The blacks were enslaved by their black neighbors and sold first to other blacks, then also to Arabs and then to Europeans, because they paid more.
Slavery was eliminated by the whites, not by the blacks.
The strongest opponents of slaves liberation were the black capturers and slave merchants who lived in West Africa.

In America, over 350,000 white soldiers died in the Civil War that liberated about 2 million black slaves. More were permanently injured. Didn't the whites pay more than enough then?

How many African or other blacks voluntarily gave their lives to save what slaves when and where?
 

What about revealing that the hatred of the American blacks against the whites is artificially injected into them by both the black and white politicians who thrive on that hatred and on black poverty?

As shocking as it may sound to the followers of "politically correct" propaganda, the blacks owe a debit of gratitude to the whites (that is only a conceptual statement, because no black owes me or any present white person , personally, anything), who never enslaved them, but first bought them when they were already slaves of other blacks, then liberated them and offered them advantages, education, cultural and economical opportunities, as well as freedom and rights no other blacks in the world enjoy in real life.

THE "4-LETTER WORD"

Both "racism" and "racial equality" are often used to distort reality.

Racial differences can be invoked for racism, "superiority", "inferiority" and "equality", as they are commonly interpreted.

Any group of people is "different", at least by definition, or it can be considered "superior" to another in something.

That alone belies the pious pretenses that races are "equal".

The obvious truth that races are unequal repels those that see inequality only in terms of mental superiority and inferiority, which is not easy to measure. But even if we could ascertain that the intelligence of one race is, say, 10% higher than another's, another fact is certain: we use only a small part of our mental potential, something like 10%.
That means that the 10% "inferior" race must use 11% of its brain to perform as well as the 10% "superior" race... Which is what all ambitious "inferior" people have been doing for thousands of years to survive and compete, until they evolved to the same level as, or higher than, the "superior" race's.

Today's "racism" idea is of very recent coinage, probably less than 100 years old.

When races were more typically in their original habitats, each race accepted itself as a matter of existence, and considered other races "different", in some cases "inferior" or "superior" in the sense of being less or more apt in some aspects. The posture was similar to the way we differentiate between races of other species: we may be Dobermans, retrievers, bulldogs, dachshunds etc. Equality or superiority/inferiority evaluation of those races are meaningless, although we could say that the Doberman is superior to the dachshund in speed, but inferior to the bulldog in bite power, or inferior to the retriever in some kind of hunting...

Differences among humans are mostly less than within many other species. But it is typically human to exaggerate them by parameters such as culture, history, evolutionary stage, language, customs, politics... The distinctions become more discernible when skin color and facial features are different.

As long as the various races live in different places, or in different ways, any hint of racism is seen as a patriotic or chauvinistic posture, similar to the rooting for one own football team, hardly more harmful than a chamber-of-commerce displayed pride for one's own town, no matter how insignificant the town is.

Chauvinism apart, there was a general consensus that the African blacks lived in more primitive conditions than the whites, but were superior in handling wilderness and wild animals, in primordial conditions, as far as we knew. Their developed skills were judged useless in the European environment, and therefore "inferior" in a European society, but not in the absolute sense.

When I moved to the USA in 1955, I knew that the Anglo-Saxon world was in a temporarily higher stage of industrial evolution than the world of my origin, when judged from the fashionable perspective of our age, in the chemical fields that interested me. On the other hand, I was convinced and proud of the "superiority" of the Italian culture (which, rather than the race, is the really significant factor) no matter what the Americans thought of my "race".

As I wanted to live in the same Anglo-Saxon ambient and enjoy the same advantages, I accepted to enter that environment as a presumed "inferior", where they were presumably more specialized, because I had to go through a period of self-imposed integration, like any newcomer before being accepted in the new team, group or society. That meant that I was willing to risk remaining "inferior" if I could not integrate myself to a degree meeting local criteria (not mine, logically).

If my "integration" had been imposed from above, I would have left the country. My status and success was to be initiated BY ME, NOT IMPOSED TO ME AND TO OTHERS in my behalf, by the government. I was not going to relinquish my self-control, that is my true freedom, to any government or bureaucrats. I had learned at my own cost what that meant by living in a dictatorship.
 

The trouble began when the African blacks started to sell their own victims and slaves to the Arabs and other Africans first, to the Europeans later, and now (2001) still to the Arabs and to other Africans.

The claim that skin-color differences can or must be ignored is plainly futile.

USA is the most powerful nation the world has ever seen; it has used and is using the most powerful financial means, legislation, propaganda and mind manipulation media ever devised any time in history and anywhere in the world, to achieve and impose racial equality, justice, equal opportunities, wealth redistribution in favor of the black Americans.

It is zealously using all verbal, psychological, political, economical, educational, press and media means to promote and enforce all kinds of rights, financial and other opportunities, in favor of the blacks.

It is forbidding any discrimination against blacks. It is even forbidding any direct or indirect talk or writing or behavior that blacks may dislike for any reason...

It is forbidden to say or imply that the blacks may look less attractive than the whites. Yet, the blacks keep buying huge quantities of skin and hair treating chemicals, hair straightening lotions, marrying whites to "upgrade" themselves, copying whatever is typically white.... Well: that is today's fashion, for whites and for blacks.

Their refusal to return to Africa is in strange contrast with the passionate tendency of millions of Jews to "return" to an Israel which cannot even offer an infinitesimal part of the riches, territorial advantages and ­other promises they could realize in almost any area south or north of the Sahara Desert, or East or West Africa.

The paradox is even greater considering that the blacks were brought to America against their will, whereas the Jews came of their own choice...

Why do the American blacks prefer the degrading urban black slums (euphemistically called "inner cities") of their own making?
 

The America blacks are victims of the bizarre delusion that they are "African-Americans".
They are North American-Anglo-European blacks, members of a Western-European culture, speaking English, living in an Anglo-Saxon style, using the Roman alphabet, eating European-American food, wearing North American clothing, using American-European science, technology, professions and occupations. They don't even use or know any African language, custom, tradition, clothing, or any other characteristics which are now their own, as it happened to all other immigrants anywhere.

They have nothing tying them to any African nation or culture, comparable to what could tie -and mostly doesn't- other Americans to England, Spain, Israel, Poland, France, Ireland, China or any other culture.

They do not celebrate any Nilotic, Mittu, Madi, Shilluk, Anuak, Dinka, Nuer, Masai, Turkana, Didinga, Bongo, Abissinian, Somali, Akikuyu, Swahili, Watusi, Bantu, Zulu, Thonga, Berber, Senegalese, Nigerian, Hausa ceremony, tradition, cultural manifestation of any kind, not only because they don't know them, but mainly because they are not even interested.

In fairness to the "African Americans", we must admit that many American Poles, Italians, French or Germans who have been in USA as many generations as the blacks, know by themselves little more about Polish, Italian, French   or Germany culture than the blacks about Nilotic, Mittu, Bantu or Zanzibar culture.

THE SUPERIORITY/EQUALITY SYNDROME

A not-too-subtle clue to our primitivism is our conception of "superiority", "inferiority" and "equality", as applied to races.

First, the militants for "superiority" and those for enforced "equality" are the least educated, the politicians, the "deconstructionists", "Marxists", the feminazis and similar sophisticated primitives, even when they claim the opposite.

Second, the attributes of "superiority" and "inferiority" are one-dimensional definitions that cannot be attributed to multi-dimensional concepts of race, nation or human being.

They can be used only in a manner comparable to a two-dimensional black-and-white soundless-odorless picture of a multi-dimensional colored object full of properties, capabilities and other attributes lacking in the picture.

Within these qualifications, we can certainly define a race, nation or person "superior" or "inferior", without any offensive consequences to anyone involved.

The trouble is that we are unable to separate the originally harmless concepts of superiority/inferiority from the winning/losing association imposed by victorious conquerors.

The less civilized invaders who often conquered culturally superior peoples first recognized the reality, then imposed their distorted interpretation of "superiority" as winners.

Mostly, they ended up being gladly absorbed culturally and made their own what "absorbed" them.       

The original Christians first recognized their "inferiority" with humility and submission. Then, they found comfort in winning at the end, with the assertion that the last were destined to be the first in the eyes of God. So, they were the better ones before and after all...

The "superior race" is a Judeo-Christian concept, but also common to many other cultures. Even our contention of "equality" is a hidden form of "superiority" of the "equals" over the Heathens.

At any rate, one begins to conquer "equality" only against the "superior".

That allowed the Christian faith to attract the great masses of the slaves, poor and oppressed.

The Jewish racial elitism could not compete with that, for they believe in their own "chosen people" superiority, and claim "equality" only where they are oppressed by a stronger nation or race.

Since the "equality" achieved in the fight for equality is based on a winner/loser contest, it is unavoidable that this competitive posturing equates superiority and inferiority with winning/losing, or rewarding/penalizing.

That is, the ones who have conquered "equality" are irresistibly drawn into a "superiority" (whether real or presumed) posture, no matter how they disguise it.

Our society's struggle for "equality" is already showing the implicit "superiority" posture of the "equality" fighters against anyone they can browbeat.

The enforcers of "equality" are not less bigoted than the racists.

If we allow and truly analyze "superiority/inferiority" in the total context of reality, we start a process which eliminates bigotry and its consequences.

We could follow, in racial attitude, a path similar to the one in religious evolution: we are allowed to believe that our church, mosque, synagogue, sect, or even atheism is "superior" to any other position, but we don't consciously allow it to hinder or damage people who have other beliefs.

Finally, even if we accepted the bigot interpretations of superiority, inferiority and equality, a close analysis of their consequences would make them repellent even for a supremacist: locking people in any of them stops evolution, progress, incentive and any kind of improvement for everybody, including the "superior race", which would become "inferior", like all who don't need to improve.

Unchallenged "superior" people on top have only downhill to go.

We need education, rather than political action, but politicians don't like it, because they are so busy teaching and legislating opinions, that they have lost the ability to learn. 

 TO TURK OR NOT TO ISLAM

 Factors that we distinguish as "racial", "ethnic", "cultural" and "religious" are different perspectives of a phenomenon that unifies some groups of people.

A most remarkable cultural or ethnic group, for its size (over 50 million people) and for being ignored by the rest of the world, is the Central Asiatic cluster of ex-Soviet Turks.

They include over 6 million Azerbaijanis, 17 million Uzbeks, 7 million Kazakhs, and many less known groups.

They used to roam through the immense regions of Central Asia, roughly from Northern China to the Mediterranean, where they conquered Asia Minor (today's Turkey) from the East Roman Empire, in the 15th century.

They stormed freely within the territories of today's Russia and Siberia, until the Tsar Ivan the Terrible conquered the Khanate of Kazan, in 1552. Ivan considered the Turkish tribes more as a race than as a Moslem culture.

Later, Tsar Nicholas I lost thousands of Russians in a 25-year war (1834-1859) to subjugate the Caucasian tribes led by Shamyl. This episode was viewed as a Muslim revolt by the Orthodox Christians, but it was more ethnic and racial.

Soviet schools and history books suppressed Turkish and Moslem mentions in the text books. This seriously weakened the Moslem tradition among the Turkish groups, but not their ethnic or racial awareness.

If there was any question whether the uniting factor for the Turks was political, racial/ethnic or religious, the answer was generated by the disintegration of the Soviet block.

While the Turks are searching for an identity and form of self government, two major influences are competing: one is supported by Iran, in favor of a theocratic Islamic state; the other is sponsored by Turkey, which favors the establishment of a secular state.

Since Iran and Turkey are addressing the ex-Soviet Turks as an ethnic group, not as a religious or political entity, it is not difficult to accept the conclusion that, at least for the ex-Soviet Turks, the ethnic/­racial factor is more powerful than either politics or religion.

As far as racial, ethnic and cultural characteristics cannot be clearly disassociated, we can assume that they cannot be obliterated by political and religious ideologies.

Probably, cultural developments can influence each other, but not significantly when they try to coexist with ethnic and racial roots.

As racial and ethnic traditions tend to be unchangeable, they cannot accept much cultural change without metamorphosis.

As long as we try to protect any racial and ethnic group in our midst from metamorphosis, we can only worsen their situation and ours.

Racial and cultural metamorphosis are the normal natural evolution we have all undergone, white or black, yellow or brown. Protecting any group against this metamorphosis is a disguised genocide.

YOU DON'T SAY

Abraham Lincoln (from the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 1858):

 "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid living together upon the foot of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

 "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes ,- nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people."

 In today's context, the above statements would discredit Lincoln, only because we are prejudiced against anything that is not "politically correct".
But it was politically correct then. Beside, there was hardly any evidence to contradict Lincoln's view.
And, considering the ubiquitous coexistence of opposites, it was Lincoln who liberated the blacks, not his opponents.

I was shocked when I heard Nixon's and Kennedy's anti-Italian remarks, but I learned to admire Nixon in his overall historical performance.

If Kennedy had expressed the highest opinion of the Italians, that would not have improved my opinion of his hollow glibness.

In the 16th century, St. Francis Xavier assured hapless Japanese converts (or Christian prospects) that their dead ancestors were in hell because they had not been baptized Christian, in spite of the fact that it was not their fault that they had never heard of Christianity.

The Catholic church has him listed as a saint nevertheless.

When I was a liberal, I wrote an article stating that we whites had no right to a good and decent neighborhood as long as blacks could not be admitted into it.

This statement was as obvious to me as to St. Francis the heaven/hell necessity of being baptized. If one thinks in today's "politically correct" terms, my statement was certainly much more obvious, realistic, just, civilized...

But take a man, with wife and children, with neighbors like him and his family, who have toiled for years and years to build a house and neighborhood where they can enjoy a well deserved peace, their own style of life, decency, security we all strive for... Tell him that he has the right to prevent misbehaving, defiant, dangerous people from becoming their neighbors, but only if they are not black.
Where is freedom, law and justice? Why can they object to "white trash" and not to "black trash" ?.

The do-gooders explain: "They are so because the white society victimized them into their present predicament... We are responsible and must bear the burden...".

Then, we realize that the same could be said to rich and successful people about the "white trash", the poor in general, about the people who lost in wars, competition, about the overwhelming majority of immigrants into the USA...

Now, in light of the guilt we are supposed to feel about minorities we have never wronged personally, those minorities are being poisoned with righteous resentment against us.
That can only worsen the situation of the minorities themselves.

It is true that we have no right to penalize unfortunate people, but it is just as true that we have no right to deprive people of the rewards accumulated with years of sacrifices, on account of evils they never committed.

Any white, black, yellow or green people who succeed to place themselves and their families in an environment free of danger, corruption, crime, gang wars and dope addiction do a meritorious service to themselves and society as well.

They create and establish a better neighborhood, a better way of life to be further spread, copied, promoted, advocated, established and protected, until something still better comes along. Not vice versa.

Forcing them to accept people who (in their present situation only) bring decay and evils is not less than brainless self-destruction.
It is like punishing improvement and rewarding decay.

If we have the right to choose between decent whites and "white trash", we should have the right to do the same with decent blacks and "black trash".

The mere fact that we have to write about it is incredible.

 
THOSE EVIL WHITES

Our wishful brand of "love" and "equality" wants to distort history.

The first contacts the white man had with African blacks showed their savagery and primitivism. Then, the whites started settlements, colonies, trading posts, and missions the blacks learned to appreciate and benefit from.

Slavery, cannibalism, torture, barbarism were endemic. The whites fought and corrected them (although they had been in the same situation in past generations).

 Blaming the European/American whites for slavery is one of the crudest frauds in history.

African slavery was started in black Africa by black Africans who captured members of raided tribes to capture or use or sell them as slaves or food.

In many cases, young men killed or captured members of neighboring tribes as an accepted tribal custom to prove their manhood.

Then, before the Europeans, came the Arabs and engaged in a slave trade that is reported to be still active today.
In the 1950s, Djibouti was still a major supply center of slaves for the Arab emirates.

Slavery is still active in Mauritania, Sudan, northern Nigeria, Niger and Rwanda, still after the official abolition, in 1980, in Mauritania, and in 1987 in Sudan.
 

Arab militias by the Islamic government of Omar Bashir were buying and selling slaves from the southern Dinka tribe ("The Economist", 6 Jan. 1990, p. 42). It is still going on.

American black leaders carefully ignore the present African black, Arab and Islamic slavery, in order to blame the whites and the Western world, who were the first to eliminate slavery and give freedom and equality to the blacks.
 

A dishonestly ignored fact about slavery is that the blacks who enjoy the highest standards of life, culture, health and wealth in the world are the descendants of those who were brought as slaves into USA, including their forefathers. Those who were brought here fared much better than those who remained in Africa to be eaten, killed, or sold as meat to other blacks by their black captors.

Another dishonestly ignored fact is that the strongest opposition to the elimination of slave trade came from the black African chiefs. Since they had their most lucrative source of income in slavery, they were facing the alternative of feeding or killing all the captives they could not sell anymore. Their reluctance to kill them was not humanitarian, but the dismay to throw away lucrative merchandise.
 

Thus, lest we forget: it was the whites who promoted and carried out  elimination of slavery, against the vehement opposition of the black African slave traders.

Moreover, the black slaves in 18th and 19th-century America were treated better by their white owners than many 20th-century "free" blacks in Africa by their own leaders.

Still today, ghoulish stories of horrible tortures and massacres keep trickling from black Africa continuously, in spite of the desperate efforts to keep them hidden. Sure, the white slave-owners were motivated by self-interest, but the effect on the slaves was a godsend, compared with what they left in Africa for their peers and their descendants.

In 1822, freed repatriated black slaves from America founded Liberia in Africa. They adopted an American-like constitution, and American-like flag. As they were already detribalized and Americanized, the repatriated blacks had a recognized leadership advantage over the local society. Slavery or not, it was evident that they had developed in America the skills to survive, improve, create and run a new country...

In 1989, Liberia was again afflicted by relapses from the "Western" style. The president, Samuel Doe, ran the country as a murderous dictator who killed dissidents by the thousands. His Executive Mansion Guard commander, Charles Joulue, is reputed to "personally cutting up his prisoners to slowly execute them".

This is not intended to insult the blacks, but to point out a great merit of the whites and American blacks (who -both- also had to overcome their past horrors). Yet, today's black demagogues feel offended if we question their reasons to denigrate the whites.

The white man is the one who saved the slaves from their captors into a much higher life condition. It was -and is- the white "enslavers", not the blacks from Africa, who liberated the "Negroes" from slavery.

 Slavery still exists today in black Africa; not in USA.

It was and is again the white man who made laws for equal rights, even pro-black racism in the "affirmative action".

Yet, the blacks rise all over to accuse and fight the whites.

Only in America, still in the 1990s, a black Moslem leader like Khalid Muhammad, aid to the world famous Louis Farrakhan, can proclaim in a public black rally: "We kill everything white... We kill the women, we kill the children, we kill the babies... we kill the faggot, we kill the lesbian, we kill them all.."

He is not arrested, condemned or in any way seriously reprimanded by white or black politicians. Yet, watch the hell unleashed against any white man who inadvertently says anything less than complimentary about the blacks...

 - The furor artificially contrived against South Africa in the 1980s and '90s was not less than fraudulent, especially in consideration that nowhere in Africa were the blacks as well off as in South Africa. One of the most eloquent proofs is the enormous number of blacks who have kept coming illegally for generations into South Africa from all the surrounding black countries.

