for Foreign Affairs, Vidar Helgesen (Norway), called for the EU to immediately impose economic sanctions on Hungary.

Thus, in White, Western countries it is the worldview of Mr Helgesen – not Mr Orban – which prevails amongst our leadership. And far from supporting measures which might halt ‘demographic decline’ (in all and only White countries), Western leaders utterly condemn such measures and seek to demonize, ostracize and alienate anyone brave enough to even suggest them.

Indeed, French ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy went even further; stating, on several occasions, that EU countries have a ‘moral obligation’ to engage in race-mixing – and not just accept (citizenship) immigration.

In reality, there are two different systems of immigration, and they have very different outcomes. The ugly truth is that all White, Western countries have been forced to accept one system of immigration whilst all non-White, non-Western countries are free to choose another. So, not only is the idea that there is one, universal system of immigration false, but the outcomes of those systems could not be more divergent and extreme. We have been silenced by wolves justifying biased, one-sided policies as ‘fairness’. Yet there is nothing fair about the outcome they have in mind. Read more here: http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=32331

WHITE “PRIVILEGE"

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.

Prof. Roth points out, however, that both assimilationists and multiculturalists make false assumptions about human nature. Assimilationists believe all races are capable of taking on the behavior patterns necessary to maintain Western civilization; multiculturalists believe radically different groups can live together harmoniously. Both positions fly in the face of overwhelming scientific and historical evidence. The false terms framing public debate therefore require the suppression of information, and the academy, the legal profession, and philanthropic foundations are among the most energetic censors.

Mainstream science has now, for the most part, accepted the evidence that genes influence individual behavior, but it continues to resist genetic explanations for group differences. Terrible pressure is brought to bear on scientists who explore group differences. Prof. Roth recounts the travails of Chris Brand, Bruce Lahn, and James Watson, all of whom have been silenced for discussing race and IQ.

American universities that receive government funding (that is to say, virtually all of them) have “Institutional Review Boards” that approve or block research involving human subjects. Prof. Roth points out that most faculty members who serve on these boards are openly hostile to research that might reveal racial differences, often on the grounds that the results might get into the “wrong” hands.

Hate speech laws restrict public debate. Canadian journalist Mark Steyn notes that if an American writer approaches a publisher with a book criticizing immigration, he will be reminded that it may be illegal to sell it in Canada, and there goes 10 percent of the North American market. French and German translation rights cannot be sold because the book may run afoul of European xenophobia legislation, and a British edition may be impossible because libel laws are so lax that anyone mentioned unfavorably may be able to shut down sales. The result is that such a book may never reach the public, because it may no longer make economic sense to publish it.

Prof. Roth explains that before the Second World War, almost all European immigration took place between the nations of Europe, but since 1945, outsiders have also been coming to Europe. There were two main reasons for this: an acute shortage of manual labor (especially in Germany), and a backflow of subjects from former European colonies.

Germany brought in large numbers of Gastarbeiter or “guest workers” to help rebuild the country in the 1950s. Most came from Southern Europe, and either returned home or integrated, but a large contingent from Turkey neither left nor integrated. In the 1970s, just as the German economy slumped and the demand for labor was drying up, Turkish workers began bringing their families and creating closed communities.

There are now over three million Muslims in Germany, mostly Turks. A government survey in 2004 found that they are becoming more, not less alienated from German society. Mosque attendance is rising, and about 40 percent consider “the use of physical violence as a reaction to the threat presented to Islam by the West as legitimate.” Nearly two-thirds of those aged 14 to 18 report having few or no German friends.

Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Portugal have all accepted many immigrants from their former colonies. The nucleus of France’s large immigrant population was a contingent of 350,000 Algerians who had helped maintain French rule in Algeria. In 1962, after the Algerian war for independence, they sought refuge in France. Many more followed who were in no danger but wanted to live in the West. Within 20 years, there were 800,000 Algerians in France. They are now the core of France’s Muslim population, which is estimated to be 5.7 percent of the country.

Britain, too, has been filling up with non-whites from former colonies, and has admitted a great many refugees. London has become notorious as a place of exile for fanatical clerics that have been kicked out of relatively moderate Islamic countries, such as Egypt and Syria. In 2006, the British Home Office had a backlog of 450,000 asylum cases. All could claim welfare benefits while their cases were pending.

A 2006 report on Islam in Britain found that 84 percent of Muslims acknowledge being treated fairly by British society. This did not prevent 37 percent of younger Muslims from advocating the adoption ofsharia law, nor 36 percent from favoring the death penalty for Muslims who convert to another religion.

Muslims commit a disproportionate amount of crime all over Europe. In British jails they are overrepresented by a factor of 3.67; in France by four to five, and in Germany by six to seven. Rape is a Muslim specialty: in Denmark, where they constitute only 4 percent of the population, Muslims commit more than half the rapes, and almost always rape non-Muslim women.

