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 cons