The anti-South Africa agitators also conveniently ignored the genocides, murders, deliberate starvation and torture of millions of blacks in black African countries, while they got hysterical about the one-man-one-vote for blacks in South Africa (which happened in only 4 of the 51 African nations). Political dishonesty of such kind is puzzling.

The white man is victim of a self-flagellation, for it is his support and encouragement that permits the blacks to attack the whites so viciously.

THE INFERIORITY RECIPE

Let no one say that there is no inferior race. There is, for we know how to make a race inferior.

We can make a race, a family, a nation, a culture inferior. Or we can freeze a temporary inferiority into a chronic condition.

 In 1968, Illinois Governor Otto Kerner's presidential commission reported: "Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white - separate and unequal".  ***/

After over 30 years, the situation has not changed much.

Now, like then, black unemployment is higher than that of the white (they campaigned on employment rights, not on employment capabilities).

Now, like then, blacks' income is less than that of the white (they improved their rights, not their merits).

Now, like then, black neighborhoods are mostly slums. Right to a dwelling is not automatically ability to maintain it.

Now, the percentage of college-bound blacks is smaller than then. Rights to enrollment diminished the incentives to deserve it.

Black children still die at a higher rate than white ones. Public child support does not educate mothers and fathers.

Black murders and crimes of violence are still much more frequent that the white counterparts. Education cannot be forced on them.

Black intellectual and business activities are still lagging behind the white. Rights have little to do with intellectual and business performance.

More progress is still needed

 On the other hand, in 1968 there were only 2 black mayors of big cities (Cleveland, OH, and Gary, IN). Now their number is so high that politicians avoid mentioning it to avoid recognizing that the problem has virtually vanished. Black police chiefs, politicians, judges, athletes, actors, executives, professionals of all kinds have increased dramatically.

Laws facilitating and favoring black employment, housing, promotions and downright black racial favoritism have multiplied beyond expectations.

HUMAN ECOLOGY

Human ecology and evolution are being disrupted in USA.

In most animal and plant environments, any change in the natural order is considered with the suspicion that it may disrupt ecology and evolution.

The same caution should be used in our glib decision to "improve" the lot of "minorities" that happen to be world-wide majorities.

The truly endangered minority is the white Anglo-Saxon culture on a global scale.

World-wide experience shows that national, regional, ethnic, sex, religion, language and other forms of chauvinism are as old and permanent as mankind.

Racism, or racial chauvinism, has even deeper roots.

History suggests that it is a delusion to think that racism can be eliminated, at least as race awareness.

On the other hand, there is no scientific evidence that all forms of racism are deleterious or deplorable; some can be beneficial and desirable.

Racial pride, for instance, is like an extended family pride or esprit de corps. It can motivate inspiration, progress, ambition, devotion and other positive aspects that could be lacking without it.

Wherever white racial pride has been outlawed, as in USA, the white race is losing ground on all fronts.

Black racism is the main tool the blacks are using to improve their lot.

Therefore, absolute anti-racism can be either futile, simplistic or counter producing.

New remarkable forms of known chauvinism are cropping up as white racism is outlawed: liberal versus conservative, unionized workers against their employers, nations against nations, towns and even neighborhoods, and the grim one: anti-white black racism.....

Now, a bellicose gender feminism is corralling women against men.

White racism, old or new, pales in comparison.

THE AMERICAN BLACK HOLE             ***/
 

The white segregationists believed in a “Negro inferiority” and managed to keep the blacks in subordinate conditions.

The present integrationists are transforming black temporary ailments into chronic debilitation by blaming and "curing" the white.

The present pro-black measures will act like hidden time-bombs against the blacks, in a similar manner as the black Africanizing of American cities.

 In the beginning, it looks like the blacks are conquering the American cities with their immigration and consequent voting majority.
This, coupled with the "affirmative action" and other anti-white measures, causes exodus of the whites, industry and productivity.
As a result, the cities become traps into unproductive, parasitic subsistence, used as votes-fertilizer for the political leeches who feed on the voters' blood.

Like the dogma of male-female equality, the white-black equality dogmas are a Procrustean bed on which the American society can be mangled.

Worldwide, the black races are in a state of anti-white venom.

The blacks are told that what they fail to achieve is something they are entitled to obtain from the whites, who are holding it illegally from them.
 

The phenomenon of the white self-flagellants and black racists against South Africa in the 1980's shows a widespread attitude that could be defined as a combination of guilt and inferiority complexes by those who are neither guilty nor inferior. They cannot obliterate the fact that the blacks in South Africa are better off than in any other African country.

The first practical step would be to help the black countries to raise their life standard to that of the South African blacks. Of course, the help should not just be welfare or "jobs", but an educational and motivating process that generates ambition, self-help and social-economic sophistication.

It would be like the first rung of a ladder that leads to the white level and above.

In that, South Africa could help in the common interest. No one could help more competently.

In a second stage, the blacks in South Africa would reach the white cultural (not just political, which is hardly more than a pretension) level, or beyond, by very rapid evolution that would take less time than the bloody process today's political maggots have set in motion.

The black racists and the white flagellants are determined to hunt the whites rather than help the blacks.

The only kind of help for the blacks they can accept is whatever hurts the whites.

They would not hesitate to cripple the South African blacks if it were the only way they could strike at the whites.

They want a vendetta against innocent whites, in favor of black non-victims, as in the "affirmative action", a system of malignant laws based on principles we have not even dared to use against the Mafia, the heroin peddlers, or other crime organizations.

An "affirmative action" in favor of Jews against Germans in a similar context would be repugnant, but comparatively more justifiable than the anti-white kind.

Affirmative action is one of the many leftist liberal contra-flops. Its aim is to help the blacks, but the effect is to brand all the blacks, not only the recipients of affirmative action, with the label of institutionalized "inferiority", for all blacks in any position of responsibility will be suspected of inferior competence .faked under undeserved degrees, jobs, positions, authority and favoritism.

Nothing could be more anti-evolutionary for the blacks.
 

Since the whites of the West cultures were the ones who "conquered the world" last, the black-exploiting politicians are fomenting a revolt against the Western democra­cies. Their main sympathy, therefore, tends to be socialistic, or communistic, although most of them know very little of Marxism.

For the same reason, many American blacks embrace Islam, not from theological analysis but because most Western whites are Christian.

They would lean toward capitalism or Christianity if the dominant whites were from the Marxist or Moslem camp.

 The racial problem will be perpetuated as long as the blacks demand the solution from, and at the expense of, the whites.

The blacks developed no cultural pattern they are willing to preserve.

They have adopted the same white culture and identity they are rebelling against..

The more the parasitic demands of the black racists (who don’t represent the blacks at all) persist, the more they debilitate the blacks’ possibilities, and the more they become parasitical.

It is a "Catch 22" situation their leaders, politicians and white-whipping do-gooders seem to be trapped in.
 

We are not aware of any black culture that does not need some form of economical, cultural, political, medical, legal and other help from the industrialized whites and Asiatic. Even after the unparalleled outpouring of free help bestowed on the blacks in this century.

The more help they receive, the more they increase their demands, handicaps and anti-white hostility, as they are suborned by the race pimps..

The kind of help they demand is addictive and it atrophies their ability to survive, as it pleases the race pimps..

The debilitating addiction to rights-without-merits is obvious.

Less obvious is the nurturing of incompetent malevolence, like protecting parasites and looters of an invading army.

In order to facilitate black employment, laws are being implemented that lower the requirements not only for employment, but also for product and service quality. This elimination of true competition is the withdrawal of the main factor of survival and progress. It cripples the very essence of American excellence, imposes on the winning culture the weaknesses of the failing culture, and inhibits the evolution of the latter.

It is like imposing the characteristics of the endangered species on the surviving species...

 The more society is damaged by the black racism, the worse the fate of the black will be, when the fit won't have anything left for the terminally incapacitated "minorities".

 When the presently racially-handicapped America reaches the end of the rope in the world contest, there will be no more resources to squander on debilitating "affirmative action" and perverted "civil rights".

We will be exhausted and unable to compete with the rest of the world, and the blacks will face a fate worse than slavery.

That is our black hole.

 The greatness of a society is killed by the misery of ideals that cannot see higher than childish racial equality, gossipy rights, enforced corruption in the name of "rights", seeking justice by imposing injustice, debilitating the strong to favor the weak, paralyzing the productive in favor of the parasites, distorting truth to promote dogma.

AFRICAN NAZISM

1989:

The black racists and white masochists have found a book that recalls the rancor of the hate-consumed witch-doctor in front of the church, houses, school and hospital donated to him by the leaving missionary.

The book is "The Africans", by Ali A. Mazrui, teacher in the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Was Hitler's "Mein Kampf" dishonest, sick? The same question would be valid about "The Africans". The latter, however, is more pretentious with pompous history distortions.

The black racists and white flagellants contrived to make American universities adopt "The Africans" as a textbook.

They even made a TV series on it.

They may corrupt some students, delight white-haters, but they will ultimately worsen both white and black racism.

Mazrui attributes all present and past African problems to the Western white (particularly American and British) culture.

According to Mazrui, the black Africans are innocent victims of an oppressive Christian religion, exploitative capitalistic economy, emasculating culture, corrupt politics and depraved morality of the Western whites that transformed the original African Garden of Eden into the present hell.
 

Mazrui praises and admires Muammar Qaddafi, Idi Amin, predicates a society with a BLACK MASTER RACE and white pariahs, Islam above Christianity, primitive Marxism, unqualified anti-Americanism, black nuclear weapons at the service of the black races and Islam.

For the latter, he openly advocates Pakistani's nuclear spying to provide the Islamic and black nations with striking power against the Western whites.

Even slavery was a Western white idea: "Before slave days, we were back in one huge village called Africa".

Sure: killing to prove their manhood; raiding each other villages to capture people to be eaten, enslaved, or sold as slaves first to other black tribes, then to the Arabs, ultimately to the whites; cutting out women's clitoris (plus labia minora and labia mayora) to kill their sexual pleasure possibilities (to assure their fidelity); practicing total genocide as a means to assert dominance... Not even kings were spared atrocious barbarism.

When the "Matiamvo", for instance, an emperor in the interior of Angola, was considered to have reigned enough, he was first sent by his people to war (against any tribe one declared an enemy for the occasion) to be killed. If he was not killed, he went back to his throne and, "..sitting down, (he) calls his family around him. He then orders his mother to approach; she kneels at his feet; he first cuts off her head, then decapitates his sons in succession, next his wives and relatives,and, lasf of all, his most beloved wife, called Anacullo. This slaughter being accomplished, the Matiamvo, dressed in all his pomp, awaits his own death, which immediately followed, by an officer sent by the powerful neighbouring chiefs... This officer first cut off his legs and arms at the joints, and lastly he cut off his head; after which the heads of the officer is struck off..." ("The Golden Bough", by J.G. Frazer, chapter xxiv).

When the Portuguese colonized Angola, they ruthlessly prohibited such an idillic custom, and imported their Christianity, the European culture, schools, work and other ghoulish white horrors...

Mazrui's book carefully covers up those facts with pious fiction.

Just read the book, and think that it is being used by American Universities to Africanize white and black American students in Mazrui's anti-white mission.

Mazrui has his anti-white anti-American book published by a white American publisher, TV-serialized by white-American television networks.

Today's Africa is free. It uses white-Western political systems and corrupts them with African despotism, violence, massacres and genocides.

Today's Africa uses white-Western technology, but cannot yet sustain it.

Mazrui says that the African blacks can use, but not produce modern products, because the Western whites did not teach them Western technology. Yet, black Africa is full of black-employing Western-style factories, universities, workshops, repair shops, trade schools, newspapers, publishing houses, airports, roads, shipyards, hospitals...

Africa's population is increasing of 1,000,000 people monthly because of white-Western technology, medicine and humanitarian help, while genocide by massacre or starvation is still being practiced by several black-African governments. These horrors happen in black Africa, and even more in countries who never experienced white colonization like Liberia and Ethiopia.

1992:

Leonard Jeffries, chairman of the black studies department of the City College of New York, says that the black Africans are the humane "sun people", and the Europeans are the inhumane "ice people". He also asserts that melanin, the black skin pigment, gives the black people intellectual and physical superiority over the whites.

He believes that the Jews and the Italians conspire to destroy the blacks through misuse of the movie industry.

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that L. Jeffries says that Jesus, Buddha and Moses were black. "Ancient Egypt was the source of all modern learning and an advanced black society. Greek philosophers stole the wisdon of Egypt and made it their own. Subsequent generations of whites rewrote history and turned Egypt into a white society... Blacks are the real discoverers of America".

Yosef A.A. ben-Jochannan, lecturer at the Wellesley College, says that Socrates never existed, that Plato learned from Greco-Egyptian phylosophy (which developed only 500 years after Plato's death), that Aristo­tle stole his ideas from the Library of Alexandria (Alexandria was founded in 331 B.C. by Alexander, who was Aristotele's pupil. Aristotle died in 322 B.C., and the Alexandria Library was built long after his death).

Such statements are not less incompetent and dishonest than to teach that white colonization caused the Sahara Desert. The college leaders who were asked why professor Jeffries is still allowed to teach falsehoods answered that they don't want to provoke black riots.

For the same reasons, other quack professors are free to state that, many centuries ago, Timbuktu, a secondary caravane stop in central Mali, a deserted hinterland of West Africa, used to be a famous cultural center with a world wide book trade. What books, in what languages, using what alphabet, about what subject, with what titles...: no one knows...

It doesn't dawn on them that, wherever books are published, there must be a paper industry, ink factories, manufacturing of pigments, of the various chemicals and equipment, printing presses, iron mining, steel foundries, all the connected trades, countless activities without which printing and publishing wouldn't be possible, intense cultural and import-export activities with other countries, accounting, administration, records, records... etc., etc. Nor is there any historical evidence of any trace of any of them.

Even Cleopatra is claimed to be black by black American professors. Anyone can easily find out in numerous historric records that Cleopatra was the last of the white Macedonian Ptolemaic dynasty, which was installed in Egypt by the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great in 323 B.C. and terminated with her suicide in 30 B.C. Macedonia is well inside Europe, north of Greece.

Ludicrous historical Afrocentric lies bestow ridicule and disrepute on the black African cause. The American blacks are the victims of this phenomenon, which was originated by race pimps, to create an effective tool to irreconcilably divide whites and blacks and exploit the consequent hostilities.

THE RACE REALITY

In all human history, more than four fifths of mankind has been "colored", spread in all areas of the Earth: on fertile and sterile land, on deserts, on all kinds of coasts, rivers, lakes, mountains and valleys, in cold and hot climates... in all possible environments favorable to cultural development.

Many of the "colored" races developed cultural patterns that persisted for thousands of years previous to the advent of the white races. They had every opportunity to evolve.

The white races emerged as the small minorities (also "colored", until someone decided they had no color) that produced the Western culture, the last and highest development that the entire world chose as the most desirable for all.

We are told that the "colored" races did not develop like the whites because they were "minorities" who were not given the chances the whites had.

The "minorities" were the overwhelming majority.

 "Superiority" of the white race?

It may be endemic culture of a particular race, rather than a genetic characteristic, but the apparent evidence invites the sweeping generalization.

 600 Spaniards with a few horses conquered Mexico in 1520, against the huge numerical superiority of over 6 million Aztecs, because the Mexican natives were in a state of vulnerable "racial" decay, which was most likely a cultural decomposition.

Some theories  explain that the native Mexicans, and their ruler Montezuma, considered the whites like gods, but they had plenty of evidence and time to correct their naive convictions.

One interesting factor is that the white North-American immigrants did not significantly intermarry with the natives, and their culture developed far better than that of Mexico, where the whites and natives intermarried.

On the other hand, the clean-cut black-and-white difference between the prosperity and relative poverty on the American and Mexican sides of the border indicates a difference of cultures or social systems rather than races, because the racial differences on the border are not that great.

That pattern shows that what we call "racism" is an ugly misinterpre­tation of cultural choices.
 

Racial-equality theories are arbitrary conclusions reached by "scientific" investiga­tions that are as reliable as any statistical analysis conducted to find evidence to confirm a prejudice.

The racial equality theory pleases Christian prejudices and egalitarian ideals.

It is embraced with passion by people who need to feel noble with love toward those they feel superior to, and hatred toward those they cannot compete against.

They put racial differences on a forbidden list of superiority/inferiority attributes that  are treated like evil postures.

This semantic trap puts the racial differences in the wrong perspectives.

We should talk of cultures developed within or between ethnic groups, rather than races themselves.

When housewives compete for cooking recipes, and one recipe wins and is adopted as the best, the matter is viewed without hostility by the non-winning housewives, if it is a genuine contest with an honest purpose.

There is no sanctimonious condemnation of recipe "superiority" and revolt by the "inferior" housewives who did not win. There would be if the "inferior" rose against the "superior".

No revolution by the "inferior" recipes claims equal rights with the winning "superior" recipe. Instead, the participants gladly learn to use the winning recipe and adopt it for themselves. Now, they are the same as the "superior". They would never be if they fought the "superior" people and recipe, to assert the right of their recipes to be considered "equal"..

The same happened for millennia with races and cultures. Normally with a happy ending for all in the evolutionary process.

There will always be a winner we want to imitate and learn from.
 

Now it is the turn of the whites and their Western Culture. The whole world, all races on Earth, have chosen the winning recipe: the Western Culture developed within the white "race" (which is untrue, for there are many white "races, as well as many black races, all often hostile to each other). The losers are not "the other races", but those who oppose or ignore progress. If they choose to live in huts, cling to the losing values and superstitions, reject the Western culture and values, yet they want Western money, weapons, medicines, appliances, airplanes and welfare, they exclude the possibility of becoming "equal" participants in a Western social, economical, industrial and cultural context.

If this development is allowed to follow its own course, the nonsense of "defending the minorities" (who are the majority in the real world) to assert their individuality (which they tend to abandon in favor of a better individuality they evolve into) is imposed by the dangerous do-gooders who are fighting human evolution.

The "colored" races, or developing societies, have more interest in adopting the Western culture than in keeping their own slower pace, as the Western cultures adopted other cultures before them.

No matter what pleasant traits other cultures have, the Western medical progress, industrial advances, improved sanitation, economic development, scientific achievements, artistic sophistication, technologic advantages, victory against famine and all their related developments are fare more than any "third world" culture or race can offer in their present stage.
 

Are then races so different? They are, but not in the bigoted sense understood by the fanatics on both sides.

The reality is there. The problem is what we do WITHIN it, not AGAINST it.

We may consider one race, black or white, disadvantaged  relatively to one white "race" (=culture). We may want to correct whatever unpleasant discrepancy we see.  But it would be stupid to do it at the expenses of the white or of anyone else.

Raising one standard does not justify lowering the standard of any other people.

We can surely help any one to reach the level of the Western culture, the same as helping someone learn a new recipe.

It is the same as helping anyone to learn the languages and customs of a country he has just immigrated into.

It is not a question of inferiority and superiority.

 We  are victimized by our inability  to accept a  fact that looks unjust only  in the light of our perishable ideals.

Therefore we try to distort reality to make it fit our ideals.

It would be more logical to increase our understanding of reality.

Enforced pretense of racial equality is anti-evolutionary, anti-reality, anti-historical.