Europe’s rulers are determined to defend immigration at any cost to their citizens, and have shown themselves capable of breathtaking dishonesty. In 2004, British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared immigration “economically vital” due to “serious worker shortages” — at a time when 72 percent of Muslims in Britain were unemployed, with many on the dole.

European Union bureaucrats are even more mesmerized by immigration than national politicians. Under the recent draft constitution, which French and Dutch voters had the good sense to reject in 2005, immigration policy would have been made in Brussels, and Europeans would have lost all local control over who lives in their countries. Plenty of EU officials view the rejection of this constitution as a temporary setback.

Immigrants to the American Colonies and the early United States made an expensive and dangerous voyage of four to eight weeks to a land that was largely wilderness. Those who completed the journey were bold, enterprising people, quite unlike the average Mexican who walks across a land border into a modern welfare state.

Until 1880, American immigrants came mainly from Northwest Europe. Between 1880 and the early 1920s, a larger share came from Southern and Eastern Europe, particularly Italians, Poles and Jews. In 1924, immigration quotas were passed to ensure that the United States maintained a white majority. Although there were no restrictions on immigration from the Western Hemisphere, few Latin Americans arrived.

By the 1960s, the country’s elites viewed immigration restriction as, in Prof. Roth’s words, “morally compromised” and “inconsistent with American ideals.” The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had banned racial discrimination in employment and public accommodation. It seemed only consistent to let in foreigners without regard to race as well. When the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed the very next year, Pres. Lyndon Johnson piously declared that it repaired a

deep and painful flaw in the fabric of American justice. It corrects a cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American Nation ... The [former] system violated the basic principle of American democracy — the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores.

By this standard, 58 percent of Americans were cruel and un-American in 1965, for that is how many declared themselves “strongly opposed to easing of immigration law.” Sen. Byrd of West Virginia pointed out that “every other country that is attractive to immigrants practices selectivity (in favor of their founding nationalities) without apology,” and expressed wonderment at America’s “guilt complex.”

The 1965 Act abolished national preferences favoring Europe and set a total limit of 290,000 admissions per year, but also admitted immigrants’ extended families outside the quota. One analyst pointed out that it was possible under the act for a single immigrant to bring in 18 relatives in 10 years.

During the 1950s, 2.5 million immigrants had come to America, with 55 percent from Europe and Canada. In the 1970s, 4.3 million came, and the European-Canadian share dropped to below 25 percent. By 1977, former INS commissioner Leonard Chapman concluded that “we have become the haven for the unemployed of the world. I think it is going to be catastrophic.”

The 1965 Act was surprisingly stingy toward refugees, allotting them a low preference and a maximum 6 percent of admissions, but this has hardly limited the actual flow. By means of a constitutionally dubious “parole power,” presidents have granted entry to 750,000 Cubans and 900,000 Southeast Asians, among others. Once here, refugees have their status “regularized;” in other words, the law is changed so they can stay.

In 1986, amnesty was granted to 3.1 million illegal aliens who had arrived in the country before 1982. By this time, 600,000 people were coming legally every year, so in 1990 Congress formally raised the quota to 700,000. The adjustment of law to reality — rather than the reverse — has become a regular feature of immigration legislation.

The flow continued to increase, reaching one million annually in the 1990s, thanks to the many family reunification arrivals not counted toward the quota. Just 16 percent of the total was now coming from Europe or Canada, and this did not include the estimated 500,000 to 800,000 illegal immigrants who came every year.

Until 1986 it was actually legal to hire illegal aliens. Even now, the law is worded so that an employer need only check to see that an immigrant’s documentation “reasonably appears on its face to be genuine.” In fact, if you ask an Hispanic employee too many questions about his papers, he can sue for discrimination. The 1986 law thus created a thriving market in forged documents. By failing to pass a law requiring employers to use the new, electronic “E-verify” system, Congress has made clear it has no intention of stopping the hiring of illegal aliens.

Perhaps nothing better illustrates the corruption of the immigration system than the history of the H-1B visa program. This was instituted in 1990 to let in 65,000 skilled workers who would fill jobs for which there were not enough American applicants. Eight years later, during the dot-com boom, the computer industry claimed it needed more engineers. Congress raised the limit to 115,000 but promised to cut it back to 65,000 by 2002. Two years later, in 2004, the ceiling officially returned to 65,000, but with so many exemptions that by the following year 266,000 workers got H-1B visas.

The real scandal is that the worker shortage used to justify this program never existed. Prof. Norman Matloff of the University of California at Davis proved with data from numerous studies that even at the height of the dot-com boom there were many qualified Americans who could not get work. “It was clear,” he concluded, “that what the industry wanted was cheap labor.” Prof. Roth quotes several other authorities to confirm this point: https://www.amren.com/archives/back-issues/january-2011/

BLACK CRIMINALS WHITE VICTIMS AND WHITE GUILT

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.

Fanning the Flames

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.

The Communist Roots of Black Racism

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.

http://www.aim.org/special-report/black-criminals-white-victims-and-white-guilt/