But so is also the enforcement of racial inferiority or superiority.

 What counts is that one society, people or "race" -whether genetically or culturally- has developed a better way of life.

The natural consequence that one should not oppose is the tendency -and interest- of the other peoples or races to follow the leader and merge with it.

It may need one generation or longer, or less time with intelligent help. That is all.

Let us not paralyze progress with our sanctimonious "equality" straitjacket.

 BETTER THAN THOU

If we could progress as fast, humanistically, as we did technologically, anyone from the year 3000 would find our politicians, psychologists and sociologists as primitive as we find the physicians or engineers of 3000 or 4000 years ago.

One case in point would be our handling of concepts of superiority, racism, or social justice.

"Superiority" is a  concept no one could find objectionable within its relative context.

When the  concept  is used for human beings, we mishandle either the human beings or the idea of superiority.

 It is self-evident that some human beings are superior or inferior on certain levels of evaluation. A 7-foot man is superior to a 6-foot man if the criterion is height.  But not necessarily so if the criterion is intelligence, swimming or artistic talent.

The criteria that allow a qualification of "superior" or "inferior" cannot be on a high level of sophistication, because the superiority/infe­riority  concepts can only hold on oversimplified levels, like the good/bad absolutes.

On higher levels, superior/inferior, good/bad, even right/wrong do not represent reality any more than "one" and "zero" represent all numbers from zero to infinity, unless we deliberately choose to do so, as in the binary system.

We want to judge the validity of "superior/inferior" , "right/wrong" , "good/bad" on a higher level, but we refuse to admit that we live on the lower level.
 

We are at the level where "intelligence" is believed to be self evident and accepted as an evaluation criterion. That is, a person or group of people are considered better if they have more intelligence. Thus, a sadistic murderer with a high IQ would be “better” than a mediocre dedicated country physician.

Obviously, intelligence is only one of the useful components of evolutionary prominence.  In some cases, physical strength is far superior to intelligence for survival. But both intelligence and strength become insignificant against the will to live or sex desire, for intelligent beings without will to live or lacking the sexual desire that generates new life have virtually no survival or continuity.
 

Spirit of enterprise or courage, for instance, are some of the many attributes that are far more important than intelligence under many conditions.

Intelligence may even be an evil handicap if directed toward wrong goals. Some religions, political, cultural, economic theories may be destructively deceiving. They can attract people with high intelligence. When intelligent people  are dedicated to false goals, they are  certainly "inferior" to mediocre people devoted to simple-minded but beneficial purposes.

In some cases, the question of the validity of values  is falsified to serve someone's vanity or political expediency.
 

A dishonest case has  been made in defense of the black African cultures  being suffocated by the "overrated" Western cultures.

This claim could be considered seriously if history could be ignored or falsified.

If the "African" values were valid, they could function and survive independently. Instead, starvation, mass decay or racial obliteration would take place without the "white" help of medicine, industrialization, soil fertilization, literacy, technology.

The sad reality is that the black Africans want to have the "white" medicine, food donations, gadgetry, money, weapons, technology and all com­forts, but they still have to learn the methods and disciplines to produce them.

FROM THE FRYING PAN INTO -ISMS

Racism, feminism, machismo, chauvinism, as commonly understood,  are often aberrant reactions to blunders committed by the opposite side.

As a rule, they  relate to what they fight like the fire to the frying pan.

The process of a reaction worse than what it intends to fight is like the interminable alternating of revolutions in the stereotype "banana republics" .

Only, the banana republics have a better chance to find a solution, for the revolutionaries don't feel holy about themselves. They know the truth.

The evil we  are concerned with here is in the  concepts caused by the words. We make harmless words sound like heinous  concepts.

For example:
 

"RACISM" . Racism  is only understood as an oppression and hostility against any racial group.

It is a negative form of what we could call RACIALISM.

Racialism may be hostile, loving or analytical.

Differentiations may be made on racial basis, like insurance actuarial tables on ailments, accidents, genetic and ethnic trends in art, taste, work, food or clothing, or on many other  principles.

Whoever studies or decides on the basis of those observations is  certainly using a racial or racistic approach.

That makes him a "racist", on the strength of voo-doo of the word RACISM.
 

On that basis. I could be called a racist if I devoted my time to the study of differences between races.

The purity of any race is a legitimate object of study or goal for any scholar, sociologist or for a parent who wishes self-continuation in the progeny.

The reasons could be countless and harmless, without the slightest hint of hostility or disparagement toward other races.

We should learn from dog breeders who choose one dog race. I never heard any of them saying anything hateful about other dog races.

 It is humiliating that human racial purity cannot be conceived as harmlessly as that of dogs ...

Cross-breeding is inevitable.  In many cases it is desirable. We have investigated it for dogs, cats, plants ... many forms of life.

Why is the same investigation taboo among humans?

If I were single and wanted to start a family, I should try to marry a woman of any race and any characteristics genetic research would indicate would give me the best progeny. To do otherwise could be irresponsible or even cruel toward our hapless children.

Now, it is telling that most present Americans would associate the racial statements in the above paragraphs as anti-black. Yet there is no mention of the blacks in any of the paragraphs.

The \fact is that I could find a black woman who could generate, with me, better-looking, more intelligent and healthier children than some white women. Would that make me a racist?

That particular woman happens to be black and the other white.
 

If a group of black people coagulate in a racial block, instead of considering themselves different in education, morality, skills, health, aspirations, beliefs ..., they form a racial group that just begs for segregation.

I refuse to integrate with such groups of people, whether they are black, white or whatever.
 

I refuse to work, eat, live, play or do anything with someone merely on the basis of his being white, black, Italian or Siberian, unless we do those things to try some racial or racist  concept (whatever it may be).

If the law took this freedom from me, I might become a resentful "racist" .

The  presently legislated integration exacerbates the problem. It causes a virulent form of segregation as ubiquitous as the erotic sex tension of 40 years ago, which was intensified by the prohibition of even mentioning it.

Any racist connotation is automatically believed to be evil. That is why anyone who tends to focus on racial factors

is forced into the word "racist" and into kinship with Nazis or Ku-Klux-Klanners.

 If we are  really free, we must have the moral decency to grant, uncritically, the freedom to like or dislike any race,  as well as any other category of people, as long as this freedom  is not used to limit anyone's rights.

If we  are trapped in a "loaded" word, let's use another word  which allows us to do whatever  is best.

"CAPITALISM"

 When I immigrated into USA, I was shocked how all the media were using the word CAPITALIST to describe things American ...

I thought that it was alright to confess the sin, but not to be proud of it.

My prejudice resulted from a general opinion, in many countries, that CAPITALISM was as dirty a word as COMMUNISM.

Many equate capitalism with the ruthless greed for money, just as racism  is understood as hatred for other races.

 In reality, capitalism is the best practical equalizer available in our time. It rewards effort and talent under form of monetary success.

This success is approval by common people, rather than reward bestowed by the power-holders.

 Pleasing common people is a fundamental aspect of marketing, without the bloated moral pretensions of bureaucratic and socialistic environments, which may be worse than those of the Spanish Inquisition.

With all its defects, no one has yet found a system that rewards usefulness more impartially and better than capitalism.

"FEMINISM"

is another can of worms.   

I used to be a feminist, and I am still now.  But not in today's anti-man and anti-family sense.

Feminism should be a godsend necessary to re-focus mankind on the truth rather than on the "male" distortions like wars, on family rather than on work-values, family needs rather than corporation and government needs, affection rather than rat race, and so on.

We would have to find a remuneration, for men and women dedicated to the family, not inferior to that for key executives dedicated to the production of crotch-deodorants.

Instead, a group of incompetent demagogues has taken over the feminist movement and plagued it with a relentless male-aping, male-and family-hating attitude.

Today's feminism feeds itself with anti-male malevolence, disputes and declared goals that, if realized, will burden woman with artificial attitudes that force woman into activities and postures that suffocate her true nature, beside destroying marriage and family.

RACISM VOODOO

Racism is now like war: everyone claims to be against it, but almost everybody wages it in some form.

Hitler called his war-mongering armed forces "Wehrmacht" , a euphemism meaning "Defense-Power" .
So, even he didn't have the effrontery to call his army "Waffenmacht" (Weapons-Power), or "Kriegsmacht" (War-Power).

He was more outspoken about his racism, but he still used euphemisms and other means to hide his  ultimate solution.

Thus, even Hitler was mindful of world opinion, although there was no one to reprimand him for using the wrong words.

Ludicrous are the lengths to which politicians, media-people, clergymen, public official and everybody in the public eye go to assure even the  uninterested that they are against racism.
 

In USA, the main race problem is about the blacks.

What happened to all the racial prejudice of yore?

First, let me now flaunt words like "race" , "racism" , "superior" , "inferior" wherever I can, in order to focus on their impact.
 

When I decided to move to the USA, I faced the stark reality of racial or ethnic quotas. That is, the American immigration laws had assigned a quota of the maximum number of immigrants that were allowed in the USA from a given country. As the motivating concept was the preservation of the prevailing American cultural and ethnic characteristics, the number of Anglo-Saxons allowed was the highest. Other races or nationalities  were accorded a quota as small as their "desirability" . Consequently, if an Englishman wanted to emigrate to the USA, the British quota was so generous that he didn't have to wait any longer than the time to get the passport and the visa.
 

 The Italian quota was so small, that an Italian who wanted to move to the USA had to wait a turn of 5-6 years, if his emigration application was accepted (which was another obstacle to overcome).

 Neither I nor anyone I knew in Italy considered the system wrong, not because we thought the Americans were better than the Italians, but because it appeared logical that the Americans had the right to preserve their cultural and ethnic integrity, if they so wished.

I accelerated the  process in my case by letting my German wife apply for the visa. Germans, at that time, only needed 1-3 months. I simply joined as a member of the family ...

When we immigrated to USA, in 1955, we were offered help to locate in an Italian neighborhood in Chicago.
 

I am proud of my Italian heritage. Anyone can start me on a lengthy peroration on how long USA still has to go to match the cultural credits Italy earned in almost 3000 years of history.

From that perspective, I have no doubt that the Italians are "superior" .

Who: the Italian race? We can use the word, but there is no such a thing as a pure Italian race.
 

Italian culture, tradition, history ... would  certainly be more appropria­te.  Any of them will do as well as "race", which is not chic enough to be touched with a ten-foot pole.

So, being a superior Italian, I should have relished dwelling in an Italian neighborhood.

But there is a twist.

In USA, the Italian-Italians in USA are "inferior". (Kindly, do not take the sentence out of context).

I am referring to the Italian-Italians who persist on customs and values that don’t fit in USA, no matter how good they are by themselves. I mean the Italians in America who coagulate in ethnic groups that hinder integration of language, customs, skills and "rules-of-the-game".

Before choosing USA, I had experienced many other countries. So, I already knew the disadvantages of ethnic isolation from the surrounding popula­tion. That is definitely a condition of "inferiority" or disadvantage in any country. There is no Caesar, Leonardo, Vivaldi or Colombo to help an Italian who stereotypes himself into ethnicity abroad.

The American-Italian is surely "superior" to the Italian-Italian in USA, and as good as any other American. Just like the Italian-American is superior to the American-American in Italy.

So, I made a point to dwell in a neighborhood where only American-English  was spoken and 100% American way-of-life reigned unqualified. 

That was something I could control as a choice.

What I could not control was the prevailing anti-Italian and anti-Catholic position in industrial employment (the anti: -Jewish, -Negro, -Latin-American prejudices were not less virulent).

I knew they were wrong, but I was familiar with the complications natives must tolerate in facing unfamiliar customs of new immigrants.

Also in Italy, Germany, France, Russia, Brazil etc., people are expected to "do as the Romans do".

So, as unjust as it was, why take offense? Or, better yet, why oppose it?

To force the American natives to change their Anglo-Saxon and other characteristics typical of the American culture to fit the ones original of my "race" would have destroyed the characteristics that attracted me into this country.

Ultimately, it would have worked against my own evolution and future.

In other words, if do-gooders had come to my "rescue" , they would have not only atrophied my ability to integrate with the American environment, but they would have made me a resentful enemy of a human environment  which would have  been depicted as callous toward my civil rights ...

As  we "ethnics" tried to succeed in the American environment, we had to cause evolution with our struggling behavior, not demand it through incompetent do-gooders. Evolution without struggle is an oxymoron.

I met Italians who changed their names to succeed. I disagreed, because that would indirectly reinforce the prejudices (now, American-Italians are proud of their Italian names).

 And succeed they did.  But not because they changed Scotti into Scott, or Carso into Carson. That was only a symptom of their integration process "from outside" or, if you wish, "from below" .

 This process was autonomous, independent, in some ways heroic.

So far as the Italian .... "nationality" , "people" , "race" , "culture" ... What word is correct?

The American public is not made of just anthropologists, historians or linguists. If the word "race" comes handy, it's OK, but we should not be fooled by words.

Another racial experience I had dealt with a German physician and his sister, both raised in China.

As they grew up in an all-Chinese environment, they developed an aesthetic standard that put them on the lower, or "inferior" level. They consi­dered themselves ugly, their eyes ridiculously round, their features " obviously inferior" to those of the normal Chinese.

They emigrated to U.S.A. in the 60s, shortly before I met them.

Both he and she were very handsome by any Western standard. Yet, in spite of having lived one year in U.S.A., they still considered the Western features aesthetically inferior to the Chinese. It was an irrational feeling from cultural habit, not a thoughtful opinion, and they knew it.

They did not feel they were denigrating the Americans or Europeans by defining them "inferior" in any respect. To them, the Chinese  were simply better looking.

My friend observed: "It would be the same if we defined the Chinese supe­rior intellectually or morally, because that would not make the Western people lesser or worse than before the comparison.

If we define a 7-footer taller than a 6-footer, we don't cause the 6-footer to shrink to a smaller size ..." .

This comparative evaluation is undoubtedly racial in the most innocent sense, but the race pimps wallow in the trouble they can exploit by opening the "racism" can of worms.

They do voodoo with it.

Now, let's return to the blacks.

Rather than a race, they are a mosaic of past cultures, tribes, races, and other subgroups  which are now less recognizable than the white groups.

Whether they -or anyone else- like it or not, they have to integrate with the rest of the country: for their own advantage and for the sake of the others. The reasons, both practical and moral, are so obvious that we need no explanations.

Unlike the Italians and other ethnic groups, however, the blacks are not in the process of fusing with the surrounding people.

They were, until modern social workers advised them against it. It is only partially true, if at all, that it is the white who impede integration.

Years ago, an old black lady told me: "It's you whities who cut our chances, when you bunch us all together: the Negroes and the “Niggers”.  You hold the white trash off but you bundle the Negroes with the Niggers..."
 

When white trash comes into a good neighborhood, the uproar against them is not less virulent than against the black trash.

Now, this distinction against the "white trash" is fading into an indistinct white block to match the "Nigger/Negro" block. Thus, the better whites and the better blacks  are being sacrificed to protect (without improving them) the white and black trash.

At the expense of decency, evolution and progress. At the expense of the improvement chances for black and white trash.

What about the irreversible injustice against an old man who has worked all his life to buy the house of his dreams?

When he has finally made it, there comes an incompetent, vicious law that destroys it all,  on account of a cancerous idea of integration ...

Whatever the reason, the neighborhood becomes slums when the blacks move in. No one has the right to destroy the result of somebody's lifelong sacrifices in the name of justice to others and injustice to him.

What is worse, it amounts to stealing the life-savings of an old unemploy­able person. To add sadism to the injury, the savings are handed to people who squander them and spread an urban plague without any known cure.
 

Why do we fight the white resistance against decay rather than fighting the decay itself?

All decent blacks would like to see a fight against the decay rather than against the white opposition to it. 

That would be most effective measure against racial tension.

 We know that people with bubonic plague are victims of a misfortune that could hit anyone.

They must be helped, not punished; but that is no reason to protect their right to move into a healthy area while they are still sick.

Let us fight the plague first.

In other countries, people would react with more violence than here.  And they do.

In democratic 1990 India, for instance, the "racial" discrimination against the lower casts was fearsome.

The government's decision to reserve nearly half of government jobs to low-cast Hindus caused riots, public suicides and other protests by students and other citizens. The rioters rejected offers for talks by the government, and many were killed by the police as they escalated the rioting activities.

 Why should we and the blacks  be insulted with forced integration?

Most blacks could be good neighbors, but the race pimps don't allow them to be such, and to be distinguished from the others.

I need no force whatsoever  to accept a desirable neighbor who happens to be Swedish, Brazilian or Nigerian.

Our laws have blundered to the point that we  would accept a Nigerian, a Senegalese, a Kenyan, but we would have reservations about a black American.

Racism, then, is even less than apparent.

We are allowed to consider the foreign blacks as human beings, but we must consider the black Americans as "blacks", as "African-American" oxymorons, as civil-rights booby traps, as hostile victims on a revenge warpath against innocents, as human Pandora boxes with only rights and no duties.

 Political maggots abuse the word "racism" where it least applies.

Hardly anything could do worse harm to the blacks.

We are coerced to go along with it. Do the legislators and do-gooders hate the blacks that much?

Eliminating racism (whatever it means) is as unrealistic as eliminating human nature (whatever it means).

Ethnicity, neighborhoods, coagulation of similar people, fear and discomfort among unfamiliar people, unwillingness to be singled out among others, congregating with people of similar taste and customs ... are all  factors that perpetuate numerous kinds of group-identifications that can be likened and linked with "racism" .

These tendencies have been active evolutionary processes as long as mankind has existed.

They  have facilitated the flow of history with the rhythm determined by the prevailing groups. These groups established their dominant imprint on the weaker ones who  were then absorbed upward without violence or oppression. Both winners and  losers accepted the process, for it benefited both.

The trouble started when winners decided to reject the assimilation of the losers, or the losers refused  to accept integration upward (which, by the way, is also imposed on the winner from other prevailing  factors).
 

When the losers became a majority, they gained the power to impose the integration from the winners downward, which they found most comfortable.

That backfired, however, when downward-integration trapped the mediocre majority itself into integrating downward.

Thus, backlash against the last group who refused to integrate upward became racism against the blacks.

At the end, racism became the fodder of the anti-racism claims of the blacks, the most racistic of American races.
 

Racism against the blacks became a wrong.

Racism in their favor became the epitome of justice; they called it "civil rights" , "affirmative action" , or "equal rights" , and it worked like a charm.

This has become the rule in politics.

If whites vote for, or hire, or do business with, whites on a racial prefe­rence, they  are accused of racism and even punished by the law.

The blacks now vote, hire and prefer blacks on brazenly racial basis, and it is considered legal and right.

This has put a stop to the normal evolutionary process of integrating the best of one race with the best of the other.

Decay through forced degeneration of the process has taken over.

 Even children are swindled into believing that there are no racial diffe­rences or inconveniences in indiscriminate integration.

When they grow up and  are victimized by the irreversible consequences of those premises, they find themselves in cruel traps, their lives shattered by cynical deceivers who are no longer to be found to offer reparations. The ensuing unhappiness or uneasiness, then, is attributed to more white faults. The whites themselves end up feeling guilty.

More demands and advantages are booby-trapped in favor of the blacks.

They damage the blacks further and make them still more dependent on the degenerating help, which produces more demands.

The more they obtain in that fashion, the unhappier they get and the more they blame the white ...

Resentment and mutual accusations ensue ...

We have found the black-hole for the American nation.

RACIAL TAXIDERMY

Racial equality is a prejudice.

We have adopted it only because it sounds good in the light of Christian ideals, as they support the American and other ideologies.

We know that hardly noticeable differences in countless factors, from hormone secretion to dietary patterns, can cause subtle or drastic changes we are not able to comprehend.

We admit our vast ignorance in this field.  Yet,  we profess absolute certainty that the broad racial, historical, genetic differences between white, black, yellow and other people have no influence on any factor that may be considered a form of prominence of one race.

We sacrifice the truth to our arrogant requirement that human reality bow to our "equality" fetish.

First of all, the desirability of equality is an arbitrary assumption, just like the conclusion that "superiority" is better than "inferiority", let alone the fact that "equality", "superiority", "inferiority" and even "race" are abstractions on which we cannot even agree.

But let us continue here with the unfounded assumption that we know what they mean.

It is peculiar that our "equality" bigotry is producing a sort of permanent "inferiority" that may be worse than the initial inequality from segregation.

First, the segregationist inequality was based on some notion that the "inferior" race was inferior in behavior only. It was not -and I don't believe it ever was, among informed people- simply a matter of substance, color or appearance.

Our association of some undesirable attributes with the appearance of some black people (not all, to be sure) was never generated by their appea­rance alone. It is historical or evolutionary that their characteristics were constantly associated with some appearance factors.

It was the concomitant frequency of certain behavior and appearance traits that taught us, right or wrong, that some facial and other characteri­stics denoted them.

We grow up with unintentional prejudices from associations of appearance and behavior that we have experienced at some point. These associations seem to be unchangeable until new experiences cause us to change them.

I used to have many prejudices regarding racial and other exterior characteristics.

I was myself victim of prejudices against my ethnic origin. In all cases, I found out that those prejudices could be overcome or radically changed by simply connecting different behavioral characteristics with whatever appearance is in question.

The question is, then: what prejudices and why against the black? Against which blacks (many refuse to believe that there are differences)? What do they consist of? What are those particular blacks with those parti­cular characteristics doing to associate those exterior characteristics with the image they want to convey?

What are the whites doing to facilitate the desired changes?

Stopping at the irresponsible proposition that we are all "equal", or some are "superior" , creates problems that did not exist before, and perpetuates them.

Any examination of the history of black races shows nothing comparable with what we would consider "equal" to, or as sophisticated as, white or yellow achievements.

We may accept that African black parameters are not the same as ours, due to their particular history and environment. Certainly. But we are considering American environment and the way we must behave to function and progress in it.
 

To stop at the consideration that the black parameters are not like ours is the same as saying that they don't belong.
Which could be a semantic or an anthropologic statement.

Whether our criteria are "good" or "bad", is unimportant in this context, for  we are considering a socio-cultural environment the same as we would consider a jungle, a desert, prairie, sea or mountains.

Put a "typical" Swede in a bushman environment, and he starts being "inferior" simply for being an outsider. If he integrates into the environment, he is "equal". If he remains different, he is "inferior" from a bushman's viewpoint, which is the one that counts there. Period.

Learned anthropologic views are only known to a few anthropologic high priests who only talk among themselves.

In the beginning, our honest experience was that the black people did not fit in our midst other than as servants or slaves.  They were imported as such, sold or captured by other blacks that had been enslaving, killing, and eating their neighbors for time immemorial before we ever appeared on the scene.

As described before, those who were sold to the white were the luckiest­.
 

This is history. Not justice or injustice.

Well, no other blacks in the world are as well off as the descendants of those who were brought to our shores. Even when they were segregated and discriminated against. No blacks in the world are as well off as the American blacks.

Of course, segregation is not acceptable.

It starts with being an intermediate step, as with any "different" ethnic group, until a better way is found.

Jumping from that into full equality by legislation is naive or downright incompetent. Just as incompetent as to maintain black "inferiority" .

We should not confuse this equality with equal opportunities and rights, to which the blacks and all other humans are automatically entitled  .

Who can define "superiority" and "inferiority" ? But the blacks have fallen into a position of "inferior­ity" .

They should not be frustrated in their endeavor to reach equal success and compete. But endeavor they must, like any white and everyone else.

No one knows a better way or is entitled to more.
 

Today's blacks  are being inflicted a misfitting identity by the equality fetishism. No one dares say that they cannot make it  on account of their attitude, lack of skills, education, etc.

We are ordered to place them amongst us without the skills, education and moral makeup that we would demand of any member of the white and any other race.

We accept that their fitting with the "white" environment is a white responsibility, not theirs.

When they fail or refuse to integrate, we assume that it is the fault and responsibility of the whites.

Since this doesn't work, discrimination is still there, based on differen­ces we are forbidden to mention.

Now, discrimination is illegal, whatever the reason .. Thus, the law intervenes and tries to correct the symptoms, rather than the causes.

We are not free to accept, but forced to accept blacks in any neighbor­hood, in any job, establishment ...

Black neighborhoods become slums, almost without exception.

Fault of the blacks? Yes and no. They cannot cope under the present circumstances, therefore they mismanage and cause decay. But we are actively promoting it.

We tell them that all they need, to be equal, is to be themselves, with their innate rights.

Well, it doesn't work because it transforms utter nonsense into a natural right. Everyone else must do much more than just being himself and before claiming his rights.

With the old system, the blacks knew they had to make the effort to be "as good as" the white (as questionable as it may be), and there was no question even in their minds. So, if they really wanted, they had to make the effort toward a fairly well-defined goal, just like anyone who was not in the main-stream. That is really what we should have endeavored to facilitate and reward (certainly against the racist prejudices of many, but much more realistically). The process would have been apparently slower, but possible and really faster, for racist bigotry cannot stand the test of time. Instead, we have forced everyone to accept an artificial equality that is only in the law.

We have created a gigantic Procrustean bed for our society.
 

Blacks  are told that they are equal and have the right to demand equal jobs, positions, power, influence ...,  on the basis of their being    simply entitled to all the advantages.

So, we make it superfluous for them to educate and improve themselves, as the whites, the yellows and everybody  are expected to do: that is, to the proper degree according to the proper motivation.

No white ever thought of being equal to the average without working up to it.

We have embalmed alive the black inability, which was to be only a temporary consequence of their previous stagnation.

The gap between white and blacks is increasing.  The white, the yellow and others are pushing themselves toward improvement, learning more than their best, while the blacks are suborned by the race pimps to expect more without doing anything to deserve it.

The consequent regression of the black improvement and acceleration of the white progress could not be more obvious.

The government is worsening it and forcing it with priggish laws.
 

Self-appointed black brokers of government cornucopias claim that poor people's requests for help have increased in spite of the improved economic situation. This is contrived to show that the poor are worse off.

Sooner or later, everybody will notice that the increase in demand is nothing but increased presumptions by poor people who are manipulated to increase their wishes and consider them as civil rights without any duties.

This is a popular ladder for race vampires, who are also poverty vampires, who find their own success in the permanent debilitation of the poor.
 

 Many years ago, when I met a black in an important professional or public service position, I thought he had to be exceptionally good, better than a white, otherwise white prejudice would not have allowed him to rise there. Therefore, I sought his services. If this pattern had continued, it would have inevitably eroded the racist barriers.

 Nowadays, when we see a black in the same important position, we try to gauge him first, because we suspect he is there out of "affirmative action" (the pro-black racial euphemism is blatant) rather than merit. In fact, competent blacks often refuse "affirmative action" because they want their competence to be recognized, not suspected.

Would you fly in an airplane built by people who were chosen for being black, white, tall or red-headed rather than for being airplane experts?

The general attitude makes the blacks coagulate into an artificially ethnic autism painted with injected pride and civil-rights tinsel.

The transitory disadvantage menaces to become chronic. We are creating an "inferiority" where there was a temporary under­development.

Dope, prostitution, welfare addiction, parasitism, gangs, anti-white fad, murder, the decayed  concept of family, childish forms of religion seem to be the stigma imposed on the blacks.

Without our "help", this would not have been embalmed alive ...

Any other ethnic group would be similarly handicapped by the same kind of "protection" . To wit: the American Indians.

Immigrants into this country managed to overcome strong initial prejudices and to fuse into the prevailing Anglosaxon style. That fostered a very productive society, homogeneous in its qualities and opportunities, rather than in the racial sense.

The red Indians and the blacks we tried to protect from being absorbed by the whites have been incapacitated by the process that was supposed to help them. By protecting them to "preserve their identity and rights" , we undermine their motivation for the integrating and evolutionary efforts everybody else makes.

Getting the red Indians and the blacks to "preserve their identity and traditions" in the midst of U.S.A. is the most insidious injection of an incurable form of true segregation.

It is like an irresponsible scheme to create and perpetuate an implanted unfitness.

Whenever we mention the necessity for any adjustment or training, we are accused of racism.
 

Political race pimps suborn the blacks' belligerence in order to obtain their votes. That adds nastiness to frustrations, fuels racist tensions and worsens the situation  further.

The do-gooders' efforts intended to promote the blacks' equal status are freezing their handicaps, impeding the proper advancement, and making the evil worse with every cosmetic improve­ment.

Another consequence of the enforced solution is a frantic racism the blacks are afraid not to display.

I don't know how long we must nurse a situation in which no black dares not to be a black racist first of all, and only then anything else.

The American white is the mildest white available. To force him into a corner would leave the help-addicted blacks hopelessly lost.

We are no longer allowed to look at the black man outside of his one-issue position.

That is not all. The American blacks don't even allow distinctions between themselves and blacks anywhere else in the world and force us to take the side of any blacks anywhere in the world, for any reason, against any other white.
 

This "black race first and America second" will worsen the black situation even further. Sooner or later we will all realize that the conflicts among the blacks are so great, and have caused -and are still causing- such barbaric genocides and slaughters among the blacks themselves in Africa, that it will dawn on us that even these obvious matters have been deliberately removed from our awareness ...

 How the heavens can we get rid of enforced permanent alienation, sacred black racism, and the time-bombs connected with them?

First, we must face reality as it is.

The blacks are not a homogeneous race. The differences among several blacks are greater than between average blacks and whites. This alone would contribute to diminish interracial tensions, because the white-block/black-block polarization will loose a  great deal of its meaning.

When Anglo-Saxons, Latinos, Zulu, Italians, Watusi, Slavs, Ethiopians, Orientals, Arabs, Jews and others coexist as ethnic groups forming one nation, each group must face its own problems of integration, adaptation, growing or changing. These groups must have unifying goals rather than dividing gripes and political vultures.    

When each ethnic group was "weak", relatively to the American nation, it assimilated into the USA almost by inertia. It just couldn't help integrating by fusing its morphologic or ethnic identity into the American melting pot.

For some, like the English, it was easy, for the nation  was characterized by English settlers. It was logical, then, that Germans had a more laborious adapting to do. More so the immigrants from Latin countries, or from Slavic, Greek, Turkish origin.  The Chinese and other Orientals had a still tougher task ...
 

As to the blacks, it is obvious that they were the ones with the greatest cosmetic "handicap", because they looked and were more different than anyone else from the original Anglo-Saxon settlers. 

Their handica­p, however, was and is no worse in USA than in any other country, and it has nothing to do with past or present slavery.

The handicaps blacks have from one tribe to another in Africa are very often far worse than they would have in USA.

Whether this difference is a matter of "inferiority" or whatever else, it really doesn't matter. No informed Greek would think of being "inferior" to the Anglo-Saxons because his assimilation into the American society is considerably more difficult than that of an Englishman.  Yet, he strives to integrate into the local Anglo-Saxon pattern the same as if he were "inferior" , insofar as the result is to reduce the primacy of his own language, habits and other Greek characteristics.
 

The theatrical claim by politicians that the Greeks, Italians, Swedes or Watusi have the "God-given right" to preserve their ethnic identity is fatuous.

First, the country of origin has claim to ethnic identity, not those who have left it behind, in principle, by the simple act of emigrating to be integrated in another culture.

Second, even the public library is a better depository of ethnic characteristics than immigrants busier adapting to the new than preserving the old they have left behind.

From another perspective, it is interesting to consider the case of the white man who decided to integrate in a black-African nation.

The whites  were mostly preceded and followed by a favorable reputation.

The reputation, that is,  was based on what the black Africans experienced themselves about the white man, which became a positive prejudice.

The blacks liked and wanted what the white had developed. Hence the designation of "superior", "better", "desirable" or whatever word one fancies to choose for the coveted things, talents or ideas.

The case of the isolated black man in a white society is no different, but with other results. The "Negro"  was considered on a lower level because he came from a society with standards that he himself considered "lower" in contact with the white society. He offered nothing the whites would want.

This explains the virtually standard pattern of black slaves and servants in European, Semitic or Oriental societies, whereas there is no significant historical evidence of a standard of white or other slaves or servants in a black society which abounded in black slaves.

If the skin color were the main slavery-determinant in Western cultures, we would use a word with a root like "Africa" or "Niger" (Latin for "black". The English language didn't exist at the start).

The word "slave" derives from the custom to capture Slavs and force them into perpetual servitude, on account of their cultural primitiveness, not of their race or skin color. Just as the Slavs attempted to capture others, with less success. Previously, also Romans and other Italians had been captured into slavery by stronger tribes or peoples.

When the Slavs adopted Christianity and European-like customs, they integrated into the prevailing Western pattern. The European had done the same many centuries before.

Other non-black societies show a similar pattern toward slavery in rela­tionship to race, religion, or also political  factors. The skin color was not the basic determinant.

What record do we have of free black Africans being converted into Christianity (or similarly evolved Western patterns) and then normally captured and sold as slaves? Do we know of any free black Africans civilized, westernized, educated in European schools, and then normally turned into slaves?

These facts should help us dispel the prejudice that the anti-black attitude of most racists is unchangeable and caused only by the skin color.

Some American black politicians find it very convenient to perpetuate the anti-black myth. This relieves them of unpleasant responsibilities: their task becomes extremely comfortable and enables them to expect and demand everything from the whites. That gets them the black votes and also freezes the blacks at the lowest level.

White politicians and other public figures  are terrified by the idea of being accused of thinking otherwise: a compact black vote is at stake.
On the other hand, what black has the courage to show lack of absolute adherence to whatever the official black line is?
 

Blacks, like the women, and other "underprivileged", are being sought and actively promoted upward by most corporations to improve their company's integration image.

Universities desperately need blacks and women in management and intellectually leading positions, to show that they are on the vanguard, and also entitled to additional funds.

Many businesses need blacks and women in prominent positions to obtain government contracts, which fosters injustice against deserving white candidates.

These endeavors are honest, even if selfish. Yet, they don't work, because integration from above suffocates evolution and causes decay. Further­more, integration from above is dishonest, or at least incompetent, for it  is based on the fetish that for every white male's achievement there must be an equal black or female position, just because the black and women are entitled to it, whether they deserve it or not.
 

 Whereas the white male  is expected to climb with all his energy, talent and everything  he's got, and working every waking hour, all the blacks and females are required to exhibit for that kind of success is the right to equal status. The creative and productive white males are dismissed as "workaholics" .

 So, let the white man work for it and the black demand it ... When there is a group of people working to deserve a goal, and another  being attributed that goal by right, guess  which group  is strengthened by the striving and  which weakened by the entitlement ...

 They have become the legally protected spoiled brats and victims at the same time, not by their own nature, but from the propaganda of the political grave diggers and of the civil rightniks, who keep their clout only by making trouble.

 An interesting racial phenomenon is the new status of the Orientals in USA.

First, we should remember the time in which the Orientals were not better off than the blacks. That time is over. Not because of a change of attitude toward them,  but because of the impact their achievements, without any of the help the whites have lavished on the blacks.

The Orientals could have been as severely handicapped as the blacks and the red Indians if the politicians, do-gooders and civilrightniks had attempted to help them the same as they do with the blacks.
 

Yet, the Orientals have not quite made it to the top in USA.

Large and small corporations and institutions seem to have reached the same conclusion all over: the Orientals are excellent technicians, scien­tists or professionals. 

But they don't show the attributes that would integrate them well in the top management teams.

What is the reason? Racial "inferiority"? The most probable reason  is what handicapped other immigrants in the past and is handicapping the blacks to the extreme: they tend to coalesce into their own subcultures, neighborhoods, ethnic communities.

This habit also worsens the chances of the Orientals to master English, which is especially difficult for them.
 

Orientals and blacks- as well as anyone else- who make the necessary efforts  to  really integrate with the surrounding world are the only ones who can succeed.

The present disadvantage of the Orientals is only a transition phenomenon.

Two Oriental characteristics seem to give us the assurance that they will not only emerge, but probably surpass everybody: their cultural ambition and deep sense of family. Both are so well known that it is superfluous to articulate them here.

 What afflicts the blacks, on the other hand, is probably the worse plague for any culture: the almost total decay of their family.

 Start to consider that, as of now, 1986, about 60 % of the blacks were born of unwed mothers. Over half of the teen-age black girls become pregnant.

The cultural and moral consequences are devastating, beside the  fact that probably half of those households weigh on welfare, which  is now called "entitlement", with a sarcastic twist.

As these people tend to coagulate in large urban centers, they concentrate their social ills and make them chronic. The normal reaction of the other people, white and others, is to move away for obvious reasons that only superficially can be called "racist" .

The facts speak by themselves:
 

Blacks are 11% of the USA population but 50% of convicted felons.

The largest cause of death among blacks 15 to 24 is murder by blacks.

About 50 % of American murder victims  are blacks killed by blacks.

Over two thirds of the black American children are born out of wedlock.

Some 2.6 million out of 4.6 black American families are headed by single women.

What relevance, if any, do "civil rights" , "integration" , " affirmative action" or "Voting Rights Act" have  compared to the decay of the black family?

They are hardly more than politician's  smoke screens that worsen the black  situation with a gravity that is as cruel as it is irresponsible.

THE BLACK SMOKE-SCREEN

"Racial prejudice" is a smokescreen that hides a reality under the pretense of skin-color consideration.

When analyzed, the "anti-black" prejudice is a misnomer or semantic confusion.

In reality, the anti-black attitude hides a natural incompatibility with certain characteristics we believe to read in the appearance of certain people.

A person may have an expression denoting cruelty, arrogance, brutal uncouthness, primitive cockiness, bullishness, violent stupidity and other unpleasant characteristics we want to stay  away from. Many people, white or whatever, have that kind of appearance that makes us cringe away. We feel uncomfortable with them, whether our feeling is justified by reality or not.

When these somatic features occur on a person of our racial group, we feel the aversion, but we do not attribute it to our race.

When we detect the same repelling features on a black person, we attribute it to the race. The very moment we accept this interpretation, we blind ourselves to the fact that most other persons of that same racial group do not elicit the same negative reaction.

We call that "racism" and convince ourselves that all blacks cause us to react negatively.

Once we become aware of this trick we have long played on ourselves, we find ourselves comfortable with some blacks and not with others, just as with some whites and no with others.
 

The question is, then, not whether the blacks are equal but: are those characteristics any reliable indications of any personality traits?

Yet, whatever the answer is, we have no right to hide the repelling cha­racteristics of somebody under the pretense of dislike for a black skin.

A black or white person with facial or other characteristics that correspond to our idea of kindness or other pleasant qualities is normally welcome among whites and blacks. We know it and it is within the experience of most of us.

It is, then, a matter of elitism, or incompatibility, or rejection of presumably unpleasant persons, black, white or yellow, not of abhorrence for black skin.

This is an important point, to be considered not as a proof that black people have a preponderantly pleasant or unpleasant appearance, but as an indication of what exterior factors promote compatibility.

We can certainly do a lot about this source of misunderstanding, which is of a similar nature as special precautions to be taken when in some different cultural environment.

To assert that we have no right to infringe on the freedom of the blacks to display a particular appearance or behavior is stupidly academic.

Whether we dispute the point or not, belching is good in some Arab culture and a no-no with us, North-Africans eat locusts and we don't, American women have the right to go bare-head in USA and not in Iran.

The American blacks who echo their minister in church may have the right to do so in a white church, but they have to stop it if they want to become compatible with the white churchgoers.

The civilrightnik may tell the blacks that they have a constitutional right to echo the minister. The black politician may exhort the blacks to assert their God-given right to remain faithful to their tradition ...

Why all this vexing nonsense if we want to live together?

BLACK TV NEGRO.

Showing token black people in too many commercials for the sake of integration is incongruous.

Making movies in which blacks are shown as leaders, heroes, scientists, intellectuals and other glorified human images far removed from reality in our society is a degrading attempt to "educate" us through deception.

In the former case, resentment is created against the blacks, because we can no longer enjoy a commercial without a phoney black presence that is always tainted with the suspicion of being contrived.

In the latter case, a resentful skepticism is created, that persists even when a deserving black holds a well-earned position in business, science or any other field.

30-50 years ago, a black in an important position made us think that he was quite a valuable individual. Today, we are tempted to assume that they put a "token man" there because they have to, at the expense of a deserving white (or black, for that matter) individual who  is now unemployed.

Our approach toward equality and integration is counter producing.

It starts with the wrong assumptions and not-too-subtle blunders.

 One blunder is the outlawing of the word "Negro" in favor of "black" .

Like the outlawing of the word "woman" in favor of "person" , "homosexual" in favor of "gay" , "black racism" in favor of " affirmative action" , even "blacks" in favor of "minority" , it is a covert admission that "Negro" , "woman" , "black hiring" , "homosexual" are unmentionable bad things ...

One doesn't have to be sophisticated to understand that, indeed, those people are viewed as second or third class people.

We have lived with the word "Japanese" , "German" , "Mexican" and other having the worst meaning possible in certain period of American history. The restoration of dignity to those names was a normal development.
 

I remember recent times in which words like "Jew" had an ominous meaning. Now, the same word "Jew"  is stated with pride by Jews and admiration by Gentiles.

"Negro" is a Spanish and Portuguese word that means "black" .

In English, it is much more  meaningful than "black"  to indicate a racial/cultural characteristic.

Instead of restoring dignity to the Negroes, we have accepted that calling them what they are is offensive; so, we preserve and hide the insult under the name "black" or the cultural, anthropological and racial lie "African-American"  .
 

The same as the self-deprecating passage from "homosexual" to "gay", with the difference that "Negro" could have easily made it like "Jew".

The do-gooders made some embarrassing blunders.

 A Brazilian friend of mine was astounded that a TV announcer, in Chicago, described two fighting prize-fighters, who were a white and a black man, as "the one with red shorts" and "the one with gray shorts" , which was frustratingly confusing on the black/white TV

When I explained that one tries to avoid the mention of "black man" , he asked outraged: "What is wrong with being called black?"

He was black.

POLITICAL BLACKOUT

A surprising revelation came from an innocent observation by a mother who was discussing a possible play to represent a child molestation case for preventive edification of little children.

"Make sure the molester is not black, lest the children could develop a racist attitude" .

Even with our best intentions, we  can not deal naturally with black people, because they are not in the mainstream.

Their clannishness persists. It has its own standards, partiality toward their own kind, defensiveness or open hostility against the white, certain social and religious styles
 

March 1986. Illinois primary elections. A few democratic candidates have been chosen who are allegedly anti-black, anti-Semitic and nazi-like.

One of them has been elected as the candidate for lieutenant-governor, as the Illinois law prescribes this office to be by election rather than governor's choice.

Adlai Stevenson, the governor-nominee, is furious and proclaims he will rather leave the party than run with a "neo-nazi" . He is studying ways to render their election invalid or illegal.
 

Freedom in America is like everywhere else: it exists only for those who agree with the mainstream.

The right-wing extremists have been elected in a free and legal election. But the democrats refuse to accept it because they vehemently oppose their views.

Where are freedom and democracy?

Laws and elemental concepts of freedom will be obliterated by the hostility of the established majority against the mavericks.

I agree that racism, at least in its evil expressions, should be outlawed.

In USA, however, only the racism against the blacks is outlawed.

We have laws protecting black racism against the whites. They go from busing children to distant schools for racial reasons to “affirmative action" (which is worse than "eye for an eye", as it punishes the innocent and rewards non-victims), from hiring quotas to the incredibly ugly plan of brainwashing the American children through the media.

This brainwashing is not even subtle.  It consist of imposing on the whole nation, adults and children, a terrible distortion of reality  which looks harmless and educational.

It is more debilitating than the brainwashing we were subjected to in Italy and Germany when I was very young, because it wears the righteous cloak of virtue.

Integration is assuredly a good goal, but the means used fit worse than the classic outrage about "the goal justifies the means" .

To promote integration, we are abusing TV and other media to feed cynical distortions of the truth to our children.

This is as malefic as a crime, even if there are no laws that fit this crime specifically.

We have a long series of truth distortions, in ancient and contemporary history, and of the serious damages they caused to our country.

Their purposes were often noble, patriotic and moralizing.

Patriotic distortions, for instance, were not few. We could mention the movies glorification of the FBI that went on for many years. The virtues and capabilities of the FBI men and their organization  were so brazenly exaggerated that it was almost a capital sin to doubt their infallibility and super-human capabilities.

That caused the FBI to fall into a state of mediocrity and corruption for lack of criticism, controls, and for excessive complacency.
 

The conviction that American genius, American ingenuity, science, technology, know-how in virtually every field was the best by far, and not reachable by any other nation, was spread to generate patriotic pride. But it generated the delusion that Americans needed no particular effort to be better than anyone else in the world.

It was silly, irresponsible, but all we had to do to be the best was to be American, as if that were a genetic characteristic no other people could match with any effort.

We had wings, and other nations had none: it was as simple as that.
 

Then came the Sputnik. It caught us with our pants down.

Now, it was the Russians who could claim they were the best, together with Holy Mother Russia.

Why! Hadn't they stolen and copied everything from us?

Yes, even the things we had not yet invented and developed

The Russians were not alone to surpass us.

Japan went far beyond what we thought to be cheap toys and poor imitations of products created by the invincible American ingenuity.

Much too far. Wasn't it terribly unfair toward us, who taught them everything they knew? ...

Did we, or had we been convincing ourselves of our greatness with whatever attributes we could invent for ourselves, as if the rest of the world were there only to be told by us how to admire us and cater to us?

The simple truth was, and is, blindly simple: we fell prey of our own  narcissism, which forbade us to think or suspect that others -or we ourselves- could be better than we were.

We  were naturally endowed, obviously entitled to the inalienable qualification of being superior to the rest of the world.

Add to it the uncontrollable power of the media, who contaminates our culture with publishing and propagating whatever flattery the mediocre majority loves to read about themselves.

We fell prey of the same debilitating narcissism that we thought existed only in dictatorial countries.
 

The sad truth is that the people of dictatorial countries know or suspect they are subjected to imposed government propaganda. They build up the natural survival "antibodies" to it.
 

In USA, we have the most comprehensive, sophisticated and successful means of self-brainwashing: the media.

Their control is so complete that nothing could compete with them.

Their power goes even beyond their original intentions, well beyond their control.

Their interpretation of  the truth  is impregnated with their wishful thinking.
 

They are the infallible observers and the infallible Inquisition.

They transform the truth with their beliefs and believe in it themselves.

What they believe is all the evidence and "truth" available to the common people, who would then give their lives for it.

Nothing could be more honest, sincere and lethal.
 

They don't stop at giving their kind of "truth" .

They have usurped the parental task of educating the public to their truth.

For this purpose, they present news programs from the perspectives that slant our thinking where they want to lead us.

Our psychological knowledge is still too primitive to even suspect the ultimate consequences in the minds of those
they "educate".

We don't  really know where "education" ends and brainwashing begins. To watch their modestly self congratulating gurus is frightening.

And thewy keep congratulating themselves (with modest restraint, of course) for their rationalizing wisdom.
 

The task that seems to obsess the media is racial integration.

Racial integration is a normal evolutionary process that could be easily facilitated.

The media's obsession with integration, however, has fallen into a blaiming brainwashing. 

 Adults and children  are being deceived into cynical falsehoods that are believed to be beneficial.

 To begin, the mere fact of putting an Italian in every TV commercial, whether it fits with the advertised product or not, only because of an Italian-quota policy, would render me allergic to those commercials and the products they advertise. It would cause me to dislike to see Italians in commercials even when they would be appropriate.

The same applies to the token blacks in commercials.

 If that is a matter of offensive bad taste, the deliberately fraudulent misrepresentations of blacks in TV and movies  is dishonestly asinine.

We surely want black leaders, scientists, statesmen, intellectuals, strategists, rather than blacks concentrated only in sports and popular music.

To deny them those developments would deprive the whole nation of precious resources.

 On the other hand, it is now becoming a rule that movies must be produced with deliberate misrepresentation of blacks leading, teaching, inspiring and guiding whites in such unrealistic manners that it is worse than ridiculous.

It is not a laughing matter, because the wholesale deception renders both white and black people cynical about equal opportunities.

We already see children accustomed to a sudden silence when the taboo subject arises: a certain artificial behavior may become the undisputable rule in the presence of a black person.

This creates and freezes a barrier.   At the same time, it commands us to ignore it, as we are shown what great black surgeons, inventors, professors, scientists and intellectuals are everywhere proving their great superiority in action.

Nothing is needed, therefore, to correct an imbalance that makes America a lopsided society.
 

We end up believing that great black achievements can only be fictional.

We end up believing that all we can do is to let them win fatuous beauty contests, pompous titles, peace prices, medals, Oscar awards and similar tinsel.

We can let them host or direct low-brow "intellectual" activities and give them harmless TV pretentious appearances, decorative titles and other spotlight ...

 If that is all we can do, the demands of the blacks will have to increase with the unavoidable aggravation of this pattern. And the  situation will freeze in  relentless demands by the blacks for what the whites don't have any more to give, and token concessions by the whites who have no courage to openly object.

 THE DARK MILLSTONE

We risk losing in the international commercial, technological and cultural contest because our national focus is on nothing higher than fighting the symptoms (not the causes) of racism and inequality.

We have lost our awareness and talent for what other countries are nurturing with intensity: knowledge, productivity, science, technology, the quality of education and responsibilities.

We hold it as self-evident that proper education and social sophistication eliminate racism and social injustices. In fact, there is no better or faster way to eradicate both problems.

Why, then, do we ignore the logical solution and undertake masochistic integration legislation that only exacerbates the problems it intends to cure?

One of the ugliest symptoms of the present craze is the " affirmative action" , which is legalized hiring injustice in favor of blacks at the expense of more deserving whites. The rationalization is that this injustice is intentionally perpetrated to compensate the present blacks for the injustices suffered by other blacks in the past in favor of other whites.

 Nothing could be more anti-American. We don't even dare to use this system against the Mafia criminals, who are still fully active in their pursuits.

Our system is to punish only those we can prove guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

We are punishing totally innocent people for crimes presumably committed by some other people who died long ago, and who are not even of the same family or town or state of those who are being punished today ...

One day we will be unable to escape the necessity to hide from ourselves that " affirmative action" fosters anti-white hatred, atrophy of black competitiveness and ability to survive .

How many generations will endure this legislated black atrophy and punishment of innocent whites?

THE INCURABLE NON-DISEASES

There is nothing wrong about being black, female or Jew.  But our culture has chosen to brand them first with abuses, then with contaminating protection.

First, we start with the racial ambivalence.

 "Racial prejudices" is an ugly connotation in which personal preferences, evolutionary trends, social developments,  scientific theories or findings are grouped in a label that traps them into oblivion or shame.

People cannot be forced to like persons who are tall or short, obese, skinny, loud, soft, sweaty, dry, bald or hairy, or with other traits or behavioral patterns.
 

We cannot really like something if we are not allowed to dislike it.

We must be free to dislike whites, blacks, Christians, Moslems, Jews, gurus, Lichtenstein skin-divers or left-handed epistemologists, as long as we respect their equal right to dislike us.

Then, we should learn to comprehend the reasons for our dislikes.

If we were more advanced, we could discover a scientific basis for our preferences, including genetic time-bombs in what we instinctively dislike.
 

Do-gooders force us  to accept what we dislike, and to absorb it among us like a transfusion of unknown-blood.

All seem to have the freedom for the above mentioned preferences, until the pertaining traits happen to be common to a particular race, and panic ensues.

Traditionally, these preferences or dislikes were handled in individual ways that produced the desired results in  the long run, like evolution, education, intermarriage or assimilation.

In my small way, for instance, I corrected my small-stature "inferiority" by marrying a taller woman (of course, it was only one of the "collateral" reasons...).

I mentioned my "inferiority" with a clinical impartiality to a word that people like to use. That word doesn't make me better or worse than I am.

Who cares whether I am correctly defined, when I want a result rather than sinking into a definition-dispute?

It is like a dilemma consisting of defining me sick or healthy, independently of the  fact that I am as healthy as a rock (in case rocks are healthy).

I have stated elsewhere that mankind would probably gain if we were not taller than 1-2 feet. So, why did I marry a taller woman instead of a midget? It is that the child, as things are now, would be considered a freak if he were 2-3 feet tall. "Inferior" ? Sure, everyone is inferior to somebody else in some respect and superior in another. Hardly in an absolute sense.

On the other hand, can you imagine this 2-3 footer fighting for the right to be a member of a 7-footer basket-ball team? That would reap him even worse stigmas than inferiority.

The equalrightniks would not hesitate to throw him into that arena if it would serve their purpose ... Who cares if the man is maimed by the games?

It is the civil rights that count. Yes, cause injustice to produce justice, make war in the name of peace; we know the pattern.
 

There are people afflicted by serious handicaps, such as predisposition to, or heredity of, heart or blood defects, mental or many incurable diseases ...

Would their "civil rights" include forcing children to be born and live with life-long curses for the right of handicapped people to marry and have children?

Civilrightniks suborn persons with unpopular genetic characteristics to demand what they cannot obtain from people who are forced to accept what  they abhor.

What advantages are there from transforming a competitive meritocracy into an addictive welfare muck?

What culture, nation, or race could survive by eliminating evolutionary and competitive trends?

The harder we push artificial equality, the more we will expose the opposite, because no one will be able to blame their "inferiority" on lack of opportunities.

The case of the black people's plight to straighten their hair and look white-like is telling. Their very behavior invents and proclaims a "white superiority" that would embarrass the white .

But there are no more than wildly differing opinions about white, male or Christian superiority. Furthermore, the same opinions are questionable because the definitions of superiority are yet no more than opinions about opinions on which there is hardly any consensus.

The blacks, the women, and, some other “minorities” much less now, the formerly disadvantaged have  been afflicted with stigmas typical of the prevailing culture's prejudices. Yet, the very decision to "compensate" them with the present favoritism forces us to consider them on a level sufficiently low to justify our urge to help them.

If the situation  is corrected, the public prominence of the vested do-gooders collapses into an inexorable insignificance.

By the same token, the black, female and other activists unwittingly keep the "discrimination" symptoms alive, because the resulting compensatory advantages are their most comfortable achievements. 

As long as our present cultural level does not improve, "discrimination" will always be kept alive, independently of its reality, because there will always be "disantvantaged" blacks, women, Jews and any category less  numerous or powerful than the white males or whoever else will ever be on top producing for all.

There will always be loud mental midgets conveniently devoted to breeding and fighting the discrimination dragons, and a  majority of mildly educated people voting for them.

POVERTY FORMULA

The most vociferous of today's black politicians is a self-appointed crusader for the poor, the black, Latinos and women.

Many poor, black, women and Latinos have bitterly complained that they never heard of anyone asking him to represent them. But he goes on, and he is heard because he is louder than the others.

What he really does is to represent himself and further his own ambitions, regardless of how dangerous in the long run he really is to the people he purports to represent. Indeed, more than useless, he is harmful to them.

He exploits the poverty formula.

Those who believe what he waves at them are lured into expecting rather than endeavoring, into blaming others rather than improving their own chances.
 

The popular poverty formula is to blame the rich and successful for the shortcomings of the poor. This packs all poor together, as an overwhelming voting block against the rich: a political lynching.

That is really not new. Lynching mobs are probably the most ancient crowds. The new thing now is packaging the whole indigence and misfortune issues in the racial bag.

 Poverty is black, misfortune is black, discrimination is only against the black, all suffering and injustice is inflicted only on the black.

 There are parasites, criminals, loiterers, lazy, malevolent, dishonest misfits that will never make it with society.

Ethnically, they may descend from England, Sweden, Italy, Ruanda-Urundy, Germany, West Africa, Iran, Russia, Madagascar

They are bums, regardless of origin.

Sure, there are psychological reasons, social injustices, childhood traumas. Then, let us get to the bottom of them without creating excuses that may be expedient for one or the other politician, but permanently debilitating for the people they pretend to help.

But let us stop blaming the white man, just because the blacks have been contrived into monopolizing poverty, distress , persecution, injustice and racial prejudice.

The backlash of this distortion is that the image of laziness, parasitism and dangerous  malevolence has spread to ALL blacks.

How many "good" blacks are there?

A lot, many, I am sure, for the simple fact that there is no reason for anyone, black or white, not to endeavor to be "good". Everyone needs jobs, success, money and self-esteem. But the new style has promoted the conviction, among both white and black, that the rules of the game are that the blacks are down, and they must stick together and rise against the white.

 Many whites and blacks alike are convinced that racial discrimination is a self-feeding prejudice between them, rather than a consequence of being unable -or unwilling- to distinguish individuals for what they are.

Concentrating on racism is as futile as concentrating on the symptom.

There will always be whites and blacks who blame each other as a substitute for the work, responsibilities and duties they want to avoid.

There will always be political maggots who exploit these attitudes and spawn them with all the talent at their disposal.

They have been joined by college professors, media pundits and actors, who have developed incredibly adorable language to further the new vampiristic culture. It is the old story: they need grants money, which only come from the government, which can only get from the productive people, who are private entrepreneus, therefore "rich".

Let’s brand them with some guilt and get them...

If we believe the new "anti-elistism" elite, we harvest all the evils seeded by their refined stupidity.

THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD

History, anthropology and psychology give us abundant evidence of racial prejudices, strife and hatred generated and nurtured by racial blocks.

In the white-black relationship, there is disturbing evidence that racial concentrations constantly result in white supremacy and black lower level, from the deepest of black Africa to USA, regardless of which is the minority race.

Regardless of reason or justice, it remains a fact that white and black blocks result in white supremacy.

But we are brainwashed to close our eyes to it. The prevailing posture is that the problem goes away if we hide our heads in the sand, or if we are lied to.

We are being blatantly mislead on TV. Worse yet, in the educational programs dedicated to our children.

We should remind ourselves of the biblical metaphor that it would be better to drown with a millstone around our neck than to corrupt innocent children.

Our children are relentlessly told a callous lie: look how  naturally the black fit among us, look how well they lead us and show us the way.
 

The most recent blunder I witnessed was on an educational TV program.

A scene was shown in which a white woman enters followed by a black woman. The white woman says about the black: "This is my boss. She is a wonderful person, and she always teaches me so much because of her superior knowledge and wisdom...". If my secretary or any of my employees introduced me that way, I would think they wanted to ridicule me or themselves.

Similar misrepresentations are too numerous to mention.

Occasionally, I noticed watching children look at each-other, shrug their shoulders and exchange sardonic smiles I never saw in children before.

Adult reactions are strangely similar or less restrained.

The brainwashing is so crude that it produces an unprecedented cynicism, even in little children, with consequently increased prejudices.

The new dishonest misrepresentation with intent to educate is precisely what horrified us in the past about nations we considered bent on destroying freedom and independence. I was raised under a government that bombarded us with tales and "historical evidence" of racial or national superiority. The result was automatic mistrust of whatever the government said, even when it communicated that 2+2=4.

Some of us had opportunity to listen to forbidden foreign sources to make up our minds.

The media are flooding us with fraudulent representations of black leaders who needlessly roar orders, dictate wisdom, allocate enlightening directives, assign mental postures to adoring white groupies awed in silent admiration... The result is that we don't believe it even when it happens to be true. The shallow dogooding of the media cripples whatever hope we still have for sincere togetherness.

Color-blind white/black blends of adults, children, men-women are chronically shown in a prescribed percentage and phony harmony ...

If we say that it is sickening, we still refer to the symptoms. The causes and the consequences may be worse.
 

This "big-brother" Orwellian scenario takes place while undistorted reality keeps the races separated by fraudulent communication.

Mutual understanding is rendered impossible by the prescribed deception.

The rights of a cynically distorted "equality" are shown more sacred than the Ten Commandments.

We are intimidated into considering the existing differences as artificial. The truth becomes a lie and the lie a sacred truth.

Inexperienced students may be enticed into a false religion, but the acquiescence of sophisticated legislators cannot be forgiven.

With the new dogmas, the reality of neighborhoods deteriorated or rotted by black immigration is denied disclosure, like the unmentionables in Victorian literature.

Proposals to facilitate neighborhood integration within realistic white/black percentile ratios that would benefit both  are considered racist or even neo-nazi.

The possible is eliminated in favor of the destructive.

The consequent exodus of the white and complete rotting of the neighborhood becomes the death-sentence by the very laws that were promulgated to protect the blacks. And endemic racism, hidden or overt, will become virulent, in spite of the necessity of evolutionary integration.

1988. KILL SOUTH AFRICA

Henry Kissinger was attributed saying that it is dangerous to be America's enemy, but fatal to be America's friend.

We ousted Batista and got Castro in Cuba; we abandoned the Shah and got the most vicious anti-American government in Iran; we opposed Somoza and got the communists in Guatemala ...
 

In 1988, we were delivering to chaos the only real friend we had in Africa: South Africa.

The asinine viciousness of the anti-South Africa propaganda was unbelievable. Politicians were jumping on the anti-South Africa bandwagon with delibe­rate blindness.

The whites arrived in South Africa about 400 years ago. The land they colonized was almost deserted, or at least very sparsely populated.

Then, the blacks started to come, attracted by the prosperity the whites were creating.  But they never integrated as a people.

The whites accepted the  situation because it offered some advantages to both: cheap labor to the whites and higher standards to the blacks.
 

The resulting situation would have been acceptable if we didn't have all those American do-gooders meddling and creating trouble.

Ronald Reagan defeated his opponent in a smashing victory in 49 out of 50 states.

The disarray of his opponents was hopeless until they found this South African coagulant for all the anti-Reagan forces in common hatred.

They loved to blame Reagan for not intervening to correct the alleged abuses by the South African whites against the blacks.

They wouldn't mind sacrificing South Africa to their ambitions. And South Africa was not only the most valuable friend of USA in Africa, but the only dependable one. As usual: out the baby with the bathwater.

It is hard to believe, but it happened.
 

The cast of characters in the "anti-Apartheid" campaign is like a list of moral cripples:

Bishop Tutu, a hypocritical meddler, fomenter of hatred and violence, who incongruously won a peace Nobel price.

Teddy Kennedy, the expiating sinner, the eternal almost-candidate for presidency, the last and least of the brothers Kennedy.

He went to South Africa to foment more hatred and rebellion, in order to come back with a sanctimonious report that would please the do-gooders at home. Nothing is too low to feed some political ambitions.

One American black leader after another, all compete to show the worst vehemence possible against South Africa.

The American blacks became a racist block in which individuality has been sacrificed to tribal conformity.

The South African blacks had the highest standard and prosperity in the entire African continent.

Every year, at least half a million blacks moved to South Africa from surrounding countries to seek a better life.

The countries surrounding South Africa   were communist-dominated and  extremely poor. They were continuously warring and killing each other, starving, in continuous political unrest, revolutions, raids and genocides ...
 

For generations, Hamites and Bantus have been pursuing mutual genocide. Pictures have been taken of thousands of heads and hands cut from their victims and displayed in heaps many feet high.

Ethiopian Marxism has deliberately caused deaths of over one million people through famine. Food-relief organizations (all white, by the way) report to have saved seven million from certain death. More millions will die without the white help..

Protesting students were slaughtered by Mengitsu Haile Mariam who then sold their bodies back to their parents for $20 a piece.

Christians were burned alive by a Ugandan king because they refused to have sex with him.

After the British left Uganda, Idi Amin delighted in torturing, dismembering and killing thousands, including eating them and offering human flesh to Henry Kyemba, his Minister of Health.

Is it possible I am saying the truth? Well, check the records: history is history.

News of horrors committed in Zimbabwe after the British left have been suppressed.

Young Ghanians were -probably are still- normally sacrificed at the burial of chieftains.

Mulele's Simbas perpetrated unspeakable horrors against countless people in Eastern Congo.

After the Spaniards left Equatorial Guinea, the ruler Macias Nguema tried de-Christianization by crucifying the Christian leaders.

Deposed emperor Bokassa, of the Central African Republic, was sentenced to death for cannibalism, murder and embezzlement ...

When senator Victor Biaka-Bodo returned from Paris to his native Ivory Coast to campaign for his election, he was eaten by his constituents, as declared by an official Ivorian court in 1953.

Slavery is still common in black Africa. As many as 100,000 slaves were reported in a population of less than 2 million in Mauritania (Wall Street Journal, 9-17-86).

Burundi's president acknowledges (August 1988) that his soldiers, of the minority and dominant Tutsi tribe killed many thousands of Hutu-tribe's men, women and children only because they were Hutu, in August 1988 alone. Then, he ruled out an inspection of the facts by an international team.

 If that were not enough, the Burundi Tutsi foreign minister asked the United Nation for $15 million to help over 100,000 Hutu still alive and homeless, after his own Tutsi killed at least as  many Hutu ...

One wonders what he did with the money ...

Cannibalism, genocide, torture, human sacrifices, slavery, mutilation and other crimes beyond our imagination are still being committed almost routinely by African blacks, but our do-gooders, politicians and anti-white leaders thundered and legislated only against South Africa's apartheid, which is a sort of Heaven on Earth for the blacks,  compared with the above described horrors. 

They legislate sanctions (with a fury beyond our President's veto) on  South Africa for not accelerating full political equality to blacks who enjoyed more prosperity, freedom, justice and opportunities in South Africa than in any of the surrounding countries.

Considering not only the above, but also the horrible blunders with Viet Nam, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, it seems that the American foreign policy of the last 40 years has been more masochistic  than even an anti-American fantasy could wish.

EQUALITY NEEDS DISCRIMINATION

There is no equality without discrimination, just as there is no life without death.

Just as life is incomprehensible without death, or light without darkness, so is equality meaningless without differentiating it with valid discrimination, that is: definition, differentiation, recognition.

Equality must have suitable alternatives in order to be valid.
 

A sweeping decision that all people have the same rights may sound correct, but it is meaningless if rights cannot be denied under some circumstances. It is not a matter of justice or injustice. It is a matter of relevance.

Gender or race equality, for instance, become irrelevant if gender and race discrimination are not allowed to exist in some circumstances.

First, gender and race discrimination cannot be denied only because they may degenerate into ugly forms, just as water cannot be outlawed because people have drowned in it.

Let us prevent drowning, gender and racial injustice, but not water or discrimination.

If the only kind of acceptable sex discrimination we can imagine is separate toilets for men and women, our sophistication does not rise above the toilet level.

The same primitivism afflicts our perception of racial differences, if all we can notice are the abusive misinterpretations of skin color or facial characteristics.

Since our discrimination can be distorted by prejudices and can perpetrate injustices against one gender or race, we outlaw discrimination altogether. As in many other cases, we throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Those who are prejudiced against blacks, for instance, would explain that blacks are, say, ill-mannered, immoral, dirty or whatever their prejudice is.

What would then happen with the blacks who are well-mannered, moral or clean? They can constitute a majority, just as among the whites.

Prejudice could be obviated by bringing it out into the open and let it run out of breath ...

That is, we could support the attitude against ill manners, immorality and dirtiness, provided that people without those negative factors were guaranteed full equality with other people with the same attributes.

This way, the overwhelming  majority of the whites and blacks would come together in a meritorial and evolutionary manner. Easier said than done? Sure, but less stupid than the present phony remedies.

Discrimination would  naturally apply against ill-mannered, immoral and dirty people of black, white and any other race.

These people, then, would be spurred into better behavior by the very discrimination that would and should afflict them.

The opposite is happening now.

By outlawing the symptoms of discrimination, we are aggravating the causes.

Ill-mannered, immoral and anti-social black people become incorrigible flouters who worsen their misbehavior to accentuate their "entitle­ments". The far larger number of well-mannered, moral and clean blacks are grouped with the others and are deprived of the chance to separate themselves from the "black trash" in the same manner in which the whites do against the "white trash" .

The misbehavior remains, is protected, and is attributed to all blacks, and only to the blacks, by the very prohibition to even notice it among the blacks.

As anyone who is forced to accept bad behavior becomes irreconcilably hostile to it, enforced integration exacerbates the racial antagonism to a point that reconciliation becomes increasingly more difficult.

This kind of hostility grows as it is pushed back, and disaster lurks.

The restaurants and other public places that rejected blacks precipitated the present forced integration.

A better approach was used by those who regulated admission on the basis of proper clothing or other requirements that, directly or not, reflected a particular behavior or merit that had nothing to do with race.

That would have reflected the true causes of alleged racism. In fact, most racists don't realize that their attitude  is caused by the convictions that all members of a certain race have some disliked attributes.

 When those particular attributes are attacked, rather than the race, the racist problem has a built-in solution: first, its "innocent" members are exonerated, as in any race; second, those who are "guilty" can decide what to do about the reality of their disliked attributes.

Suppose that some people dislike wide-brimmed hats and high-heel man-shoes and decide to deny access of such people to a restaurant or club.

First, they would discover that only a few blacks wallow in that dress-style. Perhaps no more than whites.

Second, those very few blacks could not "infect" the overwhelming majority of blacks just because of skin color.

Finally, we would understand that the prejudice to be dealt with is against a particular fashion or behavior, not against a race.

WE should never forget that the problems are caused by culture, NOT BY RACE, whether connected WITH THE RACE OR NOT.CULTURE CAN BE EVOLVED AND CHANGED. NOT RACE.

This insight, however, is frantically opposed by many politicians and civil-rights lawyers, because it would cause them to lose power and money.

The same applies to any other element of prejudice against the blacks: they sweat and stink (as previously said of other immigrants)? Well, let's count the whites and the blacks that sweat and stink and concentrate on those attributes. It results that both the whites and blacks who are more afflicted have to wash -or should wash- more often. They choose the remedy and the consequences

Anything more than that is superfluous and forgettable.

That is certainly better than the aggravating urge to deny the obvious when it is disliked by some.

I remember the sanctimonious fury caused by a survey result that the average IQ of the blacks was inferior to the white's.

Frankly, no one needs a survey to know that the blacks really average a lower IQ in the present circumstances.

It is in the nature of the IQ testing to reflect the level of training in a particular context more than some kind of primordial intelligence we don't quite understand.

 We could  have accepted the finding, faulty as it was, and the blacks could have decided to focus on some training that would increase their IQ to average or beyond, like the Orientals, who are (initially) more alien to USA than the blacks-, in case such an improvement were desirable. If they decide not to, their IQ remains down there, no matter what the civilrightniks say.

We could also accept an IQ measurement in a black-determined context, and decide on whether the white ought to improve their lower IQ.

The essential is to recognize the evidence as such, not as a transient fashion would wish it to be.

As usual, "truth will make you free".

BLACK MAGIC

Mayor Washington, Chicago's black mayor, was reputed as intent on increasing the black population of Chicago, to improve the political power of the blacks.

More whites would then leave Chicago to avoid the black-favoring taxes; more blacks would come to Chicago to be supported.

This would deliver the City to the blacks.
 

This method is purported to consist of continuous increases in welfare services and taxes necessary for the same.

Such a system increases the dependence of blacks on welfare and their identifying with it.

Large Chicago areas are already completely black. A very large percentage of their population live on endemic welfare.

One day it will backfire, for the blacks who don't want to overcome dstitution and succeed, and acquire property and status, will rebel against a system that gives them clout only if they derive their power from addictive welfare.  But they will find themselves trapped in a pit without possibilities, without resources and chances for resources.

Only then it becomes clear that those who purport to represent the blacks, the Hispanics, the poor, women and old  really only represent the white and black trash and derive their power from the perpetuation of the "inferior" condition of the perpetually poor.
 

There are plenty of blacks who can vote against the vampires who derive their power from black misery.

Only then they will understand that those who say: "I represent the poor, the women, the old, etc. ..." really say: "I represent the self-perpetuating black trash, white trash. I am the maggot of human misery, intent on increasing human misery because I live off it " .

Welfare agencies and other similar programs tend to side with the maggots, because they thrive on the same misery.
 

So do the politicians who lose their power if indigence diminishes.

People who owe their power to poverty should be disposed of after one usage, like toilet paper.

They are likely to act like arsonist fire-fighters who start fires to keep their jobs.

 The more we force integration, the more we push the irreconcilable differences into a corner where there won't be any excuses left or possibilities to blame the whites.

At that point, the truth must be faced inexorably.

 When whites and blacks are together in an enforced integration, the unworkable differences are hidden, but aggravated.

When the excuses and the blames are exhausted, we will be mired in a disaster of insurmountable differences. What then?

The only solution may be to start culling out of the tension those members of both races who are compatible, if they can forget the imposed loyalty to either race.

The problems will be reduced to a progressively diminishing number of the least adaptable.

Now, those who can overcome the differences are racially bundled together with those who are made hopelessly incompatible.

This increases the problem into unmanageable size.

Rather than discriminating against the black, yellow or white, we should make a point of discriminating against those who are too noisy, too arrogant, to dirty or stinky, too undisciplined, too ignorant, immoral, etc., or even against those who wear improper clothing for some occasions or places: this would remove a lot of content from the racial tension.

People weeded out by those rules would be discriminated against for being violent, or dirty, or for wearing no necktie, not because of their skin. So many such rules (many of them frivolous to boot)are religiously respected in our society, even if they could be considered dictatorial, oppressive, etc.

In that case, racial discrimination would not be more disturbing than clothing or educational discrimination.

DISINTEGRATING INTEGRATION

Like most subjects interpreted from an incompetent perspective, racial integration is producing social disintegration.

Integration has the purpose of bringing together various races or groups into harmonious togetherness.

In every century and country, mankind has achieved integration of different ethnic, racial, cultural and other groups into fairly harmonious societies.

In practically all cases, each group modified some of the original characteristics, like traditions, beliefs, language, costumes and customs, in favor of what prevailed in the society to integrate into.

There is hardly any country in which this did not happen to a very deep extent.

British, German, Italian, French, Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, any African, Asian, European and other societies, no matter how apparently compact, are all the result of integration in which every original group mutated original attributes into a "melting pot", in which the original slowly disappeared to everyone's advantage.

Only in present USA, a disruptive element has been introduced that disintegrates integration in the name of integration: enforced negative discrimination in favor of the "minorities", in the form of "affirmati­ve action", and "multiculturalism".

Multiculturalism has been long established in many universities, where it is instituted with enforced exclusion of courses about Western culture, which is defined as sexist, oppressive, and white-male chauvinist.

As if it were not enough, the blacks (more than any other race) are encouraged to be as defiantly different as possible, especially if their appearance and behavior is in paraded contrast with the prevailing white Anglo Saxon:

They dress, speak, sing, eat, worship, congregate, etc. etc. in ostentatious defiance against the white. On the other hand, they spend whatever they can afford to imitate the white in matters the politicians cannot control.

With this flaunting display of intentionally non-white feelings and postures, as well as incongruous white aping rather than competing emulation, and institutionalized anti-Western courses in universities, who can believe that genuine integration is ever going to take place?

MULTICULTURALIST KITSCH

Multiculturalism is a doctrine that all cultures are equivalent and must coexist as equals in the same society. It is a cultural "you-are-entitled-to-your-own opinion", pushed to the unexpected conclusion that any opinion is irrelevant, for the opposite opinion is just as valid. It fits well with the "this-weekend-go-to-your-church-or-synagogue", which postulates: "What you believe is irrelevant, but just perform the social ritual of worshiping it".

It is advocated by the elegantly smiling elite of anti-elitism, by the adorably intolerant missionaries of cultural toleration, by the charming haters of Western culture.

Whether it has any connection with the French deconstructionism is coinci­dental, first because the originators of deconstructionism have rejected the American academic establishment's interpretation; second, because multiculturalism is only artificially cultural.

To begin with, the present multiculturalism fad is an incompetent redundancy in Western culture, which has its roots and continuity in multiculturalism: from Sumeria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, Italy, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, India, China, Africa, etc. etc.

That is: Western Culture is by itself multicultural. In fact, many people from underdeveloped countries come to European and American Universities and other institutions to obtain grants and conduct research about their very own cultures.

Indeed, no other culture can match one thousandth of the thousands and thousands of Western studies, researches, discoveries, records, data bases, publications, museums, academies, institutions, drawings, pictures, volumes and volumes of treatises, careful and loving collections and reconstructions of artifacts, works of art, relics, archeological findings etc. etc. about other cultures in the entire world.

The glib and dishonest claim that the West only "stole" from other cultures can only be a proof of malevolent ignorance.

The multiculturalism being pursued today (1980 and later) in American universities is a political pseudocultural phenomenon: courses about primarily African and other marginal (don't dare to call them so) cultures to be studied instead of, rather than in addition to, the Western culture, which was virtually the only one able to preserve whatever records were left.

The premise for this posture is that, since all cultures are equally valid, it is also correct to study an African culture and neglect the Western culture, in the same manner that the African culture was ignored in the past in favor of the Western.

But the premise is not only false; it is absurd.

First of all, no matter how many cultures we want to do justice to, the first to focus on is our own. The same as a multilingual student must first learn his own language even if he wants to study foreign languages. After all, whatever language you start with is the only one you can use to start learning other languages.

We say that America is a melting pot of races and cultures. That is really what has made Europe and America so great. If cultures do not melt into a homoge­ne­ous pattern, as the Greeks, the Romans, the Italians, French, British, German and others did, and as all of them did in U.S.A., we have a destructive balkanization of ethnic groups with anachronistic chauvinisms conflicting endlessly against each other.

This pattern would destroy any country, any culture. We are witnessing the beginning of our balkanization in the unquenchable hatred politicians and missionaries of multiculturalism are spawning among many American blacks against anything Western, white, Christian, Jewish, European. One vicious example is being abundantly shown in the troubles between Bosnians, Croats, Serbians, Macedonians..., and politicians are powerless about them.

The uninformed public is being fed appalling historical falsehoods aimed at discrediting and rendering contemptible anything Western and European.

The irony of this process is that the blacks themselves are culturally not African at all, but 100% Western, American and European. Racially Negroid characteristics are only morphologic and biologic. We seem to forget that the Negroid Italians, Germans, British, French or Iranians are Italian, German, Italian, not African. We have Mongoloid Americans: they are Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese only for one or a few generations.

It doesn't matter whether they came here as slaves or on their own. Many Caucasians (Russians, French, Italians, British etc.) were once slaves. Indeed, the word "slaves" comes from the ancient times when most of the captives owned by the free people were of Slavic races. My mother had a German maiden name and apparently Slavic features, and I was born in Italy, and I have been an American citizen for 40 years. Should I then hate the Romans? But, culturally, I am a Roman/Italian/American, with nothing whatsoever consciously Slavic (as much as I would welcome it) in my cultural makeup.

The misconception with the "African Americans" is their "Negroid" (the anthropologic, not racist term) features, in the sense that they have more melanin, wooly hair, thicker lips, flatter noses. They are not informed that African means also Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Lybian, Egyptian, Southafrican, with Semitic, Caucasian or other non-Negroid characteristics. The "African Americans" are of so many different races, like the many Nilotics, the Mittu, Madi, Shilluk, Anuak, Dinka, Nuer, Masai, Turkana and many more, then the Didinga, the Bongo, Abissinians, Somali, Akikuyu, Swahili, Watusi, Bantus, Zulus, Thonga, Berbers, Senegalese, Nigerians, Hausa etc. etc., more different among themselves than the average "African American" from the average "European American".

Therefore, it is at least misleading to group the "blacks" separate from the "whites", when many "African Americans" are more similar to the "European Americans" than to other "African Americans). But the politicians have to group them together on the basis of skin darkness, in order to keep the voting group compact.

To make sure, politicians spread the most preposterous historical lies of white persecution, abuses and torture against blacks, in order to foment and keep the anti-white hatred alive.

RANDOM BLACK FACTS

 - After the end of colonial rule in the 1960s, most black African countries have failed socially, politically and economically, after achieving complete and unlimited independence. In many of them, the present (2001) situation is worse (to say the least) than when they were colonies.

 The World Bank's report of 1986 stated that "for the first time since World War II, a whole region has suffered retrogression over a generation" .

In 1981, a group of Ghanaian peasants pleaded with the English to recolonize the country, and accused the Ghanaian leaders of dishonesty, incompetence and betrayal.
 

- From 1957 until 1987, Africa has had more than 150 heads of state. Only 5 stepped down voluntarily. Of them:

Idi Amin slaughtered over 200,000 people.

Nkrumah, the socialist hero, stashed over $3 million (billions today)in foreign banks.

Mobutu, of Zaire, made himself the "second richest man in the world" with $8 billion hidden in Swiss banks.

Instead of causing more freedom, the end of colonialism brought more repression.

1992: only 4 (Egypt, Botswana, Senegal and Mauritius) out of 51 African countries allowed their citizens to vote and choose their leaders.

 Africa had over 300 daily newspapers before independence. In 1992, there were hardly 130 left.

Black Africa "is turning to Marxism". Yet, they received more help of all kinds in one year from USA than in over 30 years from the Soviet Union.

Ethiopia's government starved millions of citizens to impose Marxistic dictatorship. While over 1 million Ethiopians were starving to death, Americans offered them free life-saving aid, while the Soviets were selling $4 billions of weapons to the Ethiopian government.
 

Over two thirds of the black American children are born out of wedlock.

Most black American families are headed by single women.

The worst anti-black discrimination could not harm the blacks, in the long run, as much as the present anti-white venom.

The " affirmative action" (this deceiving euphemism for "black racism" is as revealing as using the word "gay" instead of "homosexual"), the frantic punishment of any white man who expresses any negative opinion about black racism, are harbingers of deep-seated anti-black resentment. One day it will explode in some unforeseen fashion. The race pimps are looking forward to it, because they need more race hatred to survive.

Eye-for-an-eye  is not allowed against a guilty Mafia, but it is imposed against innocent white men in favor of non-victimized blacks and women.

The "skin color" , "black" , "prejudice" are self deceptions through words we have trapped ourselves in.
It is not the color of the skin, for there are countless "blacks" we would gladly integrate with, if we, white and blacks, could free ourselves of the semantic racism trouble. There are only certain black people we dislike, because of an association of features and behavior that happens to have a black skin.  In fact, we are repelled the same way by whites with the same repulsive features and behavior.

The trouble is that we are unable to diagnose the reasons of the revulsion and generalize only the black aspect, because it is the only one we can define visually.

We would say that houses are made of floors, and would define them as floors, if we saw only the floors as common denominator, as we see the black skin in "Negroes".

There are countless "Negroes" we can accept (provided we are accepted by them too)on account of features-behavior characteristics we like in them  (and they in us)as well as in whites, yellows etc.

There are many dark blacks we define "like us" (be it a compliment or insult) and acceptable, and many light-skinned "blacks" that we reject and call blacks in spite of the light skin.

We are still unable to define the "repelling" characteristics, but we recognize them instinctively in both white and black people, and recoil in their presence.

It has been so for millennia, and we cannot change it. We will never change it. Every effort to change our revulsion and not its cause is and will remain as futile as any effort of the same kind. Our "revulsion" is only a symptom or consequence.

We must abandon our fetish for "equality in spite of reality".

Our ideal of equality can be reached only by first recognizing the existence of equality as a goal, not as a reality; only then, we can allow or help the unequal (and they us)to become equal. We worsen the situation by pretending that people are equal only because we like to believe that they ought to be equal.

 We must also recognize that we call races equal, or assert that racial or gender difference don't count, mainly because we are not yet able to recognize and analyze the differences.

- The environments that are most prejudiced against races, foreign­ers and "strangers" are the sports and popular activities, becau­se they are thought to be less intellectually sophisticated.

Yet, in those environments, the blacks have made so much progress that they are well above their statistic percentile of USA’s population. This is an unexpected proof that there is no more anti-black activity from prejudice alone in our society.

 With that clue, and with the awareness that the intellectual and business fields are not as prone to segregation as the blue-collar environment, we must understand that the failure of blacks in management and cultural fields -in a period in which managers and intellectuals are especially eager to welcome blacks- is a proof of their present "racial" (=cultural) weakness in those fields.

It is peculiar that we are not allowed to assert that temporary unfitness, but we have no trouble asserting that obese people, for instance, have little success in management, culture etc., even if it is not true.

Our prejudices about discrimination leads us to assume that minorities would be grossly under-represented where there is discrimination by a majority.

The above mentioned over-representation of the blacks in sports and popular music would show a result that could only  be caused by the minority discriminating against the minority. Which is not the case.

It is also remarkable that the white are not clamoring, as the blacks always do for themselves, that there should be a pro-white "affirmative action" in the sports and popular music.

Sociologists and politicians insist that minorities would be proportionately represented wherever discrimination  were absent.
History and the world scene have disproved it and keep disproving it.

In Czarist Russia, the Germans were hardly 1% of the population, but 40% of its military leaders, over 50% in many government ministries and in the St. Petersburg Science Academy.

Already over a century ago, the Argentinean Bank of Buenos Aires had more depositors of Italian citizenship than Argentinean depositors.

Two thirds of American colonial governors were of Scottish ancestry.

Scotts also have a higher percentage of Nobel prizes than other ethnic groups.

In Australia, only for 2 years between 1929 and 1949 the prime minister was not of Irish descent.

In Malaysia, in the 1960s, the Chinese students (a minority) obtained 1488 bachelor of science degrees, and the Malays only 69; the Chinese 408 engineering degrees, the Malays 4.

In about the same period in Nigeria, the 55% majority of the northern region supplied less than 10% of the university students and three quarters of the soldiers, whereas the south got the rest of the students and three quarters of the officers.

In Sri Lanka, the Tamil minority (11% of the population) obtained 48% of the engineering degrees and 49% of the medical degrees between 1969 and 1977.

In South-east Asia, where the Chinese are no more than 10% of the population, the Chinese minority has often conducted at least 70% of the retail trade in Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia.

In much of Central and East Europe, the small Jewish minorities were the absolute majority in many professions before World War 2.

Zimbabwe now (1992) had a Marxist anti-white black government, with hardly any white in power. Yet, the minute white minority lived there in opulence and owns almost all the national economy. The white had  literally no military, police and political power, and the blacks can expropriate them any time they wish, especially in virtue of their Marxism.   But it was in their interest to allow the white to continue owning and managing the wealth of the nation.
Now (2001) The government encouraged massacres of the white by the blacks are still going on and mostly unreported.

Our American politicians, sociologists, rightniks and do-gooders still have no idea that the historical and world evidence is against them.

- Minorities and lonely individuals have always been our heroes, creators, leaders, achievers of all that is noble and progres­sive, builders of masterpieces and cultures. They have fought and overcome majority's oppression, barbarism, prejudice, ignorance and bigotry. No one helped them, and they won against all odds.

We have reversed evolution.
 

We are now lionizing  weak and decayed minorities who cannot overcome prejudice and majority inertia, who are much less handicapped than minorities who survived scientifically implemented genocide, who are victims of persecution and slavery after attempting to persecute and enslave others.

Now, in opposition to the other minorities, they have rights without merits, and compensation to damages done to others, which is unprecedented in history.

 - What is swept under the carpet of racism is often the problem that some politically suborned ethnic or racial groups are simply inassimilable in a particular environment and time. The Europeans are discovering it now about Muslims, Arabs, Turks and other immigrants. The problem is not their ability, but their unwillingness to integrate

 Today's oxymoronic “integration” fetish makes race separation unchangeable in many respects. It aggravates hostile differences into monstrosities it creates by forcing different groups to live and work together while preserving and protecting (practically embalming) their differences .

Equality is an access right, not a matter of fact. It can only be made possible by education and consequent evolution.

Two students have equal rights to access all the education and growth opportunities. That does not make them equal achievers. As they progress in the course of their education, their different performance reflects a right to inequality as a goal. Equality is, therefore, only an access right at the beginning of the human growth process. The outcome leaves the right of opportunity equal for all, but the results unequal for all.

The right to equal results kills any endeavor, competition, incentives, ambition and the process of education itself.

The civilrightniks want to impose equal rights as equal results, which amounts to national suicide.

Some, if not all, races seem to decay when they don't intermarry. The American Indians were saved by evolutionary integration. Those who did not were decimated by suddenly imported ailments and customs. The same happened to our white ancestors.
There are villages, in Europe and elsewhere, where local prejudice discou­rages marrying outsiders. Their health and racial characteristics worsen from one generation to the next.
As usual, these facts  were discovered by competent observation, but now managed by the incompetent. Intermarriage and integration are beneficial when they are selective, according to global criteria of choice we often don't understand, that may be called "taste" , "love" or "instinct" .
When they are legislated by the do-gooders or politicians, they function like hammers that hit the holding fingers instead of the nails.

The typical American black or white demagogue keeps his power only if he convinces his followers that they are victims. Their followers need enemies or persecution claims in order to function as the parasites their demagogues need them to be.

 White and black will never feel comfortable with each other, as long as integration is forced on them. Only an evolutionary pace can succeed.

Revolutions succeed as historical events, seldom as real progress. The evolution (of which the revolution was mostly a degenerative flare-up), that often would have taken place anyhow, is mistaken as effect of the revolution. Legislated equality and integration are like a revolution or a degeneration of the evolutionary progress from education, which would produce faster genuine real-time results.

So much business moves to Asia merely for the lower-cost labor. Why not to Africa, where the labor would cost even less? Endemic inabilities and unreliability? Economics, vested interests, production and labor costs, or mere greed, are more powerful than any racial consideration.

We have reached the point that the laws do not allow some people to avoid other people whose behavior they dislike. The law forces the former to accept, and live with, the latter.

One of the laws of human nature is that some differences among people are irreconcilable. 
When they occur, assimilation or evolution are the proven natural processes that should be left to themselves, without interferences by legislative, religious, moral or psychological processes, which have a deplorable history of failures.
These matters are to be left alone, like the free market.

We know what disastrous effects heavy interventions by economists have had on our economy.

We are causing human disasters with our presumption to correct human behavior we don't understand.

 It is telling that the blacks who enjoy the highest standard of living  are now living among the whites who imported their ancestors as slaves and are accused of racism.  Those blacks are the ones who complain the most against the whites, but they prefer to live like the whites among the whites they can blame and hate rather than among the blacks of any savagely free African nation.

Some people have a life-style that produces wealth and creates employment. Others have a life-style that produces human and environmental decay.

When they live in the same society, the former don't want to be damaged by the latter. So, they look callous. The latter look like victims the former refuse to help. The two cannot mix, unless the "victims" accept and learn the productive way.

Some groups of people seem to prosper and  even excel only when they are struggling minorities among other people.  The Jews, for instance, produced an astounding number -probably more than any other race- of geniuses, scientists, philosophers, musicians, writers, political leaders, financiers, artists only as guests, or persecuted minorities, of non-Jewish nations.

Now, they have Israel as their own land; but they seem to be destined to lose it again, for Israel  is considered like a cancerous growth by the surrounding countries.

What is the real reason for such a consistent "victim" destiny for about 4,000 years? A self-fulfilling persecution complex? The message of "superior race" through their self-designation of "chosen people" ?

To consider the black as an innocent victim of his condition is a "humane" way of calling him "boy" .

When over 60% are born fatherless, 50% of prison inmates are black (who are 12% of the population), as many of them die in one year, murdered by other blacks, as the victims of  VietNam war ... That is a de-facto difference, or "inferiority" we are forbidden to notice and mention. Blaming the whites, right or wrong, doesn't correct the black disadvantage. Illiteracy, for instance, can only be corrected with education, no matter who is to blame for it.

 What is the purpose and effect: their situation gets worse yet, for they are forbidden from curing themselves (becoming responsible), and the whites are further driven against the wall ...

The gap keeps widening until the explosion or self destruction ensues, which will widen the gap even more.

 "I have worked hard and sacrificed myself to find a place where I can have peace, good life and a safe environment to raise my children, without disturbing anyone else. My lifelong efforts deserve that good place. But how many places are left, where I can find that peace, that are not about to be contaminated by troublesome intruders? Then, should I go to another country?"
Immigrants came to America, because America has always symbolized that happy choice.

Is it possible that today's America is developing the conditions that induced us to leave our original countries?

We are experiencing the unprecedented phenomenon of a minority of leaders of the dominant majority forcing the majority to lower their own standards and sacrificing hard-won achievements to integrate with a hostile and uncooperative minority of people suborned and kept in a parasitic situation.

By persisting in this forced integration, we create a growing cancer. 15% of our population, plus their allied, can never integrate to anyone's satisfaction.

The lower end keeps coagulating in slums. Those who want out seek the better neighborhoods and disrupt them: one after the other. No end, because the law prohibits protective measures by the original dwellers of the still livable neighborhoods.

 -       Everywhere, in TV etc., we see panels of well intentioned people discussing the plight of the lower-class blacks, as if they were all of the blacks.
This is convenient for demagogues, but detrimental to the status and reputation of all blacks: it forces them into a chronic victim-and-slum image, which is artificial to start, but made real by the agreed-upon assumptions.

 The panels discuss ALWAYS the guilt of the whites, and what they ought to do for the blacks, never what the blacks must do to improve themselves and their image, beside blaming the whites.

No other race or class of people has ever been misrepresented so blameless and spoiled, anywhere, anytime.

The more we expect others to resolve the problems, the less the "minorities" do by and for themselves; their incentives diminish, their expectations increase, their disappointments increase, with consequent increase of their hostility against the majorities and concomitant decay  on account of their diminishing motivations.

It is a chain reaction downward: one city after  another decays in spawning contamination ... We already have city blacks accusing the besieged whites in the suburbs of being racists ... On and on ... no end to the spread of the cancer ...

Our society has now no higher evolutionary activities left than this black hole.

- To say that we must understand the causes of black misbehavior is the same as to say that we must understand the causes of racism, murder, theft, dope addiction.

The only process that works is: start with correction; then cure the causes, if we can truly find and understand them.
 

Segregation is a black trend, already rampant in Africa before the whites ever went there.

Black Africa has the strongest and most persisting tradition of segregation, slavery, murder and genocide.

They adopted slave-capture as a merits-gaining virtue, a proof of manhood.

The whites considered it at best a necessary evil, and never more than something in itself bad and shameful.

The African blacks captured slaves the way we undertake a business activity. They still engage in tribal and national racism -or chauvinism- with an intensity and openness we should not even dare to conceive.

Also in USA, the most vehement racists are the blacks.

- More than other ethnics, blacks tend to group together in alienation against other races. 

 - The more we focus on integration, the more we polarize the issue. The more we impose equality, the more we expose disparity and increase incompatibility.

We must first create the premises by facilitating THEIR efforts and education.

Integration cannot be reached as a direct goal, but as a result of the goal of education.
Like happiness, it cannot be imposed on us but it can only be the result of achieving something desirable.

We may force permission of intermarriages, but we have no right to impose an unhappy "second class" life on black/white children who are rejected by the bigots of both sides.

The blacks separate themselves deliberately more: black Muslims, black churches, black issues, "soul". This is true segregation, while they demand integration from the whites.

If other ethnic groups dared half as much, they would be stigmatized.

The integration the blacks are attempting on their own is revealing: many do anything to straighten their hair, thin their noses and other things to look more like whites. As much as some would frown on those tendencies, we must see in them the misterious ways of natural evolution, even if we don't quite comprehend.
They end up forgetting how many of them are better looking and more desirable than a great many white people.

The blacks are mired in "soul" and pervasive "black issues"  by the race vultures who don't want to stop exploiting them..

  - The greatest sympathy toward blacks exists in societies with the lowest percentage (if any) of blacks. The worst anti-black feelings developed in non-black societies with the highest percentages of blacks maneuvered into hostility.

In other words: those who live with more of them are made to dislike them the most. This problem is obviously one of the most difficult to resolve.

The anti-black attitude is not caused directly by the race as such, but by the arrogance, hostility and incompatibility of militant blacks (not the average black, who would hardly have great problems) toward the whites.

What we call race intolerance is reaction to a life style. We must not confuse the cause with the effect. The black arrogance and misbehavior may be genetic or "racial" , but it is the cultural behavior, not the race, that causes the non-black "racial prejudice". 

Non-blacks themselves may end up with the conviction that the anti-black feeling is caused by the race, but it would not be there if the blacks did not cause it with their behavior and inadaptability. Only if this is understood, the blacks will have a chance to integrate. It is they who must integrate, like any other conquered or absorbed race before them (including the whites with other whites). They will only worsen their problem by demanding that others do the integration for them.

Our segregation against some people is misunderstood. These people demand acceptance and equality in a society they continuously exasperate with offending behavior.

For instance, the Zulu way of life persists in those who work with the white in South Africa. They seek the white's money, implements and gadgetry, but they reject the white's way of life. When their pattern persists in the midst of the white society, they cause resentment. Parasitic politicians have interest in perpetuating this situation: happy black people wouldn’t vote for such race vultures anymore.

When blacks reject the "white" ways and persist demanding equality and favoritism in the midst of the whites, the whites are left with no other defense but to keep them separate.

This segregation is against a certain behavior, a defensive measure by the whites to preserve what they have achieved through centu­ries of progress.

The blacks militants (that is, the exploiters of the blacks) want what no white would dare: enjoying the rewards while rejecting the rules. Hey can play that game as long as they can keep that delusion among the average blacks  On the other hand, the politicians who see the truth are afraid to reveal it to a voting public who would not believe them and turn against them.

The fact that the segregation applies to a race is caused by the coincidence that the offenders coagulate in the same race and in common resentment against a society that has achieved what they want to obtain without achieving. Those of their race who would successfully integrate with the white end up being rejected by resentful misinformed whites.

This could happen with any recognizable race: a few (the worst in any race or nation) persist in offensive behavior against the host race or society, and the reaction they provoke applies to the whole race.

The only remedy can only come from the initiative of the offenders to redeem themselves: it is an uphill fight that works on the basis of deserved merits, never on legislated rights.

All peoples and races who were conquered and ruled started being discriminated against. Then, they conquered integration and equality with their own efforts. The Romans first conquered and ruled barbarians. Then, they made them Roman citizens as soon as the conquered integrated into the Roman culture and law. This phenomenon is unique in history.

Now, for the first time in history, we demand that a society welcome as "equals" an under-achieving hostile minority whose demagogues deliberately flout the established morality, customs and rules.

- We have a convenient way of feeling noble by accepting the blame for the disadvantages of those we consider permanently unable to compete with us.

It feels good to parade our brotherhood with them, as long as we modestly patronize them with the loftiness of our feelings.
 

Let us assume that a miracle would suddenly change to "white" , or "Caucasian" , the skin color of all blacks, without changing any of their remaining physical, mental and emotional attributes.

We would find out that our "prejudices" are not against the black race, but against some habits, facial and other physical features and behavioral patterns that we dislike in any kind of people, regardless of color, nationality, sex, age, etc. In other words, we have some moral, mental, behavioral and even aesthetic rules/prejudices that we respect either instinctively or educationally.
 

For instance, somehow, right or wrong, we discriminate against obese people.  If obese people were all black, obesity would become a "racial" issue, and we would not be allowed to object to obesity

We are allowed to dislike people we consider "ugly" .If "ugly" people were all black, ugliness would become a "racial" issue, and our dislike for ugliness would be branded as racial prejudice ...

Our freedom to reject fat or ugly people is an indirect proof of the above stated. This rejection remains unnoticed only because we don't have a “hot” designation for it, like "black" , "woman" . In other cases, like "fat", "ignorant" , "dumb" , "midget" , the deviation from the default is so obvious a handicap that no one can find any objections against even cruel discrimination.

Evidently, freedom and human rights are no longer what they used to be ...

The blacks can be considered the "superior race" from a fundamental perspective: they multiply more than the white.

There is another valid perspective: the white's refinement is becoming decay. It was progress as long as the masses could absorb it. When the genius of the few produced what the masses corrupted by absorbing it without understanding it, the refinement became decay.

Sodom and Gomorrah refined beyond the populace's ability to understand and to master their own evolution. They had reached the ability to overcome old taboos, superstitions and moral prejudices, but the populace transformed refinement and tolerance into the orgiastic oversimplifications they were able to understand. Such events seem to suggest the uncomfortable opinion that some knowledge is like the nuclear bomb: it cannot be given to the non-initiated.

Democracy's ultimate expression is that everybody has the right to operate on a brain or do the thousands of things that could not be done without proper training.

A competence license is demanded for an activity only when we recognize it complex enough that the candidates must prove their trained competence.

How is, then, that marriage requires no real preparation but only a license for the asking?

As long as we think that driving a car requires more competence than starting a family, we demonstrate unfitness to survive.

Who is to say that we cannot marry?  If we are so primitive that we can say who can drive, but not who can marry, it is pointless to forbid the limitation on marriage, insist on controls and refine them by the very experience on them.

Why are we so afraid that the blacks will take over? Evolutionarily, they could be considered better than we because they are determined to survive and multiply. That is more important -to Mother Nature- than any sophistication. Their moment of truth comes when they conflict with another prolific and assertive “race”.

Some perspectives would indicate that the Germans, the Japanese, the Jews and the blacks are superior races. The Germans, Jews and the Japanese because they are in an expansion phase: they feel they must develop further culturally, economically and in many other ways their unsatisfied ambition may choose. There is a dedication to hard work, knowledge and technical excellence in their own ethnic tradition.

The blacks simply tend to expand numerically. They tend to generate more children than the races they live or compete with. Their increasing number will simply prevail.

In this context, the  concept "superiority"  is interpreted in the only manner that really count: survival.

The whites used to be the superior races, but it seems that their cycle has started the downward curve that appears to follow the end of expansion. Their former dedication to hard working success succumbed to a debilitating "entitlements" worship, and their cultural pride is changing into cultural suicide through a self-deprecating homogenization with under-achieving cultures.

 - Cultures and races that cease to grow begin to shrink.
This seems to apply to the widest range of subjects, from the Roman Empire to the Western white man.

The white man -at least in USA- gives the impression that he has subconsciously reached his maximum expansion or development. Thus, he begins to contract in decay. But, on his conscious level, he shows pompous self assurance inducing to condescending self-deprecation and patronizing the equality rights of "harmless inferiors" he ostentatiously declares equal to him, in the certainty that they will never make it.
 

With this attitude, no matter how he covers it with the tinsel of virtue, he is doomed.

He is condemned like the Roman Empire, when it ceased to conquer, expand and civilize other nations.

Probably, the Japanese, the Russians, the Germans, the Koreans, the Jews and other aggressive peoples are bent on growth and conquest.
Therefore, the future may be  theirs.

The invariable bleakness of the black neighborhoods in American cities isolates the black races in a blame that cannot be avoided or covered with excuses of indigence or white prejudices.  One only needs to drive through black areas in any city to realize that the phenomenon is characterized by a uniformity that forces one conclusion: it is the blacks, as much as we fear or dislike saying it.
It is, however, an artificial cultural, not racial, situation forced by the measures intended to eliminate racism.

Blacks and whites are told that the clustering and coalescing in black slums is caused by anti-black prejudice. 
That conviction makes the black-skinned people unite in an artificial cultural compactness that never existed and would not exist on its own, as the mutual atrocities of black Africans have been showing for as long as history.

If we did not have pundits and politicians oversimplifying the black/white concept into a black/white struggle with clearly defined all-black/all-white lines, we would have a relatively slow, but continuous, erosion in the black/white antagonism in proportion with the cultural-educational improvements of BOTH the whites and the blacks, until the problem would either dissipate or limit itself to the incorrigible minorities of whites and blacks. 

We would not have the indignity of the formation of black slums, now created by the very provisions which prohibit gradual change and forces mass-desertions of whites, and hostile coagulation of the blacks, where the law forces the changes that facts prove to be against reality.

 Whereas politics used to be the art of the possible for the common good, now it has become the sacrifice of a nation on the altar of a political prejudice which is worse than social prejudice.

We cannot implant cancer to cure a tumor.

 "China Town" is an accepted fact and designation. Chinese-Ameri­cans love and nurture it.
They have succeeded in spite of white anti-Chinese prejudice, without ever the slightest help from the whites.

"Black Town" or "Jewish Town" would be unacceptable as both facts and designations. The former keep decaying and are made worse by the white welfare. The latter because of their deliberate distinction from the "Gentiles" .

 Why are the blacks a "minority" ? They started as a majority. They are a majority in many countries. In most of them they are on an inferior level relatively to other races, with exception of anywhere they are an overwhelming majority that uses against the whites the power the whites developed and handed to them.

 Their behavior's history indicates that they turn viciously against the whites, anyone else -and against each other- as soon as they  are given the power (they did not seize or conquer it: they got it presented by the whites while the whites where still in power).

Accordingly, the whites are doing their best to protect them, to let them develop financial, numerical and political power, even knowing that they may turn against the whites at the first opportunity.

We are witnessing the suicidal march of the whites into the Negro black hole.

Some would try to explain it with the Freudian theory of the death wish.

 .  H.L. Mencken (1880-1956), described (Dec. 1989) by Walter Lippmann as "the most powerful personal influence on this whole generation of educated people", is one of the most honored giants of American publishing and cultural tradition. Many intellectuals extolled his genius and historic importance in America culture. His writings and ideas on a wide spectrum of subjects are revered and taught by common people and scholars.

His 1930-1948 published diary has reveals that he disliked Jews and blacks; he  further declared:

"The American journalism is predominantly paltry and worthless. Its pretensions are enormous, but its achievements are insignificant" .

 On religion, he quipped: "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect in theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart" .

On ex-presidents: "It would be humane to shoot all presidents on the expiration of their terms ... They dodder along in a truly obscene manner and always end as public nuisances" .

The National Press Club and the high priests of offical American intellectualism and public life have now excommunicated him. The process of transforming his existence to non-existence has begun.

The Soviets had Siberia and the psychiatric wards; America has its own kind of metamorphosis into oblivion.

Bottom line:

because he disliked blacks, Jews and American journalism, H.L. Mencken's essays and ideas on social, philosophical, political, cultural, artistic, and general contemporary or historical subjects  are condemned to oblivion by the same press and cultural and political pundits who parade their worship for freedom of opinion and expression ...

 Historic evidence shows that the surviving races and cultures are those which proselytize and accept other cultures in their fold. Obvious examples are the Romans, the Christians and the Moslems. 

Two condemned groups emerge on the opposite side, which cannot -or choose not to- proselytize; the Blacks and the Jews. Both  are more dedicated to racism than any other prominent culture or race.

The blacks are believed to be unable to proselytize because they cannot make other people black ... On the surface, it looks evident.  But the same could be said of the whites, the yellows and other races and ethnic groups.

We could say that the Blacks have nothing to offer to proselytize with.

The same could be said of the whites, yellows and other groups, when they started to develop.

Today's blacks could convert other races and cultures to their religions, cultural patterns, artistic expressions ... They don't do it because they are the most dedicated racists in the world. This is evidenced especially among themselves: the most fanatic dedication to genocide is still now operational among different black races and ethnic groups in Africa.

The Jews are both theologically and racially exclusive of other peoples, races and religions.  They don't even accept religious converts as full citizens, as the Christians, Moslems and virtually all other religions do, unless an intricate and long  process of generations, along prescribed racial rules, has unfolded in a manner ultimately approved by their rabbies. Orthodox Jews accept non Jewish immigrants only as residents with limited rights ...

Both Blacks and Jews harvest heavily from their claims of having been persecuted.

Their religion and solidarity  are based on tales of past persecutions.

Without their Holocaust and ancient slavery claims, their prospects in USA would be rather slim.

Black solidarity is especially fragile and crucially dependent on tales of slavery to inspire unity in anti-white resentment.

The moment they can de-emphasize their past slavery or anti-white posture, the congenital rivalries between their  numerous racial subgroups will become as endemic as in Africa. This development is especially certain in the present process of black evolution, when some Blacks become exasperated with the sub-races that constantly hamper integration into the Western-type evolution.

The Jews will again reach the point that they desperately need another persecution, to inspire continuation of the Jewish vengeance-based faith.

Other peoples and races have suffered even worse persecutions and genocides, but they have elected to forget, if not forgive, as Ghandi urged everybody in this century. In this regard, his motto was: "Eye for an eye makes the world blind".

 If our present do-gooding conservationists had been around at the end of the dinosaurs age, they would have created a horrible mess to preserve the dinosaurs...

 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1956): "...the first Negroes to arrive in the colonies of British America were "twenty Negars" brought to Jamestown, VA, by a Dutch man-of-war in 1619, a few months before the Mayflower landed at Plymouth."

 - The British sign in China "No dogs and Chinese allowed" was not so evil as we now think, for it was just a measure to preserve one's own. The evil was in its interpretation as a statement of superiority/inferiority.

The white who segregate from the blacks confuse their own defensiveness with superiority. They fear decay from the blacks because they see the black hostility from insecurity as a form of destructive invasion.

- Prejudices are sooner or later overcome or transformed by reality experience.

In U.S.A., the worst anti-black prejudices are where the black population percentage is higher. They are the mildest where the blacks are absent or in a very small minority.

From that, one could conclude that the people who are best disposed toward the blacks are those who know them the least. What we like to call "prejudice", then, is knowledge from experience rather than prejudice, at least there, where people have continuous and frequent contacts with the blacks. Really, where there are more blacks, there is more political suborning of them against the white.

The case of anti-Italian prejudice, on the other hand, proves a development in the other direction, also from experience.

The rabid anti-Italian prejudices I met when I immigrated to USA were from historical, religious and chauvinistic Anglo Saxon antagonism, especially against Rome. The British empire had to prove it was better and more enduring that the Roman empire, the Protestants predicated that Catholicism was a Roman heresy, and the Italians sounded too similar to the Spaniards of recent wars' memory. Therefore they were called "Dagos", a distortion of the common Spanish name "Diego".

The prejudices were vicious, but Italo-Americans did not ask or receive any government help. The help now provided for the blacks would have crippled the Italian chances, as it is now crippling the blacks.

The Italians simply made it on their own. Now, there is more pro-Italian than anti-Italian prejudice, because the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the Italian achievements in USA and elsewhere.

So, the anti-Italian prejudice was transformed into pro-Italian disposition through experienced reality.

In 1990, however, a shocking "Notification of Policy of Non-Discrimination" of the City University of New York arbitrarily included the Italian-Americans to its list of "affirmative action" protected classes.

Is it a misunderstanding, an aspersion, or an attempt to show to the blacks that also whites with the best origin can be branded with the scarlet letters of "affirmative action"?

The former anti-Jewish prejudice faired not so bad. The very fact that the Jews have been able to excel in virtually all fields of human endeavor transformed the anti-Semitic prejudice into admiration.

In the Jews case, however, a twist is happening that may reverse the pro- into anti-Jewish attitude: the U.S. government is now too biased in favor of the Jews in the Israeli conflicts with the Arabs.

In fact, almost the whole world is developing an anti-American posture versus America's stubborn pro-Israel bias. This may return the American attitude to anti-Semitism.

This development is useful in showing us the anatomy of a prejudice that could have a passable historic justification.
 

In USA, a fact is kept hidden from the public: The discrimination and racism among blacks, against each other, is potentially much worse than between whites and blacks, just as it happens in Africa.

In front of the white, however, they officially present a common facade, which conceals the endemic black racism. If the white were not present, the blacks would probably fight each other, just like in Africa now.

No whites do to the blacks what the blacks do to each other, but this is carefully kept out of focus. The over 300.000

Tutsi massacred one-by-one in just a few weeks in Rwanda (1994) by the dominant Hutus (or vice versa) only because they are Tutsi (or Hutus) is a gruesome example. It still going on and worse yet.

The point in question is the culture, not the race. What makes us see some races or nations inferior are not genetic or other biologic factors, but the distortions caused by customs and traditions they are dedicated too. Such people devote entire generations to the glorification, embellishment, rationalization and legislation of beliefs that become their second nature in intricate and pervading ways they are often unaware of.

Their superstitions become law of nature, their Inquisitions courts of justice, their crimes virtues.

The results handicap nations and "races" into inferior performance. The inferior performances are not only unrecognized, but extolled as superior with passion and patriotism. They cultivate fervently what they should eliminate urgently and will not wake up until they find themselves defeated, humiliated and re-educated by the same people they previously felt superior to.

So are some "inferior races" born. The forms this phenomenon takes are so insidious that their occurrence is sometimes undetectable. Their destructive action can therefore proceed not only undisturbed, but increased by the believers' worship of its fetishes. It is then entrenched and sanctified by an Establishment devoted to the preservation and protection of the various dogmas it contrives to reinforce the interests vested in the System. It becomes a "Culture" with its temples, institutions, traditions, folklore, morality and legislation.

With all this superstructure, any evolutionary or liberating trend that may menace the resulting "Culture" is handled as deviation, crime, treason.

At the end, only a revolution or war can remove the cancer.

Nowadays, a new development has occurred that protects the cancer: the relativism concept that all cultures, philosophies and religions are equally valid.

This obliterates progress and evolution . Moreover, if all are valid, no matter how different or contradictory, they must be meaningless.

Of course, not the American one, which is the one that has the merit of teaching everybody that their meaningless cultures are valid...

Politically correct "liberty" has become the default attitude generated by the new relativism, because it is essential for the unhampered unfolding of any culture or attitude, no matter how much it clashes with what we may believe.

 In an interracial marriage, the children are strange or embarrassing, no matter what reasoning is used by the parents.

Or take the case of adultery. If the woman is impregnated by another man, it is a problem indeed, but some couples can forgive and forget. However, if the child is of another race (black from white parents or "white" from black parents), the matter may be forgiven (if at all), but never forgotten.

 - Racial tolerance is easiest between races that have no direct contact. When the contact develops, hostility grows from the clashes of incompatible believes and customs.

 - Our survival as culture and society depends on our pride for being Western, white, European culture and all its original attributes. Trying to push these attributes back to favor other races and cultures will only cause us to dispair and others to have contempt for us.

 - Heard from bellicose black activists: "The white man deprived us of our culture, language, religion..."

Good for them indeed. If they returned to their culture, religion and language, they would be far more handicapped than they are today.

Immigrants from cultures much higher than the black gained greatly by switching to the American.

The blacks are in a limbo, as long as they refuse to return to their original patterns and to switch to the "white man's".

 Genes are a reality, but they are ignored for the fiction of racial and gender equality.

What is wrong with superiority and inferiority? They are genetic, evolutionary, competitive, democratic, cultural.

It can be inspiring to the "inferior" and not at all permanent.

We are magnanimous in accepting our "superiority", but too primitive to recognize it in others. If someone else is taller, stronger or smarter, that doen't make us shorter, weaker or less smart.

Racial differences are really cultural differences that render one "race" (=culture) temporarily "superior" to the other. This seems to be intolerable especially in the case of intelligence, in spite of the fact that somebody else's superior talent doen't make us less talented than we are. First of all, what is said of a group doesn't necessary apply to the individual. Then, nothing is so permanent that cannot be changed by training, especially considering that, according to psychologists and anthropologists, we normally use no more than 10% of our intelligence.

Education was supposed to open our eyes to both the reality of differences and to